courts during the revolution and transition state

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
courts during the revolution and transition state
Printer-friendly version

i'm assuming these will exist, in what form? this is literally all i know from the example of russia

In 1917, the Soviet authorities formally repealed all Tsarist legislation and established a socialist legal system. This system abolished Western legal concepts including the rule of law, the civil liberties, the protection of law and guarantees of property.[3][4] Crime was determined not as the infraction of law, but as any action which could threaten the Soviet state.

For example, profiteering could be interpreted as a counter-revolutionary activity punishable by death. The deportation of the 'Kulaks' in 1928–31 was carried out within the terms of Soviet Civil Code.[1] Some Soviet legal scholars even asserted that "criminal repression" may be applied in the absence of guilt.".[1] Martin Latsis, chief of the Ukrainian Cheka explained:

"Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, hiseducation, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror."[5][

Proletarian justice and the 'Red Terror'



These articles are relevant: on 'proletarian justice', although it's not dealt with in great depth in this article looking at the programme of the Russian Communist party in 1919:


On 'Red terror', which we oppose:

thanks, will read tonight...

thanks, will read tonight... best wishes, and yeah, cool ...


ETA i think that, really, what's important is that the councils make the laws. whether or not the judgment is by some kind of separate organ.

i just really believe in the dynamic of the former.

I'm shocked that it's such a

I'm shocked that it's such a huge split with the Bordigists. I absolutely and unequivocably agree that terror can't put an end to terror.

What was Devrim's position on this? Not that it matters all that much, I am just HIGHLY concerned about this current in Communism.

i have absolutely no doubt

i have absolutely no doubt that if marx lived thru the 20th century he would not use the word "terror", which i think he did? even if a terroristic organisation could seize control of the working class, behind its back, under the banner of communism, i just have no doubt that it would become an organ of terror against the working class, and that the revolution would fail... from any perspective really

i mean even if the organisation itself could retain its revolutionary principles, and the working class was not pacified by its threats, even then you have to ask how the party could resist taking the place of the revolutionary violence of the class

Why is a subject field required?

lem_ wrote:
i'm assuming these will exist, in what form? this is literally all i know from the example of russia

That's off Wikipedia, yes? Well, notice the nice little elision between 1917 and 1928? Absent a careful reading, you'd think that the Soviet Civil Code was promulgated in full in 1917, as if the intervening decade never happened.

eh, sorry. yeah it's

eh, sorry. yeah it's wikipedia, edit it..!


I spent my lunchtime making notes to myself on relativism, moral nihilism and certainty... Would (humbly) suggest that it's important to allow any part of any working class organ to disagree with the rest of the organ, including the entire communist movement, whereas contradictions should not be tolerated.

So you have three workers (small soviet) A, B and C (kinda boring names in this soviet).

A and B argue for struggle, while C argues against it right now..

C should IMHO be permitted to disagree, but with the priviso that their argument is consistently expressed (even if it's cos i'm fucking sick of it right now) and that A and B are in no other way obliged to C because of C's disagreement.


It's kinda frightening, but I reckon (though won't bore anyone by 'arguing') that this is a kind of essence, so we can avoid red terror etc.

Some interesting political issues, lem_

What's the essential difference between 'disagreement' and 'contradiction', lem_, in a political sense?

In politics, 'power abhors a vacuum', and so there will always be a 'supreme court', 'final arbiter', 'world soviet', whatever one wants to call this 'final adjudicator'.

In your suggested model, of 'small soviets' A, B and C, there will always be an over-arching higher level 'bigger soviet', perhaps named '1'.

I'd suggest that this 'highest power' is the 'democratic world proletariat', and only this authority can determine just what constitutes a 'disagreement' or a 'contradiction' between its constituent soviets A, B and C, and how to politically resolve these issues.

FWIW, it's this issue of political authority that separates Marxists from Anarchists.

In my experience, the Anarchists tend to formulate questions like yours, because they haven't theoretically resolved this issue of democratic control, as opposed to low level/individual control.

And... what separates Marxists from Leninists is the political belief that the democratic producers, and not a party, is the supreme productive and political power.

I might as well go the whole hog with this answer...

... only the democratic producers can determine what 'truth' is, what 'time' is, what 'matter' is...

the difference is huge.  i

the difference is huge.

i will not argue with you on that, good luck with arguing with another