[late]

Not really a response since you're just quoting Wiki.

But it's interesting that all of the wikipedia quotes you cite here are Western legal sources of course @late

The Soviet concept of law was based on Marxism Leninism, not on the idea that the "state" had rights. It was a class based system, i.e. a system based on the rule an interests of the working class.

It's telling that the sources you cite complain that property wasn't front and center of their legal system: why would it have been? It was a system based on a planned economy and socialized property.

I brought the facts.

Rule of Law is a Western philosophy of law.

"In 1917, the Soviet authorities formally repealed all Tsarist legislation and established a socialist legal system. According to a critic, Richard Pipes, this system abolished Western legal concepts including the rule of law, civil liberties, the protection of law and guarantees of property." (In Soviet Russia the law was a weapon to suppress the workers, and anyone else that disagreed with the Politburo.)

It's even more telling that you think you can have Rule of Law without Rights...

[KurtFF8]

I brought the facts.

Nope, you brought your "lawyer friend" and opinion pieces from the West.

Rule of Law is a Western philosophy of law.

"In 1917, the Soviet authorities formally repealed all Tsarist legislation and established a socialist legal system. According to a critic, Richard Pipes, this system abolished Western legal concepts including the rule of law, civil liberties, the protection of law and guarantees of property." (In Soviet Russia the law was a weapon to suppress the workers, and anyone else that disagreed with the Politburo.)

It's even more telling that you think you can have Rule of Law without Rights...

Again you're essentially just quoting op ed pieces and claiming you're "bringing facts" when you're really just finding Cold Warrior academics to cite. For example in this quote, it's just a claim that the law "was a weapon to suppress the workers" which is absurd and just that: a claim.

[late]

Nope, you brought your "lawyer friend" and opinion pieces from the West.



Again you're essentially just quoting op ed pieces and claiming you're "bringing facts" when you're really just finding Cold Warrior academics to cite. For example in this quote, it's just a claim that the law "was a weapon to suppress the workers" which is absurd and just that: a claim.

Wiki is not an opinion piece, or op-ed.

The Soviets would deny a suspect sleep. After a few days, they would agree to anything.

We are far from perfect, but we don't routinely shoot a bullet in the back of the head.

What is hysterical is that this is not at all controversial. Russian literature, both before and after the Soviets came to power, is replete with examples that demonstrate the lack of Rule of Law. After the fall of the Soviet system, we got access to the records, it is what it is.

[KurtFF8]

Wiki is not an opinion piece, or op-ed.

Wikipedia is not itself a source, it links to other sources for claims. And in the case of what you posted: the sources are exclusively American Cold Warrior anti-Communist academics. And even what was cited simply is a list of claims rather than an actual work on the topic.

The Soviets would deny a suspect sleep. After a few days, they would agree to anything.

Certainly not going to defend every method of punishment that the Soviets used, but it's ironic to see Americans complain about this while the US has in the very recent past run actual torture facilities.

We are far from perfect, but we don't routinely shoot a bullet in the back of the head.

The US still executes people through methods largely considered inhumane.

What is hysterical is that this is not at all controversial. Russian literature, both before and after the Soviets came to power, is replete with examples that demonstrate the lack of Rule of Law. After the fall of the Soviet system, we got access to the records, it is what it is.

No it isn't. There was an entire legal system in the USSR. You may not like how it functioned or what its purpose is (you seem to be upset by the fact that it wasn't capitalist, for example) but the idea that there was "no rule of law" is just objectively false.

[late]

No it isn't. There was an entire legal system in the USSR. You may not like how it functioned or what its purpose is (you seem to be upset by the fact that it wasn't capitalist, for example) but the idea that there was "no rule of law" is just objectively false.

It's Rule of Law, you need the capital letters... If it's a casual reference, you can skip it. But when one is talking legal philosophy, the capitalisation calls attention to it's status within legal theory.

You don't realise it, but you keep helping me prove my point.

[KurtFF8]

It's Rule of Law, you need the capital letters... If it's a casual reference, you can skip it. But when one is talking legal philosophy, the capitalisation calls attention to it's status within legal theory.

You don't realise it, but you keep helping me prove my point.

The USSR was not some lawless place like you're incorrectly framing it.

[Verv]

The USSR was not some lawless place like you're incorrectly framing it.

Hayek actually stated that, for rule of law to actually occur, the law has to be transparent, fairly applied, and it has to be something that is deduced from principle.

I think you can argue that, at points, the USSR had something like the rule of law, certainly, but it does appear to be the case that you can at least argue that there never was from the perspective of someone who would say they failed to be democratic and treat all as equal before the law.

We do not even have to invoke a really dramatic example - the wolf ticket is a great example of this.

[KurtFF8]

Hayek actually stated that, for rule of law to actually occur, the law has to be transparent, fairly applied, and it has to be something that is deduced from principle.

I think you can argue that, at points, the USSR had something like the rule of law, certainly, but it does appear to be the case that you can at least argue that there never was from the perspective of someone who would say they failed to be democratic and treat all as equal before the law.

We do not even have to invoke a really dramatic example - the wolf ticket is a great example of this.

Hayek is of course not someone to be taken seriously when discussing the USSR.

And even by the way you've framed his criterion here, the USSR would have been a great example of a place where the "rule of law" applied.

It seems that often people conflate the fact that state repression occurred in the USSR with total anarchy or lack of rights. This is a false dichotomy.

[Verv]

Hayek is of course not someone to be taken seriously when discussing the USSR.

And even by the way you've framed his criterion here, the USSR would have been a great example of a place where the "rule of law" applied.

It seems that often people conflate the fact that state repression occurred in the USSR with total anarchy or lack of rights. This is a false dichotomy.

Yeah, but if yuo are a classical liberal you can argue that it's not real rule of law because there is not any law that is truly made through a democratic process or that is transparently and equally applied - it would be debatable! But I see why someone would take the debate.

And I think you are right that there would be very little lawlessness and anarchy - it is just that tyranny is not what we would mean by rule of law.

[late]

The USSR was not some lawless place like you're incorrectly framing it.

Didn't say that.

It's time for you to learn what Rule of Law is..

[KurtFF8]

Yeah, but if yuo are a classical liberal you can argue that it's not real rule of law because there is not any law that is truly made through a democratic process or that is transparently and equally applied - it would be debatable! But I see why someone would take the debate.

And I think you are right that there would be very little lawlessness and anarchy - it is just that tyranny is not what we would mean by rule of law.

Not sure why Marxists should take classical liberals seriously when it comes to commentary on the law of the USSR. And a "democratic process" is a very politically loaded term. For example, was the US constitution, the foundation of all US law, really created through a "democratic process"?

And again, saying that the USSR was something like "tyranny" is just a political loaded term that has little analytical value.

Didn't say that.

It's time for you to learn what Rule of Law is..

A non response.

[late]

Not sure why Marxists should take classical liberals seriously

when it comes to commentary on the law of the USSR.

And a "democratic process" is a very politically loaded term. For example, was the US constitution, the foundation of all US law, really created through a "democratic process"?

And again, saying that the USSR was something like "tyranny" is just a political loaded term that has little analytical value.

The feeling is mutual.

Russia uses an old understanding of the purpose of law. The law is the means by which the status quo is maintained.

During the Enlightenment; that idea was made rational. That there needs to be a balance struck between competing interests. That the interests of the state were best served when everyone was treated justly.

There is a symbol of this ideal outside many courts, a statue of Lady Justice. She holds a balance scale, a symbol of the attempt to strike a balance between competing interests.

The emphasis on rationality is why we have 3 competing branches of government. If the president goes too far, both the Congress and the courts have the responsibility to put a limit on his power.

In Russia, the courts serve the state, and there is no one to check Putin's power.

[Rugoz]

And again, saying that the USSR was something like "tyranny" is just a political loaded term that has little analytical value.

Stalin's purges were the very definition of tyranny and lawlessness.

[Tainari88]

The feeling is mutual.

Russia uses an old understanding of the purpose of law. The law is the means by which the status quo is maintained.

During the Enlightenment; that idea was made rational. That there needs to be a balance struck between competing interests. That the interests of the state were best served when everyone was treated justly.

There is a symbol of this ideal outside many courts, a statue of Lady Justice. She holds a balance scale, a symbol of the attempt to strike a balance between competing interests.

The emphasis on rationality is why we have 3 competing branches of government. If the president goes too far, both the Congress and the courts have the responsibility to put a limit on his power.

In Russia, the courts serve the state, and there is no one to check Putin's power.

The issue is how much money do you need to raise to even be in contention in the party system you got now? The average budget to get a successful campaign is bad in the USA. It is very high.

Most politicians in the US elections are millionaires or on their way shortly of becoming millionaires.

The ones who make the least in politics tend to be socialists. Lol. The ones who make the most are neoliberals, liberals and conservatives. Those are facts Late.

As of 2020, over half of the members of Congress were millionaires and the median net worth of members was approximately $1 million. The original documents for each member's disclosure are publicly available on a database website, maintained by OpenSecrets. 118th Congress?


It is mostly a plutocracy.

List of current members of the United States Congress by wealth


This article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(January 2021)
This list of members of the United States Congress by wealth includes the fifty richest members of Congress as of 2018. It displays the net worth (the difference between assets and liabilities) for the member and their immediate family, such as a spouse or dependent children. These figures offer only an estimation of wealth, as the Congressional financial disclosure rules use value ranges instead of exact amounts.[1] As an upper range is not specified for values over $50 million (or over $1 million for a spouse), large assets are not represented accurately. Additionally, government salaries and personal residences are not typically included in disclosures.[2] Furthermore, several members of Congress do not use a standardized electronic format, instead filing reports that range from vague to indecipherable.[3] As of 2020, over half of the members of Congress were millionaires and the median net worth of members was approximately $1 million.[4]
The original documents for each member's disclosure are publicly available on a database website, maintained by OpenSecrets.[5]

Since 2009, the salaries per annum of members of the United States Congress have been as follows:[6]

Position Salary
Speaker of the House of Representatives $223,500
Majority leader and minority leader of the House of Representatives $193,400
President pro tempore of the Senate $193,400
Senators and representatives $174,000
Non-voting members of the United States House of Representatives $174,000
As of 2019 and 2018, the top 50 wealthiest members of the United States Congress were as follows:

Source: OpenSecrets (2019 and 2018)[4][5]
Rank Name Party State Chamber Serving in the
118th Congress? Net worth ($ million)
1 Kevin Hern Republican Oklahoma House Yes 361.0*
2 Rick Scott Republican Florida Senate Yes 259.7
3 Mark Warner Democratic Virginia Senate Yes 214.1
4 Greg Gianforte Republican Montana House No 189.3
5 Paul Mitchell Republican Michigan House No 179.6
6 Mitt Romney Republican Utah Senate Yes 174.5
7 Vernon Buchanan Republican Florida House Yes 157.2
8 Mike Braun Republican Indiana Senate Yes 136.8
9 Don Beyer Democratic Virginia House Yes 124.9
10 Dean Phillips Democratic Minnesota House Yes 123.8
11 Nancy Pelosi Democratic California House Yes 114.7
12 John Hoeven Republican North Dakota Senate Yes 93.4
13 Suzan DelBene Democratic Washington House Yes 79.4
14 Fred Upton Republican Michigan House No 79.0
15 Ron Johnson Republican Wisconsin Senate Yes 78.5
16 Roger Williams Republican Texas House Yes 67.0
17 Buddy Carter Republican Georgia House Yes 66.5
18 Jim Risch Republican Idaho Senate Yes 41.8
19 Mitch McConnell Republican Kentucky Senate Yes 34.1
20 Steve Daines Republican Montana Senate Yes 32.9
21 Scott Peters Democratic California House Yes 60.5*
22 Rick W. Allen Republican Georgia House Yes 52.1*
23 Joe Kennedy III Democratic Massachusetts House No 46.5*
24 Ralph Norman Republican South Carolina House Yes 43.4*
25 Kenny Marchant Republican Texas House No 33.7*
26 Lloyd Doggett Democratic Texas House Yes 29.7*
27 Brad Schneider Democratic Illinois House Yes 27.2*
28 Nita Lowey Democratic New York House No 24.8*
29 Jim Sensenbrenner Republican Wisconsin House No 21.8*
30 Phil Roe Republican Tennessee House No 20.2*
31 Richard Shelby Republican Alabama Senate No 19.1*
32 John Yarmuth Democratic Kentucky House No 17.1*
33 Jim Cooper Democratic Tennessee House No 16.3*
34 Michael Bennet Democratic Colorado Senate Yes 15.7*
36 Tom Rice Republican South Carolina House No 14.6*
37 Bill Foster Democratic Illinois House Yes 14.1*
38 Dan Newhouse Republican Washington House Yes 13.8*
39 Carolyn Maloney Democratic New York House No 13.0*
40 Earl Blumenauer Democratic Oregon House Yes 12.6*
41 Mike Kelly Republican Pennsylvania House Yes 12.4*
42 Mike Conaway Republican Texas House No 12.4*
43 Ralph Abraham Republican Louisiana House No 12.4*
44 Markwayne Mullin Republican Oklahoma Senate[a] Yes 11.4*
45 Ann Wagner Republican Missouri House Yes 11.1*
46 Jackie Speier Democratic California House No 11.0*
47 Thom Tillis Republican North Carolina Senate Yes 11.0*
48 Rob Portman Republican Ohio Senate No 10.8*
49 Lisa Blunt Rochester Democratic Delaware House Yes 10.7*
*based on 2018 information[5]

Most of them make their money becoming lobbyists or consultants and speakers for corporations or industries in their home states. Many do not really represent the working class in their districts. They have no real interest in the interests of people who do not have at least 10 million dollars in assets.

Meanwhile the average American or about 60% of the US population that is an adult and or working is making this:

American Worker Salary
Annual Salary Monthly Pay
Top Earners $53,500 $4,458
75th Percentile $44,000 $3,666
Average $38,955 $3,246
25th Percentile $31,500 $2,625

So the political class is not representative of the majority of the people who are eligible to vote in the US. How is that not tyrannical? They do not give a shit about Joe Blow making 2k a month in Kokomo, Indiana.

[Verv]

Not sure why Marxists should take classical liberals seriously when it comes to commentary on the law of the USSR. And a "democratic process" is a very politically loaded term. For example, was the US constitution, the foundation of all US law, really created through a "democratic process"?

And again, saying that the USSR was something like "tyranny" is just a political loaded term that has little analytical value.

No, the US Constitution was not created through a democratic process - there's a great book about that, Conspiracy in Philadelphia I think it's called.

Marxists should care what classical liberals think if they want to engage with the rest of the world and be better than classical liberals who don't care what Marxists think. Here we see more of your smug attitude about others: Who cares if Candace Owens is factually right about something if she's yucky.

This is a very poor attitude.

... You would know better than me that the Soviet Union had radical shifts in its own policies concerning what rights were reserved to the people, and the treatment of dissidents would vary wildly from period to period...

Why is that?

Probably because each leadership philosophy was different as well as each set of circumstances was also different...

Marxists are just like other people: some of them are very concerned about being non-coercive and working within a framework that respects individual autonomy, and some are a little bit yuck.

So I would suggest that some Marxists would link up well with the Whigs and differ with them only in terms that their Whig history became the Marxist theory of history where the progressive increase of liberty for all men also took on the dimension of the progressive increase of equality and shared prosperity...

And then there are yucky Commies.

[Tainari88]

@Verv One Commie that aint Yucky on PoFo is @Potemkin. He is a fine man. And very intelligent.

Nothing yucky about him. Hee hee.

Now, the Trump supporters of the past on PoFo like Hindsite? Yucky all the way. See?

[Verv]

@Verv One Commie that aint Yucky on PoFo is @Potemkin. He is a fine man. And very intelligent.

Nothing yucky about him. Hee hee.

Now, the Trump supporters of the past on PoFo like Hindsite? Yucky all the way. See?

Yes, and yuo know what is interesting, the man I talk about politics and social issues the most IRL is a Marxist who is now something of a post-Marxist...

But I think I will vote for Trump over Biden. Not because I am on board with everything, but because I do want to throw a monkey wrench into the system, and certainly Trump is a monkey wrench.

[KurtFF8]

The feeling is mutual.

Russia uses an old understanding of the purpose of law. The law is the means by which the status quo is maintained.

During the Enlightenment; that idea was made rational. That there needs to be a balance struck between competing interests. That the interests of the state were best served when everyone was treated justly.

There is a symbol of this ideal outside many courts, a statue of Lady Justice. She holds a balance scale, a symbol of the attempt to strike a balance between competing interests.

The emphasis on rationality is why we have 3 competing branches of government. If the president goes too far, both the Congress and the courts have the responsibility to put a limit on his power.

In Russia, the courts serve the state, and there is no one to check Putin's power.

It seems like you're changing the topic to contemporary Russia. We were talking about the USSR.

[Tainari88]

Yes, and yuo know what is interesting, the man I talk about politics and social issues the most IRL is a Marxist who is now something of a post-Marxist...

But I think I will vote for Trump over Biden. Not because I am on board with everything, but because I do want to throw a monkey wrench into the system, and certainly Trump is a monkey wrench.

Monkey wrench?

He is a ticking time bomb.

But, the people who are behind him are behind Biden as well. They cover their asses and make sure that it won't matter who is in the White House, their interests are secure.

Those are the people you are dealing with Verv.

[Verv]

Monkey wrench?

He is a ticking time bomb.

But, the people who are behind him are behind Biden as well. They cover their asses and make sure that it won't matter who is in the White House, their interests are secure.

Those are the people you are dealing with Verv.

I appreciate your concern but I truly and faithfully believe he cannot permanently damage the Republic. In fact, I think what damages the government permanently is trying to prevent populist sentiment from letting us have a President who gets to try to fulfill his mandate legally...

And that's just the faith in the institutions.

Let there also be a very far left President if the time comes - if they win the election, let them be fought in the legislature, and let only proper, principled decisions from the judiciary concerned purely with legal precedent be an impediment...

I believe in the Constitution, and if it is grossly violated I will be there with the people fighting the government, even if they are on the left and suspicious of me.

You can say I am completely wrong and a fool but I promise you... if I am wrong on this I will apologize and feel it.