<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> With reference to the exclusion from the Continental Congress, and from 'the original constitutional conventions' at which our Constitution was "forged" (as here 'twas well-termed by DP), the whole populations of Native-Americans, African-Americans, female Americans, as well as those [populations] of non- propertied white male Americans, my initial post on this thread (vis a vis Joseph Nye), was intended to note that, whereas all of these groups were excluded from helping to "frame" the Constitution, it is truly small wonder, then, that the "class interests" of those groups excluded (i.e., the entire populations of non slave-owning white males), would not be represented by those "framers," who’d excluded them, from the "forgery" (as it was, here again, so well-termed by DP) in their resulting Constitution. Jon Johanning wrote, that "...all of these groups and more managed to fight their ways to gaining their 'political' rights within the constitution." But Jon also failed to suggest, exactly where in the slave-owner’s Constitution (or, in which amendment to it, or even, at what point in time) has there ever appeared a "redress" (or correction) of the fatal omission from it (and from all its amendments), any accounting, whatsoever, for what has been, essentially, and, from the outset, its thus-far, permanent evasion of any reference, at all, to the 'economic' foundation(s) upon which this, and all other 'political' systems, are necessarily based. It would, indeed, be very helpful to all concerned parties, if Jon might provide a referral, to precisely which clause in our Constitution (or, in which one of its Amendments), wherein we might find such a redress of the ‘original’ economic disparity, between those whose 'class status,' as white male slave-owners, was very well-represented (simply because they'd invited themselves to their own Continental Congress), as opposed to all those who, because they were not of the slave-owning class, were, therefore, not invited to that party). Is there (or can there be, anywhere), a ‘political’ system, anywhere on Earth, either at present, or, at any time in the past - really, has there ever been,anywhere on this planet - a ‘political' system which is not necessarily based and predicated upon, an economic underpinning by which, as humans, we obtain and provide our own physical survival? The exclusion from, and consequent denial of, democratic representation (in what DP has so eloquently if, unwittingly, phrased as the "forgery"), such as reflected in our Constitution, to what was, essentially, 98 percent (or of whatever may have been the precise percentage) of the population as a whole, who, themselves, were not part of the white and male, and propertied class, has effectively guaranteed for (what so painfully seems like) time immemorial, that, in the interests of the propertied (or ruling) class, who 'framed' the Constitution, the 'economic' (as distinct from the merely 'political') system which has resulted from that "original" (and quite sinful) disparity, would (or so it seems) remain forever intact. What passes for the ‘political’ system in this country, notwithstanding any and all amendments to the Constitution, was from the get-go, as it remains to this day, wholly devoid of any reference to (much less, comprehension of) the ‘political’ system in terms of its predication upon an economic foundation. We might speculate as to the likelihood of, whether, had Native-Americans, African-Americans, female Americans and, non-propertied, white male Americans not been excluded from participation in framing the Constitution, would the document, resulting therefrom, have been so devoid of reference to the economic underpinning of this, and all other societies?  Had they not been excluded from participation, in framing the Constitution, would the slaves, for the purpose of apportioning seats in the House of the so-called “Representatives,” each have been counted as 3/5ths of a person? The utter and irredeemable, philosophical fraudulence, as I see it, of our Constitution, lies in the fact that no 'political' system, or process, occurs in a vacuum, abstracted from, and totally devoid of, its own economic underpinning. I’ve yet failed to see how ‘political' democracy can occur, anywhere, at any time, which is based upon an 'economic' system, which is, fundamentally, anti- democratic.  Perhaps Jon (or some other subscriber) would be so kind as to demonstrate, just how this basic contradiction can be resolved, in theory, and then rectified, in practice - or alternatively, who could point us in the direction, and provide us with examples of a 'political' system, of whatever nature, which, anywhere, at any time, and irrespective of its Constitution (and all its Amendments), is not predicated upon, one or another type of economic foundation. My argument is not that we (or anyone) should, as Jon phrased his straw man, that we (or anyone) should be “...sitting around grousing that those rich white guys didn't invite us."  The issue, in fact, and the question I’ve raised, is, just what philosophical merit, can there possibly be (or has ever been), to such a delusion, that any 'political' system, and/or 'political' process (call it what you will), can possibly occur, which is abstracted (in theory), and separated (in practice) from its own economic foundations. Precisely which amendment to the Constitution, has ever addressed, much less, has ever redressed, this basic contradiction?  How can we logically reconcile... the conception, and practice...  of 'political' democracy, with an 'economic' system which was, and remains, autocratic, and fundamentally fascist? Or, put another way, was the slaughter of the native population(s), and enslavement of the slaves, something else (for the victims of each) than what was, at the time, and which now, in hindsight, isn't befitting those terms? For a final clarification to Jon, the reference I’d made to the ‘exclusion’ of subject populations(s), in the framing of the Constitution, was not to “political' rights, either denied or obtained, 'within' the Constitution, but to the universal “economic rights” (like, for example, that of survival), that were, and have always been, systematically ignored by the Constitution (as well as by all its Amendments). As authored by Charles Beard (in 1912), in his essay entitled, "Framing the Constitution, "....the framers of the Constitution were less interested in furthering democratic principles, than in protecting private property, and the interests of the wealthiest class." For further reference, please also feel 'free,' to see:             <<A HREF="http://cyberjournal.org/cj/authors/fresia/">http://cyberjournal.org/cj/authors/fresia/</A>>.   Jon Johanning wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Dennis Perrin wrote: > All true (though Thomas Paine had a broader scope). And yet, despite the > blood-drenched corrupt white hands that forged that document, and the > Bill > of Rights, both remain in many ways quite radical -- certainly in > slave-owning time, and, as Ashcroft and Ridge roll along, increasingly > so in > ours. I think that what is more important than the fact that Native Americans, slaves, women, etc., were not represented in the original constitutional convention is the fact that all of these groups and more managed to fight their ways to gaining their political rights within the constitution. The important lesson to be drawn, I think, is that we don't get anywhere just sitting around grousing that "those rich white guys didn't invite us" -- we have to be willing to support a hard struggle to invite *ourselves*, and once we get our rights, we have to struggle just as hard to *use* them. "Use them or lose them" is the watchword. ___________________________________ <a href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</a></blockquote> </html>