Supreme courts under socialism

[Dimentio]

I wonder, why do marxist-leninists and other revolutionary leftists look down upon the prospect of "checks'n'balances" in the context of socialist revolutionary states?

I mean, an independent supreme court which would use the legal framework to stop for example one leader to accomplish a personality cult or to purge his opponents with fake trials.

What's wrong with that idea?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I don't know; I think the idea is very good. In fact, sometimes I think that the separation of powers ("checks and balances") is absolutely essential to prevent a socialist state sliding into a bureaucratic dictatorship.

In particular, I would like the economic power to be separated from the executive and legislative, so that the people making the laws (or enforcing them) are not the same people who are in charge of the economy.

[Dimentio]

I don't know; I think the idea is very good. In fact, sometimes I think that the separation of powers ("checks and balances") is absolutely essential to prevent a socialist state sliding into a bureaucratic dictatorship.

In particular, I would like the economic power to be separated from the executive and legislative, so that the people making the laws (or enforcing them) are not the same people who are in charge of the economy.

I am in agreement there. The economic decisions should be left to other people than those who are in the central committee. It is unfathomable why there is such a love for extreme centralisation within marxist-leninist states. I could understand democratic centralism within a party, but not within a state.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible." - The Communist Manifesto

[Dimentio]

Yes, but that A) does'nt say how the composition of said state should look like, and B) obviously does'nt work in a literalist interpretation.

Any other argument why division of power is wrong, if that is what you meant?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Well, I am of a mixed opinion here. My most recent blog talks of the Paris Commune example, combining legislative and executive and not subject to judicial review. However, Kwisatz may be suggesting something different here. For example, culture should have its own combined bodies of participatory democracy and/or sortition-based representative democracy. The economy, of course, would have its own set of bodies for economic planning.

* By "economy," I mean that, if money is still not yet replaced with labour credits, I'm not sure if central banking activity (printing $$$ and interest rates) and other "macroeconomic" activity (taxation) would be separate from Gosplan-style activity. *

[Elway]

The United States was not prepared for Judicial Review and U.S. Supreme Court supremacy when announced in Marburry v. Madison (1803, I think.)

Here, the USSC simply stated the Supremacy Clause of the federal constitution would be interpreted by the Court, as well as all federal law, and those sections not in complience with the constitution would be void.

THE first question this thread begs is, "Should there always be SOME organization that is the final arbiter of what is socialist?"

If your answer is no; that is, let the power of what has been called the "soviets" fight with the army, and fight with the party, and fight with the power structure, that's okay I guess. You get a CONSTANT check and balance, with no resoltuion (which is not entirely bad, I suppose.)

If you want an "end"; that is SOME stop to it all, that everyone respects, you need to pick one everyone will agree with.

Here, the USA has been VERY successful. Only one president in its history, Jackson, told the USSC to go fly a kite, and there was no retribution. (The Court admits they have no power to "enforce" its opinions; it counts on Congress and the President to accept them.

Judicial Review has been a great success in the USA, and western Europe. Most people accept their decisions as final, and state and federal government agencies bend their actions to the Court's decisions.

I wonder if socialists would have the same interest in doing so?

[Dimentio]

I hope so. Compare the level of domestic human rights violations in capitalist states where the rule of law is mostly respected, and where it is not.

I think it is paramount to socialism that we learn to separate persons from ideas, and to subject the leaders to popular and legal control. Otherwise, I think it is impossible to implement socialism in the long run.

[Elway]

Which is exactly why, Serpent, I don't do personality cults. Socialims has to stand on its own legs.

Someone started a thread reporting an announcement of Mao's grandson (I think) and how he, the grandson, stated he is the ONE to lead China back to the correct, socialist road.

Why? WTF?

Here's one thing the U.S. Constitution got right: I don't know the part, but Congress can't grant titles of nobility to anyone, and that's exactly what this grandson's trying to exact from society: Recognition for being someone's relation. DISGUSTING!!!

Same thing w/ Latin America: Build SOMETHING that allows for transition of some kind, otherwise we're just feeding someone's ego.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think there needs to be some measures that prevent the majority from enforcing itself onto minorities, but the Supreme Court seems arcane if you think about it: you're basically relying on seven, eight, or nine judges to interpret all laws in the country, with no accountability other than being subject to the same law they interpret.

[Elway]

GeneCosta,

You definatly have a point. It can be arcane. But no one said it had to be 9, merely 'cause the U.S. one is 9.

Also, when President Jefferson heard the Court was imposing itself as the final arbiter of what is and what isn't constitutional, he flipped (a little.) He argued (to the walls, probably, no, just kidding, to his aids and cabinet members), that if some oganization had to be the FINAL authority of the Constitution, it should be Congress. (Of course, that didn't even work in theory, 'cause since the Constitution has a bunch of stuff stating what Congress can and can't do, it would be kinda dumb to put them in charge of determining what it all meant.)

It does make sense that a body, separate with no axe to grind, make the final judgement on what "socialsim, equality, and distribution of society's bounty" would mean in a post-Revolutionary society. What that would look like exactly, your guess is as good as mine.

I would personally suggest that, unlike the federal constitution of the USA, the members wouldn't serve for life, but for a 20 year, non-repeating term. That may make them more close to an understanding of what a current generation is going through.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Well, now that I think about it there technically *is* a way to overrule the Supreme Court - through a constitutional or legislative amendment.

I do think the Soviet Union proved that checks and balances are always a positive.

[MarxSchmarx]

With respect to "what constitutes socialism", there is no better judge than the people. This is what we mean when we talk of radical democracy. There is no place in socialism for an elite few to veto the will of the people.

Thus, this entire discussion boils down to minority rights. This is the only conceivably sensible role for an institutions such as a "supreme court". Genuine minority rights, which imply a categorical right to do as one pleases so long as one does not directly infringe on the same rights of others, will be protected only by the abolition of the bourgeois state. Even under "transitional" socialism, the goal should be to weaken state power viz. personal, victimless decisions. I am more confident this objective can be met though a socialist, democratic legislature rather than a few "council of elders". Such elites have betrayed one too many revolutions to ever be trusted again.

[Comrade B]

I mean, an independent supreme court which would use the legal framework to stop for example one leader to accomplish a personality cult or to purge his opponents with fake trials.

What's wrong with that idea?
The supreme court in the US is established in a very stupid way- Whoever is in charge at the time of the retirement of one of the supreme courts members gets to select the next one, and they will naturally choose a puppet of theirs. I do not think the idea of checks and balances can work, when the people checking each other are all palled up for a united purpose.

However, I do think that we do require more than one branch of leadership, this is not a horrible idea. It prevents one slightly warped view from having a huge influence on all the other portions. The US has prevented radical left control and even more radical right wing control throughout its history because of this. If we want a stable communist state which will not stray to becoming state capitalist or a deformed worker's state, we need multiple people watching each other cautiously, preventing greed from grabbing one of the other members.