> I think this is not correct. Think about it. What does liberation mean
> in concrete terms? It basically means changing law. Every revolution I
> can think of, after taking power, set about to overhaul the laws that
> govern the society.
Does it give you pause at all that every revolution (that I can think of) has also ended up oppressing and exploiting people in nontrivial ways, often in ways that are more brutal and thorough than the conservative regimes they overthrew? I don't mean that as an accusation but as a serious question. I'd say it's a real problem, one that I think arises because revolutionary regimes in some way take the law to be an empty form through which they can administer a more socialist government; all it takes is the correct consciousness and a healthy technocracy. But the law is not neutral. The form of the civil and criminal codes you want to change came out specific state-capitalist situations to address specific state-capitalist needs. No amount of revolutionary will can simply overcome that. Usually all it does is change who get targeted by the restrictions, but the forms and processes remain the same. (Of course, contra the fantasies of many anarchists and primitivist types, you no more heroically leave behind legal systems any more than you can heroically change them.)
The rest of you post raises some interesting points that I don't have time to address right now. I think my original objection to what Dennis wrote was that we had to have ideas for curing problems that haven't arisen yet. I liked what he responded about Angela Davis and "a justice system based on reparation and reconciliation rather than retribution and vengeance." That is, I like that he talks about principles, "reparation and reconciliation," but I wonder about the need to hold on to the institution, "a justice system." Is it really impossible to conceive of how to address socially damaging behaviors without a set of preformed institutions to enforce them?