may i remind you that as a left-libertarian:
- i support the constitution, despite its flaws, and even the flaws about the founding fathers.
- i support limited government within a socialist framework
- i’m pretty sure there are revisionists here on hexbear which is fine - everyone has their own opinion, and some (including the people here) have their own taste of socialism/communism.
- i do NOT condone the actions of stalin in any way, shape and form - between stalin and trotsky, i’d go with trotsky. he should’ve succeeded lenin in the 1920s to begin with.
- there are democratic and libertarian forms of communism such as/like de leonism, left-communism and even council communism.
- i find the idea of a multi-party communist country (like in ‘reds! a revolutionary timeline’ (you can also find the wiki here (just DON’T vandalize it, and i mean it!), or in nepal through ‘people’s multiparty democracy’) to be interesting.
well i think that if the us becomes a socialist nation (in one way or another), the constitution will have to be reformed, the government will have to be restructured to fit within a socialist framework (i was thinking of de leonism and council communism), and a second bill of rights would be ratified.
How does this differ from adopting a new constitution in practice?
i think some socialists here in the us advocate for the us government to be reorganized to fit within a socialist framework.
That didn’t really answer my question, but it seems like you might have issues with communication and social cues.
i actually have autism. seriously.
I figured as much. I wish the other people here would be more considerate of that.
what was the question you asked again?
I was asking about what the difference was between reforming the constitution, and adopting a new constitution but keeping elements of the old one.
i think the difference between the two happens to be an article v convention.