Distribution according to labor is bourgeois legal rights, and initially I thought that the socialist legal norm of “those who do not work shall not eat” was independent of distribution according to labor. However, seeing Lenin’s statement in “Marxism and the State” that “those who do not work, do not eat,” I realized that this is also a result of distribution according to labor, so it is not socialist legal rights either.
Prohibition of speculation and profiteering is a similar situation; capitalism can also prohibit speculation and profiteering to carry out so-called fair competition, which is actually similar to only allowing distribution according to labor. If not actively restricted, differences in labor productivity between enterprises will still lead to polarization.
Therefore, Lenin in “The State and Revolution” said “a state that retains no bourgeoisie,” in which there is a struggle between bourgeois legal rights and communist factors. The realization of communism does not rely on coercive force, so its evolution necessarily cannot be achieved through coercion. It can only be that the growing communist factors defeat the declining bourgeois legal rights.
There is no such thing as socialist legal rights; all principles of formal equality that are actually unequal are bourgeois legal rights.
Why is there no such term as socialist legal power? I don’t quite understand.
This is how I understand it. Bourgeois legal rights are, after the establishment of socialist society, still residual forms preserved in legal form—formal equality but actual inequality—various legal rights and systems. Therefore, bourgeois legal rights are ultimately remnants of capitalist society within socialist society (after all, socialism is born out of capitalism, and in various aspects still bears the shadows of the old society and is influenced by some factors). So, conversely, in capitalist society, socialist legal rights are impossible. It can’t be said that capitalism has fully reverted and still retains some socialist elements in effect; otherwise, it would become the vulgar folk science claims of old conservatives.
That’s roughly the idea, but I haven’t learned enough myself, so I might also say it incorrectly. I don’t know what other colleagues think.
I do not understand why, based on the quotation, it can be concluded that the principle that those who do not work shall not eat still constitutes bourgeois legal rights.
According to the third part of “Materialist Dialectics and Historical Materialism,” legal rights are “theories about the origin, essence, and function of law. They provide theoretical basis for the laws of a certain class, theoretically prove that the laws of this class are necessary, reasonable, and should be followed by everyone.”
“Abolishing private ownership, implementing the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the principle that those who do not work shall not eat are the fundamental premises of proletarian legal rights. Laws formulated based on this legal rights ideology, such as the “Land Law Outline” and the “Regulations for the Suppression of Counterrevolutionaries” issued by our people’s government, are important weapons for the proletariat and broad masses of working people to suppress exploiters and defend the interests of the people.”
What I think is that the principle of ‘those who do not work shall not eat’ is in accordance with the requirements and manifestations of distribution according to labor, which naturally is the bourgeois legal right.
To be honest, the statement that those who do not work shall not eat is completely absurd, a bourgeois legal right. If that’s the case, then communism would be considered parasitic, right? In reality, it’s just that this idea is understood through bourgeois legal rights thinking.
Why did you suddenly reply to this post
I didn’t see it before, but I felt compelled to reply after seeing it.
How do you think that the idea ‘those who do not work shall not eat’ is a manifestation of distribution according to work? Does distribution according to need mean that no labor is required? Have you forgotten the principle of ‘each according to his ability’? It is ‘each according to his ability’ before distribution according to work, not the other way around.
Indeed, one is whether to work or not, one is how much can be allocated after working, one is qualitative difference, and one is quantitative difference.
Be sure to play more 崩铁
What do you want to do?
I super, isn’t Calvinism the rebellious thing that combines church and state?
The reactionary gang that burned the progressive scientist Selvet and persecuted scientists.
Your understanding of Calvin is also limited to a small philosophical dictionary. Servetus was burned simply because he opposed the Trinity. Servetus would be burned wherever he went; even the moderate Morland supported burning Servetus. Moreover, Servetus went to Geneva to overthrow Calvin, and cleverness backfired. Calvin also thought the execution by fire was too cruel and suggested beheading, but this was not adopted by the Geneva Council. By the way, the decision to burn Servetus was made by the Geneva Council; Calvin was just a pastor in Geneva and had no right to burn Servetus.
- Burning Servetus was not for scientific reasons, but because he opposed the doctrine of the Trinity. Opposing this doctrine in Europe would get you burned at the stake everywhere. 2. Servetus was burned by decision of the Geneva Council, not something Calvin could decide. Calvin advocated a more moderate form of capital punishment, which was vetoed by the council. 3. Anyone who is a hardcore Calvinist at least agrees that Calvin burned Servetus because he was heretic, only the Small Dictionary of Philosophy says it was because Servetus was a scientist. So please, don’t just read the Small Dictionary of Philosophy with blind admiration. 4. The theocratic unity? I suggest you look at Chapter 20 of Volume IV of “Institutes of the Christian Religion” to see what his view on the relationship between church and state actually was. In fact, as a pioneer of the separation of church and state, Calvin inevitably had limitations, but those are not your reasons to criticize him.
Your understanding of Calvin probably isn’t only from “A Little Dictionary of Philosophy and Foreign Philosophy History,” haha. Don’t just look at those things; the thoughts of the Reformation theologians are deeper than you think.
To refute me, please counter with facts and logic 
What does it mean when you say this sentence?