Socialist system of law?

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
Name
Email
Subject	Spoiler Image
Comment
Captcha Tor Only
Flag
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

File: 1695114859549.jpg ( 35.71 KB , 319x500 , law.jpg )

Socialist system of law? Anonymous 2023-09-19 (Tue) 09:14:19 No.474047

Hello, I hate leftoids.

Can someone explain to me why there are no marxists books on constitutionalism and the system of law in general? Countless books have been written about some irrelevant philosophycel wankings, but the only book that deals with the system of law, this fundamental concept of bourgeois society, is by Pashukanis, and by modern russkie constitutionalists, who analyze the soviet practice of law from their own positions, and who unironically vindicate Pashukanis's position that there could be no such thing as a "proletarian law", because the system of law in the Soviet Union was a fiction, a hollow imitation of the bourgeois institutions.

Anonymous 2023-09-19 (Tue) 09:31:30 No.474048

>>474047
>the system of law in the Soviet Union was a fiction, a hollow imitation of the bourgeois institutions.
this also poses an interesting question from a histmat perspective of WHY there was an objective need to imitate those institutions? WHY the need for a decorative, formal, constitution? WHY the need for a complex hierarchy of legal norms completely removed from reality?

Anonymous 2023-09-19 (Tue) 12:29:37 No.474051

you're a faggot

Anonymous 2023-11-15 (Wed) 12:39:30 No.476740

>>474047
>Hello, I hate leftoids.
Basiert.

>>474048
>>the system of law in the Soviet Union was a fiction, a hollow imitation of the bourgeois institutions.
>WHY there was an objective need to imitate those institutions?
Because the ruling class wants to isolate itself from the other class(es) as much as possible, political system being the main obstacle between them.
Dang, really makes you think why would a commodity producing corporate-state want to ape the same procedures its commodity producing corporativist states partners in trade always did. Surely they weren't exchanging their collective experience in this regard.

Unique IPs: 2