Talk:Socialist law

message: In a typical civil law country, codes cover, at length, notions of private property: how to acquire or transfer property, corporations, how commerce takes places, etc. Civil trials, to a great extent, are about problems of property. So, saying that Socialist law is just like civil law without private property is somewhat weird.
What exactly are the similarities between civil and Socialist law? One may say that they tend to codify statute laws in codes — but so does the Federal Government of the United States. Another factor is that in the civil law tradition, courts don't make law — but the constant jurisprudence of, say, the French Court of Cassation is in practice equivalent to case law (and I doubt that similar freedom of interpretation was left to the courts in Socialist countries). David.Monniaux 12:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil law system 

message: From the article: "...the state owns all land but often not the structures that sit on that land. A rather complex ad-hoc system of use rights to land property has developed, and these use rights are the things being officially traded (rather than the property itself)"  It just struck me that this sounds rather similar to the situation in the UK: property owners don't in fact own their land but have a freehold from the Crown.  Very few land 'owners' have any mineral rights for instance.217.154.66.11 12:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Property Law Comparison 

message: This only talks about property law.  What about criminal law?  Hasn't criminal law in communist countries tended to be more heavy-handed than in democracies? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.75.187.195 (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal/Citizen Law 

message: There was never anything called "socialist law": I can find one article by one person on SSRN from 2007 which talks about the concept. But clearly, that's wrong: it wasn't because the countries were "socialist" that the law was distinctive, it was because the countries were undemocratic that gave them made the system procedurally despotic. This page itself cites no articles or books at all. There is nothing definitive about a law in "socialist countries" as a group- Soviet law was however recognised as a distinct field, because it was the law of the USSR. There was nothing particularly common about that and Chinese law. I think this article should be blanked and the material dispersed to other articles. Wikidea 16:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, a different treatment of economic factors does not create a whole new category of legal systems. This page reeks of Cold War-era "us vs. them" mentality. 68.145.200.107 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does this page exist?

message: Socialism encompasses a broad range of beliefs and this article deals almost exclusively with Marxist-Leninist Law, I propose renaming the title to "Soviet Law," give your thoughts. Vallee01 (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, the term "Soviet law" would be much more appropriate. Sergeant Batou (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be renamed "soviet law?" 

message: In The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the dark curtain of the Soviet legal system is meticulously unveiled, if such a theater can be called "law." Through its pages, Solzhenitsyn denounces the charade of trials in which the verdict was predetermined, mocking the genuine principle of justice. These "mock trials", far from ensuring a fair process, were mere instruments of oppression and political control. Enriching this article with insights from The Gulag Archipelago is vital, as it provides a profound and harrowing perspective on the dangers of a corrupted legal system. Sergeant Batou (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Gulag Archipelago