Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this essay, I examine the alternative futures of right sketched out in the pioneering works of Evgeny Pashukanis, Alexandre Kojève, and Ernst Bloch with the aim of demonstrating their continued relevance for critical approaches to law and the possibility of ‘socialist’ and ‘communist’ constitutionalism. Each of these thinkers engaged in a critical analysis of law and theorised the nature, function, and future of right under emancipatory social conditions. Pashukanis, who remains the best-known Soviet legal theorist in the West, theorised that ‘legal regulation’ and the ‘opposition of private interests’ in the capitalist market would be replaced by ‘technical regulation’ and thoroughgoing planning under communism, although he allowed for residual elements of the legal form to persist during the period of revolutionary transition from capitalism to communism. Kojève, for his part, theorised that ‘bourgeois right’ and its market-based standard of ‘equivalence’ would give way to a synthesised account of ‘equity’ in the Socialist Empire of private international socialist right. Finally, Bloch sought to retrieve for Marxism the radical heritage of natural law from below by reinscribing upon the banners of communism such values as human dignity, solidarity, and the reconstitution of juridical personhood. While Pashukanis and Kojève strive towards a definite finality in their respective futures or end-states, Bloch resists any such finality as foreign to the constitution of socialism in his speculative account of natural law from below. Far from reinforcing the paucity of Marxist reflections on right, the interventions of Pashukanis, Kojève, and Bloch serve as powerful reminders about the diverse futures of right that exist within the vibrant Marxist tradition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".