The Socialist Party holds agreed principles for our objective and the means of achieving it. However, there is in between large areas of grey where socialists will discuss and debate and dispute amongst one another and have comradely disagreements. These are the notes from a lecture given by the late Pieter Lawrence upon the socialist attitude towards the question of law given at Head Office on 30th. September 2001.
Socialism and Law
It is unhappily true that most discussion of social issues suffers from poor communication – I don’t mean that people are incapable of speaking their thoughts clearly- nor do I mean that others don’t hear what is said. The problem arises from what happens in between – in transit between speaker and listener the message falls prey to misunderstanding, muddied up definition, prejudice and confusion, or even wilful distortion. I am personally, not very optimistic that anything can be done about this – it helps of course to be aware of the problem – and perhaps from there we should do everything we can to maximise the chances of good communication.
I only mention this because the subject we are discussing tonight – Socialism and Law - is particularly prone to the difficulties I have just mentioned. And if that is the case, and if the arguments that we put to the public about Socialism and Law give a wrong impression about what we really stand for – then that is a serious matter for us – and it means that we should do everything we can to put it right.
Now, in fact – the subject of Socialism and Law is part of the wider question of Socialist Democracy – so it might be useful if we begin by setting out the basic principles of democratic organisation in Socialism. It is a system that acts on the basis of majority decisions. Making a majority decision is not the end of the matter – the very mention of a majority assumes a minority of people who did not agree and who voted against - It also means that this minority will be free to do everything it can to win more people over to their view – and there are plenty of examples of decisions being changed in this way. People who disagree with majority decisions will also be perfectly free to abstain from any action that might flow from the decision – on the other hand it is a condition of such democratic procedures that no one may act against the decisions of the majority – that would be fundamentally undemocratic. And it is as well to remember that minorities are not a particular human type who are always in the minority. On other issues they may well be part of the majority and in this situation they would not take kindly to dissenters taking action to prevent the wishes of the majority from being carried out. And in any case , society could not operate on this basis. So, that is what the Party has always agreed upon – democracy in socialism means the widest possible freedom of participation in decisions – with the important proviso that no individual or group may act against the decisions of the majority.
To facilitate this – in recent times the Party has added that socialism will need to be a society in which there will be rules. And as I understand it that is about as far as the Party has gone on this question.
If I can quote the November 2000 Socialist Standard – “A Socialist society will have to operate according to rules. There will be lots of them.” And it gave some examples of rules in a socialist society – “Who can practice medicine, who can pilot planes, who can drive cars.” And then again rules for the procedures for making decisions on the projects to be carried out, allocation of resources, and so on.
What has never been stated is what will happen if people act against the rules – assuming that rules will result from democratic decisions – action against the rules will be action against those democratic decisions – and we have already said that this would be completely undemocratic. But there is nothing in the Standard about what will happen if any individual or group acts against the rules – and nor have I ever heard in any discussion what will happen.
But what we do have in the November 2000 Socialist Standard is the statement that there will be no law. This is what it says – “Socialism will be a society without law” – and apparently no machinery or sorting out any problem of persons or groups acting against the rules.
Now, I suggest that what this will mean to anyone reading this Standard who is not fully acquainted with our case is that in socialism anyone will be able to do what they like. There will be no law – no courts –– yes – there will be rules, but if you act against them there will be no civic powers of coercion of any kind to stop you from acting against them. Now – of course – this is a completely anti socialist position.
We should have a look at how this attitude – that there will be no law in socialism – came about. I suggest that it arises from the Marxian theory of the State.
I assume there will be no disagreement about that here today - if I can take the liberty of summarising it in a single sentence -that with the advent of farming – neolithic society was able to produce a surplus of food – this allowed for a more complex division of labour in settled communities – there was time to make things like pottery – eventually metal working – soldiers – builders - perhaps a priestly caste who preserved knowledge – and who came to be more and more in control - and in time all this congealed as propertied society and a class system and it was administered through law and the state machinery.
Bringing this up to Clause 6 of our principles – which says – "that the machinery of government exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers…”
So, in this view, the law and the courts – acting as part of the machinery of government – or the state – is there to enforce class society. It therefore follows in this view that with the establishment of a classless society – socialism- there will be no need for a state – or any law – nor any public powers of coercion.
But this only lands us in a difficulty – a contradiction.
Whilst we may have no quarrel with the Marxian explanation of the origin of the State, the conclusions that we have drawn from it that socialist society will be a society without law and no civic powers of coercion are in conflict with the basic principle of socialist democracy that no person or group may act against the decisions of the majority. But in fact this contradiction is not a problem for the Marxian theory of the state – it arises from an interpretation of that theory that is too rigid, mechanistic and therefore, too limiting.
A complete view must include the concept of civil society. In “The German Ideology,” Marx said, “Civil Society embraces the whole material intercourse of individuals within a definite stage of the development of the productive forces.” This makes a distinction between the “whole material intercourse of individuals” and the class relations of production. Whilst the main function of the state with its law and coercive machinery is to regulate and enforce the class relations of production, there remain some features of law and its enforcement which have no apparent connection with class relations and can therefore be said to be a part of civil society.
It is examples of this law that would be continued into socialist society.
These include laws relating to foetal experiments, abortion and the age of sexual consent. Whatever we may think of them the point is that they arise from moral or ethical questions – they vary over time and between countries without making the slightest difference of productive relationships.They arise from the organisation of civil society.
Similarly we have laws on drunk or dangerous driving. You would need these laws in any modern society. They do not arise from the regulation and enforcement of the wage labour/capital relationship – they arise from the need for safety. They would be continued in socialism. Similarly we have laws on professional qualifications – for doctors, surgeons and pharmacists. Licences for car drivers, air pilots, and ships captains and so on. Again, these laws arise from the need for safety. Socialism will be organised for needs, so they will be continued in socialism. Further examples are the laws on public nuisance, assault, sexual abuse, rape and murder.
Very important in a socialist society will be planning law. There will be a democratically decided policy on town and country planning – the idea that anyone will be able to act against it by putting up buildings or other structures wherever they like is absurd – you cannot take it seriously. In socialism your planning permission will give you free access to all the necessary materials, but you will only be able to build with planning permission.
Again, very important in socialism will be constitutional law. This will define both the freedoms and the boundaries of decision making amongst public bodies – the committees running institutions such as hospitals and schools, production units and the various parish, district and urban councils. The idea that without constitutional law you could have all these bodies making decisions against each would be total madness. We couldn’t even run our Party in that way let alone a well ordered society. That isn’t democracy – it is the opposite of democracy.
I just want to say something very briefly about the problem of language. We began with the need for clarity of expression and the need for good communication of our ideas. We have to be very careful that we don’t use terms that no one except our members understands. We argue our ideas against a background of theory, economic theory and the theory of the state, and so on. But our particular use of the word law is with a definition that arose from the polemics of revolutionary intellectuals from nearly two hundred years ago. There is an obvious tendency then to lapse into an esoteric use of terms ... part of a political language spoken by a few hundred people which nobody else understands. How can we communicate sensibly on this basis? We can’t.
The dictionary defines law as the rules of the community. That is adequate for our purposes. And since we agree that socialism will be a society with rules – it follows that there will be law in socialism.
Socialism and Law
It is unhappily true that most discussion of social issues suffers from poor communication – I don’t mean that people are incapable of speaking their thoughts clearly- nor do I mean that others don’t hear what is said. The problem arises from what happens in between – in transit between speaker and listener the message falls prey to misunderstanding, muddied up definition, prejudice and confusion, or even wilful distortion. I am personally, not very optimistic that anything can be done about this – it helps of course to be aware of the problem – and perhaps from there we should do everything we can to maximise the chances of good communication.
I only mention this because the subject we are discussing tonight – Socialism and Law - is particularly prone to the difficulties I have just mentioned. And if that is the case, and if the arguments that we put to the public about Socialism and Law give a wrong impression about what we really stand for – then that is a serious matter for us – and it means that we should do everything we can to put it right.
Now, in fact – the subject of Socialism and Law is part of the wider question of Socialist Democracy – so it might be useful if we begin by setting out the basic principles of democratic organisation in Socialism. It is a system that acts on the basis of majority decisions. Making a majority decision is not the end of the matter – the very mention of a majority assumes a minority of people who did not agree and who voted against - It also means that this minority will be free to do everything it can to win more people over to their view – and there are plenty of examples of decisions being changed in this way. People who disagree with majority decisions will also be perfectly free to abstain from any action that might flow from the decision – on the other hand it is a condition of such democratic procedures that no one may act against the decisions of the majority – that would be fundamentally undemocratic. And it is as well to remember that minorities are not a particular human type who are always in the minority. On other issues they may well be part of the majority and in this situation they would not take kindly to dissenters taking action to prevent the wishes of the majority from being carried out. And in any case , society could not operate on this basis. So, that is what the Party has always agreed upon – democracy in socialism means the widest possible freedom of participation in decisions – with the important proviso that no individual or group may act against the decisions of the majority.
To facilitate this – in recent times the Party has added that socialism will need to be a society in which there will be rules. And as I understand it that is about as far as the Party has gone on this question.
If I can quote the November 2000 Socialist Standard – “A Socialist society will have to operate according to rules. There will be lots of them.” And it gave some examples of rules in a socialist society – “Who can practice medicine, who can pilot planes, who can drive cars.” And then again rules for the procedures for making decisions on the projects to be carried out, allocation of resources, and so on.
What has never been stated is what will happen if people act against the rules – assuming that rules will result from democratic decisions – action against the rules will be action against those democratic decisions – and we have already said that this would be completely undemocratic. But there is nothing in the Standard about what will happen if any individual or group acts against the rules – and nor have I ever heard in any discussion what will happen.
But what we do have in the November 2000 Socialist Standard is the statement that there will be no law. This is what it says – “Socialism will be a society without law” – and apparently no machinery or sorting out any problem of persons or groups acting against the rules.
Now, I suggest that what this will mean to anyone reading this Standard who is not fully acquainted with our case is that in socialism anyone will be able to do what they like. There will be no law – no courts –– yes – there will be rules, but if you act against them there will be no civic powers of coercion of any kind to stop you from acting against them. Now – of course – this is a completely anti socialist position.
We should have a look at how this attitude – that there will be no law in socialism – came about. I suggest that it arises from the Marxian theory of the State.
I assume there will be no disagreement about that here today - if I can take the liberty of summarising it in a single sentence -that with the advent of farming – neolithic society was able to produce a surplus of food – this allowed for a more complex division of labour in settled communities – there was time to make things like pottery – eventually metal working – soldiers – builders - perhaps a priestly caste who preserved knowledge – and who came to be more and more in control - and in time all this congealed as propertied society and a class system and it was administered through law and the state machinery.
Bringing this up to Clause 6 of our principles – which says – "that the machinery of government exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers…”
So, in this view, the law and the courts – acting as part of the machinery of government – or the state – is there to enforce class society. It therefore follows in this view that with the establishment of a classless society – socialism- there will be no need for a state – or any law – nor any public powers of coercion.
But this only lands us in a difficulty – a contradiction.
Whilst we may have no quarrel with the Marxian explanation of the origin of the State, the conclusions that we have drawn from it that socialist society will be a society without law and no civic powers of coercion are in conflict with the basic principle of socialist democracy that no person or group may act against the decisions of the majority. But in fact this contradiction is not a problem for the Marxian theory of the state – it arises from an interpretation of that theory that is too rigid, mechanistic and therefore, too limiting.
A complete view must include the concept of civil society. In “The German Ideology,” Marx said, “Civil Society embraces the whole material intercourse of individuals within a definite stage of the development of the productive forces.” This makes a distinction between the “whole material intercourse of individuals” and the class relations of production. Whilst the main function of the state with its law and coercive machinery is to regulate and enforce the class relations of production, there remain some features of law and its enforcement which have no apparent connection with class relations and can therefore be said to be a part of civil society.
It is examples of this law that would be continued into socialist society.
These include laws relating to foetal experiments, abortion and the age of sexual consent. Whatever we may think of them the point is that they arise from moral or ethical questions – they vary over time and between countries without making the slightest difference of productive relationships.They arise from the organisation of civil society.
Similarly we have laws on drunk or dangerous driving. You would need these laws in any modern society. They do not arise from the regulation and enforcement of the wage labour/capital relationship – they arise from the need for safety. They would be continued in socialism. Similarly we have laws on professional qualifications – for doctors, surgeons and pharmacists. Licences for car drivers, air pilots, and ships captains and so on. Again, these laws arise from the need for safety. Socialism will be organised for needs, so they will be continued in socialism. Further examples are the laws on public nuisance, assault, sexual abuse, rape and murder.
Very important in a socialist society will be planning law. There will be a democratically decided policy on town and country planning – the idea that anyone will be able to act against it by putting up buildings or other structures wherever they like is absurd – you cannot take it seriously. In socialism your planning permission will give you free access to all the necessary materials, but you will only be able to build with planning permission.
Again, very important in socialism will be constitutional law. This will define both the freedoms and the boundaries of decision making amongst public bodies – the committees running institutions such as hospitals and schools, production units and the various parish, district and urban councils. The idea that without constitutional law you could have all these bodies making decisions against each would be total madness. We couldn’t even run our Party in that way let alone a well ordered society. That isn’t democracy – it is the opposite of democracy.
I just want to say something very briefly about the problem of language. We began with the need for clarity of expression and the need for good communication of our ideas. We have to be very careful that we don’t use terms that no one except our members understands. We argue our ideas against a background of theory, economic theory and the theory of the state, and so on. But our particular use of the word law is with a definition that arose from the polemics of revolutionary intellectuals from nearly two hundred years ago. There is an obvious tendency then to lapse into an esoteric use of terms ... part of a political language spoken by a few hundred people which nobody else understands. How can we communicate sensibly on this basis? We can’t.
The dictionary defines law as the rules of the community. That is adequate for our purposes. And since we agree that socialism will be a society with rules – it follows that there will be law in socialism.
No comments:
Post a Comment