Comments for Unbound http://www.legalleft.org Harvard Journal of the Legal Left Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:43:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 Comment on Legal Holes by Comrade Martin Gantt of the Worker Student Alliance at Georgia Tech and Atlanta IWW http://www.legalleft.org/?p=188&cpage=1#comment-20 Comrade Martin Gantt of the Worker Student Alliance at Georgia Tech and Atlanta IWW Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:43:07 +0000 http://www.legalleft.org/?p=188#comment-20 The issue of revolutionary and post revolutionary organization is in many ways related to the legal holes article in your journal. I think the article was an excellent analysis of how powers are distributed in times of crisis. The article of course addresses Bourgouise political structures but many of the same principles apply to revolutionary organizing. What bigger emergency is there than winning a revolution and combating counter revolution? The Troskyists in the ISO and some in Solidarity defend the Bolshlevik suppression of workers councils in the context of the emergency of the Russian civil war. At the time Trotsky compared it to Lincoln's actions mentioned in the article. Lincoln was fighting for a progressive cause but does that give him the right to suspend Habeus Corpus? Historically its easy to say yes, but would we say the same thing about Trotsky if the Soviet Union had ended up better? Perhaps I can dodge the question by pointing out that the suppression of anarchists and dissident socialist by the Bolshleviks had little strategic or tactical value because the anarchists were themselves fighting the counter revolutionary army, and most suppression occurred after the civil war was effectively over as a means to consolidate power more than for military efficacy. Most anti Bolshelvik rebellions (Kronstadt, Black Army) were out of genuine popular dissatisfaction with the quasi capitalist Bolshlevik policies rather than a right wing conspiracy to restore Czarism or establish Capitalism. Lincoln on the other hand wasn't suppressing dissident progressives but reactionary forces that supported the Slave Confederacy. The Question remains about legal holes (Revolutionary holes maybe?). In some ways the legal holes of Bourgoise society are different from the questions about revolutionary organization. The anarcho syndicalist Rudolph Rocker described Anarchism as a synthesis of enlightenment classical liberalism and socialism. The breakthrough of anarchism is that individual freedom is maximized under egalitarianism. The persecution of minorities by majorities and vice versa is less likely under equality. Does a democratic majority have the right to murder an individual by virtue of democracy? No, but I don't think its reasonable to assume that this is a fundamental flaw. If you think Democracy is dangerous surely a despotic, undemocratic legal system doesn't make things any better. Personally, I prefer peoples' law to Bourgeoisie law. Achieving progressive gains through undemocratic means is in some ways analogous to the concept of legal holes. Noa Ben-Asher mentions the legal theory of Law as Theology. By analogy social revolution as theology is a difficult issue. The Revolutionary Theologians might argue that until a social revolution occurs and its gains consolidated democracy cannot be fetishized over revolutionary progress. Such revolutionaries might argue that Vanguard revolutionaries could sieze state power and consolidate state ownership under party rule. After this victory and consolidation workers democracy and self management could be implemented. Concretely such socialism from above has a poor historical track record. The consolidation of Bolshevik power created a nightmarish state capitalist Soviet Union. Many Troskyists view this simply as an inevitable result of a revolution attempted too early without developed infrastructure in Feudal Russia. Certainly the "Lincoln" scenario may be fetishized to a certain extent by such Revolutionaries. The Scientific Legal theory has its analogy perhaps anti authoritarian revolutionaries of the council communist and Anarcho syndicalist tradition. The claim that revolution could be achieved, defended and spread world wide with a consistent legalistic revolutionary method is perhaps most consistent with Anarcho Syndicalism. Federations of Industrial Unions representing each Industry could each have recallable delegates making decisions on a Federal level. The military organization would likewise be a federation workers militias from industry comprising the armed struggle. Orders would be given from the Federal syndicate. This was the dominant revolutionary military organization during the Spanish Civil war before the consolidation of the militias into the Communist/liberal army. While there were problems with the militias it is agreed by most leftist that the stalinist and liberals who insisted on separating the civil war from the revolution doomed the United Front. Thus the legalistic revolutionaries believe that democracy in revolution and socialism is necessary to create a liberated society but also necessary to win that society. Comrade Rosa Luxemberg points out that the socialists state requires participation of workers in operating the state, not simply a state that suppresses the bourgeoisie. The arguments for a legalistic revolutionary method are both idealistic and material. Marx's Dialectic at this point is useful although by no means able to fully resolve the matter. Achieving progressive gains is a combination of (1) having a progressive or revolutionary platform and tactics, and (2)building the support amongst the working class. There is an obvious relationship between these two revolutionaries necessities, but the exact causality and relationship is difficult to determine. Appropriate tactics and building working class support are both necessary and complementary. I'm not convinced that entrusting "Theocratic" revolutionaries with the capacity to make "revolutionary" decisions, without any accountability or democracy, is ethical or expedient. The issue of revolutionary and post revolutionary organization is in many ways related to the legal holes article in your journal. I think the article was an excellent analysis of how powers are distributed in times of crisis. The article of course addresses Bourgouise political structures but many of the same principles apply to revolutionary organizing. What bigger emergency is there than winning a revolution and combating counter revolution? The Troskyists in the ISO and some in Solidarity defend the Bolshlevik suppression of workers councils in the context of the emergency of the Russian civil war. At the time Trotsky compared it to Lincoln’s actions mentioned in the article. Lincoln was fighting for a progressive cause but does that give him the right to suspend Habeus Corpus? Historically its easy to say yes, but would we say the same thing about Trotsky if the Soviet Union had ended up better? Perhaps I can dodge the question by pointing out that the suppression of anarchists and dissident socialist by the Bolshleviks had little strategic or tactical value because the anarchists were themselves fighting the counter revolutionary army, and most suppression occurred after the civil war was effectively over as a means to consolidate power more than for military efficacy. Most anti Bolshelvik rebellions (Kronstadt, Black Army) were out of genuine popular dissatisfaction with the quasi capitalist Bolshlevik policies rather than a right wing conspiracy to restore Czarism or establish Capitalism. Lincoln on the other hand wasn’t suppressing dissident progressives but reactionary forces that supported the Slave Confederacy.
The Question remains about legal holes (Revolutionary holes maybe?). In some ways the legal holes of Bourgoise society are different from the questions about revolutionary organization. The anarcho syndicalist Rudolph Rocker described Anarchism as a synthesis of enlightenment classical liberalism and socialism. The breakthrough of anarchism is that individual freedom is maximized under egalitarianism. The persecution of minorities by majorities and vice versa is less likely under equality. Does a democratic majority have the right to murder an individual by virtue of democracy? No, but I don’t think its reasonable to assume that this is a fundamental flaw. If you think Democracy is dangerous surely a despotic, undemocratic legal system doesn’t make things any better. Personally, I prefer peoples’ law to Bourgeoisie law.
Achieving progressive gains through undemocratic means is in some ways analogous to the concept of legal holes. Noa Ben-Asher mentions the legal theory of Law as Theology. By analogy social revolution as theology is a difficult issue. The Revolutionary Theologians might argue that until a social revolution occurs and its gains consolidated democracy cannot be fetishized over revolutionary progress. Such revolutionaries might argue that Vanguard revolutionaries could sieze state power and consolidate state ownership under party rule. After this victory and consolidation workers democracy and self management could be implemented. Concretely such socialism from above has a poor historical track record. The consolidation of Bolshevik power created a nightmarish state capitalist Soviet Union. Many Troskyists view this simply as an inevitable result of a revolution attempted too early without developed infrastructure in Feudal Russia. Certainly the “Lincoln” scenario may be fetishized to a certain extent by such Revolutionaries.
The Scientific Legal theory has its analogy perhaps anti authoritarian revolutionaries of the council communist and Anarcho syndicalist tradition. The claim that revolution could be achieved, defended and spread world wide with a consistent legalistic revolutionary method is perhaps most consistent with Anarcho Syndicalism. Federations of Industrial Unions representing each Industry could each have recallable delegates making decisions on a Federal level. The military organization would likewise be a federation workers militias from industry comprising the armed struggle. Orders would be given from the Federal syndicate. This was the dominant revolutionary military organization during the Spanish Civil war before the consolidation of the militias into the Communist/liberal army. While there were problems with the militias it is agreed by most leftist that the stalinist and liberals who insisted on separating the civil war from the revolution doomed the United Front. Thus the legalistic revolutionaries believe that democracy in revolution and socialism is necessary to create a liberated society but also necessary to win that society. Comrade Rosa Luxemberg points out that the socialists state requires participation of workers in operating the state, not simply a state that suppresses the bourgeoisie. The arguments for a legalistic revolutionary method are both idealistic and material.
Marx’s Dialectic at this point is useful although by no means able to fully resolve the matter. Achieving progressive gains is a combination of (1) having a progressive or revolutionary platform and tactics, and (2)building the support amongst the working class. There is an obvious relationship between these two revolutionaries necessities, but the exact causality and relationship is difficult to determine. Appropriate tactics and building working class support are both necessary and complementary. I’m not convinced that entrusting “Theocratic” revolutionaries with the capacity to make “revolutionary” decisions, without any accountability or democracy, is ethical or expedient.

]]> Comment on Radicalism and Responsibility: An Introduction to Unbound by Ron Benjamin http://www.legalleft.org/?p=72&cpage=1#comment-10 Ron Benjamin Sun, 06 Dec 2009 03:23:54 +0000 http://www.legalleft.org/new/?p=72#comment-10 Yes, I agree to a point. For most of us the realities of a "technical degree" will hit us most in practice, as we realize that we will have to transform ourselves into entrepreneurs to keep the cash flowing. Whatever our professors may espouse politically, the fact still remains that passing the Bar is what most students will concentrate on. Whatever ambitions we have of socio-political discourse, may only be applied in elected office. Then, we become "lawmaking machines" to promote our agendas or those of a party. Hardly very pluralistic, objective, or fresh! Since I am an almost 50 year old law student with tax accounting and estate planning experience, I know that if and when I pass the bar, it will only be a less than academic formality to continue my career. Regardless, the study of law is a good reminder of our Country's Constitutional foundations, currently second to none, which give us good standards to live by and advocate. All the best to everybody! Yes, I agree to a point. For most of us the realities of a “technical degree” will hit us most in practice, as we realize that we will have to transform ourselves into entrepreneurs to keep the cash flowing. Whatever our professors may espouse politically, the fact still remains that passing the Bar is what most students will concentrate on.

Whatever ambitions we have of socio-political discourse, may only be applied in elected office. Then, we become “lawmaking machines” to promote our agendas or those of a party. Hardly very pluralistic, objective, or fresh!

Since I am an almost 50 year old law student with tax accounting and estate planning experience, I know that if and when I pass the bar, it will only be a less than academic formality to continue my career.

Regardless, the study of law is a good reminder of our Country’s Constitutional foundations, currently second to none, which give us good standards to live by and advocate. All the best to everybody!

]]> Comment on The Historical Amnesia of Samuel Alito, A Review of The Lost World of Italian American by Unbound http://www.legalleft.org/?p=50&cpage=1#comment-5 Unbound Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:08:27 +0000 http://www.legalleft.org/new/?p=50#comment-5 thanks stephen! thanks stephen!

]]> Comment on Rage and Critique: One Jewish Girl’s Story by Unbound http://www.legalleft.org/?p=74&cpage=1#comment-4 Unbound Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:51:13 +0000 http://www.legalleft.org/new/?p=74#comment-4 fantastic. fantastic.

]]> Comment on In Pursuit of the Gold Star: Diary of a Law Student by Unbound http://www.legalleft.org/?p=76&cpage=1#comment-3 Unbound Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:31:46 +0000 http://www.legalleft.org/new/?p=76#comment-3 enjoyed this one! enjoyed this one!

]]> Comment on The “Real” in Resistance: Transgression of Law as Ethical Act by Unbound http://www.legalleft.org/?p=19&cpage=1#comment-2 Unbound Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:19:50 +0000 http://www.legalleft.org/new/?p=19#comment-2 interesting! interesting!

]]>