This is a prime example why adventurism is bad. It seems they were an more or less isolated group with a weapons arsenal which got busted. In the court case State and Revolution was used as supporting evidence for their alleged intentions of overthrowing the Russian government. This legal precedent will make it considerably easier for anticommunist forces within the Russian state to increase crackdowns. Ultimately these people actively harmed all organized communists in Russia and have nothing to show for it, nor were they ever close to achieving anything which could justify risking such an outcome.
Thats really unfortunate. I didn't know Russia used court precedent as part of their law practice. For whatever reason I thought that was a UK/US/Common Law thing.
It doesn't. Mostly. It's like this - court precedent can't be a source of law in Russia, but Supreme Court's interpretations of contentious stuff are effectively mandatory, because lower courts have to keep in mind they can end up being overruled if they make a ruling that goes against those interpretations. And the Supreme Court ends up dealing with contentious stuff when it's brought before the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court can kinda set precedents. But not the other courts. Not even kinda.
It is a social precedent though. Not sure what kind. I'm leaning towards bad as being anti-war right now isn't a great way to earn support in Russia. So entangling the word "communist" with that isn't great.
This is a prime example why adventurism is bad. It seems they were an more or less isolated group with a weapons arsenal which got busted. In the court case State and Revolution was used as supporting evidence for their alleged intentions of overthrowing the Russian government. This legal precedent will make it considerably easier for anticommunist forces within the Russian state to increase crackdowns. Ultimately these people actively harmed all organized communists in Russia and have nothing to show for it, nor were they ever close to achieving anything which could justify risking such an outcome.
Thats really unfortunate. I didn't know Russia used court precedent as part of their law practice. For whatever reason I thought that was a UK/US/Common Law thing.
It doesn't. Mostly. It's like this - court precedent can't be a source of law in Russia, but Supreme Court's interpretations of contentious stuff are effectively mandatory, because lower courts have to keep in mind they can end up being overruled if they make a ruling that goes against those interpretations. And the Supreme Court ends up dealing with contentious stuff when it's brought before the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court can kinda set precedents. But not the other courts. Not even kinda.
It is a social precedent though. Not sure what kind. I'm leaning towards bad as being anti-war right now isn't a great way to earn support in Russia. So entangling the word "communist" with that isn't great.