Contracts

[Algernon]

I was reading the "ban marriage?" thread in the politics forum and and interesting question was raised. One poster claimed that marriage, as a contract, cannot exist under communism because without a state there is no one to enforce it.

This made me think about the potential implications for a stateless society especially one where currency is abolished. How do you "sue" someone for a breach of contract under communism? What authority do you turn to in order to enforce contracts if there is no state? These are serious questions, please don't bite my head off.

[Forward Union]

Well that poster whoever he was, was completely wrong.

But this is an important point because it emphases a common misconception about a stateless society. Just because there's no state, doesn't mean there's no soverign body. Soverign power has simply moved from the elite; to the masses, but there still is soverign power, somewhere. In a stateless society the peoples comittees would pass laws, contracts etc. The people, via these democratic bodies, would have control of the courts the army and the police force ( or "workers militias", if you're a dickhead)

People would come together to form laws and statutes wherever they deemed them neccisary. And these would be written down and enforced. There would certainly not be mob rule, that's what happens under capitalism.

You wouldn't sue people for breaking social contracts, presumably you'd try at least to settle it the way you settle must abuses and betrayels. Through mediated discussion, dialogue, etc. If my girlfriend slept with another gu yafter we'd agreed not to sleep with anyone else, then we'd probably have an argument. And come to some new agreement. My first thought wouldn't be to sue her.

As for Marriage specifically, religion would not be banned, and thus if two religious people would seek to consider themselves "married" they could presumably find some priest to "marry" them and then live safe in the knowlege that they are now "married".

I hope this clears things up a bit!

[ernie]

But this is an important point because it emphases a common misconception about a stateless society. Just because there's no state, doesn't mean there's no soverign body. Soverign power has simply moved from the elite; to the masses, but there still is soverign power, somewhere. In a stateless society the peoples comittees would pass laws, contracts etc. The people, via these democratic bodies, would have control of the courts the army and the police force ( or "workers militias", if you're a dickhead)
No, there can't be anything like sovereign power in a classless society. Communities would certainly agree upon a very small set of rules people need to respect, but it would be nothing like the "laws" we have today.

I don't think there will be courts either, unless you're using the word in an extremely general way (which would make it useless). No judges, either. We cannot allow the "professionalization" of the legal system. The same thing goes for any law-enforcing bodies, representatives, etc.


People would come together to form laws and statutes wherever they deemed them neccisary. And these would be written down and enforced. There would certainly not be mob rule, that's what happens under capitalism.
So you want jails, judges, cops, lawyers, and basically all the shit we have today. Doesn't sound like much of a free society to me.

"Mob rule" is a bourgeois concept invented to scare people into believing we need leaders. It's total bullshit, of course.


You wouldn't sue people for breaking social contracts, presumably you'd try at least to settle it the way you settle must abuses and betrayels. Through mediated discussion, dialogue, etc.
In other words, you can't enforce them. Unless you put somebody in jail or take away their personal possessions.


If my girlfriend slept with another gu yafter we'd agreed not to sleep with anyone else, then we'd probably have an argument. And come to some new agreement. My first thought wouldn't be to sue her.
Indeed, you could do that. The question that was raised was whether or not social contracts will be enforceable in a classless, money-less society.


As for Marriage specifically, religion would not be banned, and thus if two religious people would seek to consider themselves "married" they could presumably find some priest to "marry" them and then live safe in the knowlege that they are now "married".
This is actually what I said in the other thread. Some independent body can "marry" two people, and "certify" it as a "real marriage". What we won't have is anything like the "prenuptial agreements" we have now because, again, how would you enforce them?

[Forward Union]

No, there can't be anything like sovereign power in a classless society. Communities would certainly agree upon a very small set of rules people need to respect, but it would be nothing like the "laws" we have today.

If communities agree on a set of rules then they have soverignty by definition. If you are a communist then you believe that councils or "soviets" will be the soverign bodies of a free society.

If you don't believe they will have soverignty then you're not really a communist.


I don't think there will be courts either, unless you're using the word in an extremely general way (which would make it useless). No judges, either. We cannot allow the "professionalization" of the legal system. The same thing goes for any law-enforcing bodies, representatives, etc.

I don't understand, you've accepted there will be laws, presumably Murder will be one of them. How will these laws be enforced? How will we determine if someone is guilty or innocent? With some sort of trial?

I don't want to live in a society without a court. If I happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and people assume incorectly that I have comitted murder. I want a fair trial. Anything else is tyranny.


So you want jails, judges, cops, lawyers, and basically all the shit we have today. Doesn't sound like much of a free society to me.

Why would it not be free? These things will be instruments of the will of the people, not some sort of state.

Without them the will of the people is a pointless phrase. Without the power to enforce community decisions, there are no community decissions. I can sit in my room and pass imaginary laws but unless enforced they are meaningless.


"Mob rule" is a bourgeois concept invented to scare people into believing we need leaders. It's total bullshit, of course.

I'd say mob rule is what we are living under right now.

[Algernon]

Thanks for the replies! Every time I log on here I learn something new. I have lots more questions now, so try to bear with me.



But this is an important point because it emphases a common misconception about a stateless society. Just because there's no state, doesn't mean there's no soverign body. Soverign power has simply moved from the elite; to the masses, but there still is soverign power, somewhere. In a stateless society the peoples comittees would pass laws, contracts etc. The people, via these democratic bodies, would have control of the courts the army and the police force ( or "workers militias", if you're a dickhead)

How big would these committees be? How do you define their jurisdiction without state boundaries? It seems to me, if this is direct democracy at least, that people will be splitting their time between actually working and serbing on these committees. Assuming that contracts play as significant of a role in a Communist society as they do now (and i think they would, given that any society needs a system of binding agreements) it seems rather inefficient for the people to do everything.


There would certainly not be mob rule, that's what happens under capitalism.

You said this in your reply to ernie as well... can you elaborate?



You wouldn't sue people for breaking social contracts, presumably you'd try at least to settle it the way you settle must abuses and betrayels. Through mediated discussion, dialogue, etc. If my girlfriend slept with another gu yafter we'd agreed not to sleep with anyone else, then we'd probably have an argument. And come to some new agreement. My first thought wouldn't be to sue her.

I was thinking more along the line of "business" contracts. While I understand that under communism you would not have contracts of sale etc. but you would still need binding agreements to make the industry work properly, would you not? Obviously you wouldn't sue over betrayal in a relationship, but in the context of production, the consequences of a broken contract could have far reaching consequences for the community. The remedy today would be a lawsuit, payment of money from one side to the other etc. I'm not convinced that simply having an argument will always suffice.

That being said I would agree that Mediation/Arbitration are extremely useful tools in resolving this sort of thing, so the more you have it under communism the better. But on the other hand, the reason why mediation has been on the rise in recent years is precisely to avoid the cost of going through the courts. The goal of this type of mediation is usually to reach some sort of monetary settlement for breaking the deal. What do you think would replace this?

[Forward Union]

Thanks for the replies! Every time I log on here I learn something new. I have lots more questions now, so try to bear with me.

No problem!


How big would these committees be?

Who can say. Clearly Cities will have larger committees than rural areas etc. In places with low density there could well be assemblies instead. However in densly populated areas there will need to be repesentation isntead. People can form voluntary associations like neighborhood groups and workplace committees which would all participate in the regional comittee.


How do you define their jurisdiction without state boundaries?


We'd have to define them on some grounds, with towns and cities it's not particularly hard to judge the boundries. Perhaps arbitrary lines will need to be drawn here and there. But it's something that would have to be specifically decided at the time. In Anarchist spain these comittees drew boundries in a fairly organic manner, they made decisions on whatever affected them.


It seems to me, if this is direct democracy at least, that people will be splitting their time between actually working and serbing on these committees.

Yes and no. I mean, in the workplace, you would need to make decisions on what to do before you can do anything. A bit like when you and some friends go on holiday together and make decisions on what you will do before you go. It's not like you're splitting time between being on holiday and "serving on a decision makign council" the two naturally compliment eachother. Say your group is big and you split into two and stay at different hotels etc. You'd need to be in contact with eachother and coordinate your holiday.


Assuming that contracts play as significant of a role in a Communist society as they do now (and i think they would, given that any society needs a system of binding agreements) it seems rather inefficient for the people to do everything.

Your right, direct democracy is not particularly efficient.


You said this in your reply to ernie as well... can you elaborate?

Well as it is now, companies and the state do pretty much what they want given the space to do it. Although it's not complete mob rule, it's closer to it than the system I'd prefer.


I was thinking more along the line of "business" contracts. While I understand that under communism you would not have contracts of sale etc. but you would still need binding agreements to make the industry work properly, would you not? Obviously you wouldn't sue over betrayal in a relationship, but in the context of production, the consequences of a broken contract could have far reaching consequences for the community. The remedy today would be a lawsuit, payment of money from one side to the other etc. I'm not convinced that simply having an argument will always suffice.

Well it's a very fair question but I am having trouble thinking of an example.

That said you've hit the nail by pointing out that mediation is the best means of conflict resolution. I couldn't predict what the insentive to come to an agreement would be because it'd have to depend on why the deal was broken in the first place. I suspect most deals are broken for monetary reasons today, so the reasons from breaking them post-revolution wont exist. But should it happen there would presumably be many means at the federations disposal.

[ernie]

If communities agree on a set of rules then they have soverignty by definition. If you are a communist then you believe that councils or "soviets" will be the soverign bodies of a free society.
Perhaps we have a different understanding of what "sovereign power" means.


If you don't believe they will have soverignty then you're not really a communist.
I'm certainly not the authoritarian type of communist. And it strikes me as odd that someone who claims to be a libertarian socialist is in favor of having what have traditionally been tools of working class oppression like cops, judges, lawyers and prisons.


I don't understand, you've accepted there will be laws, presumably Murder will be one of them. How will these laws be enforced? How will we determine if someone is guilty or innocent? With some sort of trial?

I don't want to live in a society without a court. If I happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and people assume incorectly that I have comitted murder. I want a fair trial. Anything else is tyranny.
Certainly there will be trials, with juries, probably very large ones. If somebody is accused of murder, witnesses and forensic experts will give their testimony and the jury will rule one way or another. No need for parasites like lawyers or judges or prison guards.


Why would it not be free? These things will be instruments of the will of the people, not some sort of state.
But if you have professional law-enforcement officials, they will stop being instruments of the will of the people. A police force made up of professional policemen/policewomen will start acting like cops, regardless of their good intentions.

Our law-enforcement institution should be made up of individuals who can serve no more than a certain period of time. If we allow there to be cops, then there will be cops, if you know what I mean.


Without them the will of the people is a pointless phrase. Without the power to enforce community decisions, there are no community decissions. I can sit in my room and pass imaginary laws but unless enforced they are meaningless.
My point is that most decisions that will be taken will not be ones that need to be "enforced". Do you think the communes will sit around trying to think what to restrict? For the very specific things that do need restriction (like violent crime), there can be specific solutions. We don't need a general-purpose judicial system. If we have one, sooner or later it will turn into what we have now. Good intentions are no match for material reality.


I'd say mob rule is what we are living under right now.
Oh? Then you have a very strange definition of "mob rule".

[Robert]

Ernie, how do you know all the following?


Certainly there will be trials, with juries, probably very large onesMaybe, but ... certainly? Very large? 250 people?


If somebody is accused of murder, witnesses and forensic experts will give their testimonyExperts are hired guns. How are they less parasitic than judges?


parasites like lawyers or judges or prison guards.
Guards are parasites? What are you going to do if the "very large juries" convict your defendant of murder? Give him a trophy, or send him to prison? Who will run the prisons? The inmates? Won't they let themselves out?


I'm certainly not the authoritarian type of communist.Authoritarianism drips from your every syllable.

[ernie]

Ernie, how do you know all the following?
Obviously I am speculating. We are all speculating.


Maybe, but ... certainly? Very large? 250 people?
Again, I don't know. If I had a vote, I would vote for large juries, in the hundreds.


Experts are hired guns. How are they less parasitic than judges?
In general, forensic experts are not parasites. They do provide a purpose to society in the form of scientific expertise. (Edit: besides, in a classless society, nobody will be hired, and experts will be much more reliable than they are now.) On the other hand, lawyers and judges only exist because the legal system is so complicated, you need professionals to understand it. As a group, they contribute nothing of use to society at large (and a lot of them make a lot of money).


Guards are parasites? What are you going to do if the "very large juries" convict your defendant of murder? Give him a trophy, or send him to prison? Who will run the prisons? The inmates? Won't they let themselves out?
When did I say murderers should go to prison? (Let's leave punishment for another discussion.)

As for prisons, I don't know. Perhaps there will be some place for people who commit minor crimes to stay in. I don't think it will be like anything like a prison, though. It certainly won't have guards (and I don't know how to keep inmates from letting themselves out...electronically, perhaps?).


Authoritarianism drips from your every syllable.
Really? Care to elaborate?

[Robert]

Knock it off, Ernie, with all your "There will be this" and "there will be that."

Judge are parasites

Guards are parasites

Lawyers are parasites.

I'll bet the young Mao -- and the old Pol -- talked just like you.