Apoi_Viitor
21st March 2011, 02:20
So, what caused this to occur? Is it because rule of law becomes blurry in revolutionary times? Is it due to the non-democratic nature of previous socialist states?
Currently, my reasoning, is that due to the marxist focus on "base-superstructure" relations, socialist states seem to care little about legal institutions, because it is assumed that they just reflect the power relations in a given society. So according to that rationale, justice in capitalist societies always favor the bourgeios, while justice in a socialist society will always be favorable to the proletariat - because both are mere reflections of the dominant mode of production. EX:
TROTSKY:
“The defense of the revolution must be the supreme law.” Defense against whom? The bourgeoisie in power defends “its” revolution against the proletariat. Whoever conceals this fact behind hollow phrases on the defense in general of the revolution in general against enemies in general, helps the bourgeoisie to stifle the proletariat under the banner of the revolution.
Also
FOUCAULT:
Yes, but I would like to ask you a question. When, in the United States, you commit an illegal act, do you justify it in terms of justice or of a superior legality, or do you justify it by the necessity of the class struggle, which is at the present time essential for the proletariat in their struggle against the ruling class?
CHOMSKY:
Well, here I would like to take the point of view which is taken by the American Supreme Court and probably other courts in such circumstances; that is, to try to settle the issue on the narrowest possible grounds. I would think that ultimately it would make very good sense, in many cases, to act against the legal institutions of a given society, if in so doing you're striking at the sources of power and oppression in that society.
However, to a very large extent existing law represents certain human values, which are decent human values; and existing law, correctly interpreted, permits much of what the state commands you not to do. And I think it's important to exploit the fact...
FOUCAULT:
So it is in the name of a purer justice that you criticise the functioning of justice ?
There is an important question for us here. It is true that in all social struggles, there is a question of "justice". To put it more precisely, the fight against class justice, against its injustice, is always part of the social struggle : to dismiss the judges, to change the tribunals, to amnesty the condemned, to open the prisons, has always been part of social transformations as soon as they become slightly violent. At the present time in France the function of justice and the police is the target of many attacks from those whom we call the "gauchistes". But if justice is at stake in a struggle, then it is as an instrument of power; it is not in the hope that finally one day, in this or another society, people will be rewarded according to their merits, or punished according to their faults. Rather than thinking of the social struggle in terms of "justice", one has to emphasise justice in terms of the social struggle.
Currently, my reasoning, is that due to the marxist focus on "base-superstructure" relations, socialist states seem to care little about legal institutions, because it is assumed that they just reflect the power relations in a given society. So according to that rationale, justice in capitalist societies always favor the bourgeios, while justice in a socialist society will always be favorable to the proletariat - because both are mere reflections of the dominant mode of production. EX:
TROTSKY:
“The defense of the revolution must be the supreme law.” Defense against whom? The bourgeoisie in power defends “its” revolution against the proletariat. Whoever conceals this fact behind hollow phrases on the defense in general of the revolution in general against enemies in general, helps the bourgeoisie to stifle the proletariat under the banner of the revolution.
Also
FOUCAULT:
Yes, but I would like to ask you a question. When, in the United States, you commit an illegal act, do you justify it in terms of justice or of a superior legality, or do you justify it by the necessity of the class struggle, which is at the present time essential for the proletariat in their struggle against the ruling class?
CHOMSKY:
Well, here I would like to take the point of view which is taken by the American Supreme Court and probably other courts in such circumstances; that is, to try to settle the issue on the narrowest possible grounds. I would think that ultimately it would make very good sense, in many cases, to act against the legal institutions of a given society, if in so doing you're striking at the sources of power and oppression in that society.
However, to a very large extent existing law represents certain human values, which are decent human values; and existing law, correctly interpreted, permits much of what the state commands you not to do. And I think it's important to exploit the fact...
FOUCAULT:
So it is in the name of a purer justice that you criticise the functioning of justice ?
There is an important question for us here. It is true that in all social struggles, there is a question of "justice". To put it more precisely, the fight against class justice, against its injustice, is always part of the social struggle : to dismiss the judges, to change the tribunals, to amnesty the condemned, to open the prisons, has always been part of social transformations as soon as they become slightly violent. At the present time in France the function of justice and the police is the target of many attacks from those whom we call the "gauchistes". But if justice is at stake in a struggle, then it is as an instrument of power; it is not in the hope that finally one day, in this or another society, people will be rewarded according to their merits, or punished according to their faults. Rather than thinking of the social struggle in terms of "justice", one has to emphasise justice in terms of the social struggle.