Some Future Questions for The Constitution of the American Communist Party

28 December 2025.

Seeing as TOAC just published its commentary on the Constitution of the ACP, there is likely nay better time than now to present our opinions, as we promised to.

These thoughts will not be presented in any particular order.

In the first order of business, I wish to commend the American Communist Party for making such an original work, and of such an unusual length— for modern, indeed, undisciplined post-modern organisations. I mean to hint at in this two things. Firstly, I suspect that the Party of Communists USA may have used one of the old CPUSA's Constitutions as a guide, if not actually copying it, but this is merely suspicion at the moment. Further, my comrades and I struggled to institute a simple charter over the four to five years of our Reading Club's operation. One of the Executive Committeemen, being a Wokerite social-democrat, had a mildly rude, or arrogant side to him. The final draft, after four attempted submissions, was only half a page long with three statutes (and he still refused to even look at it, despite promises to the contrary).

By taking the effort to compose this nineteen-page document, the ACP has already shewed itself to be more serious than some organisations, as sad as that is to say. Whether commendation reflects well on the ACP, or merely poorly on the rest of the Left, I leave for each comrade to determine. This effort is added to that of the Party Declaration and Programme, of course.

Allow me to briefly lay out my three main categories of disagreement, to begin. Firstly, there is the national controversy, for, being a New English nationalist, I do not wish to see Federal tyranny, nor that of Middle-Western rednecks, even if they (pretend to?) bear the name of Marx. I am, in fact, a supporter of the Yankee National Party due to this, which causes a natural division with the potentially social-imperialist and Federalist (in the US historical definition) neo-Fenian line of the ACP. Secondly, some of the later articles, such as Eight and Nine, worry me in how susceptible to Yezhovite excess, to being turned against sensible (renewed) socialist legality, these articles seemingly are. Thirdly, and most mundane, are the various errors and limited possible improvements I noted throughout.

Just a small explanation regarding why I gave only, at least ideally, limited advice towards improvement. I have conceived of a type of non-organisation comrade, whose rights are limited, namely limited to critique and general wisdom, or very small, specific changes, relating to other organisations. It is not my place to impose completely rewritten articles or restructured institutions into the Constitution of the ACP: that is the Party's and its cadres' duty, clearly.

Obviously, all three disagreements are treated at length to recapitulate any particular instances here. If I do go into these disagreements, it will be only to sharpen the reasoning of why they are of concern to me.

One curious thing I wish to note is that the Constitution made nay comment towards high culture, intellectuals, or propaganda, perhaps with the scant exception of the nebulous educational requirement discretion and the anti-indecency clause. If memory serves, the constitution of the Party of Communists USA* does mention these things in their very own section. As someone heavily invested in the support of high culture at this moment when it is most ailing, I was surprised to find that the ostensibly 'conservative' ACP did not attempt to defend or promote high culture more, or but mention it more than it did— that is, practically not at all.

---

*Upon looking into it, I am likely remembering, from the PCUSA's Party Programme, the section titled Media and Culture, Section XII. Regardless, the ACP does not make reference to 'culture/al' (except in the sense of nationality), 'art', 'film', 'intellect', or 'propaganda', in either its Programme or its Constitution.

Two of the three main forms called 'conservative' are actually conservative: social conservatism, and cultural conservatism. ,,Fiscal conservatism'', were it so properly named, should be closer to socialism, as a feudal economic system with religious and noble underpinnings, than to capitalism. Alas, it is merely a misnomer for classical liberalism, as is US ,,libertarianism'' for the same.

Social conservatism, I am only in partial agreement with, and an agreement significantly conditional at that. For instance, I am not enthusiastic for any kind of -sexuals, since, much more than a puritan, I am a fanatically celibate man of faith and high culture, this arising from my very conception of man as against animal. And as here hinted, I am absolutely a cultural conservative, in the sense of promoting a dutiful, extravagant, and moral aristocratic ethos. High culture is vital, and low culture, often violent and both ethically and intellectually degenerate— id est lacking in commitment/conviction, per a poor or hedonistic shirking of bearing a burden for The Good —ought to be combatted: actively and publicly resisted. I get the impression that this view was not nearly as unusual or disagreeable in Enlightenment republican and classical socialist circles, remaining thus for the longest time, until the crazed anti-cultural deconstruction wave of the 1970s-1980s (the rather less insane social reformation wave occurring in the 50s-60s).

I do not expect the ACP, or any party for that matter, to completely share the particulars of my complex and perhaps idiosyncratic analysis. I merely hope that the Party leadership has some understanding that social conservatism and cultural conservatism are neither the same thing nor are they then interchangeable. To give one example, I believe that Dave McKerracher is a social conservative (with a culty obsession viewing pregnant females as goddesses, or of the pregnant goddess trope itself), but is otherwise something of a cultural reprobate. Tony Chamas, whilst also a social conservative, in contrast to the former example, seems to exhibit refined cultural conservatism, whether it is a conscious concern or not.

My personal fear is that, outside of Carlos Garrido and possibly Kyle Pettis, the rest of the ACP leadership does not seem discernibly cultured, meaning it is more likely for the ACP as an organisation to not recognise a distinction betwixt social conservatism and cultural conservatism. Of course, if the ACP shews support for either one, they will face a hail-fire of flak from liberals, libertines, and libertarians.

A funny, digressive note. It has been my experience that quite a few liberals are made irate less by social conservatism than by cultural conservatism, and a comrade posited to me, in whimsical Freudian fashion, that this opposition to conservative high culture is due to the incidence of broken house lives on the Left. Conservative high culture thus represents discipline and genteel-mannered coldness/aloofness of the father. One must wonder whether Comrade Stalin is feared by these liberal-influenced Leftists, especially the feminist ones, as their Father Koba (who will punish them severely, as the saying goes)? Does this make Lenin and Trotsky the beloved, suave uncles, and Bukharin, Liebknecht, and Luxemburg elder siblings? I will leave this to the psycho-analysts to debate.

Moving back on course, another concern I had whilst commentating on the Constitution, and which I only indirectly indicated, is what role, if any, the ACP leadership will allow for Constitutional interpretation, the evolution of the meaning of and structures around the Constitutional text. Many of the nebulous ambiguities are not so severe that they could not be patched up by some thoughtful Constitutional commentary and thus expanded legal precision through interpretive, evolving development.

The ACP Constitution itself, at first view, does not seem conducive to this, nor therefore does the Party leadership seem supportive of instituting or simply approving the development of such structures and processes. Such a negative impression is namely given by the hostility towards 'burgher law' and 'legal formalism' expressed in the constitution. These two distinct phenomena are seemingly conflated erroneously into the same thing, which appears to be part of, as far as I can tell, the dogmatic affirmation of revolutionary lawlessness, called organic expedience by most. And again, I must point out that actual Dengists should never have committed such an error. Socialist legality in the rule of law is one of Comrade Deng's and his successors gross positive revisions of Maost anti-legal cultural revolutionism, one which TOAC aims to expand to this day.

This brings me naturally to my next reflective question: has the ACP truly learned the essential lessons of Comrade Deng and Comrade Jiang, furthered by Comrade Xi to the present? Or is the charge of 'Dengism' merely some more unsubstantiated, thoughtless hammering of insults, so common on the Left? It is factually, conceptually important that such ideological and theoretical labels are applied accurately, if only so that concerned comrades, active citizens of the Left, know which parties have or have not learned which lessons.

On the matter of ideology and pluralism in theory, it seems that the Constitution possesses in itself an unresolved, as yet uncompromised with tension betwixt intellectual openness and vanguardist discipline (otherwise known, if unfairly, as dogma). One may level equally the matter and the spirit of both Constitution and Party in defence of either side. It is imperative that this tension is under study maintained, but contained as well. Lest the young ACP be claimed by a split or by yezhovshchina, the weights of the balance must remain measured. For I believe that the Party's ultimate resolution regarding this tension will determine or strongly suggest its decision on the hitherto discussed questions and uncertainties.

It is my estimation that the single most important and contentious article, the article which will likely require the most legal interpretation within the Party for a superior clarification of its fundamentally intended purpose, is Article VIII, the democratic centralism article. This is the article in which most or all of these questions are centred. I should be extremely surprised if this article does not exhibit a single change after the coming national congress. This will be another trial for determining whether the ACP sincerely desires to allow for Disclosnost-like intellectual openness, or whether it was just issuing your typical vanguard party slogans and promises.

I will discuss two more especially speculative questions, then end the article with a post-face on the motivation for writing this article, and what its aim has been.

The Constitution mandates that the Party hold a national congress nay more than two years from its ratification. The Constitution was ratified at the founding National Convention, on 12 October 2024, as the text says at the end. Presumably, as suggested by the Constitution, the leadership reliably expects there to be constitutional change demanded at the congress, if not a wholly new constitution. Such presumptive expectation, when coupled with the Constitution's denunciation of democratic procedure and accountability being considered as a good in itself, raises the prospect of the ACP leadership ignoring this Constitutional directive in order to avoid accountable democratic instability. This is supremely in the realm of experimental speculation, so I am not insisting that this is something the Party leadership is contemplating. All I am suggesting is that it should behoove our comrades in the ACP to ensure that, when the time comes, they vociferously request that the Party leadership upholds the Party Constitution in convening the national congress. If it refuses to, then the leadership ought to be forced to resign for committing an infraction against the Constitution, the highest law of the Party.

The last point is less one of concern and more of interrogation. Comrades-leaders of the ACP, are you ready to accept and deal with the difficulty, indeed the sheer hostility, of being a conservative socialist (at least, if not more so by being truly conservative communists, like myself) party in a land which has been poisonously inundated with but various forms and flavours of liberalism— political, philosophical, social, socialitive, cultural, and economic —for the past two-hundred-and-fifty years? Have you accepted, and mentally fortified yourselves, against the levels of backlash and hatred you will be subjected to, all the while also recognising that the project of this party could come to naught? Prepare yourselves, that failure is pre-empted from becoming an embittered demoralisation; the Sanders Campaign ought to have been a sufficient lesson in this, alas.

Before moving on, I should like to particularly focus this interrogation upon two of the leaders of the ACP.

I do not know much about the Party Chairman, Haz al-Din, besides the controversial 'Mongol war-lord' title from his pre-Party days, and his Heideggerian (perhaps also semi-Duginist?) influence, which I am frankly less concerned with than the first fact. It is to be hoped that Comrade al-Din has eschewed the more infantile manners and affectations in the wont of streamers. I understand that Comrade al-Din does still partake in streaming to some degree, yet so long as he prioritises those serious customs befitting a party leader, over those in the social atmosphere of streaming and on-line debating, there is then nay wrong to fear. Suffice this all to say that Comrade al-Din must hold the duty of his post in high and stern regard, for as he will learn, being any rank of leader in such an organisation is never a light burden.

But in honesty, I am not as concerned about Comrade al-Din as I am about Comrade Helali, relating to this question of commitment. Comrades are, of course, merely mannish beings. They, nay indeed, we can not begin our intellectual journey as fully developed, enlightened communists. However that may be, Comrade Helali has, even till recently, exhibited ideological uncertainy— and of organisational allegiance. I find his betrayal of the PCUSA, after having become something of a publicly acclaimed leader, to be curious, but not incriminating on its own. If this were the Civil War period Bolshevik Party, I might suggest that Comrade Helali's office be bugged, or a Chekist covertly attached to him, to ensure that he is unable to defect mid-battle.

Perhaps, like our Uncle, I am just paranoid after hearing the horror stories from my friend about the PCUSA. We all have our tale of our personal Malinovsky, that comrade or party we counted our best friend, trusted with our life, standing up for them, only for this to become our most traumatic memory. Which is why our comrades in the ACP must remain vigilant, and scrutinise the comportment of their leaders, including Comrade Helali.

Note that, in contrast to all the other leaders, I know, substantially, the least about Jackson Hinkle. I hesitate to say anything. If His Majesty Kaiser Haz I will overthrow this dung-heap republic to renovate an empire of high culture along Anglo-American traditions, then Jackson Hinkle may descend us into a populist æra of lunacy and degeneracy, the values of Americuckfederates and Brown-Shirts. Of all the Party leaders, Jackson Hinkle is the only one I rather have misgivings about. I personally wish for Hinkle to be obstruented from Party leadership, come another election.

Post-Face. We have gone through what could be misinterpreted to be an antagonistic article, set to critique the ACP. This, however, is not remotely the purpose. As I said earlier, my disagreements, or my 'critiques' as such that they exist, are to be found in my commentaries on the Party's Constitution and Programme. This article is closer like to an internal study memorandum, a list of questions which all diligent comrades, whether inside or outside the Party, ought to continue having a watch on.