> A cynic might say that the whole point of laws is to give the impression of justice, not to provide it.

Is there one singular "point" to laws? I feel like justifying this statement inevitably ends up at some kind of secret cabal conspiracy theory. Otherwise you have to admit that there are many groups who have many competing points and goals for legal systems.

This is what Chibber calls the "pluralist theory" which he argues is not entirely false but rather incomplete. I hope this will be of interest to you : https://youtu.be/R5R-9X_BtP4

A very ill-mannered response. If you don't want to participate in the discussion anymore, you can show yourself the exit rather than insulting your interlocutor.

I'd be interested if it came from a Marxist scholar that is a critic of Marxist scholars and university politics :) I was not naming a theory of his but the name he uses to refer to a group of theories that basically see society as a mere product of the efforts of social groups to advance their interests.

Otherwise you have to admit that there are many groups who have many competing points and goals for legal systems.

I thought it was pretty clear that "pluralist theory" was referring to that last bit so I did not feel the need to define but I guess it was not so sorry about that.

The hour long video was for the purpose of investigating further the matter rather than providing a definition.

I do understand that you are wary of scholars, I am myself. A title is not a guarantee of truth and knowledge is valuable when it is the product of good research and good method, something an academic title cannot guarantee alas.

I guess that now I should add that being a barman is how I currently sustain myself while learning to code. :)

That explains the bartending bit above : I thought you were being provocative but you were just being simplistic. Counting the number of dead people does not explain anything. Did people die because of poor politics/administration that ended in a famine? Because they were in the middle of a conflict? Because somebody wanted to exploit their workforce? Were they sent to death directly? I think it actually matters. No nation or ideology has a monopoly on colonialism, slavery, child labor, massacres and other monstrosities. You seem to have very clear cut categories : The communists, The nazis, The adults. Although they must be quite comforting, I don't think they work very well.

A Marxist is not necessarily a Maoist, Stalinist, or even Leninist. Marxism is a philosophical, sociological, historical, and economic framework for analyzing reality. And much as one can make a great or terrible web application with a web framework, one can do the same with philosophical frameworks.

Your comment is unnecessarily dismissive and only harbors guilt by association. Can you attribute support for, say, gulags to Prof. Chibber? If not, then your comment is irrelevant. If you can, you have further to prove that this opinion is a defect in this particular theory of law.

The people who actually don't belong at the table are flat and young earthers, single-issue voters like anti-abortion voters, or people so partisan and without principles they'll say things like "I'd vote for Biden if he boiled babies and ate them." Instead it's funny that all of these people will constantly try to attack Marx. Yet none of them know the first thing about anything. Much less Materialism, fun fact, materialism is the reason you have pottery in Museums rather than religious texts. Here's a 6th grade level video on Marx for the uneducated or ignorant. youtu.be/fSQgCy_iIcc

> Is there one singular "point" to laws?

On a high level view probably "to make it work", but that just shifts the problem to what "it" is and what "work" means.

It's easier to look for a priority, I think. When two interests clash (e.g. a fundamental interest of the state and the law), which one is given priority? Since it's the state that enforces the law, I believe the answer is obvious.