Philosophy of law in the Soviet Union and the people’s democracies

The fate of Marxism in the Soviet Union and the people’s democracies as the former’s extension owing to post-WWII occupation was from the beginning sealed by Bolshevism, that is, the politico-ideological domination and use of the scholarly domain as well, made to self-close in a merely justificatory role. There may have been attempts at opening, even if only conceivable within—i.e. preserving at the same time—this framework function. In the present conspectus, the limiting positions are occupied by the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic, completed by after-1968 Czechoslovakia, as well as Yugoslavia and pre-1968 Czechoslovakia, representing the substitute-to-religion dogmatic side, exclusively politically motivated in the former and subordinated to a humanising tendency in the latter case, on the one hand, and Poland, dedicated to a purely analytical approach, in which Marxism has simply no relevance, on the other. Hungary, treated in an earlier paper by the author, was in-between, taking Marxism seriously but mostly as a methodology, and thereby able to foster live debates. All that notwithstanding, there has been quite a few progressive moves also in Romania and Bulgaria in this specific academic field. Turning topoi of the discussions were, chronologically but recurrent transubstantiatedly, the exclusivity of Vyshinsky’s socialist normativism, the consequences ensuing from the law’s superstructural nature, the discontinuity vs. continuity of law in historical development, and, in the background, the dilemma of the ontological/epistemological understanding of Marxism, the latter standing for a rigid Leninist reducibility of law to its material substratum as the product of sheer reflection, and the former enabling to develop the law’s relative autonomy as in Lukács’ posthumous ontology. On the final analysis, all these forced paths made a whole region’s efforts to be belated as compared to international developments, the fact notwithstanding those outstanding achievements were born especially on the fields of legal ontology and sociology, as well as the legal methodology and particularly that of the comparison of laws

Accuracy of generalized context patterns in the context based sequential patterns mining

A context pattern is a frequent subsequence mined from the context database containing set of sequences. This kind of sequential patterns and all elements inside them are described by additional sets of context attributes e.g. continuous ones. The contexts describe circumstances of transactions and sources of sequential data. These patterns can be mined by an algorithm for the context based sequential pattern mining. However, this can create large sets of patterns because all contexts related to patterns are taken from the database. The goal of the generalization method is to reduce the context pattern set by introducing a more compact and descriptive kind of patterns. This is achieved by finding clusters of similar context patterns in the mined set and transforming them to a smaller set of generalized context patterns. This process has to retain as much as possible information from the mined context patterns. This paper introduces a definition of the generalized context pattern and the related algorithm. Results from the generalization may differ as depending on the algorithm design and settings. Hence, generalized patterns may reflect frequent information from the context database differently. Thus, an accuracy measure is also proposed to evaluate the generalized patterns. This measure is used in the experiments presented. The generalized context patterns are compared to patterns mined by the basic sequential patterns mining with prediscretization of context values