| November 1, 2020 -
No. 42 2020
U.S. Elections The "Two
Americas" in Contention Today 
August 28, 2020.
Demonstration of over 70,000 in Washington, DC, under conditions of the
pandemic, on the 57th anniversary of the March on Washington.
(Karey)
• In This Issue • The
"Two Americas" in Contention Today - Kathleen Chandler -
• A
Moment of Reckoning -
Pauline Easton - •
Broad
Demands for a New Direction for Politics and the Economy
• Behind
the Mobilization of Racist Militias • Attempts
to Make Change a Casualty Once Again - Hilary LeBlanc -
• Trying
to Present Biden As a Stalwart
Who Will Unify the Country
From the
Party Press on the Significance of 2016
U.S. Presidential
Election Results •
The End of "Business as Usual"
For Your Information • About
the Elections
Discussion • Discourse on Equality and Developing a
Constitution
Suitable to the People
SUPPLEMENT
• No Let-Up to Protest Movement in the U.S.
2020
U.S. Elections
This issue of TML Weekly and its Supplement are
devoted to the U.S. election which will be held on November 3. The aim
is to provide readers with views, commentary and analysis, and
information to help them grapple with what is pertinent and what is not
in the election and to go to the heart of the matter of what is taking
place in that country. It is crucial to lift the veil on the
disinformation aimed at keeping the people disempowered.  TML
Weekly calls on its readers to not get caught up in the
disinformation which is being ratcheted up a hundredfold as the U.S.
election draws near. Reject all discourse which leaves the people out
of the equation or blames the people for the outcome or declares that
the vote counts or that the people confer a mandate or that the
military should intervene in any way.
The
contradictions in the ranks of the U.S. rulers have become sharper as
they strive to restructure all hitherto known arrangements to directly
seize hold of the political power and not permit any arrangements to
stand in their way. Canada's state is integrated into that of the U.S.
imperialists and their imperialist system of states. The developments
and conflicts of interest in this country are an extension of the civil
war raging within the U.S. ruling class which the election will not
settle. Thus, the dangers facing not only the people of the United
States but also the Canadian and Quebec peoples and the peoples of the
world increase. Only the people's striving for empowerment to bring a
modern democratic personality into being which puts the people and
their decision-making at centre stage can avert the dangers and bring
about the kind of change the people need. The U.S.
democracy is in deep crisis because it is not rule by the people, of
the people and for the people. Elections are a fraud from A to Z
because U.S. citizens do not select the candidates, set their agenda or
even vote for them and there is no way the rulers can be held to
account.  On the occasion
of the 2020 elections taking place in the United States, TML
Weekly salutes the fighting people of the United States. We
take this opportunity to hail their courageous and relentless
resistance against racism, police brutality and impunity, and for
equality and justice.
It is the people's
determination to exercise control over all the decisions which pertain
to matters of concern to them which counts. It is the fight of the New
against the Old. We are confident that this presidential election, no
matter its outcome and the dangers which lie ahead, will not divert the
broad people's resistance from achieving its aims. This resistance is
based on a determination to achieve justice, accountability and redress
-- most worthy demands which are consistent with the call of history
and the needs of the day. TML Weekly
urges its readers to actively participate in finding out what this
year's election to the presidency of the United States is all about. We
welcome your views and contributions. Please send to editor@cpcml.ca.
- Kathleen
Chandler -
October 27, 2020.
Protest in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania against police killing
of Walter Wallace Jr. in that city days earlier.
The 2020 U.S. elections to be held on November 3 are
presidential elections, as well as elections for the entire House of
Representatives of 435 people and one-third of the 100 Senators. The
elections are occurring in conditions of unprecedented crisis for what
is called "the greatest democracy in the world:" - more than 220,000 people have
died of COVID-19 and more than 8 million people have been infected;
- a few billionaires increased their wealth by $930 billion in the last
six months during the COVID-19 pandemic;
- close to 62
million people have lost their jobs;
- some 98,000 businesses
have permanently closed;
- more than 12 million people have
lost employer-sponsored health insurance;
- 22 million people
reported not having enough food; and
- one-sixth of all
renters reported being behind on rent.  More than 20
million people have been engaged in a continuous protest movement
demanding accountability and redress since May 2020 when George Floyd
was killed by police. The broad and persistent resistance, fighting to
block racist police violence and for justice, equality and
accountability has brought forward a profound questioning of the
existing justice system, or as many call it, the injustice system.
There is broad recognition that the existing policing, courts and mass
incarceration are racist to the core, are unequal and incapable of
holding policing agencies accountable, whether at the local, state or
federal level. Demands are not limited to securing the firing of a few
police, but that far more significant change is needed, with control by
the people a central element. Meetings and debates are already
occurring to re-imagine safety and security that include issues like
poverty and rights to housing, health care and jobs, especially in
COVID-19 conditions. There are organizing efforts focused on budgets
and people having a say in how public funds are being spent, whether
for policing, militarization, incarceration, wars, health care and
housing.
People are not fooled that elections are
an avenue for change. Blocks to participation in elections reveal that
it is not the people who elect whoever is brought to office. Blocks to
participation include having to register to vote, with large numbers of
those qualified unable to do so. African Americans have long been
especially targeted for exclusion on this basis. Each state has
different requirements for registering, different requirements for
running for office, different requirements for registering a political
party, and so forth. The entire process is undemocratic and unequal.
Even so, where conditions permit, anti-war candidates or third-party
candidates are running for office to give expression to the people's
drive for empowerment. Media coverage focuses on
opinion polls and speculation on who is going to win the election. Or,
put another way, who will the people vote for? We can say with
certainty that the ruling class will win the election. We can also say
that the people will continue to organize and fight, finding the ways
and means to counter the pressure to be silent on issues of police
impunity, injustice, impoverishment, inequality, the environment and
war and peace. They will continue speaking out in their own name;
expressing their concerns and demands. The heroic
resistance movement has been carrying on without let-up despite the
violence of federal, state and municipal forces pitted against the
people, who are undaunted by their criminalization and the
criminalization of their various forms of participation in the affairs
of the polity. The battle of "Two Americas" is not between the vision
of Biden and the vision of Trump -- both essentially the same. It is
between the vision of the people and the vision of the rulers. These
are the "Two Americas" in contention today. One is
of the rich and their war economy and war government with its violence
and brutality, and the other is the vision of the people who uphold the
rights of all on every front as they oppose inequality, police violence
and impunity. In the discussion about the U.S.
election, the issues raised by the corporate media constitute
diversion, meant to divide the people and line them up behind one
faction of the rulers or the other. Investigation and debate are
instead needed on what a modern democracy that empowers the people
would look like. How is equal membership in the polity sorted out? How
can we have relations that put individual and collective on a par?
These are some of the questions which require answers today to fulfill
the striving of the people's movement for empowerment.
- Pauline Easton -  July 29, 2020. Wall of Veterans,
and behind them Wall of Moms, form the front lines in protest demanding
end to police violence and impunity in Portland, Oregon.
The experience of the resistance movement in the United States and with
the Trump presidency reveals first and foremost how decision-making
takes place in the United States and who controls the decision-making
process. This was also revealed by the presidencies which preceded this
one, no matter what period of history or circumstances, or the
personality of the president or style of his rule or political party
which was said to have come to power. Nonetheless,
with the advent of the neo-liberal arrangements after the collapse of
the former Soviet Union, a virulent counterrevolution moved in to
occupy the space for change. The demand of the imperialists prevailed
that all those who do not espouse a market economy, a multiparty
democracy and human rights as defined by the imperialists, are rogue
and illegitimate. This counterrevolutionary drive of the imperialists,
in turn, exacerbated all the contradictions inherent in a system based
on relations of production which can no longer contain the productive
forces or control them. Violence became the
preferred method of control and to quell all opposition. States of
exception and rule on the basis of emergency powers have become
permanent, all in the name of preserving the liberal democratic
institutions, bringing the coronavirus under control, peace and other
justifications which prove themselves to be as irrational as they are
unsustainable. Despite the U.S. declaring itself
the "indispensable nation" and the U.S. democracy "the most advanced in
the world," the material conditions do not abide by the wishes of the
rulers. Today, the clash between the governing
authority and the people over where the country is headed is deepening
in an unprecedented manner. As the persistence of the resistance to
U.S. rule shows, the demands for equality, justice and accountability
cannot be silenced or stopped. Everywhere people are making clear that
the elections will not decide these issues; they will be settled by the
people and their fight for rights to be recognized on a modern basis.
Rejection of the Juridical Viewpoint In
this regard, people are rejecting the juridical viewpoint pushed on
them to salvage the anachronistic democratic institutions which
perpetuate the existence of an authority which rules over them. This
juridical viewpoint is one of the obstacles facing the people of the
United States at this time which they are rejecting.  A main feature of
this viewpoint is for problems to be looked at as being legal or
illegal. This viewpoint is intended to draw everyone into providing
solutions that defend the existing anachronistic democratic
institutions and draw everyone into a pro and con debate. This also
directs attention to, and often reliance on, the courts and state
agencies to settle the issues.
It is a limited and
narrow view stuck within existing arrangements which have led to an
unprecedented clash between the conditions and the authority, between
the Old striving futilely and irrationally for immortality and the New
striving to be born so that a new authority is established which is
consistent with the conditions today. The juridical
viewpoint leaves the people and their drive for empowerment out of the
equation altogether. They are not seen as the force for change. Their
discussion and organizing for empowerment are not to occur. The
monopoly media play their role in taking and keeping debate for or
against Biden or Trump, all to stymie the broad discontent with the
whole set up that exists in the U.S. and suppress the people's striving
for change which favours them, not the rulers who are clearly not fit
to govern. Similarly, attempts to use the sentiment
against Trump to draw people into this pro and con debate confine
discussion within the existing arrangements rather than elaborating
that the system is dysfunctional and new arrangements of people's
empowerment are needed and what they may be. A
Period of Transition We are in a period of
transition. The old arrangements do not function and do not serve us --
while the New is yet to be born. Organizing must be directed to
facilitating that birth and to uniting all who are favoured by
empowerment to join these efforts to develop modern institutions,
modern collective forms where the people themselves are the
decision-makers.  Fidelity must be
to the ensemble of human relations and what they reveal, not to the old
arrangements of the U.S. Constitution and what is called civil society.
As we join our counterparts in the United States by fighting within our
own country on all the issues which concern civil rights, our vantage
point -- how we look at problems -- cannot be a juridical vantage
point. We do not limit ourselves to defending civil rights. Unlike the
rulers, we say the conflicting interests involved as concerns
individual and collective interests in relation to the general
interest; and all individuals and all collectives in relation to the
common good can be harmonized. Individual and collective interests can
be put on a par by providing democracy with a modern definition
suitable to the needs today. A modern definition of democracy, in
content and form, is required to accomplish this. The endeavour to
bring that definition into being will constitute the modern democratic
personality which suits the world today.
Harmonizing
interests is the act of being of the democratic personality. A modern
democracy is a means by which to ensure that such a democratic
personality can flourish. Rights are not privileges
which rulers can give or take away based on whether the giving or
taking benefits them. They cannot be sacrificed on the altar of
elections. Equality is not a god-given inalienable right interpreted as
a social construct subject to manipulation by those who rule. It is
linked to membership in the collective body and belongs to all as a
matter of their objective being. As an attribute inherent to its modern
definition, equality confers on all members of the body politic the
right to participate in arriving at the decisions which affect their
lives and to implement them, sum up the experience of their
implementation and trace a path forward from there. Only if
the fundamental principle of equality is recognized on a modern
objective basis can those who violate the decisions of the collective
be held to account. The current election in the
United States imparts nothing akin to equality. It is the ongoing and
broadening struggle of the working people of all origins and creeds
which imparts the equality conferred by membership. A modern democracy
will enshrine such an equality which bans racism,
discrimination and all abuse of the human person and of the
social and natural environment. It will ban the use of force
in settling conflicts within and between nations, provide economic
well-being and protect the social and natural environment.  People are
expressing their deepest desires through their demands. In order to
realize their aims, they are drawing the warranted conclusion that
forms of struggle from the past, based on the Constitution and what it
informs in the way of definitions and ways and means, have to be
changed. New forms are needed so that the working people can grasp and
fight for the realization of those demands which could improve their
situation, bring peace, democracy and justice, and protect the natural
and social environment. The new situation demands a new approach and
solutions that working people want.
In this regard,
at this time, the usual election efforts and propaganda to embroil the
people by lining them up behind one candidate or the other of the two
main cartel parties vying for power, Republicans and Democrats,
convince no one that they can rely on the politicians of the rich and
their rule to resolve the problems they face. Government at all levels
has shown itself to be racist and thoroughly undemocratic. This is
evident in the elections themselves, as voter suppression of various
kinds is widespread and the whole set up is racist and discriminatory
and obviously designed to maintain the relations which keep the narrow
private interests in power. The crucial part of the
reckoning taking place is that people see the necessity to keep matters
in their own hands and are organizing for a democracy of their own
making. The example of the nurses across the United
States organizing vigils the week before the election to mourn the dead
and fight for the living shows the consciousness which has imbued the
movement. The nurses are targeting all elected officials for their
failures concerning COVID-19. Many others have planned actions for
after the elections as well. The stand is firm: it
is the people and their fight for the rights of all which achieve
accountability and redress. A modern democracy must be brought into
being which invents arrangements suitable to the working people no
matter what their race, national origin, gender, creed or belief.
Security lies not in better use of police powers but in the
fight for the rights of all. It is a moment of reckoning across the
country; a time when the effects of all the past injustices have caught
up with those who form the ruling class and have benefited from them.
After these elections, nothing will remain as it has been. The
people's will must prevail to make sure the outcome favours them, not
imperialism and all reaction.
October 29, 2020. Nurses
at Good
Samaritan Hospital in Los Angeles hold vigils for health
care workers who have died of COVID-19.
As
election day draws near, people are bombarded by poll after poll and
reporting of all kinds as to who might win the presidential contest.
The campaigns and media are part of an effort to derail the ongoing
mass movement with its aim for change that favours the people. However,
the scope and determination of the resistance is such that youth and
workers are keeping matters in their own hands and pursuing their fight
against government racism, COVID-19 failures and for equality, justice
and accountability. This is evident in various actions being taken.
Nurses, for example, on the initiative of National Nurses
United (NNU), joined with community organizers to hold vigils across
the country from October 26 to November 1. They honoured and mourned
the more than 2,000 health care workers who have died from COVID-19,
while taking the stand to fight for the living. The names of the 2,000
dead, including 232 nurses, were compiled by the nurses themselves.
While the military keeps record of its dead and wounded, the government
will not do the same for health care workers and all the other
frontline workers who have upheld their social responsibility despite
facing illness and death. Health care workers have
remained on the front lines despite the lack of personal protective
equipment (PPE) and being targeted for speaking out for their rights.
Their vigils took the stand that all elected officials and big hospital
employers must be held accountable for their failures. They brought out
that African Americans, Latinx and Filipinos are disproportionately
impacted, with a significantly higher infection and death rate. They
are demanding that the economy be geared to meet the needs of all
workers for safe working conditions, including sufficient PPE,
staffing, testing and sanitizing and 14-day paid sick leave for
quarantining.  Nurses are
calling on the federal government to use the Defense Production Act
to greatly expand production of all the PPE that workers and the public
more broadly require. Commonly the Act is used for war purposes. Nurses
are demanding instead that the Act be used to ensure production to meet
the needs of the people. They are also calling on the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to provide a National Safety
Standard for pandemic conditions that all private and public workplaces
must uphold. OSHA so far has said regulations already in place are
sufficient. In demanding accountability from the federal government,
and all elected officials, health care workers are also indicating
their desire for a new direction for politics, where government
agencies and officials are responsible for the well-being of the
people, not the monopolies and their narrow private interests.
A number of unions filed a lawsuit against the federal
government October 8 along similar lines. The unions include the
Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), the Transport Workers Union (TWU), the
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
(AFL-CIO), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the Service
Employees International Union (SEIU), the Association of Flight
Attendants (AFA), the Communications Workers of America (CWA), and
United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW). The unions collectively
represent more than 15 million workers in front line industries that
have suffered thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of
illnesses from COVID-19, many as a result of insufficient PPE.
The lawsuit calls on Health and Human Services Secretary Alex
Azar and Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf to act immediately to
ensure the manufacture and distribution of PPE. Both agencies failed to
respond to an August petition from these same organizations, along with
others, demanding emergency action to supply PPE to workers. Warehouse,
meatpacking and cannery workers have also organized walkouts and other
actions demanding that their right to health and safety be respected.
 Postal workers
and teachers have been organizing for safe conditions. They have been
an integral part of the Black Lives Matter demonstrations and are
fighting efforts to privatize the post office and public schools.
Teachers are standing up for education as a right and a public service,
and postal workers for the post office to be expanded as a public
service. This drive reflects a general recognition of the public and
the concept of public good, something the current direction of the
economy and politics are eliminating. With COVID-19 closures and remote
learning, many teachers, students and parents are looking into
organizing education anew, in a manner that favours all and puts
control and decision-making in their hands.
The
persistent movement against racist police killings and violence and for
equality, justice and accountability has sustained itself without
let-up since May. More than 20 million people from all walks of life
have directly participated. Control over policing and, more generally,
a new direction for what constitutes safety and security in cities and
communities, is a main focus of demands across the country.
People are fighting to be empowered to decide these matters.
They are calling for an economy geared to eliminating poverty and
politics that guarantees rights to housing, health care and a
livelihood -- recognized as important to safety and security. They want
control of budgets, which invariably provide far more funds to
policing, and the violence and racism it entails, than to social
services and meeting the needs of the people. And perhaps more
significantly, as the people's actions have persisted and the
government violence and lack of accountability has as well, discussion
is taking place about the existing political set up, that its
constitution and election fraud do not serve the interest of the people
and block the development of a society that does. Various
organizations, including Veterans for Peace, are calling for a peace
economy, demanding an end to the massive funding of the Pentagon and
the militarization of life. Veterans have been integral to the movement
against government racism and violence, including organizing to protect
the youth from police. The connection between U.S. wars and aggression
abroad and state violence against the people at home has long been
made. People are calling for an end to all the state violence, at home
and abroad, and for non-violent political resolutions of social
problems. This includes the demand for an anti-war government and peace
economy.
Reports in the corporate media
are promoting armed racist militias, saying they are prepared to
interfere at polling places on November 3 and to take action after the
election if Trump loses.  A lot of
attention is focused on Trump's call for an "army for Trump" which is
enlisting people to be at the polls -- something considered by many to
be intimidation of voters and poll workers. In addition, note is taken
time and again of Trump's comment during the first debate with rival
Joe Biden that groups like the racist, anti-Muslim, anti-people "Proud
Boys" should "stand by" for action if he loses in what he has called a
"rigged" election. Other groups like the so-called Oath Keepers, KKK
and various Hitlerite groupings are also said to be at the ready.
Many of these militias include current or former police,
sheriffs and members of the military and have secured military-grade
weaponry. They are known and often infiltrated by agencies like the
FBI, as has long been the case with the KKK and neo-Nazi forces. They
are not "independent" and separate from the state as is being promoted,
but rather an arm of the racist state to implement its violence.
The concern among the ruling circles about these militias and
control of them is such that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a
leading council that brings various ruling factions together to work
out relations, is calling the mobilization of these militias "an
extraordinary danger to U.S. democracy." The CFR says that these armed
groups include those calling for sedition and "a new American civil
war." The CFR ties this in with its concern for the
"nearly 13,500 demonstrations and protests that have occurred
throughout the country since the killing of George Floyd." While it
says that "the overwhelming majority [...] have been peaceful," they
"have exacerbated tensions and polarized political positions."
 What is left out
is that the tensions exacerbated are those between the broad majority
of people from all walks of life and nationalities who are supporting
the resistance -- and the government and their policing agencies. More
than 20 million people have directly participated in protests and stood
firm against police violence. The "polarized positions" are those among
the rulers, as the factions representing narrow private interests vie
for power. These private interests are not interested in resolving
their conflicts since any reconciliation would interfere with their
achieving the total control they require to be able to dispose of all
the natural and human resources as they wish. Far from the election
serving to reach a kind of settlement between the factions, no such
settlement is in the offing. On the contrary, concerns about civil
unrest and use of the militias is ratcheting up the tensions and
blocking rational inquiry and deliberation on what the unfolding events
reveal about the problems in which the U.S. democracy is mired.
The threat of civil war is of grave concern to the rulers who
would like to preserve the union and avoid open violent conflict. They
all recognize that big states like California, Texas and New York could
easily become independent. Regional alliances are also being cobbled
together, such as between New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, and
they too could constitute independent states. The increasing conflicts
between the states as currently constituted and the Office of the
President -- over COVID-19, immigration, funding and the use of
policing agencies -- indicate the extent of the deepening of the
conflicts of interest.  With the military
and many federal, state and local policing agencies also divided, the
rulers cannot predict whether such forces would submit to Trump as
Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, or oppose him in the event he
loses and refuses to leave office. Or, as Biden has said, would they
agree with using the military to remove Trump from office and repress
the resistance in the name of a "peaceful democratic transition" and
preserving the union.
But the rulers' biggest
concern is that the largest faction, the people -- also referred to as
"the mob" -- is relentless in its pursuit of its demands for justice, an
end to police brutality, impunity, racist discrimination and for
equality. The fight of ever broader sections of the people has the
imprint of being increasingly conscious and organized. Expression is
given every day to the right to speak in one's own name, to provide the
rights of all with a guarantee and for control over the decision-making
power. There is widespread recognition that front-line workers together
with all workers can do a far better job of providing non-violent
political solutions and accountability than those currently in power.
The mobilization of the racist militias has more to do with
attempts to divert people's anger from the racist U.S. state to these
groups. It is to stir up anger so as to pit people against each other,
while the state appears to be "above the polarized people," acting to
protect them, rather than the source of the racism and violence which
plagues U.S. society. Of course, it is also to have these groups "at
the ready" to disrupt and attack the resistance, as has already
occurred, so as to justify an even greater federal and military
intervention after the elections. A possible "national emergency" using
such groups and resistance to them could also occur between election
day and the inauguration in January. The
mobilization of militias is not mainly about Trump the individual but,
rather, about the character of the U.S. state and its ability to retain
power and remain undivided in the face of ruling class divisions and
the broad rejection by the people of the current direction of the
country. It is the state that is mobilizing the racist militias and the
state that is organizing for far greater violence and repression
against the people, using these groups to achieve the suppression of
the people and provide it with a justification.
- Hilary
LeBlanc - The campaigns of Joe Biden and Donald
Trump have focused on the presidential election being decisive for the
future. People are to vote as though "your lives depend on it"
(Michelle Obama), and "the stakes have never been higher"
(Vice-President Mike Pence). This focus serves to remove the people,
with their broad and persistent resistance, as the decisive factor in
shaping the future. It hides the existing relations of power that
guarantee a government of, by and for the rich, which cannot also be a
government of, by and for the people. That is the
reality life has repeatedly revealed. And it is precisely because there
is a growing reckoning among the people -- as seen in demands of
millions for equality, an end to government racism and human rights for
all -- that this election is being presented as decisive. It is to
divert the movements for empowerment, where people are taking matters
into their own hands and speaking out in their own name, with their own
demands. At the National Democratic Convention
Biden specifically appealed to the youth, "For all the young people who
have known only an America of rising inequity and shrinking
opportunity. They deserve to experience America's promise in full."
 Barack Obama
specifically focused on the resistance movement, "I am also asking you
to believe in your own ability -- to embrace your own responsibility as
citizens -- to make sure that the basic tenets of our democracy endure.
Because that's what's at stake right now. Our democracy. So they're
hoping to make it as hard as possible for you to vote, and to convince
you that your vote doesn't matter. That's how they win. That's how they
get to keep making decisions that affect your life, and the lives of
the people you love. That's how a democracy withers, until it's no
democracy at all. We can't let that happen. Do not let them take away
your power. Don't let them take away your democracy. Make a plan right
now for how you're going to get involved and vote."
Using
sleight of hand to shift from "our" to "your," Obama is trying to
equate "the basic tenets of our democracy" -- meaning those of the U.S.
Constitution that keep power in the hands of the descendants of the
"white men of property" who constituted the United States of America in
the first place -- to "your democracy" and "your power." In this way,
the power of the youth supposedly lies in voting for the very ruling
class forces responsible for the current crises, whether it be the
failures of providing for the people during the pandemic, the racist
police violence and killings, the unemployment, evictions and poverty,
or the climate disasters and continuing wars of aggression. The
presumption is that power is not imparted by collective united action
in defence of the rights of all. What is called the responsibility of
citizens then is not to advance and harmonize individual, collective
and social interests so as to move society forward and modernize the
democracy. It is not to fight for a new direction for the country which
puts political and economic affairs in the hands of the people. No, the
responsibility of the youth is to vote for a system that has never
provided equality or guaranteed the rights of all, but only promises to
do so. There is a striving by the youth and workers
rising up today to be decision-makers over all political and economic
matters that impact their lives. There is a drive for empowerment of
the people to govern and decide. That is the new direction that can
provide for a democracy where all are equal members of the polity and
where there is accountability -- not the ongoing impunity, racism and
inequality inherent in the "basic tenets" of U.S.-style democracy.
The effort to both divert and divide the people based on who
they vote for and whether they vote, and to direct energy and resources
into voting, is to blame them for whatever happens next. The issue for
the people is not who gets elected but rather how best to further
advance the current struggles for rights and empowerment and how to use
elections to further unleash this fight for the New: new arrangements,
a new direction, a democracy of the people's own making.
This
election to secure the presidency of the United States -- a main source
of power and resources for the financial oligarchs -- has become a
vicious fight between coalitions that fluctuate while simultaneously
doing their utmost to convince the people to save the outdated
democracy which no longer serves anyone. While Trump continues to
espouse his brutal "law and order" agenda, Joe Biden has been presented
as the one who can quell the resistance movement raging across the
country and unify the warring factions within the ruling circles.
 The Trump
administration has obliged the demand of the financial oligarchs that
the president be able to act with impunity, without regard for the law
or existing constitutional arrangements. They want no limits on their
ability to serve their narrow private interests. To achieve this, Trump
positioned himself and was positioned as an outsider, someone who was
not a member of the "Washington establishment" and associated
perceptions of corruption, cronyism and self-interest. "We have ended
the rule of the failed political class," Trump said. This portrayal has
been seen as necessary to contend with the fact that the existing
institutions, such as Congress, are dysfunctional. Every effort has been
made to end the prerogatives of Congress and extend those of the
President.
This was also evident during the
Republican National Convention when both Trump and his wife spoke from
the White House to emphasize the power of the presidency. The same can
be said when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke from Jerusalem while
on a state visit. A Secretary of State is not even supposed to
intervene in the campaign, let alone blur the line between campaigning
and governing. Such actions serve to indicate that the rulers are no
longer even trying to hide the fact that they have completely usurped
the prerogative powers of government to serve their private interests.
There is no longer any line in the sand, if ever there was one, as there
is no regard for what has in the past constituted "the public" or
government in the service of a "public good."
Biden and the Democratic Convention also had little to say about the
role of Congress, and, like Trump, he focused on the presidency being
decisive. He also made clear that he is "a stalwart," loyal to the
status quo who will also use the presidency to provide unlimited
resources to the oligarchs while keeping the people out of power.
"None of the things I'm talking about are inconsistent with
a free market, not inconsistent with capitalism," Biden declared. He
has announced plans to provide more than $1 trillion in government
handouts to the oligarchs, especially the oligopolies involved in war
production based in auto and steel. Massive amounts of public dollars
are promised to the private financiers to finance debts incurred.
Recurrent themes in Biden's speeches include: "We
have to unite America;" "If we can't unite America, we're done;" "we're
dead;" "I've long said America is at its best when we act as one
nation, one America."
 Certainly the
many millions demonstrating and the many millions more who support them
do not see their America, their fight for change that favours the
people, as "done" or "dead." This morbid preoccupation with defeat and
death mainly refers to the threat posed by the sharpening conflicts and
divisions within the ranks of the rulers and the possibility of violent
civil war. Biden is putting himself forward as the champion who can unite
the military bureaucracy and overcome divisions between federal, state
and local elected officials and policing agencies. This distinguishes
him from Trump who has failed on this score and merely resorts to
repeating that everything can be achieved on the basis of law and order
suppression. How Biden will achieve the miracles he promises is of course
where the rub lies. He stresses addressing criminal justice reform,
voting and cyber security for elections. He says that by first setting
the democracy straight at home, he can then deal with it abroad.
His image as someone who "can bring people together" brings
with it the implication that he will work first at uniting the
industrial and civil authorities, such as those at the state and local
level. His choice of Kamala Harris as Vice-President in part serves
this purpose. It is hoped that her extensive ties and knowledge of
state's attorneys general and policing agencies will serve to
peacefully unify state and local forces under federal leadership.
By presenting himself as a loyal and reliable force for the
status quo, Biden also makes clear that nothing he is saying goes
beyond providing opportunity. He regularly says that everybody deserves
"just a shot," and that he will be sure it is "everybody" and not just
some. "This is our moment to imagine, and to build a new American
economy for our families and for our communities, an economy where
every American, every American has a chance to get a fair return for
the work they put in, an equal chance to get ahead," Biden says.
People are indeed demanding a new direction for the economy,
one where the rights of the people take centre stage, such as the right
to health care, education, a livelihood and housing for all, not just
"access" and a "chance" which are nothing if not a repetition of what
is inherent to the failed "American Dream." Biden himself states that
"over 56 per cent of the American people think their kids will never,
never reach the standard of living they had." People have reached this
conclusion based on their actual experience that the existing economic
and political relations cannot provide equality and rights to decide
issues like policing, health care, war and peace, but this is totally
ignored.
 The "American
Dream" of the rulers lies in tatters. The "America" the people were
raised to believe in revealed its true colours as never before in the
"shock and awe" aggression against Iraq and the torture camps of the Bush
regime which showed the essence of American democracy, freedom and
rights. Far
from the Obama administration overcoming the humiliation,
Americans then suffered the loss of their homes when the housing bubble
burst and Obama responded by bailing out the criminals on Wall Street.
The Obama doctrine of drone warfare to assassinate innocent
civilians in far-flung lands in the name of catching terrorists and
saving American lives did not restore faith in the American Dream nor
did his role as Deporter-in-Chief -- a tyranny taken further by
Donald Trump. The claims of the Biden camp that he will try to
achieve the same thing in a manner which is more "fair" will come to
naught. He is offering some public housing, for example, and repeating
that there will be millions of "good paying union jobs." It is
yesteryear all over again.
It is all pie in the
sky so long as there is no role for the people in deciding how the
promised massive investment in federal funds are to be used, who will
pay for them and who decides -- all with no guarantee of the right to
housing and jobs.
Biden is attempting to divert
from the existing reality where an increasingly tiny group of powerful
oligarchs have usurped power and use governments entirely for their own
narrow private interests -- which are directly against the interests of
the peoples in the U.S. and abroad. This old notion of equal opportunity as a
solution is indeed dead and hardly likely to quell the growing demands
for people's empowerment, for the people themselves to govern and
decide.
As the people say, you have to be asleep
to believe in the American Dream.
From the
Party Press on the Significance of 2016
U.S. Presidential
Election Results
November
9, 2016. High school students in Berkeley, California hold walkout to
protest
Trump's election. The
following article was published by TML Weekly
on November 12, 2016 following the election of Donald Trump to
the presidency of the United States. It shows what TML
predicted would take place under his rule.
The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) considers
that the election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United
States will represent the rule of the oligopolies through unfettered
police powers. His election has plunged both the peoples of the U.S.
and the peoples of the world into an even more dangerous situation.
 On November 4, on the eve of
the U.S. presidential election that took place on November 8, CPC(M-L)
wrote the following:
"... the campaign has revealed
the extent to which the U.S. state and system of governance operate
through corruption and coercion as well as how people are deprived of
political power." CPC(M-L) noted that how the people are deprived of
political power is "the other very important aspect of the state power
in the hands of the financial oligarchy. The ruling imperialist elite
achieve this by depriving the people of an outlook, a way to look at
the world and the problems that have arisen so that they can be calmly
sorted out and provided with solutions." The same
applies to the verdicts on the election results. Everything is being
done "to deprive the people of an outlook, a way to look at the world
and the problems that have arisen so that they can be calmly sorted out
and provided with solutions." What are the verdicts
being pushed? From the side of the Clinton campaign, the verdict is
that the result is the apocalypse, and the values and vision of Clinton
remain all that stand between "you and the apocalypse" as she said
during the campaign. From the side of the Trump campaign comes the
explanation that he led "a movement" which is anti-establishment, wants
the problems of the economy dealt with and an end to "all the
bullshit." From both sides comes the agreement that now that the
election is over, everyone's duty is to abide by the Constitution,
ensure the transition of power is peaceful and unite America.
Clinton Concedes Nothing While Trump Sets Forth to
"Make America Great Again"  In Hillary
Clinton's concession speech, besides the presidency itself, she
conceded nothing, not even her defeat. Far from it, despite the fact
that Clinton failed to unite America behind her vision and values, she
said that going forward it is this shared vision and values which she
will continue to push and she calls on her supporters to do likewise.
This vision uses aggression and war as negotiation, blames the U.S.
economic decline on China and maintains Russia as the main enemy of the
United States. It was captured in her slogan that the U.S. is the
"indispensable nation," which, of course, makes all others dispensable.
It was expressed by Clinton in 2008 when she said the U.S. could
"totally obliterate" Iran, and in 2011 when she greeted the
assassination of the leader of Libya with the phrase "We came, we saw,
he died."
In his victory speech, Trump made sure to
mention the large number of generals who support him, as well as the
National Rifle Association and New York City Mayor during 9/11, Rudolph
Giuliani and others who stand for the unfettered police powers Trump
thinks are necessary to "Make America Great Again." The central points
of his campaign were basically that the U.S. system is broken or
rigged, that the U.S. has been weakened on the world stage and that
only a man of Trump's force of personality is capable of putting things
right. His strategy is to be "engaged" and says the art lies in how you
make the deal. In his victory speech he said, "I've spent my entire
life in business, looking at the untapped potential in projects and in
people all over the world" and "That is now what I want to do for our
country." Blame the State, Not the People, for
Racism, Sexism and Anti-Working Class Attacks and Outlook Following
the election, the section of media and those pundits, commentators and
celebrities in the U.S. and abroad who believe themselves to be
progressive and civilized are filled with the kind of racist, sexist
and anti-worker stereotypes which they ascribe to Trump. According to
them, the U.S. is divided between educated people and uneducated people
and the "white working class" is to be blamed for the defeat of Clinton
in the election. According to their stereotype, the American working
class is basically everyone without a college education and the "white
working class" is racist, sexist, white supremacist, xenophobic,
backward, uneducated and uncivilized. Human beings are treated as
"things," not people.  Everything is
done to hide that it is the U.S. state which is anti-worker, sexist and
racist and anti-immigrant as well as profoundly anti-communist, which
is why in the rendering of the election results, the defeat of Clinton
is blamed on the working class.
Meanwhile, every
state-organized and spontaneous white supremacist formation and
unhinged individual and psychopath is given a green light to attack the
targets of their personal hatred and psychotic nightmares. This is due
to the boorish and inflammatory reality TV rhetoric on the basis of
which Trump ran his election campaign, but also its ceaseless promotion
by U.S. media, and especially the Clinton campaign. The Clinton
campaign spent twice as much money as Trump to make Trump the issue for
the American people during the election. It is the Clinton media and
entourage which now use every epithet in the book to portray the
working people of the United States who voted for Trump as rabid,
crazed zealots who are trampling the rights of the people in the mud.
It does not behoove those who devote all their energies to
fighting for the rights of all to fall victim to this official
propaganda which treats people as categories of "things" and divides
them on that basis. All Out to Support the
American Working Class and People Fighting for Empowerment and the
Rights of All  CPC(M-L)
denounces the attacks against the people which have taken place since
the election, both those which are spontaneous and the ones organized
by a crisis-ridden state which has now given itself a green light to
govern through unfettered police powers. Police powers do not recognize
members of a body politic made up of a civil society with a government
of laws. Police powers do not recognize rights by virtue of one's
membership in that body politic, let alone rights by virtue of being
human. Police powers only recognize categories of "things" slated for
some form of punishment. In scenarios which have been unfolding in the
U.S. for some time, people are portrayed as "thugs," "protestors,"
"trouble-makers," "enemy aliens," "blacks," "Latinos," "Hispanics,"
"Muslims," "terrorists," "deviants" and other categories designed to
dehumanize them and target them for attack.
CPC(M-L)
takes this occasion to profoundly sympathize with all those in the
United States who are targets of the racist, anti-worker and
anti-people attacks and are waging valiant protests and acts of
resistance proclaiming loudly that this is not their democracy, Trump
is not their President and that attacks against the people are "Not In
My Name."
For Your Information The 2020 U.S. elections are
presidential elections. They are also elections for the entire House of
Representatives, 435 members serving two-year terms, and one-third of
the 100 member Senate, for six-year terms. The number of house
representatives is based on state population, while each state has two
Senators. The Office of the President, the main
source of power for the ruling oligarchs, is the focus of attention. It
is where the police powers reside and control over the cabinet and its
many policing agencies. President Trump is seeking a second four-year
term and former Vice-President Joe Biden is seeking to oust him. The
Vice-Presidential candidates, Mike Pence and Kamala Harris, are not
actually elected but rather chosen by the presidential candidates and
assume office as part of the presidential ticket. The
unequal nature of the U.S. set-up is evident in the fact that there are
22 other presidential candidates, most of them unknown to most voters
and not everyone can vote for them. These candidates have been blocked
from the debates by the Presidential Commission which is composed of
Democrats and Republicans and part of the cartel party system that
discourages and blocks participation of anyone else. There are no such
things as all-candidates debates. As well, due to various restrictions
and requirements in each state, they are blocked from ballot access.
Large amounts of human and financial resources are required to get on
the ballot, with some states requiring tens of thousands of signatures
in a very limited time period. As a result, in Vermont and Colorado
there are 21 candidates on the ballot, Arkansas and Louisiana have 13
candidates each and all others have fewer than 13. In 12 states
there are only three candidates on the ballot. Candidates
are also blocked by the first-past-the-post system, which is used in
nearly every state (only Maine and Nebraska use proportional
representation, dividing the electoral votes according to vote totals
in Congressional districts). This is combined with use of the Electoral
College, in the hands of Democrats and Republicans, with each state
getting electoral college votes based on the size of their population.
The effect can be, as occurred in 2016, that the candidate with more
votes can still lose. The state's electoral college votes go to
whichever candidate receives a plurality of votes -- not a majority but a plurality. To secure the election, 270 electoral
college votes are needed. For 2020, only two other
candidates have gotten on the ballot in enough states to secure an
electoral college win: Howie Hawkins of the Green Party and Jo
Jorgensen of the Libertarians. Hawkins qualified in 47 states, 17 of
them write-in which means that his name is not on the ballot but voters
can write it in, with full name and correct spelling required.
Jorgensen is on the ballot in 37 states. Both secured ballot access in
states with larger numbers of electoral votes, such as California,
Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Massachusetts, New York, Florida and Texas.
Hawkins' name was removed from the ballot in Pennsylvania, by the
Democrats challenging his signatures, while Jorgensen remains on the
ballot there. In addition, seven more
candidates have qualified to appear on the ballot in five or more
states: Don Blankenship, Constitution Party, 22 states, four of them
write-in; Brian T. Carroll, American Solidarity Party, 23 states, 15
write-in; Roque De La Fuente, Alliance Party, 18 states, three
write-in; Alyson Kennedy, Socialist Workers Party, six states; Gloria
La Riva, Party for Socialism and Liberation, 22 states, seven write-in;
Brock Pierce, Independent, 20 states, four write-in; Kanye West,
Independent, 16 states, four write-in. House and
Senate For the House of Representatives,
currently, those called Democrats are in the majority, 232, with 218
constituting a majority in the 435-member House. Those called
Republicans have 197. It is expected that Democrats will keep their
majority and perhaps increase it. Though House members serve only
two-year terms, the large majority are routinely re-elected. The 2018
House elections, for example, saw only 89 new members, more than usual.
As a result of the efforts of women to play a greater role in the
political life of the country, there are 101 women, more than at any
other time. In the Senate, there are currently 53
Republicans and 47 Democrats (Bernie Sanders and one other are listed
as independent but vote Democrat). There are nine new Senators and 26
women Senators, also the most ever, with some up for re-election. Of
the seats being contested 12 are currently held by Democrats, 23 by
Republicans. No other parties are represented in Congress. Another
aspect of the unequal nature of the elections is the micro-targeting
that now takes place. Some people see almost no campaigning or ads as
their states, for example New York and California, are seen as
"safely" for one candidate or the other. In other states, hundreds of
billions of dollars are pumped into TV, Facebook and other advertising.
The main states considered "swing" states for the presidential contest
are Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin,
Minnesota and Arizona. For the Senate races, a handful of states are
targeted. The Democrats are hoping to unseat Republicans in Iowa,
Montana, Idaho, Arizona, North and South Carolina and Maine.
Republicans are targeting Democratic Senate seats in Minnesota,
Michigan and New Hampshire. Thus it can be seen that it is not a
national election that takes place, with all voters on an equal
footing, but rather a divisive exercise with targeting of particular
states and even districts. Among the more
significant of the Senate races for seats held by Republican Senators,
where "unprecedented" funds are being pumped into the races by both
candidates are: - Iowa: Joni Ernst, elected in 2014
and considered a key Trump ally who spoke on Trump's behalf at their
convention, is facing Theresa Greenfield who has never held office.
Prior to Ernst's election both Iowa Senators had held office for more
than 30 years. - North Carolina: Thom Tillis, who
like Ernst is a first-term Senator, is facing Cal Cunningham,
an Army reserve officer who has not held office. The campaign could be
the most expensive Senate race in history. Vice-President Pence is
campaigning for Tillis and both are regularly at Trump events.
- South Carolina: Lindsey Graham, a Senator since 2003, is
facing African American Jaime Harrison. Harrison has not held office
but was chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party from 2013 to 2017.
Graham has significant power within the Senate as chair of the
Judiciary Committee and member of the Budget, Appropriations and
Foreign Relations Committees. - Maine: Susan
Collins, elected to office in 1997, is facing Sara Gideon, currently
Maine Speaker of the House. This is also considered one of the most
expensive races, with more than $150 million spent. Gideon is far
outspending Collins. It should be noted that both
the Senate and House have largely been reduced to consultative bodies,
where major legislation stalls and where the budget no longer serves as
a means to sort out differences but rather intensifies splits, leading
to government shut downs. It is also no longer useful to consider
Democrats and Republicans as political parties, with coherence and
concern for the public and its interests, but rather as part of a
cartel serving narrow private interests. This was amply evident in the
first presidential debate and the massive negative campaigning, with
billions being spent to discredit the opposition rather than speak
politically to the problems society faces. It is a set-up much hated by
the public. Power, including the massive police
powers and control over issues of war and peace are greatly
concentrated in the Office of the President. It remains the prize for
the vying factions of the oligarchs.
Discussion
The following Discourse
on Equality and Developing a Constitution Suitable to the People
is provided to shed light on the developments in the United States at
this time. What we see taking place in that country is a great moment
of reckoning as a result of the striving of the people for arrangements
which put an end to racism and police brutality once and for all and
provide equality of all before the law and in the experience of life
itself. Anxiety over the outcome of the November 3
U.S. presidential election is at an all-time high. Most people are
wishing for a peaceful democratic transfer of power, no matter who
wins. What constitutes power, who wields it and how and what
constitutes democracy are less well understood. When
looking into democracy, it is important to look at how power is
acquired, including the human relations underlying that power and the
machinery in place to keep and expand it. The machinery of force,
including military and policing agencies, is well known. What is often
ignored is that part of how power is acquired and maintained is by
depriving the people of a way of looking at existing problems and the
need to cognize the existing ensemble of human relations. Given the
burden of the past, its experience and imprint, there is difficulty
trying to explain the New. Not only does the historical trap of the Old
hamper our inquiry but so too do the images and vocabulary pushed on us
from the past. This means that in making arguments for the New there is
a marked tendency to miss the relevant points and react to the Old.
Finding the arguments for a modern definition of democracy,
why it is needed, is important. We are not talking about having two
sides, pro and con. Argument means giving the proofs, the reasons, for
the stand being taken. Argument is what a discussion is about.
Specifically in terms of the democracy in the U.S., talks now are being
given about whether the Constitution is a viable instrument to deal
with the present or it is out of date. For example, New York University
Law School held a symposium reported on in Harper's Magazine[1] at
which Constitutional scholars debated whether the Constitution is out
of date and needs to be updated; or there should be no constitutions at
all as they trap people into undemocratic practices; or the
Constitution is fine, there have just been bad personalities running
the ship of state. Some call for a Constitutional Convention and a
public debate. Those called the most eminent scholars in the U.S. are
debating the fundamental values on which the U.S. Constitution is
based, especially its conception of inalienable rights and equality.[2]
As a rule, no one discusses the actual historical experience
which led to the adoption of the U.S. Constitution or life-itself under
this Constitution. Instead, all sorts of things get mixed up. This
includes the debate about whether what we have today is creeping
fascism, authoritarianism, and so on, or an aberration of an otherwise
sound democracy. What is not raised are the problems concerning the
Constitution in the context of solving the problem of equality.
Instead, proposals are raised to expand social equality and
tackle issues of injustice in the context of liberal and social
democracy. For instance, it is said the Constitution needs to be more
inclusive rather than exclusive; it needs to provide more rights within
the existing civil society. Such battles are
needed, but they are not the ones we are addressing in this Discourse
on Equality and Developing a Constitution Suitable to the People.
When we address the issue of equality we are saying that
equality is the same as membership. We are talking about being an equal
member of the polity -- or any other collective -- belonging to
something, having membership in something and being an equal member
with equal rights and duties within it. Instead of focusing on equality
as membership in something, the relation of that equality to identity
leads to a big mix-up and confusion. Of course, how one talks about
these things depends on outlook and the issue of one's stand toward
politics and membership in a political body and the identity of that
political body. The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments
to the U.S. Constitution, known as the Civil War/Reconstruction
Amendments, are said to deal with equality and the fight against
slavery, including due process, equality before the law, citizenship
and voting rights.[3]
Even though the 13th amendment was supposed to end slavery for African
Americans, it has a clause that allows for unpaid chain gangs and
slavery by due process of law -- imprisonment for crimes and forced
work for little or no payment. This is a problem prisoners across the
United States are organizing against by going on hunger strikes, etc.
Citizenship is also a part of the discussion, as the 14th
Amendment includes the following: "All persons born or naturalized in
the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States." Today there are proposals, including
from Trump, to eliminate birthright citizenship. The
general trend evident in the discourse on the U.S. Constitution, the
U.S. democracy, equality, values and so forth, is that there is a line
of progress from the past to the future according to which the fight
involves constantly expanding the rights of the people and contending
with the pressure of counterrevolution. The
argument for a modern definition of democracy is not, however, that it
is an improvement on past definitions of democracy, or an improvement
on the Constitution. Since ancient times there have
been democratic revolutions and democratic constitutions. Democracy
is how the people are constituted, what they can do by right and duty.
Any democracy at any time offers proofs for that form of governance
given by a constitution. Democracy then is the
giving of proofs, or arguments, of any constitution, written or not.
We are not arguing for improvements on what has been
constituted in the past. We are arguing for a modern definition of
democracy, for a democracy suitable to the material conditions in the
present. What rules one follows -- the rule of the
people -- are actually the arguments for a democratic constitution. Is
it suitable for the people? If yes, then an argument is given
as to why. If not, an argument is given as to why. Many are talking
about how close or how far democracy is from fascism or totalitarianism
but they are not giving arguments as to whether the U.S.
Constitution, the rule it establishes, is suitable to the people.
The Interconnection of International and National
On writing about the Civil War and Reconstruction, W.E.B.
DuBois allows for a distinction between a democratic revolution and a
democratic constitution and whether a constitution serves to further
democracy or block it. In dealing with democratic revolution, he brings
forward that there were two labour systems that came into conflict: the
slave labour system and the free labour system. He says the two could
no longer coexist. He did not attach this to conceptions of black vs.
white, because the whole labour system of the Confederacy broke down;
it was not just an issue of those enslaved. The
other reason for recognizing democratic revolution and democratic
constitution which is forgotten by everyone is that the Civil War was a
rebellion against the people by the slave power, as opposed to being
between the Union and the Confederacy, black vs. white, etc. There was
an act of aggression by the slave power -- the firing on Fort Sumter.[4]
And the slave power included New York and Boston merchants who owned
shipping lines and transported the cotton produced in the south to the
world market. For DuBois, the Civil War was always
an international struggle. It took place on the world stage and was of
the significance of the Paris Commune. It was a general strike of all
the enslaved. DuBois recognizes the interrelations of national and
international -- that one cannot deal with the Civil War simply as a
local occurrence. And in pointing to the international connection,
Dubois paid particular attention to the fact that what happened in the
U.S. was connected with Africa, a reality that remains today.
We can say that whatever happens within local boundaries is
related to what is happening globally. Civil war and imperialist war
are always connected. The way to look at these issues is that there is
an ongoing interconnection of international and national. It is not
just a matter of a particular war solving a particular problem. It is
broader. Equality Is a Structure Involving
Membership in a Polity Looking at what is a
modern democracy and a constitution for it, we are arguing that
equality is a structure involving membership in a polity or other
collective. It is commonly not put forward as a structure, but rather
as a social issue, a problem of double standards; more for some and
less for others. Terms used include "equality under the law," "respect"
and the like. But they are part of how things are constituted, not how
democracy works and how it is defined. Saying the constitution, or the
state, define democracy is an inversion; the cart gets put before the
horse. It diverts from something more fundamental: are you
equal members of that society?
We are looking at the conception of a constitution. We are
interested in what are the proofs. A proof given by democracy is
whether the rule established is suitable for the people. What
structures are provided for being equal members of society? And, if
what is proven are structures of inequality, why not look into writing
our own new constitution instead of debating or fixing the old one?
Harmonizing Interests For us, at the
heart of the matter, are relates, relations, a motion going towards
something with a purpose. That is our relates. "I" is a relate. We want
to transcend all limits. If you are told the constitution, written or
not, defines democracy, you come up with justifications such as the
ones which talk about balancing security and liberty -- how much of
each? This is especially common now with the broad resistance taking
place and the police violence against it. There is a big effort to
divert people from advancing the struggle for the rights of all,
including for their own empowerment and looking into a constitution
suitable for that. A people, minimally, has to be
made up of all individuals and all collectives. And minimally, they are
bearing the relations that exist in society and the relations with
other relations. If I am looking at one lateral of a triangle, there
are two other sides that are different; there are multiples of relates
left out. The name given to those relations among all beings, is
"interests." Interests and harmonizing them is what you are not allowed
to talk about when looking into democracy and constitutions. Individuals
are perceived as abstract persons, not as individual and
collective. Each person carries individual and collective and
general interest. Interest is inter esse (among
beings). Put another way, it is "social beings." The ensemble of human
relations is the basis of interest -- social beings. Individual
interest is defined by the ensemble of relations, as are collective
interests. It is a higher order than the way we are often looking at
persons -- that you add them up and get collectives. In
arguing for a modern definition we are arguing for the proofs of how a
constitution sorts out these interests of individual, collective,
general and all humanity. It is not a matter of collecting people all
together and adding them up or carving them into identity-based groups.
We are arguing that interests come from society, the ensemble of human
relations, and should define constitutions. These
inversions about the state determining society and the constitution
determining democracy are promoted to hide the relations between humans
and humans and humans and nature. They promote that things start from
the state, which is used to define the society -- is it fascist,
democratic, capitalist, socialist -- as opposed to saying society is
the basis for the state. The inversion takes place mentally and is a
block to cognition of the relations. The state appears as something
independent of, external to, superior to, the people and exists as an
independent entity unto itself. It has its own intelligence, ethics,
way of thinking, what you can and cannot do, as Trump's speeches and
actions often indicate. But this way of looking at democracy hides that
the state is a relation based on the human relations of society.
There is an actual inversion that takes place objectively,
which is the direct relations people have to producing their way of
life, their relations with nature, with all humans. That is where the
inversion takes place. Dealing with changing those relations is how
problems of democracy can be sorted out. An
argument for a modern definition of democracy is to recognize the
people, which is a historical category, not something out of
time and space like a constitution which is super-imposed on us. We are
saying, the reality is that the productive powers already created the
inversion and divisions in society and our actions are based on what
the human relations reveal. Notes 1. "Constitution in
Crisis: Has America's founding document become the nation's undoing?"
by Donna Edwards, Mary Anne Franks, David Law, Lawrence Lessig, Louis
Michael Seidman, Harpers,
October 2019. 2. See Commission on Unalienable
Rights, National Constitution Center, Philadephia, July 16, 2020.
3. Text
for 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to U.S. Constitution:
AMENDMENT
13 -- Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified
December 6, 1865. Note:
A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded
by the 13th amendment. Section 1
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except
as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject
to their jurisdiction. Section 2
Congress shall have power to enforce this article
by appropriate legislation. AMENDMENT 14 --
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution
was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section
1 All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the
several States according to their respective numbers, counting the
whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But
when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for
President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in
Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the
members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male
inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens
of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation
in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall
be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens
shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age
in such State. Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in
Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any
office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an
officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature,
or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove
such disability. Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United
States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of
pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or
rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor
any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of
insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for
the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations
and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by
appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.
AMENDMENT
15 -- Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified
February 3, 1870. Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to
vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation. 4. The Battle of Fort Sumter (April
12-13, 1861) was the bombardment of Fort Sumter near Charleston, South
Carolina by the South Carolina militia (the Confederate Army did not
yet exist), and the return gunfire and subsequent surrender by the
United States Army. This battle is given as the start of the American
Civil War.
(To
access articles individually click on the black headline.) PDF
PREVIOUS
ISSUES | HOME
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca | 