MelvinPoh616

Since this is such a huge topic I'll be as brief as possible; The early-Marxists claim that the State is really an oppressive/colored instrument in the sense through its extensions(such as laws;the police); it supposedly preserves/protects the interests of a powerful-ruling class and similarly at the same time its extensions is not universally beneficial/or neutral to all as one might be led to believe. For example; the existence of Private property; the existence of private property laws; and the existence of the judiciary and the police to enforce these laws is beneficial to us(the majority of people who own property) and definitely those who own alot of property but not to those who are homeless and dont own property. After all, telling one that rest assured their houses will be protected and recognised is not necessarily a good news or particular useful to one who sleeps under the bridge. Basically in summary the state is portrayed as being instrumentalist. How would an Objectivist reply agaisnt this?

Hmmm I see, well these answers have all clarified alot for me. Thanks alot guys

Buying goods, shopping for stuff, sometimes excessively. The idea that goods(products) "defines" us or atleast is at the heart of our desires, some believe it is perpetuated by mass advertising.

well trying not to be broad, does Objectivism view Consumerism as a good thing?

Thanks for all the replies guys, this is all very fascinating and enlightening. In spite of all that, what would the objectivists say about the beggar on the street and consumerism?

what then about the unequal distribution of wealth?

Yes indeed, it claims that law is in a way bad and not naturally good and we should be critical of it. Depending on different theorists, some may claim a total overthrow of current laws with more egalitarian laws, some claim anarchism as the solution. but i see so its ultimately a question of group rights v. individual rights.

Thanks. Well here in terms of that, I'm talking of the conception of law that arose out of the Critical Legal Movement. Basically, they come from a marxist ideological base, they believe that "law is indoctrinated and fashioned in such a way that it creates inequality"

I understand what you're saying. But wouldn't you agree that in capitalist society, certain individuals can really get empowered and their position in the status quo, reinforced and consolidated by the economic system and law at the disadvantage of others? How can that be vindicated?

What are the Objectivists views on the critical/marxist conceptions of law, they claim that law only justifies, consolidates and benefits class-division/a top minority of the bourgeois. Whats the objectivists view of law? I'm currently writing a paper, would like to know thank you

Hmmm I've been reading into Objectivism lately and I have to say I am fascinated by it all but just a quick question, How does objectivism justify the class division in society particularly the division that occurs in the workplace in society, where we have a majority of people working at the bottom, lets say in a factory, and we have a minority of people benefiting from thier work at the top. Objectivism claims that all should be entitled to the products of thier labor, how then does that reconcile with factory owners who take all the shoes made by the factory workers and sell them and pay them a bare minimal wage?