The USSR, or the Anti-Legal State

In some cases, when discussing the USSR or its system, the conversation mostly lacks substance. This lack of substance implies the narrative that the Soviet Union is "bad," which is obvious, but why it is bad is rarely expanded upon through substantive and/or legal reasoning. Substantive reasoning necessarily encompasses the conditions that existed for the individual then and the conditions that exist for the individual today. The Soviet Union is the past of the Georgian state, about which simply calling it "bad" and/or "good" is not enough; it must be understood substantively so that the same does not repeat itself in the independent Georgian state. In this article, as a lawyer, I will try to explain its substance, at least briefly;

Like all states, Soviet Georgia also had a constitution. It was adopted several times after the annexation of Georgia—in 1922, 1927, 1937, and 1978. We will discuss the last Constitution of 1978, which differs fundamentally and on a large scale from the 1995 Constitution of Georgia (and its latest 2018 amendments). The constitution begins not as today's Georgian Constitution ("We, the citizens of Georgia, whose firm will is..."), but by talking about the "Great October Socialist Revolution." Moreover, it is crucial that it calls February 25, 1921 (the date of Georgia's annexation) the "victory of Soviet power." From the very beginning, the lie of the constitution is visible, because the invasion by another country—that is, the 11th Army of Russia—is nowhere to be seen, and the 1978 Constitution ignores it. The very first article of the constitution indicates that "The Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic is a socialist state of the whole people, expressing the will and interests of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia." This is an important issue, as it begs the question: why does it rely solely and exclusively on these 3 branches and not on all citizens of Georgia?! Today's Constitution of Georgia does not single out any part of its society upon which it relies; it indicates that all its citizens are its citizens, because a person acquires the rights they inherently possess upon birth, and the constitution affirms this. However, the Soviet constitution differentiates and relies only on those persons who are acceptable to it, namely the employed (workers), peasants, and the intelligentsia. Interestingly, a definition or further mention of the intelligentsia is found nowhere else; accordingly, this could be a somewhat evaluative category—meaning the authorities, specifically the executive branch, determine who is an intellectual (a representative of the intelligentsia), and relies precisely on them when exercising its power;

It is also noteworthy that with this provision, the Soviet Union leaves no place for other persons. This implies, for example, the concept of a free citizen who does not associate themselves with any of these: they might not consider themselves an employee (worker), nor a peasant, let alone an intellectual. But the state leaves no other place for their development; consequently, from the very first article, the place for the individual as a free citizen does not exist in the legal category. A person can be who they wish to be, which is expressed by their social as well as political status. It is impossible and wrong for a constitution to determine what place I should hold in society, and/or for the constitution to define my place in society when being a citizen already means being a member of society, and their division is impermissible. However, the 1978 Constitution relies only on these three so-called classes, and accordingly, the individual is forced to either be one of them or not exist in the legal space as a phenomenon;

Article 6 of the same constitution stated that "The leading and guiding force of Soviet society... is the Communist Party." Initially, this constitution divided society into only 3 lines, but subsequently, it indicates that only the party determines both the direction of society's development and its scale. The party focuses not only on the people within its ranks but constitutionally cements the principle that only it knows what society should be like and what its scale should be. To the question: what if the individual disagrees with the goal set by the party? For example, what if they do not believe the party should dictate which part of society they belong to? What if they consider themselves neither a worker, nor a peasant, nor an intellectual—does the individual then have free choice? Does free choice exist in this case at all? The same article of the constitution significantly declares the "victory of communism" rather than the existence of the individual as the most important entity;

Chapter 3 of the same constitution indicates that the social basis of the USSR is the unbreakable alliance of workers, peasants, and intelligentsia. Truth be told, it is difficult to interpret what "social basis" is supposed to mean in the modern era in a state governed by the rule of law. But Article 19 of the same chapter declares that the class boundaries between city and village, and between mental and physical labor, must be erased, thereby strengthening the so-called socialist homogeneity. In other words, the constitution itself creates a confrontation, chooses the sides of this confrontation, points to the basis of the confrontation as "class struggle," and manages a society in which it recognizes only three parts through this confrontation. At the same time, Article 10 of Chapter 2 of the same constitution recognizes only socialist property, where the state owns all basic means. Confrontation in society, or creating this confrontation within society, is always necessary for a dictatorship or authoritarianism, where it divides society into several parts—be it along cultural, social, or political lines. And in this confrontation, it leaves no room for the individual who might hold a different view. A different view must not exist—this is what this constitution utilizes under the guise of class struggle;

As for the basic means of production, everything is owned solely and exclusively by the state. For example, a person does not have the right to own their own enterprise, their own workshop, etc. All this belongs solely to the state and, as the constitution declares, is everyone's property—which means it is nobody's property. For the development of the individual, it is essential that, besides being human, they have what is theirs—that is, the right to property exists. The right to property is nothing more than "I rule over what is mine," meaning I am the full authorized manager of any item or right that is mine, and therefore, if I own it, I develop it the way I want. For example, I might own a car, but the fate of this car is my decision alone: I can drive this car if I want, I can choose not to drive it, or I can completely dismantle it for parts. But this constitution rejects even this, defining the right to property the way it desires. In a modern state, the right to property is true not an absolute right, but it is a right without which a person cannot and will not be able to develop as an individual. Today's state governed by the rule of law recognizes that property in its essence is a right no less significant than the prohibition of torture, and its expropriation (i.e., loss of the right) can only occur through a court, and even then, only in exceptional cases. The 1978 Constitution, however, indicates that "the basis of personal property is earned income." At the same time, it provides a list of what an individual can own: "articles of everyday use, personal consumption and convenience, the implements of a subsidiary household, a house, and earned savings." Additionally, there can be a plot of land provided as an auxiliary resource;

Article 13 contains an interesting provision on property: "Property in the personal ownership or use of citizens shall not serve to derive unearned income or be employed to the detriment of the interests of society." To explain this in simple terms (which seems unimaginable today): according to the logic of that time, if I, for example, had a car and wanted to earn income with this car, I did not have the right to earn income by using it as a taxi. Or, for example, if I am a tailor and rent out a dress to earn income, this too was impermissible. Many examples can be cited, but the main problem/justification for the constitution was that by doing this, I am purportedly harming society;

Like any dictatorship and/or authoritarianism, it speaks in the name of society; not in the name of a certain Giorgi, but in the name of society, because "society" is what is necessary for the masses to justify any injustice. Today, it is unimaginable that being a taxi driver would be banned, but the Soviet Union did not even allow this. Why? Here, a doctrinal theory rather than a legal one comes into play: because if a person receives money from such activities, they generate their own funds, i.e., income that they do not earn from the state, making them at least minimally independent of the state. If a person takes the first step toward independence, they will want—and this is human nature—to receive more income, i.e., to become more independent from the state. If they become economically independent, they will start dictating to the state what it should be like in order for them to earn more income. Consequently, the state would no longer govern the individual, but conversely—which is characteristic of a state governed by the rule of law—the individual would govern through their vote. And the Soviet constitution neither forgives nor tolerates this;

Article 11 of the same constitution indicated that only the state can own the land, its subsoil, and forests, while the Soviet citizen has solely the right to use/possess them. To imagine this: you live on land where 3 or 4 generations of your family have lived before you. The constitution comes and tells you: true, you take care of this land, you weed it, you grow crops here, you add fertilizer to it, you loosen the soil, but it does not belong to you—it belongs to the state, meaning to no one. And furthermore, the income generated from it and/or the harvested crops are not yours either, because this land belongs to the state. That is, the individual works on the land, cares for the land, builds a house on this land, lives on this land, and besides them, no one looks after it; but the state comes and declares that it does not belong to the individual who looks after this land, but rather belongs to the state. It is interesting why the constitution declared that it belonged to the state. In most cases, the state is a legal phantom represented by an aloof entity that always wants and never gives. The Soviet system would not allow property to exist on anything that held value. True, the main Soviet slogan was "Land to the peasants," but it was exactly property over land that it banned for them, because the existence of property would lead to the individual's development;

Chapter 6 of the same constitution bears the following title: "Basic Rights, Freedoms, and Duties of Citizens of the USSR". Today's Constitution of Georgia recognizes only the rights possessed by people, as the constitution restrains the executive branch from interfering in human rights. But the 1978 Constitution, on the contrary, imposes obligations on persons. For example, Article 57 states that "The exercise of rights and freedoms is inseparable from the performance by a citizen of his duties." And the obligations are as follows (meaning the constitution subordinates the individual and imposes the following duties): "to observe the Constitution of the USSR and Soviet laws, to respect the rules of socialist coexistence, and to bear with dignity the high calling of a citizen of the USSR." Besides this, the list continues with items such as protecting socialist property, the obligation to work, and protecting the interests of the Soviet state. In short, the Soviet citizen had many obligations, but the most interesting part is that the constitution imposes an obligation on the individual to love/trust/like it, and to consider whatever it says as acceptable. In other words, the law must be observed not because this social contract is acceptable to them, but because the constitution obliges them to do so;

At a first glance, one could make superficial hints about this, but it is also interesting what place the 1978 Constitution reserves for the court when it speaks solely and exclusively of the supreme supervisory function of the Prosecutor's Office. The Soviet Union, in its essence, was directed against the individual, which is also evident from the examples brought here: it diminished the role of the individual and left them alone facing the state. It is telling enough that during the Soviet Union, there was no Administrative Code, because it was assumed that the Soviet Union as a state never made a mistake against its citizen, and there is no need for a restraining element in the form of law, nor for a court to verify whether the state acted correctly;

The past that is the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic is our history from which we must learn what should not befall the individual. He who looks at the past loses one eye; he who does not look loses both;