Red pill me

Huh? Not everyone would have to agree, that would just be the political-economic system. Production is mainly for exchange under capitalism even though not everyone agrees on that, and people would be free to exchange shit under communism too. The difference is that capitalism is based economically around the accumulation of capital, while communism isn't.

Most sociopaths aren't serial killers and most serial killers aren't sociopaths. You're a brainlet who doesn't even understand basic psychiatry. kys.

A form of governance and organization will still exist.

Idiot. Reasons are not universal. One could kill for a simple provocation if he's carring a handgun

Irrelevant, people have reasons for the shit they do.
Sure, but people don't generally kill for no reason or over tiny provocations. And if they did there would still be systems of governance to deal with that kind of shit.

When the laws come down, not everyone would agree that accumulation of capital should be taboo, and accumulate it anyway.

If a government would still exist would it really be lawless?

You're a fucking idiot. A lack of laws doesn't imply a lack of governance, and people wouldn't let their shit get appropriated away from them ever again. People privately accumulating capital wouldn't topple an anarchist society, especially given that most capital would be held in common.

How? There are no laws, what does gives you the governance over the consequence of what I did? How do you assure to me your impartiality? Why what I did is bad? Morality? LEL SPOOKS AMIRITE?

But you're still not telling me what will stop killers.

might makes right, if you depend too much on rule of law socios get in power and turn the state into lulz on tap

Laws are transhistorical and not bound to capitalism. Although capitalism breeds a form of overboarding legalism regulating people's relation to material things (contradicting feudalism, which regulated people's relation to other people or individual rights of usufruct).

So yeah, socialism would have laws. In fact, continental laws should be left intact, except the freedom of contract and private ownership over MoP. But Civil Law isn't capitalist. It should prevail. Anglo-Saxon Common Law should be flushed down the toilet tho. Absolute crap.

only growing some balls and rational self-defence can protect you

You're an idiot, please kys.

Now you're getting it.

Only when law positivism is prevalent. The rule of law, depending on how its designed, can rely on vigilance of the common people just as well. There is a difference between jurisprudence and the enforcement of the latter, or rather, it's design.

Governance? So this wouldn't be a lawless society.

Law is a system of rules that governs what people can and can't do. That doesn't preclude the possibility of self-governance you fucking brainlet. People would deal with problems in their own communities, and generally they'd try to do that without resorting to the use of force. If there were laws they'd be very general ones that establish processes and general norms.

Social structure will mostly, but for the ones that still exist people will stop them.

Tell that to all the nightstalker victims. "It's your fault because you didn't carry a gun". Idiot.

so, who makes that "just" law? still the one with power, ho do you stop sociopaths from gaining said power when they can either bullshit or backstab their path to authority?

So you're telling me, living each day fearing for my life is better than living under a government that would protect me?

well you can ban the guns for starters, level the field a bit

yes, better to fear people than to fear an unstoppable terror machine

t. retard

Self defense is one of the few ways you can actually reliably prevent bad things from happening to you. You're a fucking idiot if you dismiss this.

A "just" law is one that doesn't have to intervene into people's lives at all to have a positive effect.

People would stop them? Why? I'd rather be on the side of road warriors than some "lawless" commies.

Continental Laws aren't made since emperor Justinian released the Corpus Iuris Civilis. In private law, at least. It's still basically the same shit.

What's wrong with criminal law and public law then? Murder, rape, theft etc should still be punished in socialism.

the sole function of law is intervention. take drugs for example, putting people in prison is the only possible way the ban can be enforced

You stupid fuck, people who self-govern would stop them. That is no different from the society we live in now, except for the fact that people now can't self-govern and have laws they can't control that intrude into their lives.

I think you're overinflating the numbers and influence sociopaths actually have but in any case the "government" would be structured in such a way that a single individual wouldn't be capable of holding that much power. It would structured horizontally and positions would temporary and recallable.

Under anarchism (no government), it would be most likely that instead of laws, there would be unspoken rules. And people would enforce them without the use of a state police force. It would be akin to a social consciousness performing acts of "justice". The question would remain how punishment would work. Under anarchism being excommunicated is the worst possible outcome, since no one can survive with some metal and paper tokens. Those who say that without police there would be no order would probably be mistaken. Capitalism grants the opportunity to survive without the help of others, something which isn't possible without immense skill. And even then, you wouldn't be able to just go around killing people after being excommunicated without them going after you.

every society has prisons. you don't need special training to consider locking murderers up, you only need it to analyse evidence that points to the culprit

Someone who actually has a system that makes sense. I may not agree, but it makes sense.

Exactly. The entire point of laws is to enforce the will of the state by intruding into people's lives violently. That's not good, especially in a society without self-governance. Ideally we wouldn't need laws.

oh do i? macron, hillary, thatcher those are only the most obvious and brazen megalomaniacs in recent history of western democracy

You're retarded.

not idealy, we really can do without manuals

So what's a government without laws? It's call a mafia you dimwit.

I'm sorry but it sounds like you have no idea how complex a seemingly normal murder case can be. It's really not that simple. If it was there would be no need for lawyers. Also what you are describing is police work - not the work of the jurisprudence.

You're ignorant.

...

it's only complex because law is complex. police investigation is the only step that requires true responsibility

Honestly I agree with Marx and his "critisize everything" tabula rasa and I'm really not in for muh traditions but honestly Roman Law has proven itself across millenia and always comes to the correct conclusions so I don't see much wrong with it.

every hierarchic society, yes

How can you force everyone to be ready and trained to self defence? Some people are old, other are sick, other don't want to. How could one defend himself from an attack of a more trained guy?

I fear people much more than the government. Please read Lord of the Flies.

Roman Law is only good if you're trying to build an empire.

No it isn't you fucking moron.

Maybe we should try to have a non-hierarchical society then ;^^^^^^)

Can you stick with one disorder/set of symptoms?

Also random shitty powerful people aren't automatically sociopaths.

Then can you kindly explain why the war lords in africa still exist?

Please go out of the basement. I feared people as a kid, now that I understand them better I know how spooked I was. All you need is a bit of power and self-reliance, and not being a douchebag.

You wouldn't force people to be trained in self-defense, you would encourage it.

Lmao

You don't think there is a reason as to why it is complex? The causality of killing somebody who was already poisoned could fill up an entire lecture.
Cops don't speak the sentence.

How so? It's almost entirely private.

It's almost like the person you replied to said a horizontally structured society would prevent that kind of concentration of power.

What if one doesn't want to or is unable to do it? What then?

Inequality is the main cause of violence, not 'muh culture', or some dna autism level voodoo alt-right is peddling.

Sure. The war lords exist in africa because they have a political economic system that makes being a war lord overwhelmingly beneficial to the war lords.

Africans aren't self governing.

Why should anyone protect people who do not wish to protect themselves?

Please go away mr. Ancap.

And that would be a really autistic lecture I imagine.

It'd be enough that most people know how to defend themselves for the threat of potential force to deter most people from attacking anyone. Also a society that produces for use rather than exchange would remove most incentives from attacking someone anyways, so I don't see thins being a huge problem.

This. Means of defense prove time and time again to be the most reliable tactic of deterrence.

Wait, a group of people coming to you to take your stuff every month without a thing in return isn't a Mafia? Because the only thing a government without laws would do, is take your stuff.

Laws are are simply rules and regulations enforced by the state. There's a myriad of ways to enact rules outside roman law and court systems. For example, when a friend of yours acts antisocial do you yell for the police to help you or tell him to shut up and get his shit together?

i judge by the deeds

Because they happen to be sitting on a treasure trove of rare earth minerals and Western corporations benefit from the situation.

inthesetimes.com/article/18385/slavoj-zizek-european-refugee-crisis-and-global-capitalism

now you're dodging the bullet by mixing up justice and welfare systems

This is right. This is why the bourgeoisie pushed for constitutionalization of the European nation states by the end of absolutism. Bourgeoisie doesn't have a problem with monarchy per se as long as it is bound not to violate private property.

By observing whose stuff governments DON'T take, you can easily point out where the power elite is located.

You didn't say anything about that. You just said a government without laws is a Mafia, which isn't true anyway. Any hierarchical structure is going to have laws and regulations mediating behavior and acceptable conduct. Saying "a government without laws is called a mafia" is nonsense.

Think and use your words instead of just babbling out a bunch of meaningless nothing.

Kill yourself idiot, Holla Forums tier

Tell me how a 16 years old is gonna defend herself from 2 rapist with military training.

Besides, mafia is more like a corporation than a government. It's a get rich scheme not a world domination plot.

As it currently stands, Western law is really autistic.

Tell me how a government will protect her.

Rapist are in prison or executed, Police and cameras patroling, deciding who can own weapons or not ecc.
Now answer my question

Sad

Yet people are raped everyday. Doesn't seem like they're doing all that great.

You don't get off the hook that easily. Rapists strike when there is no surveillance, and usually don't need a gun. When police reacts to the crime it is already too late. Gov or not, self-defence and not letting children walk alone in the night is the better protection.

So inequality in a place entirely populated by black people causes violence? Not gonna lie, that sounds racist.

There you go, now just imagine that in america.

Why are the blacks not self governing?

you're the one who brings race into this, if anything those who are rich are responsible for violence among the poor, since their policies are the true cause of it.

Because they're ruled over by a war lord. Keep up with your own scenarios.

You are an illiterate fuck.

You're an idiot, you ancoms normally believe corps are governments waiting to happen. And a mafia is all about control as well as money.

That still doesn't tell me why I should throw out the baby with the bath water.

we ancoms normally think that corporations will be too inept to realise any social policy other than "manage your life per minute, think happy thoughts, buy our product", governments on the other hands are quick to try their hands in "altruism" and various brands of aesthetic/"moral" dictatorship

No, no I'm not. A government without laws has no reason enforce justice.

government is but a tool of those who consist of it, in ancom and communalism everyone is part of the government

So the reason why there are war lords is because there's rich war lords?

exactly so

Absolutley but not enough

By why are they are they War lords?

It's never enough, but there's also such a thing as overkill

to get rich mio hermano

You're assuming everyone would follow those systems.

To accumulate wealth and power which our current socioeconomic system incentivizes and facilitates.

...

i am assuming the system will be the field of strife, and results of social disagreements can be satisfactory enough to avoid civil war and zero sum games

the logic of capital dictates that if there is a method allowing for acummulation of wealth, it will be repeated ad nauseam despite other ways being possible.

So why not try this ancom system over there?

That just sounds like gibberish to me.

we're getting to that, don't you worry. all we need is for usa to lose it's global influence to start popping up our anarchocommunes all over the place.

I'm sorry to hear that.

And what would stop these war lords from enslaving your anarchocommunes when they come over?

Because Africa doesn't exist in a vacuum and they would be in direct opposition to the class interests of very wealthy people/nations.

np mate, you tried your best to make sense.

well YPG can do it, ML's can do it, so can we.

So this ancom system wouldn't work?

No it can't

Why?

i say they're still holding up better than entire bannon wing after half a year of leg kicking with zionistas

There's much more good stuff from having a government, than from not having one.

Nah mate, government is like steve jobs. steals your shit, plasters its brand all over it and puts it's best mother theresa face while handing it back to you on conditions of subservience

As an isolated community in a capitalist global economy? No. Hence the whole international revolution thing.

Okay, I don't agree

Government isn't the same thing as a state, brainlet.

How does it feel being the only Commie in this thread with an Autism Level higher than a brick.

...

What else would you call a bunch of people, who want there to be no laws and also want at the same time a governance to enforce rules to govern what a person can or can't do.

it's not about deciding what you can or can't do. it's about agreeing on what to actually do, when it's more than one dick pusing the cart

But don't you see why it's an oxymoron?

no

Lmao, you're either too dumb to understand or you're willfully misunderstanding. We don't want a government to enforce rules that govern what people can and can't do, we want a government that allows people to collectively make decisions about their communities. Why do we need a rulebook full of laws to have a government? And what happens when laws become outdated and no longer serve the community?

ask the slaveowners

we can ask the bourgouise instead

Do you know what cycles are, user?

Exactly. The biggest issue with legalistic systems is that the people making the laws will always have hidden interests, and probably aren't experts in the fields they legislate around. The legal battles surrounding slavery are a great examples of how shitty legal systems can be.

if you think slavery would be eradicated without a legal system you're high on your own farts

Oh look, another person in this thread who isn't a idiot.

Slavery is illegal worldwide yet there are still nearly 36 million slaves around the world today.

then it's not illegal is it dummy

How the fuck did you end up with that conclusion, retard?

I'd suggest africa, they've been doing long before white people have, and they're doing it long after.

if slavery is illegal yet slaves exist then ba dum tsss - IT'S NOT ILLEGAL

How is a corporation not a miniature government? It has both hierarchies and rules. Just because it has less control over its member doesn't mean it wouldn't take more power if it could.

there is no such thing
what you are refering to is memes
easily digestible paroles to sway those weak of mind
you will have to read a few books to learn anything
stop taking short cuts if you don't want to be ridiculed for being pathetic

Obviously, which is why I also propose changing our economic system to one in which commodity exchange and capitalist accumulation is abolished.

How about we agree on something, this plot of land you and me work on… we agree to hang those people that kill more than one person and send the person to a reeducation facility over in that prison that the workers set up. We agree that any slave owners be put to death on the spot if they try to do that in the commune.

All we need to do is see if the rest of the commune is fine with that in the biweekly meeting with a 6/7 majority. If the other people don't like it they are free to leave the commune. Now all we need to do is enforce the rules to those living in the commune and never overreach into other communes.

It's not like the other people would allow a serial killer to rome the commune.

Its just means that it is not enforced.

I think they should. The rule of law is important and useful. I wouldn't want to live in a society without it. I think most socialists would agree.
The problem isn't law; it's that the law currently serves capital. Google "base and superstructure."

Argue with Not me.

other people

In this thread there's only 2 other socialists who agree with you.

this has nothing to do with slavery.

Because it's incompatible with directly social rule of people themselves. There would be rules and customs in a communist society, but that's not quite the same thing as law (as it presently exists). For one, there would be no separate legal institutions form the general population and as such no courts that could override the decisions of the commune. People would collectively decide what to do about people who cause harm to society, and wouldn't be constrained by formal rules. As such things would be decided on a case by case basis, for example people may decide that a particular action was justified given the circumstance and decide not to take action, whereas in a society based on rule of law and a rigid court system such a people may find themselves in prison.

Should be: such a person

sage for correction

Would there be separate communes or we talking the world commune of several billion people here? That seems like a bit of a logistical issue to say the least, you'd expect at the world-level decisions on the entire overall course of everything will be made. How do you determine an upper bound on commune size before this becomes impractical, and how would you mediate and arbitrate the interface between communes without generic codified practices, would this always have to be handled by consensually by the world commune? Would they have the equivalent of territories aka jurisdictions? If it's possible for someone to become errant and harmful society in some way, couldn't sub-communes themselves become concentrations of harmful activity, given majority overrule and freedom of movement? Couldn't the commune decide as group its energies were better spent elsewhere and to codify a rule of thumb thereafter binding? Isn't production for exchange, and say for instance clear cut murder, across the board illegal? If yes, what else would be? And how do you know this in advance, given morality is a bourgeois spook? If no, what's the point if people can just become capitalists through violence again? If they simply wouldn't want to, why would it not be the case that everyone simply would always follow the world collective's lead on everything, making this discussion meaningless?

It would have to be global obviously, but it still doesn't make sense to be calling such a kind of organisation "rule of law" or a state, because there's a lack of alienated institutions of law/rule there's no system of courts to overturn the decisions of the commune, nor is the commune bound by precedent, a constitution or existing rules: if the commune decides a particular course of action needs to be taken then it happens, it doesn't matter if things were done otherwise yesterday. It's simply direct rule of society itself. As such it doesn't make sense to speak of rule of law in such a society.

How does the Weltgeist decide on every single detail of everything collectively given that each individual would have to process the facts of each case? How would we/it decide on something like the optimal number of people? Obviously earth doesn't have infinite carrying capacity, and too many seems to create too much complexity, putting more strain on each individual mind.

Or would it automatically delegate levels of detail at a particular granularity down to its neurons (formerly known as humans)? Starting from what data to begin with though? Wherein does this processing actually inhere? Help me out here with the causal structure, top-down, bottom-up, both at once somehow?

To clarify: statelessness is an end to the separation of powers just as much as it's an end to the division between ruler and ruled. I'm can't really expand upon the minor details of how such a system could be organised and it would be utopian to try, like a medieval peasant speculating about the organisation of government departments in capitalist society. Obviously we'll have to work out a system for handling such issues but such organisation will grow out of revolutionary organisation, in other words stateless communism will develop from the dictatorship of the proletariat (which is still partially statelike).

If I had to engage in such speculation, I'd say that local councils within the (global) commune would handle such matters according to mutually agreed upon rules/guidelines with higher level being able to overrule the lower levels, but again this isn't really rule of law in the sense that it exists today.

Your comparison to a feudal peasant in hindsight is invalid because you have already assumed a future wherein any of this is even logically possible.
Interesting how often you throw this word around, isn't it.

By what rational procedure are you deciding what aspects of this are able to be speculated on now, and which are not? You finding it too difficult to think about is not such a procedure, and without one you have no cause to say any of it is potentially possible at all. Marx and Engels did not refrain from making numerous projections, so there is such a definable thought process (which is what dialectical logic is) in principle unless they were self-consciously making shit up, yes?

I ask again, how are you authorizing yourself to say (or perhaps indulge) in any of this, at any level of detail? My questions were very minimally formal and structural.

They certainly did make projections but generally not in the kind of detail you are asking for, Marx and Engels mostly defined communism negatively, refusing to go into any real detail about how such a society could be administered. The closest he got to such speculation was probably in critique of the gotha program, and even there only in the broadest of strokes. They never really spoke about the administrative structure of such a society, at most Marx described the communards of the 1871 Paris Commune as having discovered the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, he never looked as far ahead as an actual communist society when it came to such matters as he understood how retarded it we be to do so.

So if it is only apophantic, despite the fact they did certainly make some predictions, can you give me the full standard list, at least, of what it ISN'T (besides the obvious abstractions, which become quite empty in this case i.e. not-capitalism)? Surely this would be the next question after (from what you just said here) any positive was ruled out. Dialectical reasoning seems to suggest every negative contains within it also a positive.

Marx's idea was that we'd individually excel beyond the merely human and begin to fully master nature, besides some mundane points about work hours and such. How could he say any of that, let alone the proposals of the Manifesto? Surely some features will remain and it's not an absolute eclipse of everything we could conceive of. For example the whole point is about human activity and how society is constructed around that activity. The basis of the possibility of such a transformation, no matter how ALIEN (think about it) the other side may be, must stem from that basic structure that is conceivable now. Your recourse to "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "lower stage" preparations, and the notion of the state evaporating (which seemingly only means the incursion of absolute alterity now), for any of that to even mean anything at all, still relies on the possibility of extrapolation from this basic socio-logical architecture.

So? Holla Forums is an autistic out-of-the-way board on a Cambodian woodblock forum. It also has a contrarian streak. It's not exemplary of "most socialists," and nearly all socialists, including Proudhon and Marx and all other foundational socialist authors (and excluding probably only an-prims), envision a world that is governed by the rule of law, whether they think of it in those terms or not.

They're quite right to say rule of law loses all meaning after the transition, simply because absolutely everything does, just read closely enough and you'll see Communists these days will openly volunteer the fact the Sublime Object puppeteering them through life is irretrievably screened behind this event horizon, while at the same time belittling the utopian temptation and other unsanctioned ideations for carelessly venturing any utterable content at all.