The same is true of law, It is the tool of class rule and the embodiment of the will of the ruling class.
Only from the literal sense of this expression, the theory of law and the theory of state seem to be in a parallel position, as if the theory of law has the same high status as the theory of state.
We should rely on the improvement of law to regulate the operation of state power, but we should also avoid blindly advocating law and belittling power, defining power as evil and exaggerating the opposition between the two.
It is not objective, at least overestimating the practical role of the “theory of state and law” as a theory.
In the theory and practice of the rule of law in today’s society, the corresponding relationship between the two is actually the relationship between law and state power, law and power.
In this regard, it is necessary and of great practical significance to strengthen the discussion on the relationship between legal superstructure and political superstructure and reinterpret the theory of the relationship between law and state power.
The theory of law is often regarded as a part of the state theory and lacks its own independence and autonomy, so that the state theory completely “engulfs” the theory of law.
Tracing back to the source, why does the understanding of the relationship between the state and law form this “fixed model”, and why does Marxist legal philosophy fail to highlight the independence of law relative to the state? From the theoretical source, it is indeed related to the methodology of analyzing society by Marx and Engels at that time.
Under the guidance of this theory, the law has no binding effect on the state, and it is impossible to govern the country according to law.” [] this reflection points out the problems of this theory.
On the relationship between “legal superstructure” and “political superstructure”: in the study of Marxist philosophy of law, the relationship between legal superstructure and political superstructure has been neglected for a long time, which corresponds to the relationship between law (Law) and national power (political power).
The goal of the rule of law should not be to regulate and restrict power on the premise that power is permanently set as evil, but to change and transform power, so as to weaken the “political nature” of political power and finally become the common force of society and United individuals.
In response to this phenomenon, Some domestic scholars have reflected: “In line with the formula of class class contradiction class struggle, the theory of law and the theory of state are integrated into one, which is called the theory of state and law”…
It overemphasizes the law as a part of the state machine, emphasizes that there is law only when there is a state, and there is no law without a state, and ignores the independence and subjectivity of the law itself and the restrictive and restrictive role of the law on state power to a certain extent, No prominent state power is inseparable from the dimension of law and regulated by law.
In the analytical framework of productivity production relations and economic foundation superstructure in the generally recognized historical materialism, Marx and Engels did not talk about superstructure, but always talked about superstructure in combination with production mode and production relations, It is often emphasized (and some similar expressions): “religion, family, state, law, morality, science, art, etc.
But in fact, this is not the case.
Key words: Legal superstructure; Political superstructure; Power; law; In Marxist philosophy of law, there is a problem that is less concerned or often ignored, that is, the relationship between “legal superstructure” and “political superstructure”.
Marx’s classical expression of historical materialism—— “People have certain and inevitable relations in the social production in which they live, that is, production relations suitable for a certain stage of development of their material productive forces.
However, it is said that this set of theories has not led China to embark on the journey of governing the country according to law as soon as possible, and has brought the dilemma of China’s rule of law construction.
are just some special ways of production and are dominated by the general law of production.” [] 186 they emphasize the relationship between the legal superstructure and the economic foundation, and emphasize that it is restricted by economic relations..
For example, the state is the tool of class rule and the embodiment of the will of the ruling class.
The definition of “state” already covers the definition of law or law.
What needs to be emphasized today is the unique and independent status of law relative to state power.
There are two possibilities for the relationship between law and power: one is that law is attached to power and becomes a tool for state power to maintain system governance; One is to implement the spirit of law and give play to the role of restricting state power.
” [] “in the relationship between the state and the law, the law is subject to the state, and the law is inseparable from the state.
One-sided emphasis on the fact that law is inseparable from the state, there is no law without the state, and without the state, there is no law without the state, and there is no other side of the state without the French state, so it is impossible to exist in this theoretical structure‘ The concepts of “rule of law”, “country ruled by law”, “rule of law” and so on.
The reflection on the previous theories will help us to reconstruct a more perfect and practical Marxist theory of state and law.
1、 Why did the theory of state and the theory of law merge into one? In the study of Chinese Marxist theory, the customary expression of “the theory of state and law” has been formed for a long time.
The sum of these production relations constitutes the social economic structure, that is, a legal and political superstructure is erected on it, and a certain form of social consciousness is adapted to it Although he made a distinction between legal and political superstructure, he talked more about the relationship between them as superstructure and economic foundation, and did not systematically discuss the relationship between them.
On the contrary, of course, we should not underestimate the role of this theory in China’s political and legal practice.
