State and Law under Socialism
Gosudarstvo i pravo pri sotsializme, Sovetskoe gosudarstvo (1936) no.3, pp.3-11; partially translated into English in M. Jaworskyj (ed.), Soviet Political Thought: An Anthology (1967), Johns Hopkins University Press, pp.315-323.
From Evgeny Pashukanis, Selected Writings on Marxism and Law (eds. P. Beirne & R. Sharlet), London & New York 1980, pp.346-61.
Translated by Peter B. Maggs. home.law.uiuc.edu/~pmaggs/
Copyright © Peter B. Maggs. Published here by kind permission of the translator.
Downloaded from home.law.uiuc.edu/~pmaggs/pashukanis.htm
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
The Stalinist revolution from above had by 1936 accomplished most of its economic and political tasks, and its incipient proclivities for greater legal formality and stability were now becoming increasingly apparent. The Party pendulum was beginning to swing away from legal nihilism and towards legal stability and socialist legality, and Pashukanis must certainly have been aware of the fact that the leftist tendencies which he seemed to represent were a major obstacle to this impending shift.
As Professor Hazard describes in the Foreword to this volume, Pashukanis was nevertheless still politically pre-eminent within the Soviet legal profession. His colleague, Krylenko, had been appointed the first USSR Commissar of justice. In addition to his other roles and titles, Pashukanis was appointed Deputy Commissar, and was assigned special responsibilities in the drafting of the new constitution which would supersede the now outdated Constitution of the USSR of 1924. The trend towards greater legal stabilization, and towards a greater reliance on law as an instrument of regulation and control, was readily evident both in the drafting process and also in the statutory changes occurring in the areas of contract law, collective farm law and family law. The clear direction of these changes, and of the forthcoming new constitution, was away from the nihilistic and eliminationist orientation of economic law towards the rehabilitation of the legal form as it was articulated during the New Economic Policy.
Pashukanis, as theorist and symbol of the earlier legal policy, stood in the path of this swinging pendulum. It was, after all, he who had originally characterized all law as “bourgeois” and through the success of his General Theory popularized this view not merely among Marxist legal cadres but even more widely among individuals in positions of authority who thought it convenient to think of themselves as being above the law. Moreover, Pashukanis was clearly identified with opposition to the idea of “socialist law” and he remained the leading advocate for the active process of the withering away of law.
Sensing, at last, that he was officially and publicly out of step with the Party’s changing policies on state and law, Pashukanis rushed into print with his third and final self-criticism. This appears below. In this rather abject statement, Pashukanis applauds Stalin’s dicta at the April 1929 Plenum of the Central Committee, at the XVIth and XVIIth Party Congresses, and elsewhere, that socialism demands the highest concentration of state power. Pashukanis admits that his General Theory had therefore been seriously deficient in that socialism in practice consisted, not in the imminent withering away of the legal form, but in the preparation for the conditions of this process. Under socialism the legal form disappears only with respect to the ownership of the means of production, but it necessarily remains in operation in the sphere of distribution. Only a Soviet socialist system of law can create the conditions for the transformation to the higher phase of communism.
This recantation was, however, insufficient to save Pashukanis from the purges. The pendulum completed its swing with the ratification of the new Constitution of the USSR in December 1936. A month later, in January 1937, Pashukanis disappeared, a victim of Stalinism.
The liquidation of the exploiting classes has been completed in our country.  This now poses the problem of the Soviet state as the political superstructure of the classless socialist society.
Colossal socio-economic advances have led to the creation of a uniform type of socialist relations of production in the towns and countryside, and thus to a new stage in the development of the dictatorship of the proletarian state and Soviet democracy.
The question of the role of state and law under socialism now assumes a tremendous theoretical and practical significance. It is therefore necessary to recall a number of Lenin’s and Stalin’s theoretical propositions – it is necessary to begin with these in order to clarify the significance of state and law during the period of socialism. We must distance ourselves from the mistakes and confusion on these questions, including those errors made by jurists.
In his State and Revolution Lenin precisely and clearly solves the question of the nature of the state under socialism. He makes a sharp distinction between communists and the diverse types of anarchist theorists.
We are not utopians [asserted Lenin] and we do not “dream” of immediately having no administration or subordination; these are anarchist dreams and are based on a lack of understanding of the tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat. At root they are foreign to Marxism and in practice they only delay the socialist revolution until the time when human nature is different. No, we want a socialist revolution with people as they are now-with people who cannot do without subordination, without supervision, without “overseers and auditors”. 
Lenin’s State and Revolution was directed not only against opportunist, reformist and Kautskyist distortions of Marxism (distortions which lead to compromise with the bourgeois state and the refusal to destroy the bourgeois state machine), it was also aimed at the petit bourgeois and anarchist dreamers who counted on the immediate elimination of political authority, state organization, and the organization of coercion and compulsion-”on the second day” of the proletarian revolution.
Lenin’s work was evoked both by the necessity of distancing himelf from Kautsky et al., and by the necessity of confronting the anarchic mistakes and confusion of Bukharin. In those years Bukharin had published a series of articles in which he developed and preached the anti-Marxist theory of the “explosion” of the state and that the proletarian party had to emphasize the principled hostility of the working class to the state.
Lenin’s position on law is equally clear. “Without lapsing into utopianism”, he wrote, “it is inconceivable that people will immediately learn to work without any legal norms after the overthrow of capitalism. The abolition of capitalism does not immediately provide the economic premises for such a transformation. 
These compressed positions must be developed in our theoretical work as an all-round, detailed study of the role of the socialist state and socialist Soviet law. Such studies are even more necessary because the lack of clarity on the question of the state under socialism is not exhausted by Bukharin’s articles which relate to the period of the imperialist war, about which I have written, but they are also encountered much later.
At the April Plenum of the Central Committee in 1929, Comrade Stalin showed the deep divergence between the anarchist theory of “explosion” – defended by Comrade Bukharin – and the Marxist Leninist theory of the destruction and smashing of the bourgeois state machine. Comrade Stalin scoffed at the pretentiousness of Bukharin and his followers. They claimed that in putting forward their confused non-Marxist theory of “explosion”, Bukharin had fought better and more correctly against Kautsky than had Lenin.
It was not accidental that the role of the proletarian state was placed at the centre of the whole Party’s attention in those years when the country started to approach the final victory of socialism with rapid strides.
Comrade Stalin explained, at the XVIth Party Congress, that the path to the future communist, stateless society lies in the all-round consolidation of state power. He repeated this thesis at the January Plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Auditing Committee in 1933:
The elimination of classes is not achieved by suppressing class struggle, but by intensifying it. The withering away of the state will not happen by weakening state authority but through its maximum consolidation. This is vital if we are to destroy the remnants of the dying classes and to organize a defence against the capitalist encirclement which is still far from eliminated, and will not soon be eliminated. 
Finally, at the XVIIth Party Congress, Comrade Stalin again spoke out most sharply against the opportunists who, on the occasion of the approach to the classless society, had tried to project their ridiculous ideas concerning the suppresssion of the class struggle and the weakening of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
It is understood [said Comrade Stalin] that the classless society will not come of its own accord. It must be achieved and constructed by the efforts of all working people – by consolidating the agencies of the dictatorship of the proletariat, by the development of the class struggle, by the elimination of classes, by the liquidation of the remnants of the capitalist classes – in struggles with both internal and external enemies. 
Because of the efforts of the working people the classless society has now been basically constructed. But only an opportunist could think that the further development and consolidation of the socialist system can come by allowing nature to take its course, or that the elimination of classes means that there is no need for either the dictatorship of the proletariat or for the state. Lenin argues:
The essence of Marx’s theory of the state can only be mastered by understanding that the dictatorship of one class is necessary not only for every class society in general, not only for the proletariat after it has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical period that separates capitalism from “a society without classes”, i.e. from communism. The forms of the bourgeois state may be extremely varied, but their essence is the same: in one way or another all these states are, in the final analysis, necessarily dictatorships of the bourgeoisie. Inevitably, of course, the transition from capitalism to communism will contain an abundance and variety of political forms, but their essence is the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat. 
From this excerpt (extraordinarily rich in content), it follows that the proletarian state will preserve its position during the whole period from the overthrow of the bourgeoisie to communist society. Whatever the possible variations of political form, the essence and content of this state will be the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Soviet power is the state form of the proletarian dictatorship, and it has assumed world historical significance. But the Soviet state will not remain an inert entity; it will develop in accordance with victories in the struggle for the abolition of classes.
The construction of a classless socialist society will open a new era in the unfolding of Soviet democracy (a new constitution, a new franchise law). But this change in political form will entail the same essence. This essence is the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Basically, although we have constructed a classless socialist society we have still not achieved the higher phase of communism. The basic difference between socialism and communism, or between the lower and higher phases of communism, consists in the fact that socialism is characterized by the domination of public socialist property, and proceeds are distributed according to labour. Communism is characterized by the consolidation and development of public property, and distribution is according to need.
The development of socialist forces of production and culture – which enables distribution according to need – signifies the elimination of the contradiction between mental and manual labour, and the transformation of labour into man’s primary need. It signifies a condition in which people are capable of working without “overseers and auditors”, without legal norms, without coercive force, and without the state.
The process of the withering away of the state can therefore begin no sooner than the disappearance of the coercive nature of labour. This constitutes the basic economic premise for the process of withering away, for the gradual demise of state power.
Recall that in his Economics of the Transitional Period Bukharin put these processes in the following order: first the abolition of the armed forces, then the instruments of oppression, prisons etc. and finally the coercive nature of labour.
Lenin reverses this order. What Bukharin placed at the end, Lenin places at the beginning, as the first fundamental premise without which it is impossible to speak of the instigation of the process of withering away.
Even in our milieu the theory existed that the actual process of withering away had begun with the October Revolution and that, therefore, it should be proceeding at full speed during the period when classes were being abolished and the classless socialist society was being constructed. But this was a false and opportunist theory. It was false because it did not take into account the fundamental economic premise without which there cannot even be any discussion of the superfluousness of the state.
Confusion on the question of the withering away of the proletarian state began with the fact that this question was itself conflated with the question of the nature of the proletarian state as a semi-state – as a state which, in contradistinction to exploitative states, does not strive to be eternal but which, on the contrary, prepares the conditions and premises for the actual destruction of the state. After the proletariat has overthrown the bourgeoisie it creates a state of a special type. This does not represent the power of an exploiting minority over the majority, but it is a weapon of the labouring majority used against the exploiters.
The Party Programme – speaking of the gradual involvement of all the toiling people in the work of state administration (which is made possible by the Soviet system) – concludes that:
The full execution of all these measures represents a further step along the road begun by the Paris Commune. The simplification of administrative functions, and the raising of the cultural level of the workers, will lead to the destruction of state authority. 
The question therefore concerns the preparation of the conditions for the withering away of the state. This withering away will only become possible in the second phase of communism. The creation of the conditions for the future stateless organization does not represent a process of reducing state power, but a process of consolidating it. This is especially done by bringing larger and larger masses of working people into the administration of the state.
There is no barrier between the state apparatus and the mass of working people in the proletarian state. This very state apparatus – in the broad sense of the term – represents the sum of the masses’ organizations.
The special role of mass organizations, trade unions and all other organizations of working people, are characteristic of our proletarian state and correspond to its nature. This feature of our state exists, of course, from the very moment when this state arose, i.e. from the October Revolution. But the development and consolidation of these special features by no means represents the weakening and withering away of state power because of its inutility.
There is contradiction and antagonism between the bourgeois state and society. We do not have this antagonism. Our state includes mass workers’ organizations, and the activity of the state apparatus is simultaneously social activity. Our state ownership of the means of production is social ownership. Accordingly, we can see that the mass organizations are constantly and increasingly involved in the work of administration and supervision, and that they are responsible for specific concrete tasks. Yet this does not mean that a process of the weakening and withering away of state power is occurring. This is one of the ways of strengthening state power. The maximum development of the workers’ participation signifies the strengthening of the state apparatus which is persuasive, ideologically influential and can use power, compulsion and force as well.
The socialist state administers not just people, but also things and the process of production. In his speech to the First Congress of Councils of the National Economy, Lenin argued that:
there is no doubt that the more the conquests of the October Revolution, the deeper will be the transformation that it initiated. The more implanted the conquests of the socialist revolution and the strengthening of the socialist system, the greater will be the role of the councils of the national economy. These are the only state organizations to retain a firm position. Their position will be consolidated the nearer we are to the establishment of a socialist system, and the less room there will be for a purely administrative apparatus, for an apparatus which only conducts administration. After the resistance of the exploiters is finally destroyed this apparatus is condemned. This apparatus of administration – in the real and narrow sense of the term, this apparatus of the old state is doomed to wither away. The apparatus of the Supreme Council of the National Economy will expand, develop and become stronger: it will conduct all the most important activities of the organized society. 
The victory of public socialist property in the town and country, and the successes of state planning and administration of the entire national economy, will further strengthen the role and significance of the apparatuses conducting the state’s economic activity. These agencies will be retained in the stateless, communist society because even there where “labour is the primary need of life” – labour and economic life must still be organized. During the period of socialism the agencies which direct the socialist economy are state agencies. The administration of things and processes of production are inseparable from the administration of people, and from the functions of power, state coercion and state legislation.
The expanding role of state planning and the consolidation and broadening of the economic agencies is the process whereby the socialist state is consolidated. It by no means signifies that the state is beginning its final withering away.
Despite the basic construction of a socialist classless society, it must be understood that the class struggle continues. Further work is essential both for the socialization and re-eduction of the working masses and for the suppression of recalcitrant and hostile elements. These latter continue to oppose socialism, continue to offer resistance and to act deceptively. The state apparatus – a coercive apparatus – is crucial in combating the enemies of socialism. Finally, it is also necessary to defend ourselves against capitalist encirclement. The defence of the socialist motherland demands ceaseless attention to the strengthening of the Red Army and of all the armed forces of the socialist state.
Socialism is a system based on the social character of the means of production. Distribution is according to the quantity and quality of labour. This means that we must have a national supervisory and accounting organization to oversee labour and consumption patterns. For this legal norms – and an apparatus of coercion, without which law is nothing – are necessary.
Socialist society is organized as a statist society. The socialist state and socialist law will be fully preserved until the highest phase of communism. Only at this phase will people begin to work without overseers and legal norms.
It is just as opportunistic to assert that law will wither away under socialism as it is to affirm that state authority should wither away the day after the bourgeoisie was overthrown.
In this context it is appropriate to offer once again deserved criticism of those erroneous positions put forward by the author of The General Theory of Law and Marxism. This is essential if the old mistakes and confusion are not to be repeated in other forms and other ways.
Since distribution according to labour bears some similarity to the equivalent exchange of commodities, thus Marx and Lenin argued that bourgeois law will only be fully abolished under socialism with respect to the ownership of the means of production. Private property is replaced by public property. But in the area of distribution, law is effectively “bourgeois law” because it represents the application of an equal scale to factually unequal individuals. It preserves actual inequality among individuals because in equalizing quantities of labour it does not consider qualitative differences in physical strength, abilities, family influences etc.
This principle of reward according to labour is a socialist principle. It is applied in a society in which each person can give nothing but his labour, where there is no exploitation, crises or unemployment, in a society where the ruling principle is “he who does not work shall not eat”, and where the state guarantees the real right to work. This “bourgeois” law, therefore, does not and cannot have anything in common with the class interests of the bourgeoisie. This law is established by the proletarian dictatorship and is the law of the socialist state. It serves the interests of the working people and the interests of the development of socialist production. The condenscending attitude that this law is “bourgeois” benefits only the anarchic theories of the “left wing” and the champions of bourgeois equality.
While Marx referred to the necessity of distribution according to labour as a “shortcoming” of socialism, it is nevertheless obvious that this expression is a relative one. The discussion refers to shortcomings in comparison with the higher phase of communism: and only this.
However, this question was totally misrepresented in The General Theory of Law and Marxism. Law, state and morality were simply declared to be bourgeois forms which cannot be filled with a socialist content and which must wither away in proportion to the realization of such content.  This grossly mistaken position, foreign to Marxism-Leninism, distorts the meaning of the proletarian state, distorts the meaning of proletarian communist morality, and distorts the meaning of Soviet law as the law of the proletarian state which serves as an instrument in the construction of socialism.
The real and concrete history of Soviet law as a weapon of proletarian policy – which the proletariat used at various stages to defend the conquests of the revolution and the reconstruction towards socialism – was replaced by abstract and mistaken conclusions about the withering away of law, about the “disappearance” of the legal superstructure etc.
Confused conclusions on the withering away of the “form of law”, as a phenomenon inherited from the bourgeois world, distracted from the concrete task of combating bourgeois influence and bourgeois attempts to distort Soviet legislation and Soviet law.
The theoretical position which initiated this anti-Marxist confusion was the concept of law exclusively as a form of commodity exchange. The relationship between commodity owners was asserted to be the real and specific content of all law. It is clear that the basic class content of every system of law – which consists in the ownership of the means of production – was consequently relegated to the background. Law was deduced directly from commodity exchange according to value; the role of the class state was therefore ignored, protecting the system of ownership corresponding to the interests of the ruling class. The essence should be: which class holds state power?
The great Socialist October Revolution attacked capitalist private property and instituted a new socialist system of law. The main thing in the Soviet concept of law is its socialist essence as the law of the proletarian state. After the victory of socialism and the liquidation of the pluralist structure of the economy, law did not begin to wither away. Rather, this was the period when the content of Soviet socialist law – both in the town and country – mirrored uniform socialist relationships of production.
The theory of the “bourgeois nature” of all law persistently conflated such different things as the co-existence of the private entrepreneur and the economic accountability of socialist enterprises, capitalist exchange and exchange by co-operatives and agencies of the proletarian state, the equivalent exchange of commodities according to value and the socialist principle of distribution according to labour.
In this theory, socialism was essentially contrasted to exchange, and economic accountability with control by the rouble. With respect to the withering away of exchange and money, and the transition to direct commodity exchange, “leftist” pseudo-theories are in the same logical category as theories which stress the “withering away of law” and the “disappearance of the legal superstructure”.
These mistaken theories were harshly criticized at the First Congress of Marxist Theorists of the State. Emphasis was placed upon the great importance of Soviet law as law which proceeds from the dictatorship of the proletariat and which finds its strength therein:
... For us it must be indisputable that although Soviet law deals with different economic structures, its power and movement and nevertheless has but one source – the October Revolution the dictatorship of the proletariat ... Such facts as the transformation of the proletariat into the ruling class, the creation of the Soviet state, the nationalization of the basic instruments of production, the nationalization of land, transport, banks and the monopoly of foreign trade all these are starting points which imprint themselves on Soviet law and which give it its special quality. 
The theory that the specific quality of law is the facilitation of equivalent exchange was criticized and defeated after the discussions of 1930-1931. However, the positive aspect of this task-the broad and all-round development of the system of Soviet socialist law – has not yet been accomplished. Our work in this area still remains backward. Such decisive moments as: the adoption of the Law of August 7, 1932, concerning the sanctity and inviolability of socialist property; the decisions of the XVIIth Party Congress on the liquidation of classes; Comrade Stalin’s speech at the January Plenum of the Central Committee and Central Auditing Committee of 1933 on the new tasks of revolutionary legality – were only used for relevant legislation in specialized areas (economic law, criminal law etc.). The general theory of Soviet socialist law has still not yet developed anything thorough and systematic. Decisive conclusions must be drawn from this fact.
The attempt to provide Soviet socialist law with a complete system could not have triumphed in 1930, because this was the time when all out collectivization was taking place (and the liquidation of the kulaks as a class was in process).
Also recall that practical attempts to create new codes suffered failure at this time. But this happened in such a way that a number of zealots, who championed the system of Soviet law as proletarian or socialist law, tried to initiate (under the banner of developing this system) various politically dangerous and anti-Party orientations. These included the liquidation of NEP in the towns concurrently with the liquidation of the kulaks, and the abolition of civil law for the collective farms which would essentially have meant their transformation into state enterprises.
The opposite trend also took place – the declaration that various relations of production were socialist when in fact they were not. Recall the social revolutionary “theories” of Professor Rosenblum, to the effect that the petty commodity producer (and the peasant who works the land) also build socialism.
Also mistaken were Comrade Stuchka’s attempts to base the system of Soviet law on the principle of equivalence equivalence in the sense of compensation according to labour, and equivalence in the sense of the guarantee that no property (including kulak property) would be expropriated without compensation. Such a “system” would be an effective impediment and obstacle for the development of socialist progress.
We struggled against these distortions and criticized attempts to construct the system of Soviet law in isolation from the policy of the dictatorship of the proletariat and from its tasks during the period of transition. We also insisted that Soviet law must enjoy the maximum mobility and flexibility during the period of full-scale socialist offensive. But in itself this criticism was not sufficient because we failed to show clearly the conclusions that. could be derived for Soviet law from the tremendous economic advances and those class relationships which have characterized the full-scale socialist offensive. But this obligation was all the more pressing for us because earlier we held the confused view concerning the withering away of all law under socialism.
We have now come to the period when Soviet socialist law formalizes – within the state of victorious socialism and on the basis of socialist property – the domination of uniform socialist relations of production in the town and country. We are in the period when socialist relations of production in industry and agriculture are firmly stabilized. Public socialist property, and distribution according to labour: these are the cornerstones on which we can and must construct the system of Soviet socialist law.
This is an immense task, most gratifying, and it has practical value. In a whole array of areas we still have not yet codified our legislation. The old codes, which were planned for the co-existence of, and struggle between the capitalist and socialist sectors, are only effective in isolated areas and often only through some of their articles. Most provisions are ineffective. Whether you take the Civil Code, the Land Code or the Labour Code, none of them can be applied as codes any more.
The task before us is to express in Soviet law – in an appropriate, integral and completed code these new and uniform relationships.
When the new Constitution is adopted this task will become urgent, but it will be facilitated by the Constitution. This is because the bases of the socialist legal system will be formulated in the new Constitution; its draft has already been adopted by the Plenum of the Central Committee of our Party.
From the economic and legal perspectives, one of the most fundamental questions concerns the co-existence of two different types of socialist property: state property (i.e. property of all the people) and collective farm property (i.e. property of the cooperatives).
From the legal perspective, one of the most important tasks is to elaborate this distinction and to identify the features of these two types.
The development and consolidation of public socialist property (in its state and collective farm/co-operative forms) assumes the consolidation of the personal property of working people. Socialism signifies the fullest protection of the rights of the individual, of the rights of each member of socialist society, of a society of free working people in the town and country.
This question of the personal and property rights of the working people has been insufficiently developed by us.
In our works on economic law – particularly in Vol.1 of A Course on Soviet Economic Law, there was almost no room for the working person, for man, because everything was absorbed by the problem of the relationship between economic units. Questions of civil law were almost absent.
This was wrong of course. The problem of personal and property rights – and of their protection – is an immense theoretical and practical task.
The socialist state protects not only public socialist property; it also protects the supplementary agricultural plot of the collective farmer, protects his personal property, the personal property of each working person.
Not long ago there was a scholarly conference of the fascist professors of law in Berlin. They decided that the concept of man should be excluded from civil law: this concept, they argued, was so broad that a foreigner, a non-Aryan, and “even” a Jew might be encompassed by it.
Against this racist gibberish, against this unbridled chauvinism, we propose the defence of the personal and property rights of each member of socialist society.
Soviet socialist law must protect the conquests of the revolution, the security of our socialist state and socialist public system, public socialist property, discipline, personal property rights and the consolidation of the socialist family.
Here there arises the great problem of the relation between Soviet socialist law and socialist morality. We must particularly stress, in the context of the role of the courts, the close bond between our criminal law and our socialist morality.
The decisions of our Soviet courts – made on the basis of our laws – are a method for morally influencing those who are not directly involved in a given judicial hearing – the entire society.
The task of socialization and re-education is now being pushed to the forefront more and more. In practice the court is an agency which uses coercion and repression; simultaneously, it acts by persuasion and re-education.
The practice of the application of Soviet socialist law is that of intensified struggle and the infliction of heavy blows on the remnants of our class enemies. Our court is an agency of the proletarian dictatorship and it will remain as such. But the court therefore has another task – re-education. This must not be isolated from the tasks of coercion and repression. The practice of applying Soviet law in different areas is a massive cultural and educational task. The introduction of socialist legality, socialist legal concepts, the achievement of the correct relation between the citizen and the socialist state this is what is required in the area of the practical application of Soviet law. This is what must be considered in its theoretical development.
1. This is a revised transcript of a report to the Moscow Legal Institute, conference on theory, April 3, 1936.
2. V.I. Lenin, The State and Revolution (1917), LCW, vol.25, p.425.
3. ibid., p.467.
4. J. Stalin, Problems of Leninism (1933), Partizdat’, Moscow, p.509.
5. ibid., p.580.
6. V.I. Lenin, The State and Revolution (1917), op. cit., p.413.
7. Programme and Charter of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) (1933), Politizdat, Moscow, p. 21.
8. V.I. Lenin, Sochinenii, vol.23, p.36.
9. See E.B. Pashukanis, The General Theory of Law and Marxism (1926), Moscow, 2nd edition, p.105.
10. E.B. Pashukanis, For a Marxist-Leninist Theory of State and Law, The Soviet State and Revolution of the Law (1931), no.1, p.24.
Last updated on 13.5.2004