Criminality and economic conditions

Having come to the end of my exposition, I have still to sum up the different chapters. As we have seen, a very small proportion of the authors who have taken up the subject, deny the existence of the relation between criminality and economic conditions, and in my opinion they have not proved the correctness of their position.

The great majority of authors are of the opinion that economic conditions occupy a more or less important position, but that other factors besides these are also at work. I have tried to show that as far as these factors are of a cosmic or religious nature, this thesis cannot be correct; that as far as they are of an anthropological nature, they play a rôle only with regard to a part of criminality.

Finally, we have seen that a small number of authors are of the opinion that the influence of economic factors is sovereign. I have been able to find no inaccuracies in the foundations of their theses.

Nearly all the authors—later I shall speak of the exceptions—have this in common, that they give a very limited meaning to the words “economic factors”, under which they include only poverty and wealth, and that they do not inquire whether these phenomena do not themselves need explanation, and whether economic conditions have not a great influence upon the whole social organization. They consider them as being phenomena of the same value as the other sides of the social life. In other words, most authors have omitted to explain the present mode of production and its consequences.

However, economic conditions, in my opinion, occupy an entirely different place; they are the foundation upon which the social structure rests. To make my thought clear I will once more call attention to the classic formula of this doctrine, originated by Marx and Engels, taken from the preface to the work, “Zur Kritik der politischen Oekonomie”, which I have already quoted in treating of the theories of Professor Ferri. [245]

“In the social production of their life men enter into fixed, necessary relationships in production, independent of their will, relationships which correspond to a definite stage in the development of their material powers of production. The sum total of these relationships forms the economic structure of society, the real basis upon which the juristic and political superstructure is erected, and to which definite forms of social consciousness correspond. The form of production of the material life conditions the social, political, and intellectual life-process in general. It is not the consciousness of mankind that determines their being, but their social being that determines their consciousness.”1

In the second part of this work I will try to sketch a treatment of the question according to this theory. As regards economic conditions I shall limit myself, for different reasons, to the present system, i.e. modern capitalism.

These reasons are the following:

First. A really scientific examination of the causes of criminality is only possible since the existence of criminal statistics, i.e. since the beginning of the 19th century.2

Second. Criminality has increased greatly under capitalism, and is of the greatest importance to the whole social life.

Third. An examination of historic criminality is very interesting; that of our own day is still more so. However, social science is not simply a means of solving interesting problems, but also, and chiefly, a means of pointing out to society the way to protect itself from scourges like criminality, or if possible, to get rid of them entirely. Here the saying of Marx applies: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world differently; the important thing is to alter it.”

Above I have already remarked that some authors have an opinion that differs from that of the majority, and are in agreement with the theory cited. Among these must be cited Engels, one of the two founders of this theory, and most of the authors of whom I spoke in the last chapter. However, Engels has only made, in passing, some observations upon the influence of capitalism on crime among the [246]workers in factories; Hirsch, in his interesting brochure, has pointed out only certain sides of the economic life; and although the studies concerning this question published by Lafargue and by Lux are more complete than those of the first two authors, there are nevertheless important points which these last have not examined, or to the bottom of which they have not gone, as it seems to me. And it is quite comprehensible that it should be so; for the work of Lafargue is only a magazine article, and that of Dr. Lux is one of the subdivisions of a social-political manual, in which he treats of crime among other social phenomena. The works of the other authors noticed in Chapter VII, do not make the study of the question in the manner noted, useless.

I am of the opinion, then, that while the works quoted have made considerable progress, there is still much to be done. It therefore appears to me that it will not be without profit to take up the subject.

The theory of Marx and Engels results in our having a method of investigation already marked out. While most authors who have published studies upon the question, have thought it unnecessary to give an exposition of the economic system in which we live, or perhaps have given a little attention to it along with other social conditions, I shall begin by setting forth the present economic system as that upon which the other parts of the social life rest. These I shall treat in their turn, in so far as they are connected with criminality. It is obvious that this will be only a sketch, for if one wished all the details, it would be enough to refer to the special literature upon the subject. Then I shall investigate the question of how far criminality, under its different forms, is the consequence of the conditions we have found.

[Note to the American Edition: According to some criticisms of my book it should have been my task not only to give a sketch of the economic theory of Marx, but also to prove it “in extenso” and to refute the criticisms of it, since it is not universally accepted.

It is true that this theory has not been generally accepted—a thing that would be impossible from the social consequences of such acceptation—but I claim that of all the economic theories, that of Marx is the only one that daily wins more adherents, and more and more interpenetrates all social science—even in the case of authors who are the bitterest opponents of this theory.

To require that a book like mine should once more set forth and defend the theory of Marx “in extenso”, is as impossible as to require that a modern biologist, who proceeds upon the basis of the Darwinian theory, should prove over again that his basis is sound. That there may be more or less error in detail in the theory of Marx, as in that of Darwin, is possible, but in general they have resisted, like a wall of bronze, all attacks in the most pitiless of contests, that of opinions.

Let the adversaries of Marx’s theory judge without prejudice whether that theory does not constitute a great step in advance in criminology!] [247]