to the special interests of different classes.245 While Marx’s conclusion was idealistic, Hägerström’s was prosaic, predicating that all that can be inferred from the struggle of classes was the nonutopian observation that society, as a result of this struggle, would change and develop in accordance with the interests of the predominant classes of society.246 The outcome of the class struggle, which quite naturally can be conducted by peaceful means, is not as Marxism presupposes necessarily dictated by altruism and philanthropy, but dictated by special interests (even if they are usually cloaked in a shroud of universality).Accordingly, any type of special interest,from the selfish and egotistical to the unselfish and self-sacrificing, may prevail in the social struggle - which in no way contradicts the basic theory of Hägerström.247 In conclusion, regardless of intrinsic good or evil, it is the victorious interest that transforms into law,248 which in turn shapes the socalled consciousness of law.249 Finally, Hägerström objects to Georg Jellinek’s (1851-1911) idea that the communal interests of the people, as determined by their material and spiritual culture, determines law. Hägerström asserts that despite the fact that the existing legal systems share common principles of law (for example, those evident in contract law, tort law, penal law, human rights, and property rights) - principles that are usually assumed to correspond to universal values - Jellinek’s explanation fails whenever new rules of law are investigated. For instance, universal suffrage, workers’ protection, company law, trust law, and what have you reflect special interests rather than universal values - because Hägerström argues that each and every investigation into the specific communal unity that should serve as the basis to law is an investigation into an illusion.250 p a r t v, c h a p t e r 3 368 245 Hägerström, “Marx och filosofin. (Karl Marx: Uttalanden Kring 50-Årsminnet).” 246 Cf. ibid. 247 See Hägerström, “Rättsidéers uppkomst (1917),” pp. 116-117. 248 Cf. Hägerström, “Är gällande rätt?,” p. 82; “Is Positive Law?,” p. 41. 249 Hägerström, “Förhållandet mellan staten och rätten (1924),” pp. 235-239. 250 Ibid., pp.238-239. See also Hägerström,“Förhållandet mellan staten och rätten (1924),” pp. 233-235.Where Hägerström refers to the Swedish constitutional reform of 1866,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=