Criminality and economic conditions

I must speak now of the fourth and least numerous group of the population, that of the very poor. Not possessing the means of production, and not being able to sell their labor, these people occupy no position in the economic life properly speaking, and their material condition is therefore easy to understand. Everything that has been said upon this subject with reference to the proletariat applies here, but in a much larger degree. The manner in which these people are fed, clothed, and housed is almost indescribable. The middle class have no idea of such a life; they believe that the pictures of [276]these conditions sometimes painted for them are exaggerated, and that charity is sufficient to prevent their passing certain limits. From these limits we understand that the bourgeoisie does not mean to be incommoded by the poor. If charity were to go farther it would require sums so great that the increase of capital and expenditures for luxury would be interfered with. That would be quite out of the question.

In order to depict these conditions I wish to give but one quotation, taken from an interesting article, “Englands industrielle Reservearmee” in which account has been given of the researches of certain clergymen in the poorest quarters of London. And everything that is here said of London applies in general to other great cities. For capitalism produces the same effects everywhere.

“Think of the condition in which the poor live. We do not say the condition of their dwellings, for how can those holes be called dwellings, when in comparison with them the lair of a wild beast would be a comfortable and healthful place. Only a few who read these lines have any conception of what pestilential places these nests are, where tens of thousands of human beings are herded together among horrors that recall to us what we have heard of slave-ships between decks. To reach these abodes of misery we have to find our way through hardly passable courts, impregnated with poisonous and evil-smelling gases, which rise from the heaps of offal strewn around, and from the dirty water flowing underfoot—courts, into which the sun seldom or never penetrates, through which no breath of fresh air ever blows, and which seldom have the benefit of a cleaning. We have rotten stairs to climb, which threaten to give way at each step, and in some places have given way, leaving holes that endanger the lives and limbs of those who are not accustomed to them. We are obliged to feel our way along dark and dirty passages swarming with vermin; then, if we are not driven back by the intolerable stench, we may enter the holes in which thousands of beings, of the same race as ourselves, lodge together. Have you, dear reader, ever pitied those poor creatures whom you found sleeping in the open under railway arches, in wagons or hogsheads, or under anything that would afford them shelter? You will learn that these are to be envied in comparison with those who seek refuge here. Eight feet square is the average size of very many of these ‘living-rooms.’ Walls and ceiling are black with the accumulation of dirt which has become fastened there through the neglect of years. It falls down from the cracks in the ceiling, sticks out of the holes in the [277]walls, in short, is everywhere. What goes by the name of a window is half stuffed up with rags or nailed up with boards, in order to keep out the wind and rain, while the rest is so smeared and darkened that no light can get in, nor is it possible to see out. If we climb up to an attic room, where at least we may expect a breath of fresh air through an open or broken window, and look down upon the roofs or cornices of the stories below, we shall discover that the already tainted air which might find its entrance into the window, has come thither over the decayed bodies of cats, birds, or still more nauseous things. The buildings themselves are in such miserable condition that the thought naturally arises, ‘Will they fall down upon the heads of the inmates?’ And furniture? We shall perhaps discover a broken down chair, the rickety remains of an old bedstead, or the mere fragments of a table; more often, however, as a substitute for these we shall find only rough boards resting upon bricks, an old warped trunk, or a box; and more often still nothing but rags and rubbish.

“Every room in these rotten, damp, fetid houses is occupied by one, and often by two families. A sanitary inspector reports that he found in a cellar a man, his wife, three children, and four hogs. In another room a missionary found a man sick with small-pox, his wife just recovering from child-birth, and the children half naked and covered with dirt. Here seven persons live in a cellar-kitchen, and a dead child lies between the living. In another room a poor widow was living with three children, and one child who had already been dead thirteen days. Her husband, a cab-driver, had committed suicide a short time before.—Here lives a widow and her six children, including a daughter of 29, another of 21, and a son of 27. Another room contains father, mother, and six children, of whom two are sick with scarlet fever. In another live, eat, and sleep nine brothers and sisters from 29 years old down. Here is a mother who sends her children out on the street from early evening till late after midnight, because she rents her room during this time for immoral purposes. Afterwards the poor worms may creep back to their dwelling if they have not found some scanty shelter elsewhere. Where there is a bed it consists of nothing but a heap of dirty rags, refuse, or straw, but mostly there is not even this, and the miserable beings lie upon the dirty floor. The renter of this room is a widow, who takes the only bed herself and sublets the floor to a married couple for two shillings sixpence a week.”10 [278]

“However miserable these rooms may be they are yet too dear for many, who wander about all day seeking to get a living as well as they can, and at night take shelter in one of the common lodging-houses, of which there are so many. The lodging-houses are often the meeting place of thieves and vagabonds of the lowest sort, and some are even kept by the receivers of stolen goods. In the kitchen men and women may be seen cooking their food, doing their washing, or lounging around smoking and gambling. In the sleeping room there is a long row of beds on each side, as many as sixty or eighty in a single room. In many lodging-houses the two sexes are permitted to lodge together without any regard for the commonest decency. Yet there is still a lower step. Hundreds cannot procure even the twopence necessary to secure the privilege of passing a night in the stuffy air of these dormitories; and so they lie down on the steps and in the passage ways, where it is nothing uncommon in the early morning to find six or eight human beings huddled together or stretched out.”11

We may limit ourselves to this sketch of the habitation—all the other living conditions conform thereto. With so miserable a material life there can be no question of the intellectual life. Continual poverty and the permanent fear of dying of hunger destroy all that is noble in man and reduce him to the condition of a beast, without any aspiration for higher things; for those who have come to this state from the more favored classes become more and more degraded and have soon lost the little knowledge they acquired in earlier periods. Servility and lack of self-respect are necessary to the poor if they are to get the alms they need to keep them alive, since they occupy no place in the economic life. Between them and the workers there is an enormous difference; they have no feeling of solidarity in the social life.

What is the origin of the lower proletariat, from what classes is it recruited? If we are to believe many criminologists and sociologists the answer to this question ought to be that their poverty is not due to social conditions but exclusively to themselves; that they are inferior by nature. But to get a true answer we must put the question in this way: do the existing social classes form the groups into which men would be classified according to their qualities? [279]

Those who give an affirmative answer to this question reason as follows: men differ enormously among themselves in their innate capacities. The largest division of them is made up of people of moderate worth, a small number rise above this, and the rest are inferior. Circumstances have little influence upon the development of these capacities. If any man has great abilities circumstances cannot keep him from the place to which they entitle him. He who has little ability also arrives at the place which that fact makes his own. In other words (to confine myself to capitalism) the bourgeoisie, the ruling class, is composed of persons predestined to rule; next comes the petty bourgeoisie, followed by the proletariat, predestined to rough work; and finally lower proletariat, a class predestined to succumb in the struggle for existence, since incapable of meeting its requirements.12

An attentive examination of this theory, which is an application to society of the Darwinian theory of selection, shows at once—even supposing it to be correct—that there is an important difference between the struggle for existence in nature and that in society. In nature the conquered are either annihilated, or are prevented from reproducing themselves, while in society the lower classes multiply much faster than the higher. It is no longer a question of the survival of the most fit, and the annihilation of the rest, as in nature.

Who is it then who remains victor in the struggle for life in society? To answer this it is necessary first to answer another, Are the chances the same for all? If this is not the case then it cannot be a question of the triumph of the best.

There are few questions upon which opinions differ as much as upon this. Generally these opinions are only conjectures, for they are not based upon an examination of facts. For this reason I wish to set down here briefly the very important conclusions of Professor Odin in his “Genèse des grands hommes”, a work noteworthy not simply from the wealth of documents of which the author made use, but also from his very scrupulous care in examining them. Professor Odin has made studies of the educational environment, the economic environment, the ethnological environment, etc., of all the men of letters born in France between 1300 and 1830, to the number of 6382. [280]

As to educational environment, the author has been able to procure exact information with regard to 827 persons; a good education had been given to 811, or 98.1 % and 16, or 1.9 % had had a poor education. “All this forces us to admit that education plays a rôle not only important, but capital, decisive, in the development of the man of letters.”13

The economic environment in which the men of letters had passed their youth could be discovered in the case of 619. Of these, 562, or 90.7 %, passed their youth sheltered from all material care, while 57, or 9.3 %, passed their youth in indigence or insecurity. In consequence the author makes the following observation: “As it appears, only the eleventh part of the literary men of talent have passed their youth in difficult economic conditions. This ratio, already very small in itself, appears much more striking when we strive to represent the numerical relation which ought to exist for the whole population between well-do-do families and those that are not. It is impossible to say, doubtless, what this relation has been on the average for the whole modern period. But it is clear that we shall be well below the truth if we admit that the families of the second category are three or four times as numerous as those of the first. That is to say, from the mere fact of the economic conditions in which they are born, the children of well-to-do families have at least forty or fifty times as much chance of making a name in letters as do those who belong to families that are poor, or are simply in a position of economic instability.”14

Further, the author shows that the fifty-seven men of letters who passed their youth in an unfavorable economic environment were by chance put in a position to develop their capacities. (Only five of them received a poor education.)

Finally the social environment from which the literary men have sprung:

[281]

Upon examining these figures we see that of two persons of the same innate qualities the one who has sprung from the nobility has about 200 times as much chance of becoming a person of importance as the one who comes from the laboring class. The struggle of our day has been characterized as a race with a handicap, in which one runs on foot with a burden on his back, another rides a horse, while the third takes an express train. The reality, however, is still stronger.

Doubtless we must not forget that the researches of Professor Odin include in part a period that differs in many respects from our own (hence the small contingent of the bourgeoisie), and that since this time education has become more solid and more general, a fact which increases the chances of success of a gifted man sprung from a poor environment. In the second place it was literary men and not capitalists who were the subject of investigation, and since the former doubtless must have greater natural aptitudes than the latter, it may well be that it is easier for anyone without money to acquire capital, than would be suggested by the figures applying only to men of letters. Nevertheless, all this does not overthrow the fact that the researches of Professor Odin have proved that the fact of being born in a class where youth is without care, and enjoys a good education, procures an enormous advantage in the struggle for existence.15

In order to prevent erroneous interpretations I will add Professor Odin’s own conclusion, from which it is plain that he does not deny absolutely that men’s innate capacities differ widely (which, indeed, is disputed by few, and may be considered settled). “Heredity and environment,” he says, concur with one another in the development of talent. We may characterize as follows their respective spheres of action: where the hereditary qualities are identical—to suppose an impossible case—it is the environment which causes all the difference between individuals; where the environment is identical, it is heredity.

“Put in these terms the proposition is banal. What is less so, since this has been established here with certainty for perhaps the [282]first time, is that heredity alone can do nothing. However strong may be the natural disposition given by heredity, it can only develop itself in a favorable environment. Thrown into an unfavorable environment it will become weakened in the degree in which the environment is contrary to it, and may even end by being atrophied to the point of being no longer perceptible. The supposed omnipotence of heredity is only an illusion, resulting from an elementary confusion between heredity and simple parentage.

“This is not all. We have been able to determine more nearly what is the indispensable environment for the development of literary talent. It is a good education, made possible by certain circumstances which are advantageous socially and economically, in other words, a proper social environment.”16

As a second form of the handicap we must speak of inheritance. It is impossible to estimate this advantage in figures, but it is incontestable that the man who has become rich in this way has no need of great knowledge or great intelligence in order to remain rich. Provided he does not speculate or squander his money, he should be able to have the enjoyment of it all his life. The struggle for existence is unknown to him; at the very start of the race his foot is nearly at the goal.

We see already that these two circumstances have as their result that the classes do not correspond exactly to the groups into which men are separated according to their capacities. However we must now leave the cases in which one has a start of another, and give an answer to the question, “In what do the conquerors in the contest excel?”

In the first place, attention must be drawn to a group of capitalists who have acquired their wealth without having their abilities called into play, but who are entirely indebted to chance, i.e. the speculators, the winners of the great prizes in lotteries, the men who make rich marriages, etc. Next we may mention the other capitalists, the great manufacturers and merchants. Wherein are they distinguished? First for energy and activity, next for a great talent for organization, especially as shown in the choice of their chief employes, and finally for a need of luxury, not too great, lest the building up of their capital be interfered with, nor too restrained, lest the suspicion be aroused that their fortune is in danger. The first of these aptitudes must certainly be considered as the most favorable; the [283]talent for organization especially is of the highest importance, for it is without contradiction a factor in social progress. It is because of this talent and not for their fabulous wealth alone that the names of Pierpont Morgan, of Rockefeller, and of other directors of trusts will not be entirely forgotten after they are dead. But these are not the only capacities which these people must display. To direct a capitalistic enterprise it is necessary among other things to have a fair portion of insensibility as well toward workmen as toward customers; then it will not do to be too scrupulous about truth (in advertising, etc.), nor to show too much character (however impertinent his customers may be the capitalist takes it all through fear of seeing them go over to his competitors).

Nevertheless, he who displays all these qualities, still is not entirely sure of being able to improve his position, or even to maintain himself in it; crises, as has been shown, are inevitably bound up with capitalism itself, and strike at times the most substantial and energetic capitalists. By a new invention or a new manner of working the most active and intelligent manufacturer may see himself out-stripped by a competitor. And aside from all fortuitous circumstances, in society as it exists today the struggle for existence is a struggle between those best armed, those who have the best machines, etc. But the manufacturer who can procure the best machines, who can bring his establishment up to the latest technical requirements, who can procure the services of the ablest technicians, etc., is the man who has most capital. The struggle is not a struggle of men but of capital.

In his work, “Die Darwinsche Theorie und der Sozialismus” Dr. L. Woltmann has brought out clearly the difference between the combat in nature and that which takes place in society. He says: “The history of the civilization of the human race also proceeds upon the basis of the great biological principles of adaptation, transmission, and perfection in the struggle for existence. But between the application of these principles among the lower animals and in the world of man there are the following essential differences. In the first place in the animal world the struggle for existence takes place through the adaptation of organic means to organic ends, while with men technical tools and economical means of production enter in, things which are not within the power of separate individuals, but are made possible by association. In the second place hereditary transmission in the case of animals is organic, while in the case of human beings [284]there is added an external and legally determined hereditary transmission of technical tools and of capital. In the animal kingdom, in the third place, the struggle for existence is a rivalry of organic production and reproduction, while among men, especially under the capitalistic order, there takes place a competition in commodities and places, a contest for profit, which has hardly anything in common with natural selection.”17

Thus we see clearly who it is that can rise from the class of non-possessors to that of possessors: it is those to whom fortune is peculiarly favorable, or who, possessing the qualities necessary for the capitalist, meet with the opportunity of putting them in evidence. Those who are dropped from the capitalist class are those who have been unfortunate or who do not possess the qualities necessary for capitalists.

The answer to the question proposed, “Are the present classes also the groups where men can be ranked according to their qualities”, must be decidedly negative. The bourgeoisie is not the ruling class because the most intelligent and energetic persons are found among its members. There are also included in this class persons without energy, stupid people, of minor importance in short, just as in the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat very capable persons may be met with. The fact of being excluded from the class of possessors is not a proof of inferiority. If the superior persons were those who led society they would be the great thinkers, the savants, for it is they who have made society progress and who have desired its well-being. For even if capitalists, more than others, have aided progress, it is by chance, for they have always had in view only their own profit.18

I could easily cite a number of celebrated authors who are unanimously of the opinion that the conquerors in the present struggle are not such because they are naturally superior.19 I will confine myself to recalling the opinion of one whose authority no one will contest, namely, Charles Darwin. Here is what Wallace says: “In one of my last conversations with Darwin he expressed himself as having very little hope of the future of humanity, and this upon the [285]basis of his observation that in our modern civilization natural selection does not occur, and the fittest does not survive. The victors in the struggle for gold are by no means the best or the most intelligent, and it is a well known fact that our population reproduces itself in each generation much more rapidly among the lower than among the middle and upper classes.”20

An examination of the struggle for existence in the middle class shows that everything which happens in the bourgeoisie on a large scale is reproduced here on a small scale. He who has little capital is surpassed by a competitor who has more, even though the former may be entirely fitted for his business; crises have the same ruinous influence here, and strike skilful and unskilful alike. The difference, as far as the struggle for existence is concerned, between the class in question and the bourgeoisie, consists in this: the less energetic, the less intelligent of the middle class runs more danger of falling back out of the ranks than a member of the bourgeoisie who is his equal.

Finally, we come to the proletariat. Here also there is an elimination of individuals not because they are incapable, but because they are superfluous in the present mode of production, as well as of those whom sickness or old age render unfit for labor. Here we must take account of a factor which is of less importance in the other classes, bodily health and strength. While the proletarian has need neither of much knowledge or great intelligence to carry on his trade, he has a powerful weapon for the struggle in his muscular strength and health. Unfavorable conditions have a strong influence upon him, and the one who is weak and ailing must, other things being equal, yield in the present struggle for existence to a competitor who is stronger and in better health. And finally, in this contest also the less active, the less persevering among the workers will have the smaller chance of success, supposing conditions to be equal.

So we return to the point from which we set out, the lower proletariat. This class is not composed, then, as has sometimes been claimed, of beings inferior by nature, of persons who are fit for nothing. In the great majority of cases social conditions and not their lack of aptitude, are the exclusive and direct causes of their position. In support of this I will give some figures, which also show the relative importance of the causes compared among themselves. [286]

German Empire.

This table shows that 44.32% of the persons assisted were “co-assisted”; that 8.8% have become indigent through the death or injury of the breadwinner of the family; that there are, therefore, 53.12% of those assisted the cause of whose indigence is not to be found in the persons themselves, but in their social environment. (Generally such persons are spoken of as not being poor through their “own fault”, a term so vague that it would be well to discontinue its use.) 1.34% are persons with a large family, whose wages are too small to support so many; 2.23% are out of employment, i.e. they wish to work but can find nothing to do; 12.32% are prevented from working by old age. Consequently we reach the figure of 69.01% for those who have become indigent through causes which do not depend upon themselves. Finally come 25.25% of those assisted who have been injured, or are sick, or have bodily or intellectual infirmities.

Further, there are social causes which play a great part in the etiology of the cases we have been discussing (bad housing conditions favoring tuberculosis, lack of protective devices for dangerous machines, causing injuries, etc.). Others of these persons are born weak [287]or sickly, in which case we may speak of individual causes of poverty, although social conditions have contributed in their turn by their influence on the parents to make the children wretched.

It is, however, a social phenomenon that the sick and weak of the proletariat are left to shift for themselves. They find themselves in that condition only because they do not possess the means of production, and are no longer in a condition to sell their labor. Many times we read in treatises upon morals how shameful it is that nomadic peoples abandon or kill their sick and aged, and how by these customs they give proof of their inferior morality. But those who speak in this way forget how, notwithstanding our present civilization, a great number of persons still pass their old age in the direst poverty; they forget also that the manner in which the nomadic peoples live forces them to rid themselves of their sick and aged, because it would be impossible to take them with them; they forget also that, on account of the limited power that nomads have over nature, they find themselves in exceedingly difficult material circumstances, so that their manner of acting is not judged immoral by any of their own families who suffer by it;23 finally they forget that the productivity of labor is so enormous at present that all the sick and aged could be supported; a part of the money spent in superfluous luxuries would be ample for this purpose.

We have still to examine the last two headings, laziness and alcoholism. As the figures given above show, these form a very small part of the causes: together only 1.59%.24 Among the causes which have brought these persons to the point where they are, there are social factors also. Later on I shall speak of the relation between the present economic system and alcoholism. But at this point we may say as regards the 0.71% of persons who do not wish to work [288]that a part of them—it is impossible to say just how many—have grown up in a bad environment, where they have never been given the habit of working regularly and diligently, so that they have become totally incapable of doing so.

There is still another social factor that may be named; the disagreeable character of many kinds of work, made worse by long hours and low wages. To adduce but one example: the miner is obliged to work in a vitiated atmosphere, often in a painful position, and constantly surrounded by dangers, and this for very low wages. If we stop to think of this we are more astonished at the millions of workers who pass their lives under similar conditions, than at the comparatively few who refuse to work.

However, taking all this into account, it is certain that there are among the proletariat persons who are predisposed to idleness by their congenital constitution. It is indubitable that these persons are invalids, who would be cared for in a well-organized society, but in ours are abandoned to their fate. Professor Benedikt says, in speaking of physical neurasthenia: “It represents not so much absolute weakness as speedy exhaustion coupled with a painful feeling of weakness. We make in our childhood more muscular movements than is necessary, and out of the pleasurable feeling which comes from these develop the first elements of pleasure in work. If, however, the child quickly becomes weary, and the muscular action soon begets a lively feeling of discomfort, there arises from this discomfort laziness or physical neurasthenia.”25 [289]

The number of those the cause of whose poverty is to be found in themselves is not, then, very considerable. Nevertheless it is a little greater than the statistics given would lead one to suppose, for there are also certain of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, ruined in consequence of the lack of the qualities required for success, who have gone down little by little and have finally become incorporated with the lower proletariat.

But is this class of poor persons absolutely fit for nothing? It seems to me that (leaving the sick out of consideration) the answer must be decidedly in the negative. It is true that a part of this group succumbs in the struggle because it is inferior. But it would be as absurd to say of the runner who comes in last in a race that he cannot run at all, as to say of the man who goes under in the struggle for existence that he is fit for nothing. Those who do not succeed in life are in great part those who through accident of birth have not obtained the place for which their talents fitted them. How many among the bourgeoisie are ruined from their incapacity for directing a business enterprise, while they would have become useful members of society if they had been able to follow their true vocation? And how many proletarians have fallen lower and lower through not being fitted for the trade to which their birth destined them, while their innate qualities predestined them to a different form of work?26

Side by side with these there are individuals who are really inferior, who have little energy, intelligence, etc. It would be absurd to claim that these persons are capable of doing great things, even in the most favorable circumstances. But there is a great difference between not being able to do great things, and being absolutely useless, as are the members of the lower proletariat under present conditions. These persons have need of being guided, cannot stand up without support, and in order not to perish need to find themselves in a favorable environment. If their neighbor comes to their assistance they can assuredly become sufficiently useful, and in any case need do no harm. Anyone who will look about him may be convinced of the truth of this; for many persons of just this sort, happening to belong to the bourgeoisie, have succeeded very well.

Ethnology points out also that classes have not their origin in the universal fact that men differ in their innate qualities. For if this were true classes would be as old as humanity itself. This, however, is not the case; it has been proved that in the evolution of society [290]there has been a stage (that it was a long time ago makes little difference) when riches and poverty were unknown, and classes did not exist.27 The assertion that the “war of all against all” is a natural phenomenon, is absolutely false, and proves a very great lack of sociological knowledge. It is certain that classes have long existed, but a society like that of our time, in which we can apply the adage of Hobbes, that “man is a wolf to his fellowman”, is of comparatively recent date.

Our conclusion, then, is this: the groups into which the population of capitalistic countries is divided do not originate in the circumstance that men differ in their innate capacities, but in the system of production that is in force; it is chiefly chance that determines to which class an individual belongs; there are inferior beings in each group, but among the lower proletariat they are more numerous than elsewhere; but these inferior beings may still be useful enough on condition that they be placed in a favorable environment. [291]