The argument as to whether communism can do away with law, is really about whether society can do away with capitalism. What is one to make of someone who can imagine communism - the socialisation of production - but cannot imagine doing away with lawyers? Only that they have failed to understand what is involved in communism.
The assumption that the world could not live without lawyers is one that could only take hold in the developed world over the last twenty years. The explosion of litigation is evidence enough that there is nothing naturally given or trans-historical about the demand for law.
(I could go further and argue that the expansion of the law of tort, along with other recent innovations in quasi-legal instruments is already itself the death agonies of the law, which is rapidly drawing a close to its own dominion, transforming itself into a system of social administration without reference to real conflicts of interest.)
But it is enough to say that dlaw and Justin's belief that the law stands eternal, outside of history is as absurd and as apologetic as Adam Smith's belief in man's natural propensity to truck and barter. 'Right, pull the other one,' as 'dlaw' would say.
'People will have dogs that bite under communism, too.'
I was rather assuming that the species dog would be exterminated. Isn't that obvious? -- James Heartfield The 'Death of the Subject' Explained is available at GBP11.00, plus GBP1.00 p&p from Publications, audacity.org, 8 College Close, Hackney, London, E9 6ER. Make cheques payable to 'Audacity Ltd'