Both Marxist and neo-Marxist perspectives are controversial because they claim that the ruling class is to blame for criminalizing the working class, contradicting official statistics and the beliefs of Functionalists. However, both Marxism and Functionalism agree on the importance of societal structures and institutions in shaping individuals’ behavior, including their involvement in criminal activities.
According to Marxist sociologists, crime and deviance can only be comprehended by acknowledging the impact of exploitative economic systems in capitalist societies. They contend that these systems are mainly accountable for empowering the bourgeoisie and ruling classes to suppress and exploit the working classes, causing them to experience poverty. Consequently, a clear separation emerges between individuals who possess wealth (“haves”) and those who do not (“have-nots”), with workers striving to eradicate exploitation while owners of production endeavor to preserve their profits.
According to most Marxists, crime is caused by poverty resulting from the current system. They believe that people resort to stealing because they lack material resources, which is a direct consequence of the ruling classes paying low wages. This is why Marxists explain the over-representation of the working classes in official crime statistics. On the contrary, Functionalists argue that crime is not a result of material deprivation, but rather poor socialization. The New Right strongly criticizes this Marxist perspective, asserting that crime emerges from the welfare state and permissiveness.
The argument from Marxism suggests that it is not only the material deprivation caused by “wage slavery” but also the capitalism itself that leads to crime. Capitalism promotes a selfish mindset, wherein people prioritize themselves. The world of advertising and consumerism further reinforces this mindset, causing people to view products as their life goal rather than valuing human relationships. As a result, the conditions under which these products are produced become detached from people’s consciousness. Greed and self-interest are actively encouraged in capitalism, which in turn generates frustration and aggression. Crimes driven by financial gain can therefore be seen as a logical consequence of profit-oriented priorities, regardless of social class. Petty crimes can be interpreted as expressions of the frustration, aggression, and hostility bred by the system. This argument connects the concept of “material deprivation” with an inherent greed, effectively explaining why even the wealthy feel compelled to commit financial crimes.
Marxists hold the view that unlike functionalists, the law and order system is designed to benefit the ruling classes rather than providing protection for all individuals. They assert that the state represents the interests of the wealthy, allowing them to evade criminal labeling for their actions while simultaneously criminalizing behaviors of the working class. For instance, exploiting workers by withholding fair wages in order to maximize profits is not deemed as a criminal act. However, stealing with the purpose of supporting one’s family due to inadequate minimum wages is perceived as a criminal offense.
Furthermore, the ruling class takes measures to guarantee that any laws designating their actions as criminal are not met with severe penalties. In the event that a leading capitalist faces a court trial, they possess the means to hire top-notch attorneys who will work towards securing a lenient verdict or even an acquittal. This is possible because the Judiciary shares the same background as the ruling class, increasing the likelihood of them favoring the elites. One notable instance of this is the immunity from prosecution enjoyed by large corporations in developing nations, as exemplified by the aftermath of the Bhopal disaster in 1984. This catastrophe resulted in the death or severe illness of impoverished Indian workers and their families.
Within sociology, there are various perspectives that analyze the law from different angles. These perspectives suggest that the law benefits not just the capitalist class, but also other groups. Functionalists argue that it serves the interests of all individuals, while feminists believe it primarily caters to men’s interests.
In the 1970s, a new school of thought called “new criminology” emerged within Neo-Marxist ideology. This perspective provided valuable insights into Marxist analysis of crime. The research conducted by Taylor, Walton, and Young highlights the significance of examining crime in relation to capitalism and the resulting inequalities.
The neo-Marxists have a slightly different perspective from traditional Marxist theories. They acknowledge that individuals have more freedom of choice when it comes to committing crimes, rather than being solely controlled by the economy. This aligns with interactionist theories, departing from the structuralist theories of traditional Marxism and Functionalism. In their book “The New Criminology,” Taylor et al. aimed to develop a comprehensive social theory of deviance. They emphasized the significance of labeling certain groups within society as criminals. In their case, black working class men were labeled as criminal and dangerous by law enforcement and the media. The book also examines how British capitalism faced a crisis during the 1970s recession, which threatened the authority of the state. It argues that the state responded by initiating a law and order campaign, resulting in a moral panic surrounding mugging.
The criminalization of black youth led to increased state power justification. This analysis examines the issue of “mugging” on multiple levels, encompassing society as a whole and street-level dynamics. This radical criminology integrates various perspectives to offer a comprehensive social theory of crime and deviance. Within a Marxist framework, the theory incorporates concepts like labelling theory, moral panics, and deviancy amplification.
Offering a more comprehensive perspective than previous views, it is argued that many laws and police activities cannot be attributed to the interests of the capitalist class. This includes traffic laws, as critics assert. Left realists further argue that this explanation of crime downplays the impact these crimes have on working class communities, with the majority of offenses committed by working class individuals against their own peers.
Radical criminology does not focus on the victims of crime. However, it is essential to consider the Marxist and neo-Marxist reasons for criminal behavior. In a prominent capitalist society like ours, the numerous issues caused by capitalism are evident. Moreover, only a few sociological perspectives like Marxism aim to elucidate and denounce the most severe crimes, particularly those committed by the state.
Functionalists tend to focus on the working class and their minor offenses, while Marxists argue that it is important to consistently investigate mass crimes, such as genocide, political assassinations, and illegal wars. Nonetheless, feminists argue that Marxists have overlooked the impact of crime on women in their attempt to fit all crime into the Marxist structural model. They argue that crimes like rape are not solely about material deprivation or challenging the capitalist system, but also about men asserting power over women.
