Is there any constitution for an ideal socialist state? If not lets make one in this thread.

Other urls found in this thread:

I'd like to see a communist government that works somewhat like the american parlament and precidency, where individual people's oppinions are more important than the party's (as the only party would be the communist one).

Sortition as an element against power concentration (majority in the following only means relative majority, abstentions don't count either for or against):
1. Punishment in criminal cases is based on the median vote of a sortition-based jury (actual punishment can be lower than what the law sets and there is even full nullification right).
2. Proposed changes to electoral law can only be applied with majority approval of a sortition-based jury.
3. Proposed changes to the constitution can only be applied with majority approval of a sortition-based jury.
4. The supreme court can only recommend a law to be declared unconstitutional, the decision then is up to majority approval by a sortition-based jury.
5. Martial law can be declared only with majority approval by a sortition-based jury, and is automatically revoked if not given again within a 24-hour period.

Stalin`s constitution is quite based, we should use it as a baseline.

I have to wonder though if the apparent benefits would be outweighed by distrust in something associated with Stalin.

We could just call it by its original name too(soviet constitution 1936).

Constitutions for socialist state usually include lofty generalized goals, like guaranteed housing, guaranteed employment and free healthcare.

Just take the American Constitution and add luxury communism tbh

No state and no costitution

TBH, I don't think I've ever come across a more anti-Marxist string of words in my entire life.


A constitution in reality implies that the word of the constitution is paramount over the democratic decisions of the people. A constitution, in order to be in-keeping with the democratic nature of genuine socialism, would have to be one that can be altered as democratic decisions are made to alter it, without the bourgeois bureaucracy that it takes to amend constitutions today. It would have to be something that represented the views of the democratic society, rather than something that stood above them. Therefore, it would make more sense to call it "the laws" and not "a constitution" in the sense we understand the word today.

Of course it is hubris to assume one can find out some proper rules for the one and true and always right ever-lasting constitution, in accord with the will of Odin and all the other gods (including those we haven't invented yet), but it is disingenuous to pretend that the feasibility of doing exactly this must be what all people mean who say they want a constitution.

Law is not written by a single person, it's a collaborative writing process. It isn't even a process where updates are administered in a synchronized fashion, instead a group that works on a patch for this or that detail does that under the assumption that other updates that happen while they are still working on their patch or that will happen right after their patch is added are unlikely to have much effect on how their patch actually works.

No single head knows all the laws. It is impossible to have thousands of people constantly re-writing law in a way that is free of conflicting statements in different parts. To have a general way of dealing with that, there needs to be a hierarchy of laws. So that, whenever there is a conflict between the higher law and the lower law, the higher law beats the lower law. People can be specialists in different fields and still have a common understanding based on common knowledge about the laws with highest priority.

Having such a hierarchy implies some laws are less likely to change (just like it's easier to change a picture on your wall than changing where the walls are), whether Odin agrees with me on that or not.


What shitty idea. Why not majority vote?

OK, what happens when criminals rob a house under socialism? No one gets locked up? It's just "meh"… and it slides?

What about the US Constitution? Or at least the Bill of Rights?

Could the Bill of Rights survive under socialism?

It's a waste of time. Think of all the person-hours when something like a third of the population votes in a referendum. Moreover, in a jury people can directly talk with the advocates for a change and with those who are against it instead of relying on mass media.

It's still theft. Letting it go leads to other crimes like vandalism and rape.

You fucking pragmatic nihilist

That means you have to define it in legal terms, ergo law codes, ergo constitution. You think you can just come up with random elements of a crime and call it a day? It's not so damn clear what is a theft and what isn't for someone who isn't a lawyer.

An unauthorized or fraudulent transfer of possession or control. "Real property" like land is owned by the State anyway.

Have fun burning and crashing, megalomaniac.

I gave one example. I'm not OP.

This is somewhat of a start. Follwoing the rojavan model (to me) also sounds GOAT

A constitution is great because then you can get totally non-democratic organs like the Supreme Court to enforce it, but nobody will complain. Then you can offload all of that work of enforcing the revolutionary doctrine to them, and managing the state is the job of democratically elected officials who are basically powerless to challenge the doctrine.

How's this?

You're just talking out of your ass. Behold, 200 years of evolution of legal dogmatics are rendered meaningless before your wisdom.
You can still steal personal property in communism. Besides, "theft" as a crime doesn't necessarily have to relate to property relations in terms of civil law. You can steal something that was stolen already, that's possible.

I love Stirner almost as much as I love myself.

I meant that attempting to appropriate real property would be an aggressive gesture against the State.

The definition I wrote encompasses cases when stolen property is being handled. It wasn't a serious definition anyway, so don't get your panties in a bunch.

Sorry, but all of your edgelording isn't going to prevent illegals from becoming a slave underclass.