>>> "rc-am" <rcollins at netlink.com.au> 04/24/99 10:47AM >>>
>CB
>If and when the working class has enough power (and consciousness) to get
this passed, they will have to have enough power to get its definitions
passed.
this is odd. Germany has had racial vilification laws and it has done nada to stem the racism there, the definition of what constituted racism was not very broad or broad enough to include anything more than symbols; and the introduction of these laws was enacted at the same time as the increasing criminalisation of the left.
)))))))))))))))))))
CB: The German and French examples are contra your general criticism on this thread. Their definitions of "racism" and "racial vilification" are politically correct from a left point of view. Even these reforms in capitalism were anti-fascist and not used to attack oppressed national and racial groups.
((((((((((((
>CB: Do you anticipate socialism as having no law ? We will still have law
and lawyers with socialism. Plus, the movement needs People's lawyering to
clarify the legal goals of the revolution, how socialism will change
bourgeois
law.
I sincerely hope the revolution will not have legal advisors. btw, have you read Pashukanis? if so, what did you think?
(((((((((((((((((((
CB: Compared to academics, lawyers have a good record as revolutionaries in my opinion: Lenin, Castro, Mandela, Joe Slovo even Lincoln and Jefferson. Part of it is that law itself emphasized unity of theory and practice.
I haven't read Pashukanis. I read an analysis of him, but I didn't get it. What is Pashukanis's thesis ?
Charles Brown