The New Socialist Constitutional Law Section from 'Towards an Old Class'

19 September 2025.

Notice: If this article had been written to-day, it should have appeared very differently. Eventually, I intend to give New Socialist Constitutional Law and Renewed Socialist Legality their own article, but until then, I am ripping this section from the original article, Towards an Old Class and New Socialist Constitutional Law (here). Please ignore any remaining connexions or things which do not make sense, owing to the aforementioned segmenting from that larger origin article.

V. The New Socialist Constitutional Law

*Note regarding the term 'talmud': contrary to certain opinions, the use of this word is not indicative of agreement with conspiratorial, theological, bigoted, or fascistic sentiments, but a short-hand to describe the general concept envisioned, without devolving into whole sentences or mass-synonyms for explanation.

Prior to the setting in motion of the monarchical office, maybe even before the beginning of the creation of the aristocracy, a 'talmud'* must be composed. This 'talmud'* of monarchical socialist constitutional law must be the first step initiated in the project. This examination, which ought to be made as comprehensive and rigourous as possible, must be a profound, hefty endeavour, not to be held lightly, and not to be treated foolishly or as an avenue for the furthering of rhetoric and squabbles. As many highly educated persons as possible, and perhaps not exclusively communist or Leftist, should be allowed to join in the discourse. I should also suggest that there be five phases in the development of this body of constitutional law:

Constitution in Theory, prior to actually doing anything.

Constitution in Review, a second discourse responding to the first, ere it is put into use.

Constitution in Brief, not a 'talmud', but a typical constitution of state derived thereof.

Constitution in Practise, discourse during the first ten-twenty years of use,

Constitution in Law, all discourse after the prior phase.

All five of these inner-collections of discourse will be, in the spirit of common-law tradition, the 'expanded constitution', whereafter legalicans, judges, the party(ies), and the monarch shall refine, sharpen, and refurbish the law as needed. This solution may appear a cop-out, hopelessly utopian, but then how could the Jews complete such a massive project as the Talmud in an age of far lesser literacy, general wealth, and surplus time; without computers, universal education, the printing press, or global and instant communication devices? What would it say about our supposedly much more efficient and prosperous system if we should not prove able to successfully replicate the standing accomplishment, only with the advantage of all of these improvements of our modern time at our disposal?

Truly, comrades, if socialism cannot now attain such a feat, then it has already failed us. I will confess, however, that this solution is rather convenient in that it puts most of the construction and development of the project on the shoulders of to-morrow's comrades, but this excuse is so only if to-day's comrades acquiesce in deigning it to be. The Constitution in Theory cannot be finished to-day, it is true. Yet like the first year in the Five Year Plan, it may definitely be advanced upon the path to achievement. Much as Sefaria has made available the immense contents of the Talmud, so too must the party(ies) ensure such a wide availability, and provide all manners of tools, resources, and assistance, for this collective-constitution, or the 'Constitution-Compositum'.

We return at last to the selection of the monarch, in the framework just expounded. Here, I will elude a straight answer still; evade the specific question posed altogether! I do so in favour of answer more grounded, of pertinent questions. My first answer will rule Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists alike, that whoever becomes monarch ought not to be anywhere near the upper-ranks of a party, but should instead come from the upper-ranks of one of the grass-roots organisations, such as a union, anti-corruption committee, or environmental campaign. Belonging to apolitical parts of the state might also be fine, just so long as these are not contentious or prone to political sectarianism within in any way.

Whether the violent arms of state are too dangerous to let a monarch be selected from, I leave to future comrades to debate. Internal affairs, state security, police, and other intelligence and enforcement apparati I should think are too innately political and powerful for consideration. The military, specially the air force and navy, are perhaps fine, and they have historically been linked with the aristocracy. An argument could be made, however, that the military is inherently political, and that the air force and navy could simply join with an imperialist's army against the socialist state. I do not have a deep knowledge of the Tukhachevsky Affair, which I imagine to grossly inform a subject as this. The monarch ought to be popular, upstanding, and relatively neutral/moderate in his opinions. Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky are not good templates for monarchs, but Bukharin and the late-Mao, outside of being leading party members, may be from what I have heard about them.

It is extremely important that the monarchy and the general-secretaryship, that is the crown and the party, remain separate and distinct in role (model, function, and purpose). The only time that a general-secretary should be made monarch, per the 'Protocol of His Comrajesty's Government', is when he has reached legendary, heroic levels, or when controversy threatens to compromise the stability of the party regarding things which may have occurred during his office. The Twentieth Protocol is reserved for effecting on the legacies of deceased general-secretaries: if a currently living general-secretary has generated such controversy, then the party is bound to form a commission to investigate, and charge him in (legal) court if the controversy seems founded. The general-secretary ought to be given a lighter sentence if instead he should agree to confess his guilt to the monarch in his court, at the cost of not being able to hold any more high-ranking party positions ever again (being spared the potential verdict, either finding, of a the trial).

The Confession in the Court of Crown is meant for knowingly guilty, but formerly well-considered leaders, and is not to be leveraged/encouraged as a hedging of bets in the legal system. The monarch must be given, in written law, powers to block the ruling-party, specially in areas where the party may be given to err, or to insulate itself from contrasting opinion.

As if everything which I have written thus far were not radical enough, I have one more surprise to earn the ire of Marxists, social-democrats, and anarchists alike: the soviets, as the institution of a para-state parliament, shall have the final authority on appointments to monarch when the crown is unworn. Alternatively, a Witenagemot (wisely commission) could be commissioned, consisting of six sovians and three politburies (never minding the number- more sovians than politburies). However, if either institution pulls out of the Witenagemot, then the authority of selecting the next monarch returns to the Soviet of State (highest soviet body) through simple majority in a vote. The Crown is in nay way to be made beholden to the whims of soviet or party once a monarch is appointed, except in cases of emergency, videre licet a rogue, corrupt, or dangerously incompetent monarch. All sentences of capital punishment require the authorisation of Crown and Soviet; both the monarch and the general-secretary have the ability to commute a sentence.

This method of state organisation offers a revolutionary implementation of checks and balances. Around the (often terrible and terrifying) class-tool named the state, there will be the valiant watch of three generally sovereign and independent estates: the Soviets of the Folk, the Crown of the non-partisan Lord of the Land, and the Ruling Party of the Revolutionary Class(es). This balance is not perfectly equal, though: the Crown derives from the appointment of the Soviet, and the Soviet may substitute the Ruling Party in practise, if it has the internal votes to. Some limits ought to be placed on this, first to protect the sitting party, then to compel the Soviet to vote for a new vanguard party if they oppose the current Ruling Party, so that they may not indefinitely usurp the powers granted that position in the state structure (opening the way for mass terror, nay better than party or state terror).

There are two final questions that I will address. A natural problem here arises with respect to current monarchies. If a communist party comes to power in a kingdom, Kaiserreich, or historically a Ksardom, then what is to be done about the reigning monarch and royal family? Ought they to be immediately replaced by the soviet appointment system, even pa pa shaed in the basement of the palace? 'Most certainly not' says Danilan Bucpenin. If it may be at all possible, then I implore all parties to labour within the existing monarchical framework. Should this prove impracticable, then I beg comrades to stay their daggers, and merely exile the monarch and royal family.

The return of the monarch cannot be the cause of the revolution's defeat- it may only be a result of it. If a monarch agrees to perform his new duty, then he must be allowed to freely exercise the authority legally granted to the office of the Throne, the powers invested in the Crown as an institution of state, and must not on grounds of disagreement be held in suspicion or contempt. Many communists which have fallen into that dogmatic Hegelian determinism, those worst traits of arrogant gnosticism, will denounce the endeavour to create a peculiar class balance as 'unscientific', or say that the monarch is a dotard who knows far less than these wizards of class-conscious intellect. Yet if even a single innocent comrade may by this peculiar equilibrium be saved from torment or murder, then I find that there be nothing left to say to such foolish executioners, these in-effect proponents of terror. God(s) Save The King; The King Save our Comrades in turn! Save Comrade Bukharin, and all who share his sad fate!

The final question is about how disputes on the employment of the Twentieth Protocol are to be settled. I will suggest only that the authority of instituting the Protocol lay with the Soviet of State, and that the petition for institution must be supported in a vote by the majority of all party members (it must in essence be a party-wide referendum, but must remain in the supreme soviet, where the sovians who know about the doings of said general-secretaries are, for the cult of personality has likely compromised the general, popular soviets).

Let this article serve as the beginning of the socialist Constitution in Theory, whereby a superior mode of socialist legal discourse may grow into a bursting vault of voluminous legal knowledge, including rigourous debate and innovative deliberation. The article itself will certainly stand for my own development as a monument to welcome advancement. I do not claim that the systems and methods delineated within the article are perfect, or even feasible in their current specification. But that is the entire purpose of the Constitutional Stages, specially the Constitution in Theory.

I absolutely affirm the possibility of crafting an excellent system from the material laid within this article. Nay matter that you disagree with my monarchical perspective, the standing task of developing socialist legal theory, a tradition of socialist constitutional argument and practise, cannot be forever avoided. It must not be postponed until after the revolution, for the road to terror should already be taken, making such a project as this obsolete, impertinent, or impossible in that dangerous climate. Likely, working on a project as this would be considered treasonous in those conditions, and we know all too well what happens to ,,traitors'' during a terror.

Let the Left decide what is to be done.