It may be very populist to say a better world is one without lawyers, but it's both a little silly and a little irresponsible. If you want to argue that socialism and communism will vastly mollify the savage and careless nature people exhibit under capitalism, I am right there with you. I argue the same thing ten times a day. If you want to argue that communism will somehow dissolve human failings and misbehavior and the need to adjudicate the results of same, untangle this mess without laws:
Rural collective A lends rural collective B a tractor, which vehicle disappears and is then found fifty miles away, wrecked against a tree. The troubled son of collective B's manager had either returned that night and gone missing again or had not returned from a three-day trip to the city where it is believed he may have been satisfying a drug addiction. Retrieving the tractor, the comrades find that is a total loss. In addition to the crash damage, the engine is seized, the valves destroyed and sucked into the cylinders because the tractor was run with a broken timing chain and almost no oil in the crankcase.
It turns out the comrade in charge of vehicle maintenance at collective B (on loan to them from collective C, due to a shortage of technicians) was changing the oil, had drained the crankcase and put just two quarts in when she got a call from her husband that their new baby, Vladimir, had a fever and she sped home. She says that she was going to be the one to drive the tractor the next morning and she would have re-filled the crankcase before going out if she did at all, because she'd heard a noise from under the valve cover she didn't like. She also may or may not have left the keys in the tractor. She says she's sure she put them on the key rack in comrade manager's office but comrade manager says different.
It also turns out that the comrade in charge of vehicle maintenance at collective A - contacted while on vacation - says he would never have lent out that tractor because he suspected a bad timing chain and that he had told collective A's manager as much. He says he suspects comrade manager lent the tractor as a pretext to chat up a particularly fetching comrade at collective B for whom he had swooned completely, forgetting his reason. Comrade manager, for his part, says the vehicle had a clean maintenance report, that comrade vehicle maintainer also had a thing for the collective B hotty and that he was consumed with jealousy to the point of malice.
When contacted for "distribution" of a new tractor, the state agriculture agent tells these collectives to forget it, that they told manager B to get his son into treatment, that less irresponsible people could use that new tractor and that they can jolly well go and borrow another tractor if anyone is fool enough to lend it to them with a thieving drug addict roaming around and no vehicle technician (the woman from collective C has left, incensed at the accusations and missing baby Vladimir). Manager B says it is not clear that his son stole the tractor and that even if he did the main damage to the $100,000 machine came from the broken timing chain and lack of oil. A state inspector is of the opinion that the timing chain was defective.
Now, since there are no contracts in this world because the need for them has been "transcended," let's see if we can decide who is responsible, for how much, and who is obliged to do what. Remember, this is a $100,000 dollar machine (they don't grow on trees) and harvest time is here.
Marx said "to each according to his need" but what if that need arises out of irresponsible or malevolent behavior?