Chapter 1.5.

Chapter 1: Communism and Law

1.5. From Law of Exchange to Law of Distribution

Here, we would like to look at the system of commuist law from the metaphysical dimension of justice in law. In doing so, we shall return to Aristotle's theory of justice, which is often used as the most basic criterion in discussions of legal philosophy even today.

Aristotle's achievement was to dichotomize the phases of justice into "commutative (exchange) justice," as in crime and punishment or benefit and consideration in contracts, and "distributive justice," meaning distribution according to the value of each person.

In this respect, bourgeois law clearly consists of the former, exchangeable justice, as the main axis of justice. Bourgeois law in a developed capitalist society is, in a sense, at the point of arrival of exchange justice.

The central body of bourgeois law is contract law. This is a natural conclusion given that a capitalist society dominated by commodities is legally based on sales contracts. The very essence of legal justice there is the equitable regulation of the exchange relationship between benefits and consideration.

However, the progressive bourgeois law also incorporates, to a certain extent, social law that aims at distributive justice, taking into account the power relations between contracting parties, but this is not an essential part of the law, and is only a corrective supplement.

In bourgeois law, this conception of distributive justice is not limited to private law, but extends to criminal law as well, where a balance between crime and punishment is sought. There, the ancient idea of revenge is transformed into the legal concept of retributive punishment and clothed in the garb of legal justice. On the other hand, distributive justice, which aims to improve and rehabilitate the offender according to his or her individual characteristics, is sometimes relegated to the background and ideologically rejected.

In contrast, justice in communist law axes on the aspect of distributive justice. Even if the idea of an exchangeable contract does not disappear completely, the abolition of the monetized economy at least eliminates the monetary consideration relationship, thus significantly reducing the significance of contract law. *

Instead, a legal system centered on distributive justice will be constructed, and social law will no longer be a mere supplemental law. Rather, the distinction between social law and private law becomes relative, and the principles of social law are embedded in private law.

In the field of criminal law as well, the idea of balance of crimes and punishment based on exchange justice will recede into the background, and instead, individual and educational principles based on distributive justice will come to the forefront. The ultimate goal is the abolition of the essentially exchangeable legal system of punishment itself, the details of which are described in the corresponding chapters.

*Barter exchange contracts are expected to flourish under communist law, as barter is allowed even under communist law, which abolishes the monetized economy. However, barter is expected to be governed by the principles of a more cultural and ritualistic exchange relationship, unlike money sales contracts.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 1.4.

Chapter 1: Communism and Law

1.4. Utilization of law -part 2-

Related to the use of the law, there is the issue of interpretation of the law. Once a law has been enacted, it becomes applicable in practice, but since the wording of the law is often left open to interpretation, issues of interpretation arise as a prerequisite for its application. The issue is who has the official right to interpret the law.

The trend in today's world is to give such authority for interpretation to the judicial branch (courts), which is separate from the legislative branch. The degree of independence of the judicial branch varies from country to country, and in some cases the judicial branch is institutionally or de facto subordinate to the executive branch, which is responsible for the application and enforcement of the law, but on the surface, many countries advocate "judicial independence."

However, it is not possible to fully explain why an "independent" judiciary can make arbitrary decisions by separating only the interpretation of enacted laws, or in other words, why the legislature has no right to interpret laws. This problem is made all the more difficult by considering that interpretation of the law, unlike the formal application of the law, has the same substance as secondary legislation.

In this regard, in the system of communist law, the interpretation of the law, as well as the application of the law, is an authority consistently held by the Commons' Convention, which has the legislative function. In many cases, a subordinate body of the Commons' Convention interprets the law as a precondition for applying the law. However, if a citizen to whom the law is applied objects, a dispute may arise over the interpretation of the law.

In such cases, it becomes necessary for a neutral body to make an authoritative judgment regarding the validity of the interpretation of the law, but communist law does not conceive of an independent judiciary. As mentioned above, the interpretation of the law is also included in the authority of the Commons' Convention that enacts the legislation. It is a consistent process in which the legislature, the Commons' Convention , also has the authority to interpret the laws it has enacted.

However, since the interpretation of the law is disputed when some legal dispute arises, it must be impartially adjudicated by an internal body of the Commons' Convention that is neutral and professional, separate from the normal legislative process of the Commons' Convention.

Therefore, the Jurisprudence Committee is permanently established as a standing committee of the Commons' Convention dedicated solely to the interpretation of the law. The members of the Jurisprudence Committee are legal experts who are exclusively engaged in interpreting the law, but they are not so-called judges, and they are also members of the delegation with the status of special delegates without voting rights in the Commons' Convention.

However, with regard to the interpretation of the Charter of the Commons' Convention, which is the supreme norm in the communist legal system, it is preferable that the interpretation power be assigned exclusively to a standing committee (Charter Committee) with the power to propose amendments or repeal of the Charter, separate from the Jurisprudence Committee, but the details will be dealt with again in the corresponding chapter.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 1.3.

Chapter 1: Communism and Law

1.3. Utilization of law -part 1-

Communist law, which is produced by the commons through Commons' Convention, brings with it principles different from those of bourgeois law in terms of the application of the law. In other words, communist law is not something that is invoked from above by the executive branch, which is separate from the legislative branch, but is something that is utilized from below by the Commons' Convention itself.

In other words, the application of communist law means that the laws produced by the commons together are utilized within society. This is not just rhetoric; it is a principle with practical implications.

In other words, in the Commons' Convention system, all organs that apply the law are placed under the supervision of the Commons' Convention as its subordinate organs. In other words, the enactment and application of laws occur in a series of processes that take place at Commons' Convention.

As a result, in the process of applying the law, there will be no situation where the contents of the law are conveniently interpreted and distorted by various organs belonging to the executive branch (or the judicial branch). Furthermore, when the law is applied, citizens cannot assume a passive position where they must accept the law unilaterally.

Even if law enforcement involves coercive force such as detaining a person, citizens are in an active position because it is not an authoritative invocation of the law but a democratic use of the law. In other words, citizens will broadly retain the right to object and appeal against law enforcement. Although individual citizens are not given the right to personal interpretation of the law, citizens are not helpless in the face of the the "law is law" tautology, but rather, as active subjects who use the law, they have more room to participate in the proper use of the law through objections and complaints.

It goes without saying, however, that communist law does not have any inequality in its application based on the objections or dissatisfaction of a particular class or group, and if any such inequality is found, it is not true communist law. Equality before the law is absolute.

In this way, communist law that is produced and utilized by the commons is not a dead law that has solidified and hardened, leaving only formal coercive force, but rather a living law that is used for the orderly management of society, with its validity being checked daily through objections and complaints to its application.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.