[no subject]

[LeoCasey@xxxxxxx]

Justin I think this is just a wordy way of saying what I was getting at:
rule of law is only a form of class justice depending on which class is
administering it at the time. It is only a superior form of justice in
working class hands. This is very clear in the US where the rule of law
codifies corproate domination and class injustice for the working class and
oppressed people. This in no way makes the struggle to use rule of law for
the benefit of the working class where possible a useless thing. You of all
people must have a class based sence of rulr of law if you hope to use your
law degree for the good of the working class.

Leo:
____
No. This is not the position I took, nor is it the position of Justin, if I
understand him and his use of E. P. Thompson correctly, but he certainly can
speak for himself.

My position is the the 'rule of law' and individual rights are "conquests of
the popular masses," to use Poulantzas' term, and they are dependent upon the
power and organization of those popular masses. To offer as concrete an
example as possible, there is a reason why Pat Buchanan's campaign includes
proposals for a score of different constitutional amendments which would gut
the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, and it has something to do
with how the 'rule of law' and individual rights provides a beachhead for
popular forces which restricts the state. Much of what the state now does in
an oppressive way, such as the brutality directed toward African-Americans in
the inner city, is a violation, a lack of the 'rule of law' and individual
rights. We need more of it.

The reason why I took the time to do a close textual analysis of Foucault and
Poulantzas (maybe it was just too much for this medium) is because I believe
that the Foucaultian position which Scott endorses above, that the rule of
law and individual rights are just mechanisms of class power and class rule,
in effect creates an intellectual basis for the undermining a democratic
space which is essential for the capacity of popular forces to organize and
struggle. There is an absolutely crucuial difference between class rule
exercised under the rule of law and with individual rights, and class rule
under an exceptional state, such as military dictatorships and fascism. It is
a telling index of the lack of the power and organization of the popular
masses in all authoritarian states, including Stalinist states, that this
rule of law and individual rights are honored only in the breach. The rule of
law and individual rights are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition
for the progress of popular forces; they are not adequate by themselves, but
without them, very little is possible. 'Popular justice', which has its
moments, is no replacment for the rule of law, not in South Central LA, not
in Peru and not in Crown Heights.

Justin's original post:
Like Scott, I agree that popular justice has its moments. Like Leo, I
regard the rule of law as an unalloyed good--a term derived from E.P.
Thompson, in the conclusion of his brilliant and savage study of the class
rule of law in 18th century Britain (Whigs and Hunters). To say that the
rule of law does not solve all problems connected with injustice is not to
say that we have an adequate substitute for it. Least of all does it
undermine the idea of the rule of law to observe that in a class society
the disadvantaged are more likely to be subject to its rigors. That is a
condemnation of the society, not the rule of law.
(Interest advisory: I'm a law student.)

Justin



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------