A Constitutional Inquiry
Silas Soule
Live Sharp Look Smart
Note: Opinions reflected in this article are my own, do not necessarily reflect those of any other members of the Socialist Freedom Party, and of course may be debated in the handy comments section at the end. The facts reflected in this article are more difficult to debate, but go for it if you like.
Big hugs and (unapologetic) revolutionary greetings to all!
-- Phoenix Quinn, Cantankerous Old Windbag
I hear that the SFP Constitution has been the topic of some debate lately.
I am told that some folks outside of the SFP have recommended that this Party's Constitution be amended in a particular way that accords with their perception of e-reality. I don't know if this is entirely the case, or exactly what has been said, since I choose not to participate, myself, in that on-line game called "e-USA Forums".
But this is what some people have told me.
So... I thought this might be a good opportunity to share a little knowledge transfer with y'all on some info about what the SFP Constitution contains.
You can also read the whole darn thing for yourself here.
Perhaps a good starting point for talking about the Constitution of the Socialist Freedom Party is thinking happy birthday thoughts to brother Malcolm X, the famous American revolutionist who would have been 91 today (May 19th). As you probably are aware, he was a clever fellow who said a lot of clever things before being gunned down by a religious fanatic.
Many folks remember Malcolm for being a member of a somewhat oddball Muslim (Sunni-ish) sect that was a mainstay of the Black Nationalist movement in the rlUSA back in the 60s and 70s. Perhaps lesser-known to the general public is that there was also, after that, in the later 70s and earlier 80s mainly, for a brief time, a revolutionary communist group in the USA called the "May 19th Communist Organization". M19CO was descended from the Weather Underground. Its main purpose was to support the Black Liberation Army, which itself was a militant split-off from the Black Panther Party.
That group was named "May 19th" in honor of Malcolm X and Ho Chi Minh, both of whom had birthdays on May 19th.
I only point out that little bit of rad-left historical lacuna as way of emphasizing that there are really very few things about radical politics in the (real life) USA which follow a nice, neat ideological line. It is a country with a hugely diverse population and a history which is strange, wonderful and a bit terrifying, no matter from what perspective you look at it. Which leads to some interesting turns of event.
Which leads me to my main introductory point...
I would say that a certain flavor of this kind of crazy-mixed-up-radicalism-of-many-colors is a big part of the gaming spirit, if I can put it that way, behind the e-USA's Socialist Freedom Party and its militia affiliate, the SFP Bear Cavalry. It is why the SFP exists and why it doesn't quite fit in to many pre-conceived categories.
Anyhoo... One of the clever things Malcolm X said was: "A man who believes in freedom will do anything under the sun to acquire ... or preserve his freedom." I like that pretty well. And I think it captures much of the spirit of the SFP Constitution.
The SFP Constitution was first adopted on October 13, 2011 (Day 1423) and it was last revised on June 2nd, 2014.
It is organized into 5 Parts and 16 Sections. Much of it has to do with how the SFP organizes itself, and in particular, how its Revolutionary Committee operates.
I would offer that the overall "theme" of this Constitution is not really about "making laws". And it is especially not about restricting the actions of any players. It is, on the contrary, very much about empowering individual players and, if it creates restrictions at all, they are aimed at limiting the creation of authoritarian hierarchies.
It is more about opening up spaces than enclosing them.
For example, the only official titles recognized in the SFP Constitution are:
"Chair of the Revolutionary Committee of the Socialist Freedom Party"
and
"Member of the Revolutionary Committee of the Socialist Freedom Party".
Aside from these, Party members, whether participants in the "RC" or not, are free to give themselves whatever fanciful names they like. For example, mine is: "Cantankerous Old Windbag", which can handily be abbreviated, like: "Oh PQ, that COW!". But nobody is obliged to recognize that title.
Part II of the SFP Constitution deals with "Powers of the Leadership". The last Section within it, Section 12, addresses both Congress and Country President Nominations.
Sub-section 4 under Section 12 explains in some detail how the Party goes about selecting its candidates for Congress, during times when the Party is in the Top Five.
Here is Part II, Section 12, Sub-Section 4 in full:
"4. If the SFP holds the status of a top 5 party, the following procedure will be use
😛
"After the new SFP Chairman is in office (16th of the month), s/he or a representative from the SFP Revolutionary Committee shall open a Call for Congress Candidates in the forums.
"Interested SFP members should answer this Call by stating his or her desire to be a Congress candidate in the thread and by declaring their intention in game.
"Candidates will campaign for the primary and provide a manifesto on why people should vote for him/her.
"On the 20th of every month, the Call thread should be locked and a new thread opened for primary voting on the candidates. The Congressional Primary will last until the 23rd of the month.
"SFP members will vote for three candidates in the primary, allocating respectively 3, 2 and 1 points to each.
"At the conclusion of the election, the SFP Chairman-President or an authorized representative of the SFP Revolutionary Committee will tally the points for each candidate and rank each accordingly. The primary results will be announced in the forum.
"The SFP Chairman-President will rank the candidates in game according to the primary vote.
"The SFP Chairman-President can negotiate with external parties in order to include outside candidates on the SFP ballot. Every such arrangement must be ratified by the Revolutionary Committee before the 23rd."
As you can see, this is a very collaborative and democratic process. The role of the leadership committee is simply to facilitate. It is up the membership of the Party as a whole to decide how to rank candidates on the Party List. The Chair of the RC merely implements their wishes.
There is no explicit political litmus test, nor any rules about who can or cannot be a candidate. The judgement on who is a suitable candidate is left entirely up to the candidates' peers in the Party, using this system of ranked proportional voting.
If someone wants to change or amend how this works, the Constitution covers that too. Part V of the Constitution explains how changes are made. Amendments require a 2/3's majority vote of the active membership.
So. That's how that part works, in case anybody was interested.
But I'd like to point out a few more things in this interesting document, because I think they really get more to the heart of what the SFP is, how that is-ness is reflected in this Constitution, how it highlights what a unique eRep gaming style, or really, what a unique kind of eRep e-Being, this party reflects.
Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the SFP Constitution outline, at a high level, the Political Strategy of the SFP. This is summarized as:
"...promoting revolutionary freedom for the individual player within a framework of social solidarity."
Section 14 is titled "Domestic Revolution and Solidarity". Sub-section 3 notes the following element of this strategy:
"3. Promotion, support and organizing of a progressive and revolutionary political culture in the eUSA."
Section 16 is entitled "Economic Revolution and Solidarity". Sub-sections 4 and 5 outline the following points of attention in this area:
"4. Finding ways to support and encourage working class and impoverished players by outflanking the capitalist game model.
5. Promoting the study, analysis and development of anarcho-syndicalist theories of e-political economy."
Nowhere in this Constitution is there any statement that the goal of the SFP is to unquestioningly adhere to and defend so-called "Laws" made up by an off-game forum dominated by what everybody knows is an establishment clique.
Nor, anywhere in this Constitution, is there any statement that the Socialist Freedom Party is dedicated to "unity" against perceived or so-called "national enemies", neither at an individual or in a collective sense. In fact, Section 15, on "International Revolution and Solidarity" contains the following enumerated notes:
"2. Support for the defense and liberation of small and oppressed e-nations.
"3. Opposition to e-Imperialism in all of its forms.
"4. Material, political and military support for revolutionary e-nations and other far-left parties who share the SFP's vision of freedom and solidarity.
"5. Material support for grassroots democracy in all spheres, including the development of worker-managed communes and cooperatives internationally."
Of course, the Bear Cavalry has always come to the defense of the e-USA when it is attacked. This proud militia is one of the oldest autonomous, self-funded militias in the game. But it has never agreed, as a matter of principle, to blind participation in an imperialist foreign policy. And has seldom had any problem encouraging its militants to find a fighting style that matches their own anarchist and revolutionary principles.
It should also be clear by now that the SFP as a Party has never agreed to recognize the authority, much less the suzerainty, of any "Jedi Councils", "Unity Committees", "Democratic Dictatorships" and so forth.
By the way... This is not an argument I am making. It is simply a statement of fact. This Constitution reflects what the SFP is, and, to a large degree, what it is not.
Those who don't like this Constitution are naturally free to argue all they want that the December Uprising initiated by the SFP Bear Calvary, in support the Country President's electoral program, was "illegal", despite the fact that it was simply a reflection of the obvious popular desire of a large portion of the citizenry to try life without Dictatorship (via the use of a perfectly "legal" game mechanic to try to achieve that goal).
Likewise, critics of the SFP are perfectly welcome to bemoan the fact the the SFP is now the second largest Party in the land.
That's just politics, after all.
But trying to tell the SFP that they must change their Constitution? Or... what? The oligarchic congressional party will continue to "blacklist" certain people, is that it? That the SFP will be chastised until it changes its spots?
Oh my. We are shaking in our balaclavas.
Honestly now, let's think...
Ask the Bear Cavalry commanders how difficult it is to launch an uprising when you have a critical mass of pissed-off citizens who want to back it.
Ask Major Trite how difficult it is to launch an uprising against the Dictatorship, even if your entire Party disagrees with you on the timing.
Ask The Black Knight how difficult it is to prevent a Military Coup if you really want to.
My point is quite simple: Nobody can, in fact, "outlaw" revolutionaries in e-Republic. We are already an e-Being that is simultaneously an e-Nothing. We are already "a girl who does not have a name". No off-game forum has ever had any authority over a Free Spirit. And they never will. No so-called "government" can "own" Solidarity. Just like the Music Industry does not actually own music; it just profits from it.
And finally, as if it needed saying, the actual game mechanics are what they are -- for both establishment types and for revolutionaries.
So. Yeah. My little editorial comment for today is:
We're here, we're free. Get used to it.
Comments
"You don't have a peaceful revolution. You don't have a turn-the-cheek revolution. There's no such thing as a nonviolent revolution."
I've always enjoyed the phrase "stop the illegal revolution" personally. 🙂
Thanks for a good article PQ. A timely intervention, as always.
correction... nobody said anything anywhere about not unblacklisting people unless you change your constitution.... it was only brought as a possible second means to unblacklisting....
Thank you for the clarification.
Excellent article
1. If you could have waited to publish a few more hours I might have made the top five articles...
2. "SFP members will vote for three candidates in the primary, allocating respectively 3, 2 and 1 points to each." This was changed to 5 candidates, each receiving one point per vote (do not know if the constitution was updated or not).
All that is fine. Your community has rules you want to live by and have no desire to change; the broader community, reflecting the other parties and their Congress people, is in a similar position. Your blacklisted members (and those who will certainly be added to the blacklist in the future) will simply not ever be admitted into the meta-Congress.
If you choose to retaliate by supporting overthrowing dictators and opposing coups, or granting citizenship outside of process, or otherwise "protesting the Establishment" using in-game mechanics, then your cute little process will make it fairly simple to PTO your party.
Oooo! Shakin' in me boots.
Its no more a threat than your unsubtle comments about an uprising or defeating a coup.
Oh dear. You are a bit mixed up. I guess the concept of freedom can be frightening. But hey, I do appreciate being called "unsubtle". The way I play, that doesn't happen too often.
Also, you are now red-listed.
Pto us and do what exactly. Kill even more active players. Nice work
numbers please, this shrinking broader community thing is interesting. And your immigration policy, only broader community friends allowed, sorry if you joined the wrong country to start, we (broader community could care less about you and the game you thought you were going to play)
We have a plan already in place if you want to try that. It won't change us.
I'm actually not surprised; the values of "anyone can join and participate at any level" only really work for you as long as you can maintain soft power control.
You seem to forget that Fluffer would throw himself on the floor kicking and screaming 'PTO. PTO.' when Jude Connors would run for PP of the USWP. Seems your side of the fence may do whatever they wish, while not allowing anyone -not just the SFP- else to do the same.
meta-Congress will suffer harder when they PTO SFP.
Please do me such favour so we can have the real game fun in hurting ourselves. 😉
@ Avurch; There is a good chance you agent will switch sides, when they taste freedom.
excellent as always ....DAMN glad your with us
o/
I was here before it was cool!
We're here, we're free. Get used to it.
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken
SFP and House Martell?
This only makes me harder...I mean want to work harder!
here's my question.....
I remember how upset the sfp was a few months back when some people discussed pto procedures against the sfp....
Why?
you seem to believe that it's ok to do whatever you want because sfp rules sort of allow you too.... why do you then hold the rest of the eUSA to a higher standard? If you can do whatever you want the rest of us can as well... you are just a hypocritical crybaby...
Wat? Is this a psychological quiz? Ummm... so... I dunno. Would you suggest instead holding everybody to the _lowest_ possible standard? And that parties who have a different gaming strategy from the (fake) consensus reality on e-USA Forums should simply "roll over" and not defend themselves because Citizen shadowber doesn't get it?
For some reason, I am reminded a bit of Welch's famous retort to McCarthy in 1954: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Sorry. Now I am afraid you are going to have to be red-listed too, for gross misuse of charges of ethical relativism.
no, I'd suggest holding everyone (including yourself) to the same standard... otherwise you are a hypocrite.... it's quite a simple thing to understand so try.....
I think you need to look in a mirror and repeat that quote to yourself... over and over..... till it finally sinks in....
@ Shadowbower;
When you say, "The rest of us," you are implying that you represent everyone else. We aren't the only people saying that the dictator should go.
You represent a group of constitutes. There is nothing special about them.
the rest of us meaning us lawful citizens who haven't decided to throw a hissy fit because we didn't get our way in congress.... I might have agreed to try a month of no dic, and I hate the dic module, (though the last dic installation showed me that till erep abolishes it we would be endangering the eUS if we didn't do this) but I would never break the law to achieve this....
The law hurt the community and this controversy helped it to grow. I don't see why anyone would be upset.
However, if you only have a problem with it because it's the law, consider this:
That laws shouldn't have been passed without a mandate from the masses and multiple controversies surrounded it's creation.
A hissy fit? Bah!
That cow, is it black and white or are there myriad shades of cow?
I believe it is a really red heifer. Speaking of Really Red, have been remembering 70s/80s Texas punk rock bands lately. Here is "Teaching You the Fear": http://tinyurl.com/teachthefear
I always chuckle when you imply illegitimacy regarding the government we've set up because it uses an outside forum...while linking to things hosted on the SFP's outside forum.
[removed]
Our forum doesn't claim to have the right through a 'Dictator Law' to remove all in game Congressional Power. We do not claim the right to demand everyone in this game follow our laws and Blacklist those who do not. We are a forum of inclusion, not exclusion; we are not a forum where 'Gay Bashing' is an acceptable form of argument.
You claim to speak for a group which can be freely joined. All one needs to do is join SFP and say YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR ME, and then you're just as illegitimate as the eusaforums.
Our members freely speak out, they are not censured and they most assuredly are not Blacklisted for disagreeing with the SFP -George is a prime example of that. Those who disagree with SFP policy usually leave for else where, many have left for the Feds; yet we have not Blacklisted them to prevent their return which the eUSA Forum most certainly does.
Your forum refuses to even talk to George and explain what Laws he broke so that he may take ownership and accept that he broke those Laws and then promise to work within the system, your forum simply sand boxed his questions.
Also noticed you had nothing to say about your forum allowing racial, sexist and gay bashing as a form of argument.
Nearly free speech is allowed, yes. We have lines, and they're generally clear.
Also, George isn't moderated anywhere on the forum outside of Congress. I've just checked his account and there's nothing barring him from posting. His status in Congress is not a forum issue, Congress self governs. It always has.
I am convinced that, at this point, you're feigning ignorance because you have no other arguments to make. I'd prefer not to engage you, as it's exactly what you want, but someone who is actually ignorant of how the system works might take your words as fact if nobody responded.
Free speech is one thing, hate speech is another.
Moving his post asking Congress for clarification of his offenses is moderation. It is Congress that has Blacklisted him, it should be Congress that answers his questions; in Congress. It is splitting the hair kind of fine to say his is a Congressional Issue and not a Forum Issue, since it's obvious to all those forums are Congress.
I am convinced that you are a traitor, yet you are not Blacklisted for having helped to wipe America and for fighting against the Dictator. I am also convinced that Israel Stevens is a morally bankrupt thief who put America in mortal danger and is right now Vice President; yet he still has access to and may run for Congress.
I am happy to bring you some enjoyment. Now if only you would reciprocate.
I like to think you enjoy all of your complaining. It seems to be the only thing you invest effort in around here, and that being the case...what would you do without me and mine?
I do actually. Have considered changing my name to Gadfly on several occasions. Hmmm, let me think about that last question. It's a good one.
SFP is a community. The broader community, does that really exist in eUSA, does that want to have a big inner eUSA fight? A game is for fun, I do not hate the meta Congress, I just do not give that any authority over me. It can try to convince me, better communication could be the answer. Punishing actions I see as fun.
Phoenix Quinn thanks for your nice article and the enjoyment. o7
Punishing a coup, yes. And if staging one is what you see as fun...who is causing the 'big inner eUSA fight'?
It seems it is difficult for you to understand what I mean.
I will try to be clearer.
When meta players try to punish the ones that do not follow their laws (like running "blacklisted" members for congress) I will see that as fun and it will start inner fighting in eUSA to high levels.
If those persons had been treated as such without cause, I'd agree with you completely.
That is not the case here. The blame for their status rests entirely with the persons in question. Any actions taken as a result of said status is a response, not an inciting event.
Huh-huh. You said, "constitutional." Huh-huh huh-huh-huh Uh-huh-huh-huh.
It's like a walk in the park. 🙂
"A girl has no name."