Log in

View Full Version : Don't trust judges (CU 2011)



Die Neue Zeit
31st August 2011, 04:49
Mike Macnair of the CPGB talks provides a Marxist approach to law, lawyers and judges at Communist University 2011:

http://cpgb.podbean.com/2011/08/23/cu-2011-dont-trust-judges-mike-macnair/

Near the beginning he argues that the collapse of the legal into the political via soviets or people's courts, evokes Bakuninism. He also argues that left-populist calls for greater judicial action against press abuse is not the way to go. Furthermore, he mentions Lars Lih's term "state monopoly campaignism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-we-address-t109089/index.html?p=1447224)," a criticism of traditional socialist approaches to the mass media (nationalization).

The main case approach used for the main point traces the long history of UK unions being illegal at common law.

Solutions outlined starting at 41:00 or so:

1) Codification and periodic re-codification, so the law becomes more accessible to the public
2) Universal trial by jury, with more regular participation (more than once a year)
3) Flattening of judicial hierarchies (too many courts of appeal are advantageous to those with deep pockets)
4) Absorbing some judicial functions to the legislature, so final rulings should be passed to the legislature to be enacted as law

Macnair concludes by comparing Byzantine judicial approaches to Gothic judicial approaches and prefers the latter in light of the decay of law under today's society.

DaringMehring
1st September 2011, 02:09
Wait... so the legal system can be reformed under capitalism?

And this is a "Marxist approach to law"??

Q
1st September 2011, 21:09
Wait... so the legal system can be reformed under capitalism?

And this is a "Marxist approach to law"??

Perhaps you should listen to the argument being made first before you come up with strawmen.

DaringMehring
2nd September 2011, 00:26
Perhaps you should listen to the argument being made first before you come up with strawmen.

Sorry as a low wage worker I don't have the time to listen to 1 hr video if it doesn't look promising.

The OP listed "solutions" ... none of which involved defeating the social power of the bourgeoisie, none of which related to the legal system as the instrument of class rule, all of which seemed legalistic/procedural and reformist.

Got any clarification on that?

Vladimir Innit Lenin
3rd September 2011, 19:43
Universal trial by jury is certainly something that we have to defend at all costs, but the regularity should be put to a vote. It's a massive case of 'NIMBY'. People love being given the vote on these things (obviously), and from my experience prefer universal trial by jury, but don't often want to endure jury service themselves, certainly not more than once per year, considering most people rarely or never get called up in their lifetime, currently.

Die Neue Zeit
3rd September 2011, 20:53
Universal trial by jury is certainly something that we have to defend at all costs, but the regularity should be put to a vote. It's a massive case of 'NIMBY'. People love being given the vote on these things (obviously), and from my experience prefer universal trial by jury, but don't often want to endure jury service themselves, certainly not more than once per year, considering most people rarely or never get called up in their lifetime, currently.

We don't have universal trial by jury today. What's the point of "defending" something we don't have?

It would be interesting to put universal trial by jury to an annual vote, though.

BTW, I think comrade Macnair slipped into a short bout of sloganeering there. I know he meant way more than just "universal trial by jury," because he's known to have advocated juries deciding sentences or awarding damages. That's not part of the public perception of the word "trial" as applied to law (restricted to criminal trials determining guilt or innocence).

Given his background, I think a more appropriate term would be something like universal, full adjudication by (commoner) jury.


The OP listed "solutions" ... none of which involved defeating the social power of the bourgeoisie, none of which related to the legal system as the instrument of class rule, all of which seemed legalistic/procedural and reformist.

Got any clarification on that?

Comrade Macnair was addressing merely one aspect of a Marxist minimum program. Personally I think his proposed measures are more of a threshold thing rather than something necessary for a DOTP, but are nonetheless worth pursuing, along with other measures dealing with the legal system.

Die Neue Zeit
11th September 2011, 02:10
The video's up:

http://vimeo.com/28656760

There are some interesting comments on suggesting a German model for judges, as jury advisors, and also on the classical liberal concept of "self ownership" and tying modern compensation culture to actual class struggle.