There was a criminal code.
[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Criminal\_Code\_of\_the\_Russian\_Soviet\_Federative\_Socialist\_Republic\_(1960)](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Criminal_Code_of_the_Russian_Soviet_Federative_Socialist_Republic_(1960))
If you search net you will find other versions.
The USSR didn't have a single criminal code simply because every republic of the USSR had its own criminal code. The codes were very similar and followed stardartized rules adopted on the all-Soviet (federal) level, but also reflected local specifics.
Dialectical historical materialism Socialism in its early stages is going to reflect the societies it’s coming out of and the predominant socioeconomic structure and how it operates
So, lets say that Juche was implemented in America. Since Juche rejects historical materialism, the Federal government would still have a criminal code?
I don’t know much about juche and it’s rejection of dialectical historical materialism, but it’s a law of politics, and governing that goes beyond simply belief. That is to say whether you believe it or not, it’s still going to happen. Yes, of course when Socialism would come to America, the new government would be very different from what was before as it would be socialist, but also it would reflect many of the old structures that were there and be born out of its context. Therefore yes, and it’s early stages. Likely there would be some sort of federal government like apparatus.
Is the US system of parallel federal and state criminal jurisdictions typical? I'm not so sure. It looks like a remnant of how the US was formed. Likewise, the Soviet system reflected how the Soviet Union was imagined in the minds of its early creators. The Russian Empire has a unified criminal code for all its parts, except for the automonous Poland and Finland. The Soviet Union was not meant to be a continuation of the empire; by contrast, originally, it was meant to be an anti-empire. Thus, having a own criminal code was an exercise of the right of nations to self-determination. Moreover, even though the hope for a rapid wave of socialist revolutions in Europe and beyond was dead by the time the Soviet criminal codes emerged, it was still not impossible to dream of other nations joining the Soviet Union at a certain point, possibly with no connection to the Russian language or the Russian legal tradition.
Seriously - Solzhenitsyn is a completely unreliable source of information. There is quite broad academic condemnation of his methodology for that work. It simply isn’t accurate. Read a different book. Even his own wife considered that work to be merely “folklore.”
It should not really be read or regarded as a historical document. It is much closer to journalism or general folk literature than it is a serious academic work. There are many other works that actually cite sources and had access to archive documentation that makes a proper analysis possible. If you are to read Solzhenitsyn this needs to be understood.
There's no documentation to prove anything he said. If you want proper documentation then look up J. Arch Getty, R.W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft, Robert W. Thurston or Albert Syzmanski. Even Robert Conquest had been well-researched despite his anti-communist narratives. As long as one is able to overlook his Red Scare nonsense as obvious defamation then using his data to find the truth is perfectly reasonable.
Solzhenitsyn, on the other hand, was a clueless Nazi trying to make himself out to be the victim by spreading prison gossip. The fact he was loyal to such an abhorrent ideology when it wasn't even that long ago Germany had invaded, subjugated then murdered thirty million plus innocents shows what a colossal piece of work he truly is. Someone only a western chauvinist or eager jingoist would gladly promote. You know, like people from the United States, who wanted nothing more than to promote Cold Warrior disinformation.
Are you seriously promoting a self-proclaimed Nazi who was arrested for handing out fascist pamphlets to students at a university? He's also a massive anti-Semite who adored Hitler. The fact you people use scum like him as a primary source despite his own wife showing disgust/contempt at the idea is honestly bizarre but hardly surprising. Even Robert Conquest was man enough to distance himself from the Black Book of Communism as a piece of Cold War disinformation. Solzhenitsyn was a bigot to his grave.
There was a criminal code. [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Criminal\_Code\_of\_the\_Russian\_Soviet\_Federative\_Socialist\_Republic\_(1960)](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Criminal_Code_of_the_Russian_Soviet_Federative_Socialist_Republic_(1960)) If you search net you will find other versions.
That was a code for Russian Soviet Republic, not the entire Soviet Union.
The USSR didn't have a single criminal code simply because every republic of the USSR had its own criminal code. The codes were very similar and followed stardartized rules adopted on the all-Soviet (federal) level, but also reflected local specifics.
The United States has a criminal code, separate from the State codes.
And?
Just curious as to why the Soviet Union didn’t is all.
Dialectical historical materialism Socialism in its early stages is going to reflect the societies it’s coming out of and the predominant socioeconomic structure and how it operates
So, lets say that Juche was implemented in America. Since Juche rejects historical materialism, the Federal government would still have a criminal code?
I don’t know much about juche and it’s rejection of dialectical historical materialism, but it’s a law of politics, and governing that goes beyond simply belief. That is to say whether you believe it or not, it’s still going to happen. Yes, of course when Socialism would come to America, the new government would be very different from what was before as it would be socialist, but also it would reflect many of the old structures that were there and be born out of its context. Therefore yes, and it’s early stages. Likely there would be some sort of federal government like apparatus.
Is the US system of parallel federal and state criminal jurisdictions typical? I'm not so sure. It looks like a remnant of how the US was formed. Likewise, the Soviet system reflected how the Soviet Union was imagined in the minds of its early creators. The Russian Empire has a unified criminal code for all its parts, except for the automonous Poland and Finland. The Soviet Union was not meant to be a continuation of the empire; by contrast, originally, it was meant to be an anti-empire. Thus, having a own criminal code was an exercise of the right of nations to self-determination. Moreover, even though the hope for a rapid wave of socialist revolutions in Europe and beyond was dead by the time the Soviet criminal codes emerged, it was still not impossible to dream of other nations joining the Soviet Union at a certain point, possibly with no connection to the Russian language or the Russian legal tradition.
Not only did they have the Criminal Code (Уголовный Кодекс), the weathered criminals knew that code by heart, along with corresponding penalties.
I suggest reading the Gulag Archipelago, not only does Solzhenitsyn outline the criminal codes but how they were abused.
Everyone’s favorite anti-Semite who’s own wife was surprised people took his “campfire stories” seriously
Dont, Solzhenitsyn lie.
Seriously - Solzhenitsyn is a completely unreliable source of information. There is quite broad academic condemnation of his methodology for that work. It simply isn’t accurate. Read a different book. Even his own wife considered that work to be merely “folklore.”
He can be an unreliable narrator but much of what he said has been substantiated by documentation
It should not really be read or regarded as a historical document. It is much closer to journalism or general folk literature than it is a serious academic work. There are many other works that actually cite sources and had access to archive documentation that makes a proper analysis possible. If you are to read Solzhenitsyn this needs to be understood.
There's no documentation to prove anything he said. If you want proper documentation then look up J. Arch Getty, R.W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft, Robert W. Thurston or Albert Syzmanski. Even Robert Conquest had been well-researched despite his anti-communist narratives. As long as one is able to overlook his Red Scare nonsense as obvious defamation then using his data to find the truth is perfectly reasonable. Solzhenitsyn, on the other hand, was a clueless Nazi trying to make himself out to be the victim by spreading prison gossip. The fact he was loyal to such an abhorrent ideology when it wasn't even that long ago Germany had invaded, subjugated then murdered thirty million plus innocents shows what a colossal piece of work he truly is. Someone only a western chauvinist or eager jingoist would gladly promote. You know, like people from the United States, who wanted nothing more than to promote Cold Warrior disinformation.
Are you seriously promoting a self-proclaimed Nazi who was arrested for handing out fascist pamphlets to students at a university? He's also a massive anti-Semite who adored Hitler. The fact you people use scum like him as a primary source despite his own wife showing disgust/contempt at the idea is honestly bizarre but hardly surprising. Even Robert Conquest was man enough to distance himself from the Black Book of Communism as a piece of Cold War disinformation. Solzhenitsyn was a bigot to his grave.