Charles and Rakesh, this dialogue is going nowhere. Can you take it offlist?
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 03:47:39PM -0500, Charles Brown wrote: > Re: reform and rev > by Rakesh Bhandari > 24 January 2002 18:09 UTC > > > > > >>CB: I am not familiar with Pashakunis' liquidation specifics, > >>although I believe it was after the Bolsheviks were dissolved into > >>the CPSU. > > > >How convenient that you are not familiar with the history of the > >Soviet Union that you have defended on email lists for six years! > > If it were isolated event, no. > > ^^^^^^^ > > CB: This seems to reply to my asking you whether Pashakunis' death was a major event >in Soviet history. Nonetheless, the particulars of Pashakunis' death are not >ciritical knowledge for understanding Soviet history. I am familiar with the >intrigues, murders, etc. within the CPSU in the 30's etc. , and their role in Soviet >history. If you want to discuss that ok. > > Put is this way, I don't think it is likely that Pashakunis was murdered because he >had some "good" Marxist theory of jurisprudence, and Stalin wanted to cover up the >"good " theory and put forth a "bad" theory of Marxist jurisprudence. Does that speak >to what you are getting at ? > > Anti-Sovietism and Soviet baiting may make you feel good, and self-righteous but it >doesn't make good argumentation. > > > > > > > > >CB: The workers' are not the main owners of private property in > >capitalism. Nonetheless, what do you think is the important > >contribution in Pashakunis' writing ? > > Pashukanis seems to me to have demonstrated that legal relations do > have some objective basis in the relations of exchange. He overstates > the case, and he does not understand the connection to production. > > ^^^^^^^^ > > CB: Yes, and this point is Marxist jurisprudence 101 > > ^^^^^^^^ > > > > But drawing from Roger Cotterrell, I wrote on LBO a long time ago: > > Especially interesting, though I think incorrect, is his critique of > Pashukanis's reduction of the autonomous Kantian subject to the > codified illusion of the juridical subject (a dramatis personae) who > since she presumably can freely dispose of whatever she happens to > own can and should be bound by the contracts into which she enters. > > That is, legal reasoning cannot conceive of a contractual > relationship except as a formally free agreement of wills. The fact > that the actual freedom to negotiate is often non existent in > contractual situations (in particular of course for the working > class) does not allow us to dismiss this fundamental legal principle > as irrelevant mystification because it is through this assumption, in > defined circumstances, of free agreement that the general > justification for making contractual terms binding is found and the > binding obligations arising from the contracts are fixed in a > predictable manner according to general principles. As soon as the > idea of compulsory 'contract' is introduced--that is, as Pashukanis > notes, agreement which the parties are compelled to make in > furtherance of a plan imposing obligations on both or all of them--it > becomes extremely difficult to fix, through contractual rules, the > limits of their reciprocal obligations. > > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > CB: Yes, but this is more how I would discuss contracts in bourgeois jurisprudence. >Most employers and employees don't have equal bargaining power, meeting of the minds >is a fiction, contracts of adhesion, etc. But this way of discussing it seems devoid >of a specifically Marxist approach > > > > > > >What would be grounds for murder ? > > > I am against capital punishment. > > rb > > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
