law, too, will be transcended From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
>
>Jim H.: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.
Justin: Probably I don't. I'm not a communist, anyway, partly because I can't imagine a society without lawyers. No doubt a professional failing.
^^^^^
CB: I think roughly speaking Marx, a philosopher, envisioned Communism as having neither lawyers ( the state) nor philosophers ( high priests), but it would have Economists. Yes, the key necessity that would be mastered as a premise for all around general freedom, would be disciplined and organized social production and distribution, including , of course, centralized planning, not "the market" in the main sense that term has of : anarchic , disorganized pursuit by individuals of their individual "interests" without taking account that human society is inherently supersocial, and that the notion of individual Robinson Crusoe production is funamentally anti-human and irrational. There will be anarchy in the sense of no state, but not in the sense of individual production not fully coordinated with the production of others and the production of all of society.
>
>
>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.
I don't say that at all. Lots of societies have done without lawyers. None of them have been complex, articulkated, modern societies, though. I also don't think Smith's view is absurd at all. It is a anatural propensity to truck and bartr. That doesn't mean itw ill be manifested in all circumstances, however,
jks, esq.
^^^^^^^^^
CB: The propensity to truck and barter is historical ,not natural. It follows from specialization and division of labor. Communism will have a division of labor. Everyone will not become a self-sufficient economic unit, like Robinson Crusoe, so there will still be exchange.