(Article originally titled 'Get Titled, Be Lordly: Bukharinism in the Twenty-First Century', but has now been split into multiple articles)
Contents:
I. Bukharin and the Peasant-Artisan as Vanguard
II. The 'Proletariat' Explicated
III. The New Role of the Vanguard Party and its High Office
IV. The Nature of Socialist Monarchy
V. The New Socialist Constitutional Law
I. Bukharin and the Peasant-Artisan as Vanguard
When Comrade Bukharin proclaimed to the peasants his new slogan of 'enrich yourselves', it under-girded a far more radical shift in thought than Marxists care to admit, and perhaps more than Bukharin himself even realised. What am I saying comrades? I mean to accuse some assumptions and some elements which have on the sickle found their way into Marxism, but on the hammer have always dwelt as particular characteristics of the class which has enjoyed a potentially undue place of honour within Marxism.
What, then, does 'enrich yourselves' mean that it could be such a radical proposition? It is not the phrase itself which demonstrates the radical break, but to which class's deeper historical context it interacts with. The peasants have traditionally been regarded as the vanguard class of reaction,, for Marxism and Leftism have erroneously considered republicanism, liberalism, and even bourgquacy to be progressive developments, due partly to propaganda, partly to these ideas appearing to be prerequisites for capitalism. Now that capitalism has emerged, and has amply established its power and ideological reproduction, the present 'progressive' status assigned these developments may be questioned. Telling the peasants to enrich themselves is a fundamental achievement in doing so, for it is to replace the proletariat with the peasants. The concluding action in a class enriching itself is that class's seizure of the means of production. Unless Bukharin was extolling the peasantry to enrich themselves as individuals, in which case they should become capitalists by the end, he must have been speaking to the class of peasants collectively.
Why should the replacement of the proletariat by the peasantry be advocated? According to most forms of Leftism, the proletariat is superior to the peasantry in every way, and the only reason it may ever be conceived of is if the land in question does not have a sufficiently large proletariat. Yet the simplification of the peasantry's class characteristics to 'reactionary and backwards- remind Crd. Dzerzhinsky to execute' is an utter disservice to this exploited class, and is an utter disgrace to such a noble, expansive ideology as Marxism. It is curious that for all of the condemnation which the peasantry receives, it was only after the USSR had thoroughly proletarianised (burghertarianised) and urbanised (cosmopolitanised) that the numerous problems, extant since the beginning, suddenly began to accumulate together until they spiraled out of control. Many comrades have come from the Cosmopole, and there are indeed unpleasant edges to the Agripole, but it is a scientific fact that the Cosmopole acts mostly as a strain upon the productive capacities provided society by the exploited (perhaps 'colonised' is warranted, in some sense) labour of the Agripole. The peasant's industrial form is the artisan, whilst the proletarian's post-industrial/commercial form is the burgher, mark it well. The People's Republic of China never excluded the peasant method of thinking, the peasant path of class development, those characteristics which define the class in distinction to the proletariat.
What do we find to be some of the characteristics of the peasantry? An obvious trait is the essential utilisation of a non-capitalist form of market. The commodity production which the artisan (industrial peasant) engages in is much constricted, contrasted to the iron assembly lines with packages of all kinds rolling off and into trucks from them that is found in burgher (proletarian-based) economy. The artisan produces only that which he is certain there is unfulfilled use-value for. Returning to markets, China has clearly taken advantage of this novel market form to successful effect. The peasantry mirrors two strata: socially, they are the reserve class-form of the aristocracy, arising from the land as a means of production, the chief modes of wealth and property. But when they enter the town, the peasantry does not mirror the proletariat, rather they transform into the artisanate, a very much peasant-lineage class-form. Socially reviled, and economically dismissed, the peasantry has rarely been given any enduring heed.
II. The 'Proletariat' Explicated
Then what is the proletariat, exactly? The proletariat, as we have already hinted at, is the reserve class-form of the burgherate: when enough proletarians become burghers, and enough burghers are able to go from smallburgher owners to successful and established grossburghers, attaining the political consciousness of petit-bourgeoisen (plural), then it is that the maniacal bourgeois of infamy appears, working to institute his preferred political and social forms to the strictest degree that he may. Comrade Przbyszewska knew this well. Eventually Genosse Krause becomes Herr Krupp, and shoots his comrades in the back. A Khrushchev always follows a Stalin, and a Gorbachev always follows, sooner or later, to-day with a struggle or to-morrow with an edict, a Khrushchev (lest real action, fundamental alteration, disrupts the process). The proletariat, under both capitalism and socialism, begins to build up potential capital, and when they inevitably recognise that 'the change of government shall set [their] fingers free', they organise themselves in and around the vanguard party of the burghertariat; which, I shall grant the Trotskyists, does lead to the formation of a bourgquatic bureaucracy ruling at most every level of the party and its institutions (however, they should not like to hear that the studentry normally spear-heads this subversion as the counter-intelligentsia of the insecure, anti-massist burghertariat). This realisation of potential capital is just the same reason that the burghers, once they reach the influence and consciousness level of a petite-bourgeoisie, begin to foment seditious treason against monarchy. As proved by the common lexicon that the bourgeoisie uses to describe equally monarchism and Marxism, aristocracy and vanguard party, there is very little difference for them betwixt the two.
III. The New Role of The Vanguard Party and its High Office
The vanguard party representing the new model aristocracy, including being the vehicle for creating the new model monarchs that we call general-secretaries, chairmen, or premiers, is a concept which I have been thinking about for a long time, likely ever since I first did read Comrade Przbyszewska's The Danton Case and Thermidor, wherein I became impressed with the hypothesis of revolutionary dictatorship, and the inevitable, forgone death of the revolution and its creators: that proving to be in actuality the result of the revolution's purpose having become achieved. Proletarian (champagne) socialism will make us comfortable indeed, only at the expence of many others, and simply of substantial, unequivocal change. Whereas if we should elect to institute really radical peasant/aristocratic socialism, life may be imperious, sometimes tyrannical, but it will for once be a true break, a really novel system defying existing dogma- an experiment in the science of Marxism. If we might sacrifice many of our friends and comrades, it must be done exclusively for the revolution of the latter type.
Let it be made clear that the peasantry will at first be ambivalent or hostile towards the party, not having yet made the transition to virtuous cadre-aristocracy. The party, as the class-conscious aristocracy, must guide the peasants to the recognition of their higher class-forms. To that end, I suggest that we revive the spirit of Comrade Bukharin's radical programme in two new slogans: 'get titled; be lordly', and 'ennoble thy being'. The first slogan is an exhortation to join the party, and do good work to be promoted in title. The second slogan is an introspective request to personally act nobly in all one's affairs, to disavow proletarian/burgher individualism, degeneracy, and mammon. Notice that I said it is the party which holds authority over the bestowal of titles. This is partially true, as all mass-organisations shall have this authority, separate and sovereign from the party. Hopefully, this will supply a pool of positive redundancy, and will provide a genuine, quality aristocracy, that one organisation- including the party- may not dominate and then obliterate. As for the earning of inherited titles, the witenagemot (wisely commission) of each organisation will judge whether one is worthy of receiving such titles as are heritable, that each organisation themselves bestowed. If the corruption that seems inextricably to follow the dictatorship of the party may be in any manner circumscribed, then as communists, even aristocomms, it is our scientific duty and noble obligation to try it.
Comrade Marx, may it be said in hopes of abating some initial dismay, was nay stranger to the arguments, or 'echoes' of the arguments presented here. After all, he loved two aristocrats: a lady von Westphalen personally, and a monsieur de Balzac literarily. He found the echos so pervasive that he wrote a not so very flattering analysis of it in the Manifesto. Marx was rejected by a stereotypically extremist republican land (albeit during a mere stint of monarchy), finding refuge in another which has not to this day fully completed the bourgeois revolution (and God(s) Save us All for that!). And I should argue that Comrade Stalin was at his best when acting in a monarchical manner, but which he loosely and inconsistently did, usually opting to act like a party bureaucrat. Bukharin acted in the noble and selfless fashion of an aristocrat, then meeting party-republican bloodthirst like a monarch; this makes him one of the truest and most virtuous comrades of all time, whereas someone like Comrade Trotsky, though brilliant or principled he may be, shall forever be a figure of vision, a figure against whose legacy entire movements splinter apart. As a burgher intellectual, Trotsky, unlike Lord Bukharin, could not understand that Lenin is dead; Bozhe [Ksarya] Khrani! A ksar not divinely ordained, or passed of inheritance, but found by constitution, wit, and man, to be the heir of our beloved Ksar Vladimir I. It is with a little-known strength of pride that I resound 'glory to you, our noble Ksar Iosif I, Comrajesty of the Masses, Defender of the Class, Wielder of Communism!'. I ask you comrades not to love, nor to praise, whichever man wears the crown at any given time, but to respect the sanctity of the tradition that the institution maintains. Republican elections will make you joyful in an unstopping circus of false-consciousness, but the circus will never halt, and I ensure that any person above the intellect of a simpleton will beg for the release of death soon enough, and with a vicious laugh be denied it. I have only two things to say to you, such a damned one as this, then: 'vive la republique', and 'tiocfaidh ar la', have you nay one but yourself to blame? Now suffer here and cackle with us.
We must put this conception into a present contextual view. Capitalism has done much good, and the peasantry is nay longer the same class as it was in the Middle Ages. Likewise, the proletariat, just as the burghers had, has accomplished many necessary changes. To scorn all that be old is a foolery of shallow, historicist-determinist Hegelianism. A constitutional socialist monarchy could potentially solve many problems not solved so in previous socialist experiments. Retroactively applying the title of monarch unto Lenin, Stalin, and Mao allows us to maintain the revolutionary pantheon, whilst also side-stepping the controversial actions of 'Their Comrajesties' Governments'. Now communists many the more easily conduct just criticism of the mistakes which were made, without fear of destabilising the party (or state). The doors of rehabilitating, partially or wholly, those wrongly accused comrades, are grossly opened by this proposed separation of monarchy and party-state. If but one innocent comrade finds justice through this separation, then it has served its purpose well. Monarchy and aristocracy are naught more than tools, their class-character to be determined by those who wild them, and the constitution which employs the tools.
(I also hold this stance for neoclassical-Marxism.)
IV. The Nature of Socialist Monarchy
We have hitherto spoken solely of the application of this system to those who are dead. But as communists, we are tasked with the needs and deeds of the living. How ought a modern monarch be chosen? We have already stated that, much as different classes had operated each their own soviets/councils, organisations as well are to maintain their own aristocracies, titles, and obligations therein, independent of the party(ies). I hear the outcries ringing aloud at these suggestions: the Leninists yelling 'anarcho-democontrarian wrecker!' and the Trotskyists retorting for me 'Stalinist-Bonapartist tyrant!'. I say that these measures which are meant to be transparent and constitutional, informed by the chaos and brazen ad hoc beneficence which was so very rampant in the first thirty years of the Soviet state, as I am sure we may all agree. Thus, what of the process for the selection of a monarch? Ought we all to take cover from incoming monarchs as Angelo, Jackson, Caleb, Bob, Claudia, Frank, Bill, Bernie, and whoever the hell the head of the IWW is these days? The least that we can say on behalf of Joe Sims, whatever our disagreements or reservation about him, is that, along with Bernie and perhaps Bill, he is unlikely to become a bloodthirsty tyrant, purging us with his commissars Makarov and Tokarev, all because we disagreed with him on buttering or toasting our bread first. All this is to say that I am quite aware of the absolutely sensible concerns that are raised practically by this project, and I take them very seriously (they are the very reason for which this project was thought up!) Before we may answer the question of the monarchical selection process, we must first discuss a fundamental piece of this project which I cannot stress the importance of enough.
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.
Comments