>I have argued here that there would more lawyers (and judges) because whether or not a post-cap society abolished all markets, it would have a lot more regulation. The politicizatiuon of many decisions we now leave to "automatic forces" would lead to disputes. Rules would proliferate and there would be more need of experts to interpret them.
I think you may have overlooked something. I would agree there would continue to be disputes in a socialist society, but there is a difference between disputes involving a irreconcilable clash of interests and disputes where there are no such.
In a class society the interests of the working class and the capitalist class are at war. But also the interests of individuals and sectors of the capitalist class are constantly clashing. The legal system must arbitrate those disputes according to law.
I expect that in a socialist system, most irreconcilable conflicts would be absent. Disputes would not be about who gets what, but about methods and priorities. Such disputes can best arbitrated democratically. Other disputes, of a personal nature for example, can be resolved by mediation.
"Courts" of a kind may still be necessary to determine facts as part of such a process, but in the absence of irreconcilable clashes of interests, it is possible for people and groups to resolve their differences by mutual agreement. With some help perhaps. Because it is no longer a win/lose dichotomy.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas