How to convince somebody that communism is not anarchy?

There's a lot of points I could address in this.

In society, people naturally grow a divide between them in terms of status and accumulation of power.

Does this mean you're bringing the "human nature" or "societal nature" argument to the table? As for 'status' and 'accumulation of power' I don't see how that's relevant in this discussion. Status is equal. There is no accumulation of power. Hence, no divides.

How can any semblance of justice be enforced unless people who are capable of maintaining the peace, do so. Would it be a mob, deciding to punish those at random?

http://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/2owtua/what_are_marxists_views_on_the_law/ http://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/29pxpa/describe_the_legal_system_of_a_communist_society/ http://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/2lizha/marxist_analysis_of_regulating_bad_behavior/

Many other sources. Opinions differ. Mass justice? Elected officials? Laws set in stone or "circumstantial laws"? I believe that in a post-state, post-class society the word 'law' as is used in modern society doesn't really make sense; rules assigned by a governmental body, enforced by government-appointed police? No. How, then?

It’s certainly not “mobs, deciding to punish those at random”. I can see how you might think that hearing the term ‘Mass justice’, but it’s the same kind of misconception people get hearing anarchism (they think of burning cities and people running around looting and killing) or communism (totalitarian statist dictatorships; identical workers in gray jumpsuits working in identical gray factories for identical “minimum wage”); your mind defaults to these images while ignoring the actual ideological meanings.

If you’ve heard of the notion of change in consciousness (also connects with the human nature argument) it’s not a far stretch to organized mass justice. I expect given the atmosphere and people in communist society there would be no want nor reason to do as you’ve assumed; instead, the legal system might take the form of voluntary participatory tribunals. As for punishment, perhaps denying access to community assets for some period of time.

“How can any semblance of justice be enforced unless people who are capable of maintaining the peace, do so.” Why would anybody be incapable of maintaining peace and justice? Why is it so hard to believe that perhaps the Masses are themselves capable of defending society? Do you not believe that most people have justice in mind; do you not believe that through a joint effort from these people, justice can be enforced? Why necessitate the existence of an external police force, especially when such a force has past proven to be easily corruptible and exploitable?

At the beginning of civilization, where democracy was in its most pure

I was going to go on a huge rant about that, but I threw that away when I realized I can just say I disagree. I don’t think democracy was in its most pure at that stage.

the people elected governing officials. What will prevent this recurrence?

The knowledge that with a few elected officials holding power over a vast majority, problems arise. Those learned in history can see more than enough examples of that. Now just apply that education to the Masses and we won’t have any problems with recurrence.

Why is this good, when the natural order strives to exist?

What on Earth makes you think that’s the natural order!? Further, who cares if it is the natural order? You assume that natural = good.

/r/communism101 Thread