There are differences between self-identified liberals and libertarians in their conception of liberalism in America, but they have a lot in common also, such as the idea of the Constitution guaranteeing the fundamental rights and liberties inalienable even if they go against the majority rule, the idea of checks and balances, especially an independent judiciary checking the majority rule, and so on -- all ideas that the Marxist tradition has not theoretically or practically embraced, though many Marxists have adopted them tacitly. -- Yoshie
^^^^^^ CB: In general, the Marxist approach is dialectical. It understands socialism as the supersecession of capitalism, not its absolute negation. Socialism both abolishes and _preserves_ capitalism. Analogously, Marxism is the superscession of liberalism , not its absolute negation. So, "elements" of bourgeois democratic principles are preserved in revolutionary socialism. Thus, in the U.S. a "Bill of Rights" socialism is exactly what we would expect to derive from a negation of the negation of U.S. liberalism. It both supresses and preserves aspects of U.S. liberalism. Some Marxists ( like me) therefore explicitly, not tacitly, embrace some aspects of liberalism in order to carryout the "preserving" aspect of this contradictory process. We advocate all the good stuff in bourgeois democracy and even more good stuff. With so many decades of experience with bourgeois democracy, the U.S. has potential to preserve the best, and suppress the rest of the bad stuff. >From the economic standpoint , Marx indicated that the first stage of communism, preserves the aspect of capitalism which is compensation based on work - "to each according to work". Pay according to work is a preserved aspect of capitalism in socialism. Only in full Communism does the principle "to each according to need" develop. ( See Critique of the Gotha Programme) A main thing that U.S. Bill of Rights Socialism would have is new Constitutional Amendments guaranteeing economic rights; for a Right to a decent livelihood, job or income; right to housing, right to health care. See my "For a Constitutional Amendment for a Right to a Job"; Also see F.D. Roosevelt's "Economic Bill of Rights". In doing this, we would have to amend the current Fifth Amendment in which the right to private property is located. Specifically, we would have to amend the "Takings" clause to allow uncompensated takings of private property where the economic welfare of workers had to be put above a company's private property rights. So, no moving industrial plants if too many people economically dislocated and the like. I detail some more specifics of the fundamental law changes in "For a Constitutional Amendment for a Right to a Job". However, Bill of Rights socialism would preserve the 13th , 14th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution, as well as the First and others (like no cruel and unusual punishment). Socialism would also amend to provide for an Equal Rights for Women Amendment, as well as a Bill of Women's Rights ( make right to abortion explicit in the Constitution rather than rely on a Supreme Court decision; right to child care, et al) So, supercession: Supress the private property principle, suppress the " right to free trade"; and _preserve_ other bourgeois civil rights and liberties. Note: The US Constitutions' Amendment provision is very dialectical. It allows us to _change_ the Constitution.
