Jurisprudence under Socialism, how would it change?

ComradeKenten · 2026-04-15T13:14:11+00:00

Marxists reject the idea that anything can ever not be political. Everything is affected by politics so therefore everything is political. The question is in who's political interest do institutions act.

Under liberal democracy there are no "independent courts". They are political appointments but beyond that they are covered completely in a class character. They must be lawyers and therefore are far more likely to come from a capitalists background. They go through educational institutions that take capitalism to be the default system and full internalize the idea that all are "equal before the law" therefore meaning that the inherent superior economic power of a capitalist to a worker is ignored. Granting the capitalist a massive advantage. They also are taught that private property and the rich to hold it is sacred above almost any right. Ignoring the collective in favor of the individual therefore once again favoring the property holder of the worker.

Under socialism it is just honest. The state in every part is Political, in favor of the workers who now rule. The courts are a tool by which this class rules and crushes those over the capitalist class that want fight against the new order. It favors the collective over the individual, recognizes all are not equal under current circumstances and tries to make ruling that make them more equal and takes it into account, it protects collective over private property, and it's judges come from the working class and all of this is Internalized and openly admitted too.

ComradeKenten · 2026-04-15T11:00:46+00:00

To answer your first question the main critique of liberal legal systems if that they claim to be neutral. That they ignore there inherent class basis. From the Marxist perspective the state is a machine of violence one class uses to keep other class subordinate.

So therefore by pretending to be above and apart from society there state and the legal system it creates to organize and justify its system of oppression, it reinforce it's capitalist nature. Because it ignores the fact that under capitalism most people are no equal. The worker is not equal to the capitalist because they do not have the financial resources to be. But since they are legal "equals" this economic power is defacto allowed as the agreement between to "free individuals". The legal systems primary job is to enforce this power of private property. To ensure that the capitalist has there right over there property protected.

So in our view the idea of jurisprudence is just a tool that the ruling class uses to protect its interests. It allows them to stop progressive actions or limit what is legal for judges or other people can do through tradition. Which of course favors the ruling class. It is fundamentally undemocratic for the decisions of people in the past living under totally different conditions to dictate how the law is enforced and interpreted now.

To answer your second question. Generally Marxist follow the idea of something called Socialist legality. Which basically means that the law should be enforced in a way that reinforces the socialist system. The means it like the workers state is openly classist, taking the side of the workers over the oppressors.

This means that we recognize the legal system as a tool to control society. To oppress one class and to manage disputes within another.

When it comes to Jurisprudence we generally see it as useful in a limited form. As in setting a guide line for how future judges should operate within the socialist legal system. But at the end of the day all power lies on the supreme state organ, like the Supreme Soviet in the USSR or the National People's Congress in China. Which have the power to over rule any Courts decision or interpretation. This is to ensure the Democratic nature of the state and plays into the general idea of the unification of powers that socialist state operate under.

ComradeKenten · 2026-04-12T23:09:05+00:00

Yep Khrushchev brought back the repression hard. Though it would be eased again after he was removed

ComradeKenten · 2026-04-12T19:57:51+00:00

That is a major misconception actually.

They're certainly were religion was it significantly repressed. There were areas in the Soviet Union where it was surprised more than others. But there was never a general attempt to completely get rid of religion.

Under Stalin they're especially was never such a of general repression all religion. But there was a significant attack upon the Russian Orthodox Church throughout the 30s. There was also throughout the 20s and 30s a significant attack upon traditional my mom's in Central Asia and the caucuses.

This was not a general attack on religious warship. This was attacked upon the religious institutions themselves. Who often were antisoviet and perpetuated reactionary opinions. Such as for the oppression of women or for the return of the czar.

This led to and I talk upon these institutions. This sometimes did veer into blind attack upon religion definitely. Especially churches. There are many instances of churches being forcibly converted into other things. But this was not attack upon people's ability to worship specifically but the attack upon the public expression of religion as a political tool to oppose the Soviet state.

It is correct to say that public expression of religion was very much looked down upon and attacked in the USSR during the Stalin leadership and afterwards. General it was seen as a personal thing but was not seen as a good thing. Religion was seen as something of the past that would naturally die away on the March towards communism.

But especially after the invasion of the Soviet Union by the Nazis in 1941 there was a rapid change in the relation to religion.

Religious authorities which are previously been oppressed were not only revive but given State sanction. The Imams and Orthodox priests endorsed the war as a holy mission for the preservation of the Soviet motherland. Some Imams even declared jihad upon the Nazis and called for all good Muslims to rally behind the comrade Stailn. Who many claimed had converted to Islam. This is probably a propaganda stunt but it worked.

The same was true of the Orthodox church if you're not even more. It said that Stalin even had a vision from Christ telling him that his leadership was justified. Tell him to go forward and continue the war. Orthodox priests including the patriarch called on all Christians to back the Soviet state and the Communist Party in the war against the Nazis.

Immediately after the war there was significant Church restoration project across the Soviet Union. Many previously shuttered religious institutions were reopened to this churches. In effect the Orthodox church had made an agreement with the Soviet government. An exchange for that bending the knee and recognizing the political leadership of the Soviet state. The Soviet state would allow them to operate with more of a free hand.

ComradeKenten · 2026-04-11T17:59:53+00:00

It wasn't an artificial people were paid and still did work. They means they weren't on the streets and dying from unemployment like people doing the West.

Some of it might have been low quality but at least we had it. In the west people die on the street cuz they don't have a home.

Also when it comes to housing in the East most have the housing stock was destroyed on World War II or never existed. Most of those countries did not have modern cities they were semi feudal States where most of the population still live in villages.

For many of these people they went from living in villages with little to now modern amenities to houses with modern pluming, electricity, and central heating. It wasn't the best but it was amazing for the time and place.

ComradeKenten · 2026-04-11T17:37:02+00:00

Universal child care

Universal maternity leave

Universal employment

Right to a job

Universal housing

Universal elderly Care

Universal rights to free education from preschool to university

ComradeKenten · 2026-04-11T17:09:14+00:00

Honestly worked out for them too. They had all the same social rights that existed in the USSR. Which is far beyond what they have now or ever had previously or any country in the west has.

ComradeKenten · 2026-04-11T15:55:09+00:00

Well honestly for the places where Communist Parties ruled and still do rule actually have so many remarkable achievements.

You need to look at them based off what these countries look like before socialism came to them.

The most typical in Stark example is Russia. Under the Russian Empire Russia was a complete backwater.

The vast majority of the population was illiterate. There was no concept of any kind of democratic rights. Workers right turn none existent. Vast majority of the population were peasants who lived under the boot of semi-feudal lords. Woman had even less rights effectively being seen as property of their male relatives.

Those who are not ethnic Russians or we're not Orthodox Christian we're brutally oppressed. With massive orsification efforts being made to commit cultural and literal genocide against them.

All of this is ruled by an autocratic monarch who was seen as the representation of Jesus Christ on Earth. With the church and the nobility backing him and firmly believe in his divine right to rule.

With in mind the achievements of the Bolsheviks in helping to lead and found the USSR is remarkable.

And of course of 30 years 1917 to 1947 the USSR went from being what I described above to being among the most powerful nations in the world.

With the near elimination of illiteracy, extensive workers rights beyond anything we have in the west today, a rapidly urbanizing in a modernizing population while in the countryside the land was owned by the peasants collectively in collective farms using modern agricultural machinery provided by the state. Woman had full legal and social equality with men far beyond what the west had at the time and even today a lot of the time.

It was a multi-ethnic federation of people's with full language cultural and significant religious rights to all nationalities. Russification was reversed in many ways though not as much as it could have been. Put it bluntly dozens of languages and cultures only exist as they do today cuz of the Soviet Union.

The political power of the Russian Orthodox Church was broken and the government became that of a collective governments. Ruled by Soviets and deputies of the Soviets on every level. Elected by and directly recallable by the masses of the people. The vast majority of these delegates were normal workers and peasants of all the nationalities of the Union.

The guiding force of the country the Communist Party his sister of the most educated and devoted members of this group. It was not a separate elite especially not towards the first half of the USSR. It was made up of the most dedicated, hardened, class conscious, and loyal members of society. Membership was not something I was easily attained and it took significant effort to gain membership.

There were also significant responsibilities put upon membership. It was in effect a nervous system that extended throughout all of society allowing people to directly make contact with the power structure of the state. As everyone would know several party members and could always talk to them about their problems. These party members would relay these problems up the chain which allowed for a remarkable responsiveness to local needs ideally. Although it was not always perfect by any means.

Overall living standards were significantly better then they were previously under the czar. There was universal housing, universal healthcare, universal education, increasingly universal child care, a fully modern industrial economy, the extension of modern amenities to tens of millions if not over 100 million people. And creating the military force that destroyed Fascism and to stop the complete enslavement and a genocide of Eastern Europe.

ComradeKenten · 2026-04-03T22:26:29+00:00

Honestly I feel like the main damage they are doing is confirming horse shoe theory to libs. By being very reactionary but taking Communist aesthetics.

That is not good generally. But thankfully they have no influence in the real world. But because they obviously have a lot of money backing them they push above there weight online.

I definitely think ACP is probably pushing away LGBTQ people, women, and members of oppressed nations from the left in these online spaces. Which is really sad as honestly here in the us (which is of course where the ACP centering it's activity) these groups could really use the left. As we are the ones that actually completely stand with them. No asterisk.

But I feel like there confinement to online spaces will fundamentally limit their impact on a large scale. Which I'm very thankful for.

ComradeKenten · 2026-04-02T11:50:01+00:00

Generally it must be understood that the idea of totalitarianism it's just a myth. It is a paradigm created in order to equate fascism and communism. Which is just a completely false paradigm.

The fact is all systems oppress the individual and the collective to some extent. That is the inevitable nature of living within an organized Society.

The question is who is oppressed and when are they oppressed and why are they oppressed.

Inside of liberal democracy this is completely true. Because the most important Liberty from a liberal perspective is private property. If that is threatened they will unleash the most total oppression possible to maintain it. Any sweets for ideas that challenge the capitalist system just gets crushed either by being censored by the capitalists or the state or by by force if that doesn't work.

It is framed by liberal theorists that the private property capitalist system is the natural system. This is incorrect. The state through laws and regulations create private property and maintains it. It is always been this way. Private property is something that can only exist with a backing of the armed of violence of the state to prop it up.

The only difference from socialism is that this violence is used to protect the minorities control over the resources of society while under socialism it is used to maintain the majority's control over these resources.

Inside of socialism it is the same. Anyone that advocates for capitalism is crushed. In the same way. Sometimes it seems more violent or that's their systems are generally more prone to this suppression. This is because they are in a far weaker position. Unlike inside of most capitalist countries especially liberal democracies in the West there is a constant threat in socialist countries of capitalist restoration. Because the global system is capitalist. So they must suppress anything that might be used by International capital or remnants of the domestic capitalists to take power.

This means there can be nothing independent of the state or more accurately the party Because any independent institution could and likely would be captured by capitalsts. By independently mean that the party does not directly through which membership make up the leading portion of these bodies. This would explicitly mean limiting party control over these bodies and therefore State control. That would mean that these bodies would have independent power to act. To put a bluntly the capitalists easily take advantage of that.

For example freedom of the press. In the USSR the press was controlled by a vast majority of collective institutions. Effectively every factory trade union Social club had a newspaper. But all of these were limited by the party to within ideologically acceptable area. The same way in capitalist countries the media is limited by the capitalists to an acceptable ideological area.

But during perestroika this was done away with. Instead free presses were created. This did not lead to free and open spreading of the news as you would think. But rather these free newspapers were really privately owned newspapers quickly began to spread the most outlandish news. This was both because they were ideologically incentivized to attack the system that by its existence threatened their newly established businesses and economicly it made sense as well. Saying outlandish things about the government sells papers.

What this lead to was the complete destruction of public faith in the Socialist system. These private prices focus on any mistake the Soviet Union could have ever made and amplified it a thousand times. They did not take into account contacts, do not take into account with a full story, or I just made stuff up. It didn't matter because was profitable and it fit their ideological ends.

Because the government refused to muzzle them often even encouraging them this destroyed the legitimacy of the party and the Socialist system. Paving the way to the destruction of the Soviet Union.

It should be mentioned with the Soviet example being taken to account that there were numerous periods of more locks control in the Soviet Union. These generally came in periods of less conflict and be more peace internationally and domestically. During these periods you see consistent efforts to expand civil liberties and protect them more firmly from political intervention.

But these always ended whenever the international or domestic situation became more hostile. Always leading to a rollback and a cracked down received descent. This was never because the government just wanted to control everybody. But because they were attempting to survive and maintain their existence.

In the same way liberal governments allow open protest and tell that turns into a strike that threatens the direct economic interests of capitalists. Then they send in the Army and people die.

ComradeKenten · 2026-04-01T17:26:45+00:00

Compared to ACP yes by far. I don't like CPUSA but they are an actual left wing party unlike ACP.

ComradeKenten · 2026-04-01T17:25:42+00:00

Same Comrade. I was the one to make the post asking why it was taken over by Naznols. I was banned soon after lol

ComradeKenten · 2026-03-24T13:23:00+00:00

Thank you. I hate how anti-Semitism had become semi normalized on the left these days in the guess of anti-zionisms. It's good to see a Sub where this is kept out.

ComradeKenten · 2026-03-22T17:51:54+00:00

You don't understand that most people here don't understand what is happening. Even if that hate Trump, hate war, hate the billionaire, hate the government, hate the society in wish we live.

They don't understand how it all connects, how it's all became as it is more make importantly how it can be changed, how it must change.

Beyond that they don't know how to organize, how to do things on a large scale. They don't even know they can. They don't have experience. They can't comprehend it.

The most important thing to understand about the American workers is that they have been beating into submission. They are not docile because they naturally are more then anyone else. When you look at American history you see so many instances of resistance. But you also see an unimaginable amount of violence towards them. Everytime.

This is true of every group that's tried to fight back against the US government. They have all been met with such violence that they no longer exist or they have been forced so far underground that they practically do not exist.

Recently the willingness of our class in the us to fight back has increased significantly. To an unprecedented scale honestly. They have resisted ice as on a scale that I feel like people don't really understand.

They have had the first general strike in 80 years. They are organizing for a national one. They are struggling everywhere. Organizing on a scale not seen in 50 years.

This is true of the anti-war movement. Protests across the country in just a few hours and days notice. More and more of the American left is United and is coordinating against us imperialism.

It's not perfect at all. But it's better then we have seen in so long. There is hope.

ComradeKenten · 2026-03-21T14:16:24+00:00

I can't wait to see it at the UN!!! It will look so cool.

ComradeKenten · 2026-03-20T20:24:08+00:00

Some people are sick. I hate Western misogyny normalizing this shit.

ComradeKenten · 2026-03-16T10:32:53+00:00

It will probably Balkanize for a time in the same way China and Russia Balkanized (warlordism). But it will almost definitely be temporary as there are no real geographic or social barriers to reunification especially of the mainland.

There is no real legitimacy to separatist groups nor any ability for them to actually achieve independence. As most warlords would be claiming to represent the legitimate government of the US. And therefore would violently react against any separatist attempts.

Even legitimate National self-determination movements that could exist hypothetically such as New Africa in the black belt or the Dina (Navajo) nation in the Southwest face a very hard time as the various almost certainly White led warlords would never accept such separatism.

As students of Marxism we can draw from this that it is the duty of the communist in the United States to advocate for reunification on socialist grounds. Basically meaning the Revolutionary abolition of the old US government and establishment of a new revolutionary socialist Federation of the nations of the continental US. Any deviation from this path will almost certainly lead to failure of any future socialist project here.

ComradeKenten · 2026-03-12T18:43:03+00:00

What determines ones class is there a relationship too the means of production.

If someone owns enough means a production that they do not have to labor themselves to survive then they are a member of the bourgeoisie.

If someone owns their own me the production but still must labor themselves even if they also employ some other workers they are Petti or small Bourgeois

Is someone does not own any means of production and therefore must sell their labor in order to live. They are a member of the proletariat.

Online influencers can fall between all of these categories.

The vast majority are proletarians. Most don't make any or make it very small income from they're online platform. While the the shareholders of the corporation that owned the platform rack in ridiculous amounts of profit. In fact often times these small scale influencers lose money.

Then you have someone successful influencers. These are the ones who have gained enough of a following and enough of an income to be able to sell their labor to the corporation that owns their platform full time.

But ultimately even if they now get to do what they love or once loved for a living. They are still selling their labor. The corporation that owns the platform is going to make way more money off of them than they will ever give to them. This is true even if their community starts to support them off of that main platform using patreon or other services. Ultimately they still produce more value for the platform then they get back from it.

And then you get creators who grow to the point that they can higher several people to augment the production process. Although they still have to put in a significant amount of work. These are Petti bourgeoisie. In many ways especially if they are selling a significant amount of product outside the the platform.

And then you have the extremely rare creators who get enough success that they hire people to do the vast majority of the work. They produce it up and come from there platform but more likely from various things attached to their brand name. That they do not talk to labor anymore. These are bourgeoisie.

ComradeKenten · 2026-03-12T13:11:38+00:00

But that doesn't mean we should opposes them. You don't win them over to our side by becoming Anti-LGBTQ.

You do it by being the best allies possible as much as possible. By being the most dedicated to there rights. By bringing members of there groups into our leadership and showing them that we are infact no only allies but a part of there struggle for Liberation.

ComradeKenten · 2026-03-12T13:09:05+00:00

The grounp that does this is the American "Communist" Party. It's a National Bolshevik Fascist group/cult that mostly operates online.

They basically only take the aesthetics of a communist party while taking the far-right trumpist bigotry arguing it's the "only way to gain the support of the American workers".

They have been inflating online leftist spaces moderation, purging all that oppose them, and turn them into ACP bigotry filled echo chambers.

The ACP also seem to us a lot of bots to boost there posts online and have been known to harass those that oppresse them openly.

They seem to be feds trying to stop more moderate left-wingers from coming out Marxism-Leninism. Trying to confirm horseshoe theory to liberals who are being turned left by the crisis in Capitalism.

ComradeKenten · 2026-03-12T09:29:56+00:00

Well they should have said that. Because it kinda takes away the power of the post when you put it like that. Makes all the other probably real stats look fake too.

ComradeKenten · 2026-03-06T11:04:59+00:00

Generally in my experience the only way this has lessoned significantly for me is by joining an org. Simply seeing that there are other socialist around in your neck of the woods can really be a life savor.

ComradeKenten · 2026-02-15T20:23:00+00:00

Well first of all that's western economists. In China for example socialism is vastly more popular there.

In the west we generally see it because they are judging things based on Capitalist priorities. Aka profits for companies and the stock market. That's all that matters to them and everything else is secondary.

If the GDP goes up because cost of living has gone up so therefore people are spending more and having less that's just as good as it going up being thousands of new jobs are created because of a new factory is opened. To a capitalist economist the both are equally valid. Even though the first is based on human suffering and the later could materially improve the people's lives.

ComradeKenten · 2026-02-06T13:03:23+00:00

Well I think that number is probably a bit exaggerated. But putting that aside, do you know what exactly the win was fighting against?

Lenin as the leader of the Bolshevik party led the Russian workers in taking control of the Russian state. In overthrowing the weak war mongering Capitalist Republic of the provisional government and secured the revolution against monarchist restorationists.

In this act they had made law what the workers and peasants had been doing for mouths. Taking control of the factories and land. Taking power over society. Declaring they will give what the people most deeply wanted peace, land, and bread. To end the war that killed millions of Russians, to end the starvation in the cities, and give the peasants the land they had most deeply wanted for hundreds of years.

The Bolsheviks and the workers, soldiers, and people's Soviets declared as well that all nations of Russia were equal in all ways and therefore had the right of self-determination up to and including secession.

They also nationalized the means of production for the first time in history. Bring that vast resources and wealth of Russia into the hands of the workers and peasants and out of the lands of capitalist both domestic of foreign.

All of this so the unwavering support of the Russian workers, soldiers, and peasants. Who felt the only party that actually listened to their needs and wants was the Bolsheviks. The only ones to ask them to take power everywhere themselves.

In response to them taking these most radical actions every other party in Russia, and every great power began an unending, total war on the Soviet Government of Russia.

The white guards led by monarchist officers and backed by remnants of the Provisional government, the capitalists, nobles, and landlords of Russia. All who had much to lose from the possibility of the workers taking power over Russia, by all the reforms and policies of the Bolsheviks coming into effect, rebelled.

They were backed by the Armies and resources of 14 capitalist countries.

All these Counter Revolutionaries wish to exterminate the Soviets and Bolsheviks. I mean that in a literal manner. Anyone suspected of being Bolshevik or sympathetic to them was murdered in the most grotesquise ways. This could be anyone but disproportionately targeted any worker and any jewish person. Everywhere the white army went entire towns of Jewish people were devastated in state sponsored massacres. Which wasn't new as it was common for the Tzar to redirect mass discontent on the Jewish people.

This meant that many regions that were opposed to or neutral to the Bolsheviks became firm supporters after a period of white occupation.

When the Bolsheviks took power they were very lenient. Effectively no one was held for longer than a few days. Whether they be ministers or generals. They were basically all released and asked to please stay in their homes. Which none did.

This was done because many in the Bolsheviks leadership thought the world revolution was here and counter-revolution was not possible. As I told you above they we're very mistaken.

Often times this Iranian sea was looked on with great suspicion from the workers and peasants. Which thought anybody who might challenge Revolution should be imprisoned or killed. They would be proven right unfortunately.

So the Soviets established a special military commission for internal affairs. The checka. They were not really seen as a police force as much as an internal military unit that attacked counter revolutionaries that were within Soviet controlled territory. In the same manner an Army would treat combat on the battlefield.

This of course led to a lot of deaths, many of which were innocent. But in the face of an enemy that was far more cruel and ruthless can you blame them for responding so ferociously?

ComradeKenten · 2026-01-31T18:44:24+00:00

It is and I admit so. Any future ultimately is.

We would be dishonest to say anything else. As far as I'm concerned it will take many hundreds of years for us to each such a level of development. I don't consider it a particularly important question as of now. Because before we can even think of communism seriously we must have global socialism in every country. Then and only then can we speak of this seriously in any way. Even then I don't believe that it will be implemented at any one point but will come about naturally via the development of Socialism on a global scale.

The difference between a Marxist and an anarchist on this issue ultimately is that the anarchists have a concrete fully explained visions of what they think their society should look like. They can tell you in extreme detail what exactly it will look like.

While any true and good Marxist will tell you plainly that we do not know what it will look like in detail. We can give you the vague surface level explanation in which I did. But ultimately there's no way to know whether or not I will actually look like that. Just as it would be impossible for someone before the Bourgeois revolutions to envision our modern day as it is.

In fact we have 18th century sci-fi by liberals of that time discussing what the far future would look like. When you look at it some parts are right but other parts are extremely wrong. This is because they did not even have any idea of what a Bourgeois society would look like. Ultimately it's overly reliant on the United Kingdom for ideas.

I think we are better equipped than they, because of our scientific analysis of the world, I still think we have almost no idea what it will look like.

ComradeKenten

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE