Separations of power were meant to make the feds beholden to Congress above all, with Congress designed to distribute power based on the interests of the economic elites between states. The Senate was given the most power, by far, and would only be elected by states, while eligibility to vote was restricted to land-owning white men, and practically, those who had the means to take time away to vote as well (and run for office).
Also, the judicial branch's power was stolen bureaucratically and is barely specified in the Constitution. So neat that far-reaching policy is dictated based on an electoralist slot machine that was given power based on a bureaucratic gotcha question in a system that was supposedly meant to adapt itself to the needs of the times.
This reminds me of something I read last week, let me see if I can find it.
Edit: found it.
“ In a fucked up way, separation of powers is a really fascinating staple of "liberal theory".
“So why couldn't the President order an eviction moratorium?"
"Oh because Congress has that power, not the President"
"Oh okay, so why couldn't Congress?"
"Well they could, but there wasn't enough support"
"Oh why wasn't there enough support?"
"Well because most of the elections are a guaranteed win for the incumbent so they don't really care"
"So why can't Biden pull a 'Justice Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it' move?"
"Well that would just be wrong"
There was even a Federalist Paper about this! I forget which one bc those numbers always confuse the fuck out of me but James Madison explains that the separation of powers are essential for protecting property rights because of exactly this - it sets up contingencies for Capital in case Labor were to somehow gain control of either the executive, the legislature, or both.”
“James Madison under the pseudonym "Publius" wrote Federalist No. 10 - arguably this one is the most important one; think of it as the liberal version of The Manifesto, because he lays out the entire point of everything liberals do and say when he says this:
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.
As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests.
The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
In plain English - "there's always gonna be rich and poor, our job is to make sure the poor don't get too uppity about it and placate them into not wanting to change it so that we, us with higher faculties, get to stay rich"
Any American high school student will tell you all the shit that's wrong with the government was because the Framers were concerned with "factionalism".
That's correct - but they deliberately teach the wrong meaning of that word; it's an old-timey way of saying class politics (i.e. "factions" of Labor aligning with those who have the same material interests as them rather than siding with Capital), whereas it's taught to mean exclusively racial/ethnic, religious, or regional factionalism - which are secondary to class.
So when applying the liberal logic - separation of powers serves to suppress the class struggle by ensuring Capital always has a card up their sleeve to play, just in case Labor ever did manage to unite beyond those secondary factions into one united political bloc, there's always some lever they can pull to "balance unequal faculties" as J-Mad would put it.
Now if you apply socialist logic - what purpose would separation of powers serve? There's no need to sidestep direct democracy under a Dictatorship of Labor - the point of entirely separate legislature + executive + judiciary in the first place is to ensure the workers don't wield political power. Sure I guess one could argue you could turn these mechanisms around against Capital as they'd become the subject class rather than the ruling class - but all the institutions and power brokering to insulate the bourgeoisie from the proletariat are a result of the fact that you've got 1% of the people in charge of the other 99% - would you need such a convoluted byzantine bureaucracy if you've got 99% of people in charge of the other 1%?
I guess my answer is because a "checks and balances" based system only serves an unrepresentative ruling class. Under a Dictatorship of Labor, you don't need to have contingencies in place to protect Capital. With a proletarian vanguard party in control, you wouldn't want to "protect against factionalism" - you'd want to encourage it, you'd want more direct democracy and less republicanism; more class consciousness and less class apathy, etc.”
Why did the 2016 election have decades-long consequences but the 2020 election didn't? :thinkin-lenin:
Lifetime federal court appointments. :thinkin-lenin:
Perhaps the separations of power was really meant to separate the workers from power? :thinkin-lenin:
Separations of power were meant to make the feds beholden to Congress above all, with Congress designed to distribute power based on the interests of the economic elites between states. The Senate was given the most power, by far, and would only be elected by states, while eligibility to vote was restricted to land-owning white men, and practically, those who had the means to take time away to vote as well (and run for office).
Also, the judicial branch's power was stolen bureaucratically and is barely specified in the Constitution. So neat that far-reaching policy is dictated based on an electoralist slot machine that was given power based on a bureaucratic gotcha question in a system that was supposedly meant to adapt itself to the needs of the times.
This reminds me of something I read last week, let me see if I can find it.
Edit: found it.
“ In a fucked up way, separation of powers is a really fascinating staple of "liberal theory".
“So why couldn't the President order an eviction moratorium?"
"Oh because Congress has that power, not the President"
"Oh okay, so why couldn't Congress?"
"Well they could, but there wasn't enough support"
"Oh why wasn't there enough support?"
"Well because most of the elections are a guaranteed win for the incumbent so they don't really care"
"So why can't Biden pull a 'Justice Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it' move?"
"Well that would just be wrong"
There was even a Federalist Paper about this! I forget which one bc those numbers always confuse the fuck out of me but James Madison explains that the separation of powers are essential for protecting property rights because of exactly this - it sets up contingencies for Capital in case Labor were to somehow gain control of either the executive, the legislature, or both.”
“James Madison under the pseudonym "Publius" wrote Federalist No. 10 - arguably this one is the most important one; think of it as the liberal version of The Manifesto, because he lays out the entire point of everything liberals do and say when he says this:
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.
As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests.
The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
In plain English - "there's always gonna be rich and poor, our job is to make sure the poor don't get too uppity about it and placate them into not wanting to change it so that we, us with higher faculties, get to stay rich"
Any American high school student will tell you all the shit that's wrong with the government was because the Framers were concerned with "factionalism".
That's correct - but they deliberately teach the wrong meaning of that word; it's an old-timey way of saying class politics (i.e. "factions" of Labor aligning with those who have the same material interests as them rather than siding with Capital), whereas it's taught to mean exclusively racial/ethnic, religious, or regional factionalism - which are secondary to class.
So when applying the liberal logic - separation of powers serves to suppress the class struggle by ensuring Capital always has a card up their sleeve to play, just in case Labor ever did manage to unite beyond those secondary factions into one united political bloc, there's always some lever they can pull to "balance unequal faculties" as J-Mad would put it.
Now if you apply socialist logic - what purpose would separation of powers serve? There's no need to sidestep direct democracy under a Dictatorship of Labor - the point of entirely separate legislature + executive + judiciary in the first place is to ensure the workers don't wield political power. Sure I guess one could argue you could turn these mechanisms around against Capital as they'd become the subject class rather than the ruling class - but all the institutions and power brokering to insulate the bourgeoisie from the proletariat are a result of the fact that you've got 1% of the people in charge of the other 99% - would you need such a convoluted byzantine bureaucracy if you've got 99% of people in charge of the other 1%?
I guess my answer is because a "checks and balances" based system only serves an unrepresentative ruling class. Under a Dictatorship of Labor, you don't need to have contingencies in place to protect Capital. With a proletarian vanguard party in control, you wouldn't want to "protect against factionalism" - you'd want to encourage it, you'd want more direct democracy and less republicanism; more class consciousness and less class apathy, etc.”
deleted by creator