Trapshooters Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

25,277 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Let's take a quick peek at the beginning of Chapter One:

"Law in a Socialist USA:

Law in a Socialist USA<br>
by Michael Steven Smith<br>

“I won’t sit at the dinner table with nothing on my plate and call myself a diner.”<br>
Malcolm X

“Land of the brave, home of the free, I don’t want to be mistreated by no bourgiosie.”<br>

What would law be like if we didn’t have capitalism in America, if we replaced it and were able to live
in a genuine socialist society? Imagine a society of ecological sanity, material abundance and social
equality, a society where social relations were premised on human solidarity, not capitalist exploitation
and human competition, where people are not set against each other, where production for profit,
driven by private greed and accumulation of capital, has given way to production for public use.
To see what the law would become we need to understand where it came from. Law is not a fixed
system but an evolving one bound up with changing social conditions. The law we have now - contracts,
property, corporate, trusts and estates, domestic relations, torts (injuries) - is based on the ownership of
private property (corporations and banks, not toothbrushes). But it wasn’t always that way.
A thousand years ago Europe was a feudal society with different social conditions and different laws.
Feudal society was static. Land ownership was frozen in relatively wealthy propertied families. Trade
and commerce were confined to luxury goods for the rich. The charging of interest on loans was
forbidden, thereby inhibiting commerce and banking. Life centered around isolated villages and the
large manor houses of the nobility. Most people were serfs, semi-slaves, bound for life to an aristocratic
ruler. How did this change into what we have now?

The modern bourgeoise, or ruling class, or the 1% as the Occupy movement famously describes them,
started off as part of the 99%. They began their long march to power as humble merchants in medieval
Europe. They were the early capitalists in what was then a feudal society. The law they created and
refined over the years is the law we live under today.
These bourgeois revolutionaries brought about a newly dominant legal ideology based upon a different
system of social relations. They sought old legal forms, mainly Roman, and invested them with a new
commercial content. They also used canon (church) law, royal law, feudal law, and natural law to
construct a socially protected system of commerce as well as to promote and thereby make more profits
by a higher technology.

In pursuit of their material interests, the bourgeoisie established freedom of contract, the ability to sell
land, to lend and borrow money with interest, and devised laws to regulate all this, courets to adjudicate disputes, and a central power to enforce their judgments. These were all preconditions for
the growth of modern society. In large measure the medieval bourgeoisie and their lawyers prepared
the way for today’s possibility of abundance.

Significant legal change is the product of conflict between social classes seeking to turn the institutions
of social control to their own purposes and to impose and maintain a specific system of socio-economic
relations. The transformation from the legal system in feudal times took some eight hundred years. The
rising bourgeoisie couldn’t buy property freely in a real estate market or associate politically or
economically. They were social outcasts whose profit taking ws thought to be dishonorable, a form of
usury that put their souls in jeopardy. Called “pies poudreus”, or dusty feet, they peddled their goods
from market to town to fair.

But this disreputable lot first accomodated to, then openly confronted, and finally overthrew the legal
idealogy of feudalism, subordinating and sacrificing all feudalism’s ties of personal fealty and hierarchy
to capitalism’s bonds of cash and contract. The enlightenment French philosopher Denis Diderot
described the mode of their progress, “The strange god settles himself humbly on the altar beside the
god of the country. Little by little he establishes himself firmly. Then one fine morning he gives his
neighbor a shove with his elbow and crash!–the idol lies upon the ground.”
After accumulating for centuries in the feudal formations, capitalist law in the English and French
revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries cataclysmically replaced feudal law. This
precedent can help us understand how the law will change again to reflect different property relations
in the transition to socialism, before it withers away altogether.

Marx and Engels put forward what subsequently became know as the commodity theory of law. The
material premises of our prevailing legal relations were discovered by Marx and set forth in his book
“Capital”. The legal system, swollen with codes, courts, law schools, law-making bodies, publications,
and prisons is based on transactions bound up with production of articles for exchange, money, and the
rights of private property. Individuals under capitalism’s system of generalized commodity production
became legal subjects having rights, especially contractual rights to buy and sell commodities, including
the power of labor, which itself is a commodity. The buyer and the seller exchange equivalents, things
which are equal in value. Law regulates this exchange and the state enforces the law.
An equal standard is applied. No allowance is made for natural inequality of individual talent. As Marx
wrote, “A given amount of labour in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labour in another
form.” However, Marx concludes, that bourgeois right, embedded in market relations, is superficial and
formal. It is restricted and negated by the existing social and economic inequalities between the classes.
The ruling minority of the rich monopolize the means of production while the working people are
dispossessed. In order to live they must sell their labor power to a boss at the prevailing wage rates.
This transaction which conforms to the rules of the market and the legal code appears fair to both sides.
But it really masks a relation of inequality because the worker produces more value in the process of
production that he or she is paid for. This is the source of his or her exploitation. Bourgeois law justifies
this unjust state of affairs.

Since commodity relations will continue to persist in the USA as we transition from capitalism to
socialism our laws will continue to reflect bourgeois norms, however mitigated, because of unavoidable
inequalities. The state and the law it upholds will eventually become unnecessary when there is an
abundance of goods and the individual exchange of equivalents through the market becomes
unnecessary. Even now, in our capitalist society, we see a glimpse of the future in the employee stock
ownership, the 48,000 cooperatives which market 30% of all farm produce, and in publically owned
banks, life insurance companies, electric and water companies, hospitals, cable T.V. stations and
internet providers.
In a rationally democratically organized society that has done away with capitalist private property,
used only to produce for profit and not human needs, that day will come fairly soon. Legal institutions,
as we know them, and the juridical element in social relations must gradually disappear as commodity
relations die out.
The rule becomes: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. There will be
no need for law as we know it. Human relations will become regulated more by custom, as they once
were before the advent of class society.
Law in America is sold as an impartial force for justice and equality. Its origins are shrouded in mystery
and invested with the sanction of tradition. Most people have trouble buying this proposition, as
indicated by public opinion polls that find lawyers as professionals to be the second most unpopular
group in the country behind politicians. The frauds of formal equality of rights and the apparent
neutrality of judges was brilliantly pierced by Anatole France’s oft quoted remark that the law in all its
majesty forbids all persons, whether rich or poor, from sleeping under bridges. With socialism in
America, the people will own the bridges, they’ll sleep peacefully and contentedly with a roof over their
heads knowing full well that they have created a society where the law won’t work against them and in
the words of that great manifesto “where the full development of each is the condition of the full
development of all.”

25,277 Posts
Discussion Starter #2

"Cop-Killer, Communist, Terrorist Pen Nightmarish Blueprint for 'Socialist USA'

"...blueprint for American socialism in a new revolutionary "book of imagination."

The new book, "Imagine Living in a Socialist USA," was edited by Frances Goldin who praises "life-enhancing socialism" in the preface. The 281 page manifesto showcases 31 utopian essays written by dangerous criminals, prominent liberals, and self-described communists - all for just $10.11.

It imagines a "free" and "enlightened" socialist United States, promoting radical notions such as eliminating prisons and creating mandatory worker-owned businesses. More dangerously, it details "how to get from where we are to where we want to be," and the authors seem determined to destroy "rapacious" and "cancerous" capitalism, by revolution if necessary.

The new book is stocked with pieces featuring Bill Ayers, Michael Moore and even Mumia Abu Jamal. It's a perfect fit for Karl Marx's library and brought together calls for establishment of grade and competition-free schools and the greatest hits of terrible Occupy Wall Street demands into a strident call for "the Third American Revolution."

Here, are some of the most extreme and famous among this group of radicals and liberal journalists:

Joel Kovel Demands Revolution to Kill Capitalist 'Cancer'

Joel Kovel's piece makes no pretense about its radical aims, complete with a Marxist slogan in the first paragraph: "working men of all countries unite!"

The author and anti-Israel firebrand invoke environmental hysteria over issues such as climate change, asserting that "our obligation is to remake society from the ground up in the service of life. If this be read as a demand for revolution, so be it."

Socialism, he claims, would foster a society where humans will organize their economy in accordance with environmental demands. Kovel certainly rejected capitalism calling it "a kind of metastasizing cancer, a disease that demands radical treatment - revolutionary change."

Cop-Killer and Former Fugitive Advocate the End of Prisons

Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murderer of a Philadelphia police officer, and Angela Davis, former leader of the Communist Party U.S.A, worked together to pen a bizarre essay on crime. It begins by asserting "The concept of 'crime,' like much that we today take for granted, is a sociopolitical construct."

The authors' objections to prisons fit well into their colorful biographies. Abu-Jamal was convicted in 1982 of shooting Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner in the back. His case became a hot-button political issue for radical liberals, including this book's editor who described a life goal as "to free Mumia Abu-Jamal from the bars that constrain him." Free Mumia T-shirts have long been fixtures of the protest landscape.

Davis, for her part, was implicated in a 1970 courtroom shootout, though she was found not-guilty after spending three months on the run. Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev awarded her the Lenin Peace Price in 1979.

These two radicals advocate nothing less than the complete dismantling of the prison system. They argued that a socialist United States would "end mass incarceration by prison abolition." While you may be wondering what they think would suffice to stop crime, they advocate a system which "brings the offender and the victim together to talk to each other."

Yes, let's force victims to engage in dialogue with their attackers.

Bill Ayers Claims American Nationalized Schooling a Failure of Capitalism

No socialist treatise would be complete without the violent terrorist and self-described "communist" Bill Ayers. In his essay, Ayers advocates a radical change to the education system which would eliminate "the laborious programs of sorting the crowd into winners and losers through testing and punishing, grading, assessing, and judging."

For Ayers, education has become a capitalist organization which has less to offer "an inquiring mind" than the "city dump" or "a street corner." The problem, he says, is that capitalism encourages us to "think of education as a product like a car or a refrigerator." He supported completely dismantling the education system, in favor of a poorly defined system without grades that instead focus on "full human development, enlightenment, and freedom."

He never addresses the fact that public education in the United States is run by the government, though he blamed "a merry band of billionaires" for pushing public schooling reforms.

Bill Ayers was a founding member of the openly communist and revolutionary Weather Underground in 1969. Ayers has admitted to facilitating a series of anti-war bombings while a member of this organization.

Paul Le Blanc Explains How America is Ready for Revolution

Le Blanc, a historian at La Roche College, examines how a contemporary socialist revolution would fit into the revolutionary history of the United States. He views both the American Revolution and the "Second American Revolution" (Civil War) as times when progressive forces destroyed unjust power structures in America.

He promotes another revolution, saying "Many U.S. socialists have argued that we must undertake a third American revolution that would end the economic dictatorship of capitalism and establish rule by the people over our economy."

He proceeds to explain how the American working class has become dissatisfied with the status quo and how socialist activists can begin to prepare for a revolutionary movement. According to Le Blanc, now is a particularly fruitful time for revolution, as the inequality of wealth provides "fantastic potential for socialist transformation today."

Michael Moore Hopes for an Unstoppable Occupy Wall Street ... In 2011

Michael Moore, the prominent lefty filmmaker, did not write on original article for this book. Instead, Goldin selected a 2011 article, which Moore wrote to promote the then newly formed Occupy Wall Street movement. Moore promotes the typical OWS slogans, alternating between platitudes about "a truly free, democratic and just society" and hard-line leftist legislation, like carbon reduction, confiscatory taxes, and a massive welfare state.

Almost sadly, he ends this proposal with an optimistic call to arms, stating "Occupy Wall Street enjoys the support of millions. It is a movement that cannot be stopped."

How did that work out for him?

25,277 Posts
Discussion Starter #3

This is what happens when the 47% take over. This is the face of socialism, a facade for communism. This is why the left is desperate to abolish gun ownership.

12,394 Posts

"This is why the left is desperate to abolish gun ownership."


All you gun owners out there who STILL vote for a democrat/RINO, are part of the overall problem in this country!!

Become a "single" issue voter!!!!

VOTE for the Constitution, NOT any Party elitist!

Progressives,Liberals,Socialist,democrats,RINO'S don't hide their "intentions" but lots of gun owners are easily FOOLED!!

16,609 Posts

If you put your ear to the ground, you will hear a humming sound.

Joe McCarthy spinning in his grave.


Molon Labe
11,990 Posts

When I was younger there was a movie that everybody in the world saw except me, Soylent Green, when I was on my recent movie buying binge I saw it and got it, and watched it yesterday, it was pretty cheesy it was made in 73 and the movie was about 2023, 50 years later, and I can see a lot of the stuff in the movie coming down the pike

It might take a while longer to sell the people green wafers made out of humans, but a lot of the other stuff doesn't look to far down the road
1 - 6 of 6 Posts