> > >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 ?
In part. The murder could well have also been somewhat arbitrary so as to terrorize the population as well. > > > >CB: Yes, and this point is Marxist jurisprudence 101 The point I made was not Marxist jurisprudence 101. In fact I made no point. I only indicated what the points of criticism may be. > > >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 Yes the free suject of contract theory is a fiction but it is a fiction the origins of which has to explained and that the law may not be able to do without; and it is a fiction that may undergird the law in general, not simply the law of contracts. The compatability of law and socialism thus became a topic of investigation. And for raising such questions, Pashakunis was murdered. RB
