ok solve this

[James Heartfield]

'dlaw' smuggles all of the relations of capitalist exchange into his 
'communist' conundrum. Dollars, lending, property, rationing, the state 
and so on. And then he says 'solve that without reference to the law of 
contract'. Well, obviously I can't, which is just another way of saying 
that he is not describing a communist society (and let's face it, who 
could?).

But of course it is a failure of imagination to think that all questions 
are subject to the law. What is role of lawyers in deciding whether the 
earth goes around the sun, or vice versa? None, or at least none that is 
defensible. When I need to fix my car, I don't consult a lawyer. In 
other forms of social organisation, people will not need a lawyer to fix 
their allocation of resources. Lawyers and the law only exist because of 
the failure of capitalist society to spontaneously reproduce the 
conditions of human existence. we will no more need them under a 
different form of social organisation than we would need Shamans or 
Totem poles.

Probably we could keep them on as a source of public entertainment, in 
the same way that archery, once superseded as a means of fighting wars 
or hunting was retained as sport.

You say opposing lawyers is populist. I say its popular.
-- 
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'