Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

A longing for justice fueled both the rise and the collapse of socialism: justice for the proletarians of all countries, for wage earners without property or power, and for ordinary men and women. But although their battle hymn, The Internationale, sang of law and human rights, early socialists did not see law as a useful instrument for producing justice. Formal legal rules could ensure the reciprocity of market exchanges and the equal treatment of disembodied and fictitious participants in an abstract legal process, they thought. However, because real people differ greatly in wealth, abilities, and powers, their equal treatment under formal rules would produce great inequality in practice. Moreover, because every ruling class controls the writing of the statute books and thus can fashion legislation to advance its interests, law—seemingly universal and impartial—in fact helps to cover up the exploitation of the weak by the powerful.

The Withering of Law

Early socialists, therefore, believed that they would need law and the repression it legitimated only long enough to wrest power from the bourgeoisie and to establish a classless society in which private property and the market would be replaced by public ownership and planning. Goods would not go to the highest bidder, but would be centrally allocated to that recipient most likely to use them best. Absent a market, society would no longer need law to coordinate exchanges between selfish maximizers. Under socialism, the tit for tat of capitalist self-interest would be replaced by collective solidarity. Citizens would contribute to society what they could (not what their employment contracts specified) and receive from society what they individually required (not what they could pay for). Unlike bourgeois justice, which niggardly measures individual deserts by formal rules to dole out punishments and rewards accordingly, socialist justice would discard all calculations of equivalence and freely give to ensure each individual's welfare. The satisfaction of needs would replace the vindication of rights. Law could wither away and would not be missed.

The hopes for justice in the early years of socialism envisaged a society resembling the family, governed not by abstract rules but by concrete and brotherly solicitude among its members. Early socialists presupposed both an abundance of goods (which Marxists thought would follow once the “fetters” of private ownership were removed from the economy) and the transformation of human nature. When, in the wake of economic chaos, civil war, and famine, neither of these preconditions came about, socialists quickly returned to the use of law as an important tool of government. In 1928, contracts were reintroduced in the Soviet Union as a means of coordinating exchanges in a planned economy. Criminal law moved from a flexible and therapeutic “social danger” doctrine to the rigid and vindictive punishment of individual guilt. Under Joseph Stalin (1879–1953), law became an increasingly repressive instrument of state control.

Satisfaction of Social Needs

Nevertheless, socialists did not abandon their criticism of the abstract formalism of bourgeois law. Socialist justice continued to emphasize the satisfaction of social needs rather than the vindication of individual rights. The law was not supposed to shore up individual autonomy but to safeguard social welfare. It did so by promising substantive (or, as socialists called it, “material”) justice to its citizens, a state of affairs in which they would be provided with the practical necessities of daily life such as work, health care, and housing.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading