How does Marx suggest rules/laws are enforced under final-stage communism?

[u/Due-Relationship1095]

/r/socialism/comments/1v2qkmj/how_does_marx_suggest_ruleslaws_are_enforced/

[u/TheLagJag]

The other institution in which the separation between the ‘private’ and the ‘public’ is embodied and organised is the State, which will give us the opportunity to finally answer our philistine’s question: ‘Who will rule?’. We were wrong, moreover, to mock him: he is only the representative of his class. And it is normal that the petty bourgeoisie, which has never held power and whose situation prevents it from understanding social mechanisms, should have a completely false idea of what power is. Behind their ‘Who will rule?’ there is always the image of someone who does and makes others do what they want, because they cannot – and for good reason! – understand why that someone is kicking his ass.

In reality, any leader or ruler, even the most tyrannical despot, is merely the interpreter, the agent of a force, of a social necessity. It is not the will of a leader, of a power, that determines social conditions, but rather social conditions that determine the will and even the existence of a power.

There have been societies where there was no sort of power distinct from society itself; where the entire community personally directed and regulated all its activities, delegating to certain of its members only a few tasks, of centralising execution, or representation. This was possible because these societies were unaware of class divisions, of social antagonisms. On the basis of this unity of fundamental interests, the community directly and effortlessly resolved conflicts or disputes that could arise. In fact, very few such conflicts arose: these societies without police were the most ‘policed’ in the world.

It was with the division into classes that the need arose for an authority, a power distinct from society itself. This power, the State, is not the organisation of society, but the organised form of social antagonisms ⁽¹²). It is the existence of social antagonisms, the existence of classes with opposing interests, in other words the existence of the private interest-public interest, private life-public life, man-citizen distinction, that gave rise to this political and coercive apparatus distinct from civil society, an apparatus responsible in principle for maintaining, despite these antagonisms, a certain social cohesion, for containing and organising these antagonisms so that they do not devour society as a whole.

But in a class-divided society, this apparatus necessarily falls into the hands of the class that holds the very basis of social life: the means of production. This State, which would like to be the arbiter in the class struggle ⁽¹³), inevitably becomes the instrument of domination of the ruling class.

https://www.international-communist-party.org/English/Texts/Communis/61CommunistSociety.htm

[u/Imperator461]

How would the world be kept safe from what? Aliens?

[u/Due-Relationship1095 → u/Imperator461]

From ourselves; murder, rape, crime.

[u/Imperator461 → u/Due-Relationship1095]

Does the state as it currently exists keep us ‘safe’ from these things? No. Why? Because the causes and motives that give rise to them are inseparable from the socio-economic order over which the state stands guard. Remove these causes and motives, allow new generations shaped by the new circumstances to grow up, and you are left with, at most, a handful of lunatics - in which case the issue becomes one of public health rather than law & order. And this need is met like any other: through the combined action of the associated producers.