Click here to return to CWPublisher Home page.
THE SOVIET CRITIQUE OF NEW LEFT LEGAL THEORY:
A DESCRIPTIVE BIBLIOGRAPHYoriginally published in Studies in Soviet Thought
(Boston & Dordrecht, Holland, October 1982),
vol. 24, pp. 210-226
(P-12.92, Box 2, pt. 2, # 8)
SST page numbering is included here.[SST, p. 210]
DISCUSSION
I. COMPATIBILITY
Socialist legal culture suffers little from new left/old (Soviet) left divisions. There is respect and more or less agreement on most issues: the dialectical materialist explanation of the source, essence, content and goals of law; and the concrete sociological, historical and comparative methods of judicial science. This is in contrast to the significant differences between left legal theory and the various other schools of legal thought: natural law, sociological realism, positivism, liberalism-utilitarianism. These other schools and the differences between them and left legal theory are studied by the Soviets Chkhikvadze [30] and Tumanov [156], US old left writers Wells [167] (CPUSA1), Novack [113] (SWP), Petersen [128] (SLP), Boudin [22], De Grood [37], Franklin [46], Lamont [94], Riepe [134] (all independent old left) and Jaworskyj [79], Schlesinger [137] and Berman [19] (non-Marxists).
Those who value new left legal theory, or critical legal theory, as some of it is called, are the Soviets Batalov [14], Fedoseyev [43], Novinskaia [121], Olesevich [124], Zamoshkin [173], Zhukov [174], and their old left allies Galita [50], Green [64], Jackson [78] (all CPUSA), Steigerwald [146] [147] (West German CP), Faris [42], Ginger [52] [53], Reynolds [132], Rodriquez [135], Sedley [139] (all independents) and Mandel [107] and Novack [118] [119] (both SWP). They highly rate new left jurisprudence for its role in breaking the post-McCarthy quarantine on Marxist legal scholar ship and for its part in the mass movement against imperialism in Vietnam, racism and woman's inequality. New left lawyers were part of the attack that won concessions against monopoly capitalism for its unconstitutional acts, for its violation of particular laws and norms and for acts which are difficult to dispute from the formal-judicial standpoint and yet which are in violation of the rights and freedom of citizens and organizations stemming from the level of democracy historically achieved by society.
[SST, p. 211]
The Soviets and their Western allies point out that most new left legal writers avoid overplaying the extent of bourgeois control of the masses and show how law also constitutes limits to oppression which the proletariat has forced the bourgeoisie to place on the books through arduous and costly battles. By and large, new left writers stand in unity with the old left position as outlined by Aptheker [7] (CPUSA):
Just 30 years ago, a picket line anywhere of any size and duration almost automatically meant violent assault by police or hoodlums, or others, in the employ of the bosses. The change in this matter in our time is not due to the development of tender hearts among the police or among the bosses. The change is due, basically to the alteration in the relationship of forces vis-à-vis organized labor and capital. It is due to the fact that 30 years ago there were perhaps 6 or 7 million trade-unionists and today there are 17 or 18 million. There are other reasons for this change, including the growth of class collaborationism, but this is the basic one. The bosses have the same will to smash genuine trade unions now as they did before, but they do not have the same power or capacity - given all the relationships - to do so today as they had then (p. 99).
The compatibility of new left/old left theory stems in part from the broad based, open nature of new left jurisprudence, which allows for the acceptance of old left influence and ideas. Karl A. Wittfogel (1896- ) and Henryk Grossman (1881-1950) (both CP) and the labor lawyer Franz Neumann (German Socialist Party) were early members (1920s) of the new left Frankfurt School. The work of Gramsci (1891-1937) (Italian CP) and Althusser (1918- ) (French CP) is often quoted by critical and structural legal theorists. Many like Angela Davis came to the old left through the new left. CPUSA youth (Dubois Clubs) worked in new left organizations and struggles. Marx, Lenin, Castro and Giap all started off toward Marxism Leninism as discontented, idealistic left legal scholars. Even new left legal theorists that ignore classical dialectical-materialist theory (Balbus [11], Cloke [31], Fraser [47], Genovese [51], Gramm [59], Kairys [83], Lefcourt [95], Miliband [113], Thompson [151], Tigar [153], Tushnut [158] and Weitzer [166]) are basically in agreement with the dialectical-materialist explanation and methods of judicial science.
New left/old left compatibility in jurisprudence stems not only from new left openness to the old: it is also due to old left openness. The old left, worker-dominated political parties play a role in, support, and learn from new left programs and offensives. Zamoshkin [173], chairman of the Soviet Institute for the Study of the International Workers Movement, writes:
[SST, p. 212]
Many of the new left are not guided by a Utopian revolutionist bravado. Their active and often courageous deeds are guided by a sense of social responsibility, manifest in a capacity for self-criticism, democratic maturity of thought, sharpness of vision and the ability to relate their actions to the country's real problems. And while the consciousness of their spokesmen is marked by limited horizons, these elements are an important factor in the front of the generally democratic, anti-monopolistic, anti-imperialistic movement. Therefore, Communist Parties pay great attention to ideological work among students and other critically minded groups of youth (p. 133).
Finally, new left/old left compatibility on legal theory also arises from the nature of law. Those who contribute to new left jurisprudence -- legal workers, lawyers and law school teachers and students -- are working within the political-juridical-legal process. Those dedicated to anarchistic tactics -- the main obstacle to solidarity with old left jurisprudence -- do not by and large become lawyers, work in courts or write jurisprudence.
II. ANARCHISM: MARCUSE
The Soviets are critical of the new left elements that tend to be anarchist, anti-working class, anti-materialist, anti-dialectical, anti-Soviet, anti-Communist Party and pro the young, Hegelian, humanist, social-democratic Marx to the exclusion of the mature Marx. These tendencies are evident in the new left groupings around Marcuse, the revival of Pashukanis, the Chinese-Maoist cultural revolution and misinterpretations of the Cuban revolution.
Batalov [15], Belkina [18], Bogomolov [21], Bykhovskii [26], Momjan [115], Shevtsov [143], Shishkin [144], Zamoshkin [172] and their Western allies, Freed [48] (Canadian CP), Steigerwald [148] (West German CP), Hoffman [74], Oakley [122], Woddis [168] (aU CPGB), Aptheker [6], Heisler [70],Laibman [92] [93] (all CPUSA), and Crosser [34] and Franklin [45] (both independents) praise Marcuse [109] for his analysis of alienation and his part in relaxing the grip of the bourgeoisie on exploited social forces. They also value Habermas [67] and Horkheimer [76] (1895-1973) for their analysis of communication and ideology, and Garaudy and Lukács [102] (1885-1971) for their insights into culture, consciousness and creativity. They reject Marcuse's anarchism, his call for the 'radical rejection' of legal forms of struggle as a parliamentary game. They are critical of Habermas, Horkheimer, Garaudy and the young Lukács to the extent they minimize legality and daily, patient, united-front struggle around immediate issues within the courtroom. To win over a majority of the workers and their allies, Soviet revolutionaries (Lenin, Stalin) participated in trade unions, bourgeois elections, united fronts with reformist parties and judicial struggle. Post World War II Eastern Europe demonstrated that under certain conditions socialist revolution could be legal. Chkhikvadze (30) writes:
[SST, p. 213]
After the Second World War, as the East European countries were being liberated from the Fascist occupation, their democratic forces, rallied by the Communist and Workers Parties, built up a clear superiority, so that the attempts here and there on the part of hostile elements to start a civil war and call in foreign imperialist troops, were pretty hopeless. This made socialist revolution in these countries possible without armed uprising or civil war, through a gradual weakening of the political and economic positions of the bourgeoisie, revolutionary change over a period of years, and steady development (via legal measures) and consolidation of the democratic people's state power (pp. 27-28).
New left legal theorists that refuse to take Marcuse's anarchist, anti political road include Balbus [11], Cain [27], Cloke [31], Fraser [47], Genovese [51], Gramm [59], Kairys [83], the more recent Miliband [113], Thompson [151], Tigar [153], Tushnut [158] [159] and Weitzer [166]. They show how courts are subject to mass movements and how struggle in the legal arena can weaken the system, increase its contradictions, constrain class rule and strengthen the capacity of the working class to resist. D'Angelo [35], Diamond [38], Dworkin [40], Gabel [49], Hakman [68], Hunt [77], Kennedy [84], Kent [85], Klee [88], Lefcourt [95], the early Miliband [114], Poulantzas [131], Weinstein [165], Wolff [169] [170], and Zinn [175] write anarchistic passages (no matter how sympathetic to the workers, the lawyer is predetermined by capitalism to betray them). Nevertheless, perhaps inconsistently, at least some (Kennedy and Lefcourt) advise not apolitical struggle, syndicalism, guerilla warfare or boycotting the judicial arena. They hold lawyers "can be a part of the struggle for liberation if they seek guidelines among the people". Even Marcuse was against or ambivalent about anarchism during much of his career. In fighting fascism in World War II, he [109] wrote:
There is no concept less compatible with Fascist ideology than that which founds the state on a universal and rational law that safeguards the interests of every individual (p.181).
Thirty years later during the height of the anti-Vietnam-civil rights protests, he [108] advised:
Working according to the rules and methods of democratic legality appears as surrender to the prevailing power structure. And yet, it would be fatal to abandon the defenses of civil rights and liberties within the established framework (p. 65).
[SST, p. 214]
III. PASHUKANIS
New left sociologists of law (Arthur [8] [9], Balbus [12], Beirne [16] [17], Blanke [20], Cain [28],Kinsey [87], Sharlet [140] [141] [142], Warrington [163]) are leaders in the revival of the early Pashukanis [126] (1891 1937) and tend to picture him as an anarchist and legal nihilist. New left legal theorists Adorno [1] and Bankowski [13] follow the closely related anarcho-syndicalist approach to law (planning and law limited to workers' councils for individual factories; party leadership seen as necessarily in opposition to workers' control; Soviet revolution miscarried because law and the judiciary, among other things, were not allowed to wither away).
The early Pashukanis, along with Bukharin [24] (1888-1938), Grigori E. Zinoviev (1883-1936), Rubinshtein [136] and Goikhbarg [54] (b. 1883), in some of their writings, felt law and the state would and should wither away more or less immediately with the establishment of the working class dictatorship. Law was held to be inevitably bourgeois, inherently exploitative, and any attempt at a socialist law was a contradiction in terms. They denied the revolutionary role and essentially fighting character of law in the period of transition. They based their position in part on law and legality in the past having been used to cover over exploitation of workers. The new left revivers of Pashukanis, also seeing law as mainly exploitative, approach it with the view of smashing it -- legal nihilism.
The mature Pashukanis rejected the extremes of his early position. Current and many early Soviet theorists (Aleksandrov [2], Golunskiy [57] [58], Korovin [90], Lunacharskii [103], Mamut [105], Naumov [117], Rezunov [133], Trotsky [155], Vyshinsky [162] and Yudin [171]), along with their non-Soviet allies (Althusser [4] (French CP), Johnstone [82] (CPGB), Edelman [41], Fraser [47], Hirst [73], Mullin [116], Oda [123], Poulantzas [131], Sumner [149] (all independent new left)) value Pashukanis' commodity-exchange theory of law for its stress on the futility of attempts to consider law without reference to class relationships and the economic conditions of social development. But they are critical of it and its latter-day proponents to the extent they underestimate the role of law in building socialism. Trotsky [155], especially after 1923, was critical of the bureaucracy, including its judicial arm. But he did not advocate or look for its immediate withering away. As implementer of the planned economy, the bureaucracy and its judicial component were central to blocking counter-revolution and capitalist restoration. The judiciary was one of the tools used by the working people to suppress bourgeois trusts, cartels, syndicates, monopolies, the monarchic press and women's inequality. It was an aid to working people in consolidating the revolution against landlords and it played a role in encouraging the growth of unions, social security, the eight hour day, workplace safety standards and child labor prohibitions.
[SST, p. 215]
Reformist, economic-determinist politicians (Eduard Bernstein (1850 1932), Karl Kautsky (1854-1936)) engaged in non-dialectical theorizing akin to Pashukanis and his commodity-exchange theory of law. Their mechanistic approach minimized class struggle, the conscious effort of the proletariat, scientific study and revolutionary leadership.
Because working class political parties were often outlawed in capitalist countries in the 1919--1920 period, participation by the masses in legal political activity was downplayed by the early Third International. The writings of the early Gramsci [60] [61] [62] reflect the anarcho-syndicalist (factory councils, the general strike, insurrectional mobilization) and sectarian mood. The Soviet Lopukhov [101] observes that Gramsci came to reject this position, as did the Third International, and worked for united front resistance to fascism and its attack on constitutionalism and legality.
Some current old left (Cornforth [33], Lewis [99], Hindess [71], Hoffman [74], Hunt [77] (all CPGB)) and new left theorists (Thompson [152], Gold [56]) see the structural theory of law, as proposed by people like Althusser [4], the early Hirst [72] [73] and Edelman [41], to be non dialectical and economic reductionist not unlike Pashukanis. In attempting to avoid the Hegelian, moralistic, voluntaristic theories of praxist-humanists, structuralism sometimes ends up anarchistic or at least downplays political work. Althusser [5] admits that his writings suffer from failure to relate theory to class struggle as in the political-judicial arena. But he and others like the Soviet Mamardashvili [104], Gray [63], Johnson [81], and Trierman [154] (all CPGB) and Merrit [112] (independent Marxist) dispute that structuralism is incompatible with class struggle within the judicial arena.
Among new left legal theorists rejecting the anarcho-syndicalist ideal is Cloke [31]. He shows how, in the period after socialist revolution, law can be used in socially creative ways to aid general campaigns to end racism, national chauvinism, the oppression of women and class privilege. Weitzer [166] praises the rule of law, which imposes inhibitions and constraints on arbitrary power and summary justice, and looks to its maximum use in socialist society. Likewise he believes other principles -- like legal equality and universally, due process, habeas corpus, trial by jury, confrontation of accusers and labor contracts -- can play a role in the transition era.
[SST, p. 216]
IV. CUBA
Some new left elements and the jurisprudence associated with them are more influenced by the Cuban revolution than by Marcuse or Pashukanis. They range in tactics from those who merely de-emphasize legality to those who seek "armed struggle now and forever". They include Weather People, Black Liberation Army, Condon [32], De Grood [36], the Belgian Mandel [106] [107], Schneir [138] and Sumner [149]. Condon writes that legal victories are mere placebos and no threat to capitalism. All prisoners are political prisoners. It is better to get convicted, as this raises consciousness.
The Soviet Veber [160], along with Sung [150] (North Korean CP), Azicri [10], Kinoy [86], and SomerviUe [145] (all independents) modify Condon's approach. Castro, Guevara and the revolution were not legal nihilists, but rather it was the incumbent regime which suspended the constitution. The revolution was to restore legality and defeat tyranny and anarchism. Even during the guerilla revolutionary process, Castro made positive, effective use of the judiciary. The legal process served both to teach and defend the masses. Kinoy writes:
I say to my radical colleagues at the bar, whose courage and skill I admire, that their frequently expressed formulation of their central role and objective as being that of 'delegitimizing' the institutions of the law is at once too narrow and too one-sided. In its one-sidedness it obscures, and even hinders, the fulfillment of the more complex, more critical role, which a study of the particularity of the present contradictions places before us. The struggle to preserve the elementary forms of procedural guarantees, designed originally to protect individual liberty and the right to a fair trial, is not a struggle to 'delegitimize' or 'demystify' these forms. The struggle is to defend these forms, to protect them; if you will, to legitimize them against the efforts of the rulers to delegitimize them. There is no contradiction between such an approach and the necessary exposure of prosecutors and judges who, at the government's bidding, brush aside and trample on elementary rights (p. 288).
Somerville makes the same point:
The main problem of law and order is not so much that of the people obeying the government, as that of the government obeying the constitution which set it up, and keeping to the terms and within the boundaries of the contract which it (the government) made with the people who created it, and who must remain its master. Rebellions of the people, when looked at closely, usually turn out to be counter-rebellions directed against a government which has broken its compact with the people, resorted to illegal force, and thereby placed itself in a state of war with the people (p. 18).
[SST, p. 217]
The first item in Guevara's [66] manual on guerrilla warfare repeats the Soviet (Lenin [97], Bratus [23]) and Seventh Comintern (1935) (Dimitrov [39] ) position that armed struggle should be considered and can be victorious in winning mass support only when the incumbent government has ceased to observe constitutional legality. Guevara writes:
Naturally, it is not to be thought that all conditions for revolution are going to be created through the impulse given to them by guerrilla activity, it must always be kept in mind that there is a necessary minimum without which the establishment and consolidation of the first center is not practicable. People must see clearly the futility of maintaining the fight for social goals within the framework of civil debate. When the forces of oppression come to maintain themselves in power against established law, peace is considered already broken.
In these conditions popular discontent expresses itself in more active forms. An attitude of resistance finally crystallizes in an outbreak of fighting, provoked initially by the conduct of the authorities.
Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted (p. 2).
Elsewhere Guevara [65] records how the Cuban revolution, as it advanced from a small battle in eastern Cuba, adopted legal codes and set up independent judiciaries to administer them. The revolutionaries were subject to these penal and civil codes in supplying the peasant, in agrarian reform and in their dealings with each other, long before the final victory was achieved.
V. MAOISM
Maoism and the cultural revolution influenced some in the new left toward the anarchist position. Soviet (Altaiskii [3], Butenko [25], Fedoseev [43], Konstantinov [89], Leibzon [96], Ostroumov [125], Perlov [127]), current Chinese jurists (Ho Ming [75]) and their Western allies (Levine [98] (independent Marxist), Waters [164] (SWP) fault the Chinese cultural revolution and its legal philosophers like Cheng P'u [29] and in the US Tung [157] (CWP) for neglecting socialist legality. The Soviets believe the methods of administrative and military fiat, coercion and violence as used in the late 1940's in expropriating the landowners and safeguarding the revolution had a progressive significance. These methods were carryovers from the pre-war era when legal methods of recourse for the peasant and worker classes were limited. But with the revolution consolidated, legality must become the norm.
[SST, p. 218]
During the cultural revolution, the Maoist-led Chinese Communist Party violated such Leninist endorsed principles as independence of the courts and their subordination only to law, the accused's right to a defense and the presumption of innocence. Neither the Party nor Party officials make law, but rather must strictly observe the law. The Party is the driving force in the state, as constitutionally mandated. But its leadership presupposes that it, as a voluntary organization, works through legislative bodies and mass organizations like the trade unions and co-operative, consumer and volunteer societies. It guides in a complex, multidimensional manner in response to the masses and their needs.
Mao Tse-Tung (110) himself in certain periods had a high regard for law, which he saw as a force teaching socialist morality and rooting out reaction. The 1978 Chinese constitution restores the rule of law, seeks to codify the law and to guard human rights.
VI. CONCLUSION
US scholars like Mehnert [111], as well as some Soviets emphasize new left/ old left differences and equate the new left with the position of Bernstein, Kautsky and the rejection of class struggle. From the Soviet view this analysis does not apply to the bulk of new left legal theory. Of the ten or so US new left political parties studied by Vickers [161], only a few have any leaders that lean to the anarchist position. Most are in accord with the principles of Marxist-Leninist jurisprudence: even where democracy has no real power and where the space conceded is very narrow, the opposition does not stop seeking and utilizing the legal means of expression available. The proletariat and its allies proclaim their own legal demands, take action to secure their realization, to the extent the balance of class forces permits this, and uphold legality and other democratic principles against encroachment by the reactionaries. For the new left, as for the Soviets, such activity prepares the socialist revolution that is born in the transformation of old style democracy into socialist democracy: the form of the new society is determined by the maturity of the society destroyed.
[SST, p. 219]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Grateful acknowledgement is made to, in alphabetical order, David Laibman, WiUiam M. Mandel and Joseph Reynolds for their helpful comments, to Mark Tushnut for bibliographical suggestions and to Thomas Blakeley for patient editing. Any mistakes and opinions are my own.
National Lawyers Guild
TOBY TERRAR
Washington, D.C.
NOTE
1 Below are abbreviations used for political party designations. These political party designations mean that the writer publishes in the party organ. Many identify themselves as party members, but non-party members also publish in party organs.
CPUSA
Communist Party, USA.
SWP
Socialist Workers Party.
SLP
Socialist Labor Party.
CWP
Communist Workers Party.
CPGB
Communist Party of Great Britain.
PUBLICATIONS DISCUSSED
[1] Theodore W. Adorno, Negative Dialectics, NY, Seabury Press, 1971.
[2] Nikolai G. Aleksandrov, Toward a Critique of the Survivals of Bourgeois Ideology in the Definition of Law', (1948) in Jaworskyj [80], pp. 370-373.
[3] Mikhail L. Altaiskii, The Philosophical Views of Mao Tse-Tung: A Critical Analysis, Moscow, Progress Publ., 1971.
[4] Louis Althusser and Etienne Balibar, Reading Capital, London, NLB, 1970.
[5] Louis Althusser, 'Reply to John Lewis', Marxism Today 16 (1972), 310-317, 343 -348.
[6] Herbert Aptheker, 'Epilogue: Imperialism and Irrationalism', in David H. De Grood, Dale Riepe and John Somerville (eds.), Radical Currents in Contemporary Philosophy, St. Louis, Warren H. Green, 1971, pp. 252-259.
[7] Herbert Aptheker, The Nature of Democracy, Freedom and Revolution, NY, International Publ., 1967.
[8] Christopher J. Arthur, 'Introduction', in Pashukanis, Law and Marxism: A General Theory, London, Ink Links, 1978.
[9] Christopher J. Arthur, 'Towards a Materialist Theory of Law', Critique (1966/7), 31-46.
[SST, p. 220]
[10] Max Azicri, 'A Cuban Perspective on Socialist Legality', Review of Socialist Law 6 (1980), 302.
[11] Isaac D. Balbus, The Dialectics of Legal Repression: Black Rebels Before the American Criminal Courts, New Brunswick, NJ, Transition, 1973.
[12] Isaac D. Balbus, 'Commodity Form and Legal Form: An Essay on the "Relative Autonomy" of the Law', Law and Society Review 11 (1977), 571-588.
[13] Zenon Bankowski, Images of Law, Boston, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976.
[14] Eduard I. Batalov, The Philosophy of Revolt: Criticism of Left Radical Ideology, Moscow, Progress Publ., 1975.
[15] Eduard I. Batalov, 'Herbert Marcuse', Great Soviet Encyclopedia 15 (NY, Macmillan, 1973), pp. 358-359.
[16] Piers Beirne, 'Introduction', in his Pashukanis: Selected Writings On Marxism and Law, NY, Academic Press, 1980.
[17] Piers Beirne, 'Marxism and the Sociology of Law: Theory or Practice?', British Journal of Law and Society 2 (1975), 78-81.
[18] Galina L. Belkina, 'Marxism and Bourgeois Marxology: Historical Stages of the Struggle', Soviet Studies in Philosophy 16 (1977/8), 89-113.
[19] Harold J. Berman, Justice in the USSR, NY, Random House, 1963.
[20] Blanke, Jurgens and Kastendick, 'On the Current Marxist Discussion on the Analysis of Form and Function of the Bourgeois State', in John Holloway and Sol Picciotto (eds.), State and Capital, London, Edward Arnold, 1978.
[21] Aleksei S. Bogomolov, 'Concerning Certain Aspects of the Critical Analysis of Contemporary Philosophy', Soviet Studies in Philosophy 6 (1968), 44 55.
[22] Louis B. Boudin, 'Justice Holmes and His World', Lawyers Guild Review 3 (1943), 24-31.
[23] Sergei N. Bratus, 'Lenin's Ideas on Soviet Law and Soviet Legality', Review of Contemporary Law 17 (1970), 21-46.
[24] Nikolai I. Bukharin, Historical Materialism (1921), Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1969.
[25] Anatolii P. Butenko, 'The Soviet State of the Entire People', Soviet Law and Government 2 (1963/4), 3-13.
[26] Bernard E. Bykhovskii, 'Marcusism Against Marxism: A Critique of Uncritical Criticism', Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 30 (1969), 203.
[27] Maureen E. Cain and Alan Hunt, 'Introduction', in their Marx and Engels on Law, NY, Academic Press, 1979.
[28] Maureen E. Cain, 'The Main Themes of Marx' and Engels' Sociology of Law', British Journal of Law and Society 1 (1974), 136.
[29] Cheng P'u, 'Thoroughly Destroy the Old Legal System and Eliminate Bourgeois Legal Thought', Chinese Law and Government 1 (1968), 63-79.
[30] Viktor M. Chkhikvadze (ed.), The Soviet State and Law, Moscow, Progress Publ., 1969.
[31] Kenneth Cloke, 'The Economic Basis of Law and State', in Lefcourt [95], p. 79.
[32] Gene Ann Condon, 'Comments on "You Don't Have to Love the Law to Be a Lawyer'", Guild Practitioner 29 (1970), 20.
[33] Maurice Cornforth, 'Some Comments on Louis Althusser's Reply to John Lewis', Marxism Today 17 (1973), 139-147.
[34] Paul K. Crosser, 'Class, Anarchism and Lenin's Political Sociology', in Dale Riepe, et al. (eds.), Reflections on Revolution, Bridgeport, Conn., Spartacus Books, 1971, pp. 62-72.
[SST, p. 221]
[35] Edward D'Angelo, 'Violence, Justice and Human Rights', in Dale Riepe et al. (eds.) Reflections on Revolution, Bridgeport, Spartacus Books, 1971, pp. 35 40.
[36] David De Grood, 'The Radical Student Movement', in Dale Riepe et al. (eds.), Reflections on Revolution, Bridgeport, Spartacus, 1971, pp. 41-50.
[37] David De Grood, 'Critique of Idealistic Naturalism: Methodological Pollution of the Main Stream of American Philosophy', in his Radical Currents in Contemporary Philosophy, St. Louis, Warren H. Green, 1971.
[38] Stanley Diamond, 'The Rule of Law Versus the Order of Custom', in Wolff [170], pp. 115-146.
[39] Georgi Dimitrov, The United Front: The Struggle Against Fascism and War, NY, International Publ., 1938.
[40] Ronald Dworkin, 'Philosophy and the Critique of Law', in Wolff [170], pp. 147-170.
[41] Bernard Edelman, Ownership of the Image: Elements for a Marxist Theory of Law, Boston, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979.
[42] Ralph M. Faris, Revisionist Marxism: The Opposition Within, Amsterdam, B. R. Gruner, 1974.
[43] Peter N. Fedoseev, Maoism: Its Ideological and Political Essence, Mo scow, Novosti Press Agency, 1972.
[44] Peter N. Fedoseev, Scientific Communism and Its Falsifications by the Renegades, Moscow, Progress Publ., 1974.
[45] Mitchell Franklin, 'The Irony of the Beautiful Soul of Herbert Marcuse', Telos 6 (1970), 3-35.
[46] Mitchell Franklin, 'The Judiciary State', National Lawyers Guild Quarterly 2 (1939), 224-261; 3 (1940), 27.
[47] Andrew Fraser, 'The Legal Theory We Need Now', Socialist Review 8 (1978), 151.
[48] Norman Freed, 'Communist and "New Left" Ideas'. Communist Viewpoint 3 (1971), 43-50.
[49] Peter Gabel, 'Reification in Legal Reasoning', Research in Law and Sociology 3 (1980), 25-52.
[50] Bernard E. Galitz, 'New Left Closer to Marxism'. Political Affairs 49 (1970), 55.
[51] Eugene D. Genovese, Roll, Jordan Roll: The World the Slaves Made, NY, Vintage Books, 1976.
[52] Ann F. Ginger, 'The Economic, Social and Political Rights of Our Clients', Guild Practitioner 37 (1980), 117-147.
[53] Ann F. Ginger, 'Litigation as a Form of Political Action', Wayne State Law Review 9 (1963), 458.
[54] Aleksandr G. Goikhbarg, 'Proletarian Revolution and Civil War', (1918), in Jaworskyj [80], pp. 57-68.
[55] Aleksandr G. Goikhbarg, 'Some Notes on Law', (1924) in Jaworskyj [80], pp. 121-134.
[56] David A. Gold, Clarence Lo and Erik O. Wright, 'Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of the Capitalist State', Monthly Review 27 (No. 5, 1975/6), 29-43; (No. 6,1975/6), 36-51.
[SST, p. 222]
[57] Sergey A. Golunskiy, "The Creative Revolutionary Role of Socialist Law in the Period of the Comprehensive Building of Communism', Soviet Law and Government 1 (1962), 13-23.
[58] Sergey A. Golunskiy, 'The Theory of State and Law', (1940) in Hazard [69].
[59] Warren S. Gramm, 'Industrial Capitalism and the Breakdown in the Liberal Rule of Law', Journal of Economic Issues 1 (1973), 577-603.
[60] Antonio Gramsci, Letters From Prison, NY, Harper and Row, 1973.
[61] Antonio Gramsci, Selections From Political Writings (1921-1926), NY, Inter national Publ., 1978.
[62] Antonio Gramsci, Selections From the Prison Notebooks, London, Lawrence and Wishart, 1971.
[63] Robbie Gray, 'E. P. Thompson, History and Communist Polities', Marxism Today 23(1979), 181-187.
[64] Gilbert Green, The New Radicalism: Anarchist or Marxist, NY, International Publ., 1971.
[65] Ernesto Che Guevara, Episodes of the Revolutionary War, NY, International Publ., 1968.
[66] Ernesto Che Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare, NY, Monthly Review Press, 1961.
[67] Jurgen Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, Boston, MIT Press, 1972.
[68] Nathan Hakman, 'Old and New Left Activity in the Legal Order: An Interpretation', Journal of Social Issues 27 (1971), 105-121.
[69] John N. Hazard (ed.), Soviet Legal Philosophy, Cambridge, Harvard UP, 1951.
[70] Robert Heisler, 'On Criticism ofMarcuse', Political Affairs 50 (1971), 59.
[71] Barry Hindess, Marx's Capital and Capitalism Today, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978.
[72] Paul Q. Hirst, 'Economic Classes and Polities', in Hunt (ed.), Class and Class Structure, London, Lawrence and Wishart, 1976.
[73] Paul Q. Hirst, On Law and Ideology, NY, Humanities Press, 1979.
[74] John Hoffman, Marxism and the Theory of Praxis: A Critique of Some New Versions of Old Fallacies, NY, International Publ., 1975.
[75] Ho Ming, 'On the Way to the Rule of Law', Chinese Law and Government 11 (1978), 115-127.
[76] Max Horkheimer, Critique of Instrumental Reason, NY, Seabury, 1974.
[77] Alan Hunt, 'Law, State and Class Struggle', Marxism Today 20 (1976), 178 187.
[78] James E. Jackson, 'About Three Philosophers: Fredrich Engels, Herbert Marcuse and Angela Davis', Political Affairs 50 (1971), 23-24.
[79] Michael Jaworskyj, 'Soviet Critique of the "Bourgeois" Philosophy of Law', Osteuropa Recht 6 (1960), 11-34.
[80] Michael Jaworskyj, (ed.), Soviet Political Thought: An Anthology, Baltimore, John Hopkins Press, 1967.
[81] Richard Johnson, 'Review: Arguments Within English Marxism', Marxism Today 25 (1981), 30-31.
[82] Monty Johnson, 'Is the Marxist Tradition Democratic?', Marxism Today 25 (1981), 22-26.
[83] David Kairys, 'Book Review: Law and the Rise of Capitalism', 126 U Pa. Law Review 930 (1978).
[84] Florynce Kennedy, 'The Whorehouse Theory of Law', in Lefcourt [95], p. 81.
[SST, p. 223]
[85] Edward A. Kent (ed.), Revolution and the Rule of Law, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1971.
[86] Arthur Kinoy, 'The Role of the Radical Lawyer and Teacher', in Lefcourt [95], p. 282.
[87] Richard Kinsey 'Marxism and the Law: Preliminary Analysis', British Journal of Law and Society 5 (1978), 202-227.
[88] Earl Klee, 'Law and Politics: The Configuration of Power', The Insurgent Sociologist 8 (1978), 69-7'5.
[89] Fedor V. Konstantinov, M. I. Sladkovsky and V. G. Geogiyev, A Critique of Mao Tse-Tung's Theoretical Conceptions, Moscow, Progress Publ., 1981.
[90] Evgenii A. Korovin, International Law: A Textbook for Use in Law Schools, Moscow, Foreign Languages Publ. House, 1962.
[91] R. I. Kosolapov, 'The Thought of Mao Tse-Tung: Renunciation of Marxism Leninism', Soviet Studies in Philosophy 8 (1969).
[92] David Laibman, 'Habermas and Marxism: An Appraisal: Book Review', Science and Society 45 (1981), 103.
[93] David Laibman, 'The Rectifier Must be Rectified', College Teacher Worker 5 (1981), 2-4.
[94] Corliss Lamont, 'John Dewey in Theory and Practice', Science and Society 5 (1940), 61.
[95] Robert Lefcourt, 'Lawyers for the Poor Can't Win', in his Law Against The People: Essays to Demystify Law, Order and the Courts, NY, Random House, 1971, p. 123.
[96] Boris M. Leibzon, Petty-Bourgeois Revolutionaries: Anarchism, Trotskyism and Maoism, Moscow, Progress Publ., 1974.
[97] Vladimir I. Lenin, 'Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder', in his Selected Works, NY, International Publ., 1967.
[98] Jack Levine, 'Due Process in China', National Lawyers Guild Notes 9 (1980), 16.
[99] John Lewis, 'On the Althusser Discussion', Marxism Today 18 (1974), 168 174.
[100] John Lewis, "The Althusser Case'', Marxism Today 16 (1972), 23-27.
[101] B. R. Lopukhov, 'Gramsci', Great Soviet Encyclopedia 7 (1973), 335-336.
[102] Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1971.
[103] Anatolii V. Lunacharskii, 'The Revolution, Law and the Courts', (1917) in Jaworskyj [80] pp. 52-56.
[104] M. K. Mamardashvili, 'Louis Althusser', Great Soviet Encyclopedia 1 (1973), 306.
[105] Leonid S. Mamut, 'Theory of Law', Soviet Law and Government 6 (1968), 3-10.
[106] Ernest Mandel, 'A Critique of Eurocommunism', Marxist Perspectives 2 (1979 /80), 114-142.
[107] Ernest Mandel, Revolutionary Marxism Today, London, NLB, 1979.
[108] Herbert Marcuse, An Essay on Liberation, Boston, Beacon Press, 1969.
[109] Herbert Marcuse, Reason and Revolution, NY, Humanities Press, 1941, 1954.
[110] Mao Tse-Tung, People's Democratic Dictatorship, London, Lawrence and Wishart, 1950.
[111] Klaus Mehnert, Moscow and the New Left, Berkeley, U of Cal. Press, 1975.
[SST, p. 224]
[112] A. Merrit, 'The Nature of Law: A Criticism of E. P. Thompson's Whigs and Hunters', British Journal of Law and Society 7 (1980), 192-214.
[113] Ralph Miliband, Marxism and Politics, London, Oxford UP, 1977.
[114] Ralph Miliband, The State in Capitalist Society, London, Wiedenfield and Nicolson 1969.
[115] Khachik N. Momjan (also translated as Momdzhian), Marxism and the Renegade Garaudy, Moscow, Progress Publ., 1974.
[116] Neil Mullin, 'Pashukanis and the Demise of Law', National Lawyers Guild Notes 9 (1980), 10.
[117] I. Naumov, 'The Role and Significance of Legal Forms in the Transition Period', in Jaworskyj [80], pp. 244-251.
[118] George E. Novack, The Marxist Theory of Alienation, NY, Pathfinder Press, 1970.
[119] George E. Novack, Polemics in Marxist Philosophy, NY, Monad Press, 1978.
[120] George E. Novack, Pragmatism Versus Marxism: An Appraisal of John Dewey's Philosophy, NY, Pathfinder, 1975.
[121] Maiia I. Novinskaia, 'The Student Revolution in the USA and the Crisis of Bourgeois Values', Soviet Studies in Philosophy 12 (1973), 56-80.
[122] John Oakley, 'Marcuse and Marxism', Marxism Today 16 (1972), 247-252.
[123] Hiroshi Oda, 'Revolutionary Legality in the USSR: 1928-1930', Review of Socialist Law 6 (1980), 141.
[124] Y. Olesevich, 'New Left Revisionist Distortion of Socialism', Political Affairs 52 (1973), 31.
[125] G. S. Ostroumov, 'Politico-Juridical Ideology and the Crisis of Political Power in China', Chinese Law and Government 1 (1968), 4-22.
[126] Evgeny B. Pashukanis, The General Theory of Law and Marxism: An Attempt at a Criticism of Fundamental Judicial Concepts, Moscow, 1924, published in a number of English translations, including Hazard (ed.), Soviet Legal Philosophy, Cambridge, Harvard UP, 1951; Arthur (ed.), Law and Marxism: A General Theory, London, Ink Links, 1978; and Beirne (ed.), Pashukanis: Selected Writings on Marxism and Law, NY, Academic Press, 1980.
[127] Ilia D. Perlov, 'The Departure from Democratic Principles of Justice in the Chinese People's Republic', Chinese Law and Government 1 (1968), 23 36.
[128] Arnold Petersen, Constitution of the US: Founding of the Bourgeois Republic, NY, Labor News Co., 1944.
[129] Arnold Petersen, Democracy: Past, Present and Future, NY, Labor News Co., 1940.
[130] Arnold Petersen, Supreme Court, NY, Labor News Co., 1937.
[131] Nicos A. Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism, London, New Left Books, 1978.
[132] Joseph Reynolds, 'Marxist-Leninist vs. Praxis Philosophy', Political Affairs 55 (1976), 47.
[133] Mikhail D. Rezunov, "The Soviet State and Socialist Law' (1934), in Jaworskyj [80], pp. 296-314.
[134] Dale Riepe, 'Critique of Idealistic Naturalism: Methodological Pollution of the Main Stream of American Philosophy', in David H. De Grood et al. (eds.), Radical Currents in Contemporary Philosophy, St. Louis, Warren H. Green, 1971, pp. 5-22.
[SST, p. 225]
[135] Ileana Rodriquez, 'Eduard Batalov and the Philosophy of Revolt: The New Left Through Soviet Eyes', Studies in Marxism 1 (1977), 9-26.
[136] A. S. Rubinshtein, 'New Ideas in Bourgeois Jurisprudence and the Marxist Theory of Law', in Jaworskyj [80], pp. 150-153.
[137] Rudolf Schlesinger, Soviet Legal Theory: Its Social Background and Development, Oxford, Oxford UP, 1951.
[138] Walter Schneir, 'Desanctifying the Courts', Liberation 15 (1970), 34.
[139] Stephen Sedley, "The Sociology of Law', Marxism Today 21 (1977), 301-303.
[140] Robert Sharlet, Pashukanis and the Commodity Exchange Theory of Law 1924-1930: A Study in Soviet Marxist Legal Theory, PhD, U. of Indiana, 1968.
[141] Robert Sharlet, 'Pashukanis and the Rise of Soviet Marxist Jurisprudence 1924 -1930', Soviet Union 1 (1974), 103-121.
[142] Robert Sharlet, 'Pashukanis and the Withering Away of Law in the USSR', in Sheila Fitzgerald (ed.), Cultural Revolution in Russia 1928-1931, Bloomington, Indiana, Indiana U. Press, 1974.
[143] Viktor S. Shevtsov, The CPSU and the Soviet State in Developed Socialist Society, Moscow, Progress Publ., 1978.
[144] Aleksandr F. Shishkin 'On Moral Values in Today's World', Soviet Studies in Philosophy 17 (1978), 71-99.
[145] John Somerville, The Peace Revolution: Ethos and Social Process, Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press, 1975.
[146] Robert Steigerwald, Anti-Communism in Left Disguise, NY, International Publ., 1976.
[147] Robert Steigerwald, 'Critical Remarks on a Critical Theory', Political Affairs 49 (1970), 33.
[148] Robert Steigerwald, 'Herbert Marcuse's Critical Theory', in Edward D'Angelo et al. (eds.), Contemporary East European Philosophy 4 (Bridgeport, Ct., Spartacus Books, 1970), p. 346.
[149] Colin Sumner, Reading Ideologies: An Investigation into the Marxist Theory of Ideology and Law, NY, Academic Press, 1979.
[150] Kim II Sung, 'Che Guevara and the World Revolution', in Dale Riepe et al. (eds.), Reflections on Revolution, Bridgeport, Conn., Spartacus Books, 1971 pp. 69-72.
[151] Edward P. Thompson, Whigs and Hunters: The Origin of the Black Act, NY, Pantheon, 1975.
[152] Edward P. Thompson, The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays, NY, Monthly Review Press, 1979.
[153] Michael Tigar, Law and the Rise of Capitalism, NY, Monthly Review Press, 1973.
[154] David Trierman, 'Sociology, But Not Marxism', Marxism Today 20 (1976), 319-322.
[155] Leon Trotsky, Writings of Leon Trotsky (10 vols), NY, Merit Publ. 1969-1975.
[156] Vladimir A. Tumanov, Contemporary Bourgeois Legal Thought: A Marxist Evaluation of the Basic Concepts, Moscow, Progress Publ., 1974.
[157] Jerry Tung, The Socialist Road: Character of Revolution in the US and Problems of Socialism in the Soviet Union and China, NY, Cesar Cauce Publ., 1981.
[158] Mark Tushnut, 'A Marxist Analysis of American Law', Marxist Perspectives 1(1978), 96.
[SST, p. 226]
[159] Mark Tushnut, 'Perspectives on the Development of American Law: A Critical Review of Friedman's A History of American Law', Wise Law Review 57 (1977), 81.
[160] A. B. Veber, 'Sectarianism', Great Soviet Encyclopedia 23 (1973), 270.
[161] George Vickers, 'A Guide to the Sectarian Left', The Nation (1980), 591 596.
[162] Andrei Y. Vyshinsky, The Law of the Soviet State (1938), English ed., NY, Macmillan, 1948.
[163] R. Warrington, 'Pashukanis and the Commodity Form Theory', International Journal of the Sociology of Law 9 (1981), 1-22.
[164] Mary Alice Waters, Maoism in the US: A Critical History of the Progressive Labor Party, NY, Merit Publ., 1969.
[165] James Weinstein, 'The Left: Old and New', Socialist Revolution 2 (1971), 7 60.
[166] Ronald Weitzer, 'Law and Legal Ideology: Contributions to the Genesis and Reproduction of Capitalism', Berkeley J. of Sociology 24 (1980), 138.
[167] Harry K. Wells, 'Oliver Wendell Holmes: Apologetics in Law', Pragmatism: Philosophy of Imperialism, NY, International Publ., 1954.
[168] Jack Woddis, New Theories of Revolution: A Commentary on the Views of Franz Fanon, Regis Debray and Herbert Marcuse, NY, International Publ., 1972.
[169] Robert P. Wolff, In Defense of Anarchism, NY, Harper and Row, 1970.
[170] Robert P. Wolff, (ed.), The Rule of Law, NY, Simon and Schuster, 1971.
[171] Pavel F. Yudin, 'Socialism and Law', (1937) in Hazard (ed.), Soviet Legal Philosophy, Cambridge, Harvard UP, 1951.
[172] Iurii A. Zamoshkin, 'Is Marcuse's Criticial Theory of Society Critical?', Soviet Studies in Philosophy 8 (1969), 45-66.
[173] Iurii A. Zamoshkin, 'The "New Left" Ideas and Attitudes', Soviet Studies in Philosophy 10 (1971), 107-134.
[174] V. Y. Zhukov, Iurii I. Olsevich and V. Sikora, 'New Left Revisionist Distortions of Socialism', Political Affairs 52 (1973), 31-40.
[175] Howard Zinn, 'The Conspiracy of Law', in Wolff [170], pp. 15-36.
