Doug Henwood wrote:
>We're on the grounds of a secular religion here. If the U.S. Constitution
>is such a groovy thing...the power of the masses to infringe on the
>most sacred right of all, the right of private property.
methinks this is a spurious correlation. the constitution doesn't *cause* any of this, the capitalist system via the tool of the constitution does though. that it has been systematically taken up & interpreted in the interests of securing greater power to capital, well that's a no-brainer innit? but tell me, what exactly is in that document that *automatically* makes it *bad* as somehow fundamentally constitutive of all that's wrong in the US? it is quite conceivable that the very same document, with relatively minor changes and emphases, could be a fine way of ordering the power relations of the state--which ain't gonna wither away too quickly--in the interest of socialist economic organization and socialist principles.
and what about the right to freedom of speech which you seem to value so highly? shall we do away with that and pretend that we know not where it originated?
the manifesto was an ode to the capitalist production system and the division of labor. the ole' man hardly thought we should get rid of *that*
saying the constitution is a fundamental problem in and of itself is like saying that the division of labor is the fundamental problem because it contributes to alienation and commodity fetishism and all the problems that result. such an analysis leads where altogether too often? oh yeah, to the implementation of TQM and work groups and therapeutic interventions. no, blaming the constitution is similarly a bandaid on gangrene obviously, since the real problem, at root, is capitalism and private property. not *privacy* but private property.
a smooch from one o your fave bitches, kelley
Q: Are you an academic? Q: Who says? Q: And that's enough for you, is it?