liberal democracy/Socialist law "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com> Subject: Re:
>
>Justin: A socialist law would have different
>purposes.
>
>^^^^^
>
>CB: What purposes would a socialist law have ?
First of all, to maintain the social order and the mode of production my establishing and enforcing socialist property relations, protecting oublic ownership of productive assets, democratic control of investment, worker control of production, and prohibiting wage labor. Beyond that, the usual, establishing rights and responsibilities compatible with socialism, resolving disputes, providing a vehicle for marriage, contracts, and other things people want or needto make society run. Also controlling crime.
^^^^^^^^
CB: As to communism, seems to me Engels "mastery of necessity" does imply that the main area in which "law" would persist would be in organizing the production for needs , meeting necessity. However, it would be more in the nature of the custom of pre-class societies, as "law" arises with the state as a repressive apparatus. In the second phase of communism, law would whither away with the state. Engels's and Marx's idea is that people would not have to be coerced, but there would have to be a plan of people coming to work at the same time etc.
>Would socialist law be part of a socialist state ?
Yes. A liberal democratic one in the sense specified.
^^^^^^^
CB: OK, in the first phase of socialism, while there are still capitalist states and a need for a socialist state. But in the next phase, what about the state whithering away ? Marxism merges with anarchism at that point. Lenin and Engels point out that democracy is still a state.
^^^^^
>Would the socialist state be a repressive apparatus ( i.e. have guns)
>
It would have a monopoly on the use of force within its territorial jurisdiction, yes. One hopes that, being liberal democratic, it would not _be_ a repressive apparatus, jsut have one that it couldcall on if needed to arrest criminals and enforce judgments in the last resort.
jks
^^^^^^^
CB: On this issue, Marxism is less attached to the state than you are, no ? Territory would whither away too. It would be a return to Morgan societas, but on a higher level of technique. Humans can get along without a state. They did for most of the time of the species.