The etiology of crime includes the three following problems:

First. Whence does the criminal thought in man arise?

Second. What forces are there in man which can prevent the execution of this criminal thought, and what is their origin?

Third. What is the occasion for the commission of criminal acts? (As the occasion may be one of the causes of the criminal thought, problems one and three at times form but one.)

For the moment we are still occupied with general considerations with regard to crime; it is clear then that the first and third questions [402]will be examined only when we are treating of crimes according to the groups into which they must be divided because of the great differences which their nature presents.

It is otherwise with the second question. As we have seen in the preceding pages, it is certain that man is born with social instincts, which, when influenced by a favorable environment can exert a force great enough to prevent egoistic thoughts from leading to egoistic acts. And since crime constitutes a part of the egoistic acts, it is of importance, for the etiology of crime in general, to inquire whether the present method of production and its social consequences are an obstacle to the development of the social instincts, and in what measure. We shall try in the following pages to show the influence of the economic system and of these consequences upon the social instincts of man.

After what we have just said it is almost superfluous to remark that the egoistic tendency does not by itself make a man criminal. For this something else is necessary. It is possible for the environment to create a great egoist, but this does not imply that the egoist will necessarily become criminal. For example, a man who is enriched by the exploitation of children may nevertheless remain all his life an honest man from the legal point of view. He does not think of stealing, because he has a surer and more lucrative means of getting wealth, although he lacks the moral sense which would prevent him from committing a crime if the thought of it occurred to him. We shall show that, as a consequence of the present environment, man has become very egoistic and hence more capable of crime, than if the environment had developed the germs of altruism.

a. The present economic system is based upon exchange. As we saw at the end of the preceding section such a mode of production cannot fail to have an egoistic character. A society based upon exchange isolates the individuals by weakening the bond that unites them. When it is a question of exchange the two parties interested think only of their own advantage even to the detriment of the other party. In the second place the possibility of exchange arouses in a man the thought of the possibility of converting the surplus of his labor into things which increase his well-being in place of giving the benefit of it to those who are deprived of the necessaries of life. Hence the possibility of exchange gives birth to cupidity.

The exchange called simple circulation of commodities is practiced by all men as consumers, and by the workers besides as vendors of their labor power. However, the influence of this simple circulation of commodities is weak compared with that exercised by capitalistic [403]exchange. It is only the exchange of the surplus of labor, by the producer, for other commodities, and hence is for him a secondary matter. As a result he does not exchange with a view to profit, (though he tries to make as advantageous a trade as possible) but to get things which he cannot produce himself.

Capitalistic exchange, on the other hand, has another aim—that of making a profit. A merchant, for example, does not buy goods for his own use, but to sell them to advantage. He will, then, always try, on the one hand, to buy the best commodities as cheaply as possible, by depreciating them as much as he can; on the other hand, to make the purchaser pay as high a price as possible, by exaggerating the value of his wares. By the nature of the mode of production itself the merchant is therefore forced to make war upon two sides, must maintain his own interests against the interests of those with whom he does business. If he does not injure too greatly the interests of those from whom he buys, and those to whom he sells, it is for the simple reason that these would otherwise do business with those of his competitors who do not find their interest in fleecing their customers. Wherever competition is eliminated for whatever cause the tactics of the merchant are shown in their true light; he thinks only of his own advantage even to the detriment of those with whom he does business. “No commerce without trickery” is a proverbial expression (among consumers), and with the ancients Mercury, the god of commerce, was also the god of thieves. This is true, that the merchant and the thief are alike in taking account exclusively of their own interest to the detriment of those with whom they have to do.

The fact that in our present society production does not take place generally to provide for the needs of men, but for many other reasons, has important effects upon the character of those who possess the means of production. Production is carried on for profit exclusively; if greater profits can be made by stopping production it will be stopped—this is the point of view of the capitalists. The consumers, on the other hand, see in production the means of creating what man has need of. The world likes to be deceived, and does not care to recognize the fact that the producer has only his own profit in view. The latter encourages this notion and poses as a disinterested person. If he reduces the price of his wares, he claims to do it in the interest of the public, and takes care not to admit that it is for the purpose of increasing his own profits. This is the falsity that belongs inevitably to capitalism.

In general this characteristic of capitalism has no importance for [404]the morality of the consumer, who is merely duped, but it is far otherwise with the press, which is almost entirely in the power of the capitalists. The press, which ought to be a guide for the masses, and is so in some few cases, in the main is in the hands of capitalists who use it only as a means of making money. In place of being edited by men who, by their ability and firmness, are capable of enlightening the public, newspapers are carried on by persons who see in their calling only a livelihood, and consider only the proprietor of the sheet. In great part the press is the opposite of what it ought to be; it represents the interests of those who pay for advertisements or for articles; it increases the ignorance and the prejudices of the crowd; in a word, it poisons public opinion.50

Besides this general influence upon the public the press has further a special place in the etiology of crime, from the fact that most newspapers, in order to satisfy the morbid curiosity of the public, relate all great crimes in extenso, give portraits of the victims, etc., and are often one of the causes of new crimes, by arousing the imitative instinct to be found in man.51

As we have seen above the merchant capitalist makes war in two directions; his interests are against those of the man who sells to him, and of the man who buys from him. This is also true of the industrial capitalist. He buys raw materials and sells what he produces. But to arrive at his product he must buy labor, and this purchase is “sui generis.”

Deprived as he is of the means of production the working-man sells [405]his labor only in order not to die of hunger. The capitalist takes advantage of this necessitous condition of the worker and exploits him. We have already indicated that capitalism has this trait in common with the earlier methods of production. Little by little one class of men has become accustomed to think that the others are destined to amass wealth for them and to be subservient to them in every way. Slavery, like the wage system, demoralizes the servant as well as the master. With the master it develops cupidity and the imperious character which sees in a fellow man only a being fit to satisfy his desires. It is true that the capitalist has not the power over the proletarian that the master has over his slave; he has neither the right of service nor the power of life and death, yet it is none the less true that he has another weapon against the proletarian, a weapon whose effect is no less terrible, namely enforced idleness. The fact that the supply of manual labor always greatly exceeds the demand puts this weapon into the hands of every capitalist. It is not only the capitalists who carry on any business that are subjected to this influence, but also all who are salaried in their service.

Capitalism exercises in still a third manner an egoistic influence upon the capitalistic “entrepreneur.” Each branch has more producers than are necessary. The interests of the capitalists are, then, opposed not only to those of the men from whom they buy or to whom they sell, but also to those of their fellow producers. It is indeed claimed that competition has the effect simply of making the product better and cheaper, but this is looking at the question from only one point of view. The fact which alone affects criminality is that competition forces the participants, under penalty of succumbing, to be as egoistic as possible. Even the producers who have the means of applying all the technical improvements to perfect their product and make it cheaper, are obliged to have recourse to gross deceits in advertising, etc., in order to injure their competitors. Rejoicing at the evil which befalls another, envy at his good fortune, these forms of egoism are the inevitable consequence of competition.

Following the same classification that we employed in the preceding chapter we come now to that part of the bourgeoisie which, without having any occupation, consumes what has been made by others. Not to feel obliged to contribute to the material well-being of humanity in proportion to one’s ability must necessarily have a demoralizing influence. A parasite, one who lives without working, does not feel bound by any moral tie to his fellows, but regards them simply as things, instruments meant to serve and amuse him. Their example is [406]a source of demoralization for those about them, and excites the envy of those who see this easy life without the power of enjoying it themselves, and awakes in them the desire to exchange their painful existence for this “dolce far niente.”

The egoistic tendencies work less strongly in the third group of the bourgeoisie, those who practice the liberal professions. However, the products of the arts and sciences having become commodities, the egoistic influence of exchange here too is not to be neglected. Then competition arising from overproduction is a great cause of demoralization, for where there is competition men become egoistic. So in the domain of the liberal professions competition often forces those who do not find a field of activity in accordance with their ideas, to work that is contrary to those ideas. Thus it is quite right to speak of a prostitution of the intellect.

Before concluding these observations upon the bourgeoisie there is still something to be said about politics. As we have seen above the state owes its origin to the formation of opposition of interests in society; the first task of the state being, therefore, the maintenance of a certain amount of order. This requires above all the holding of the great mass in subjection. As long as this mass is weak the dominant class has no need to resort to trickery; but as soon as the oppressed class can oppose the domination of the others, as soon as brutal power no longer gives the desired result, the dominant class changes its tactics. It attempts to create the impression that the concessions it has been forced to make are acts of charity; and presuming upon the ignorance of the oppressed, it pretends that their condition is not so bad, etc. Many of those engaged in politics play this part without being conscious of their duplicity. However, the contest between the classes exercises its baleful influence upon them also, for they involuntarily distort the facts, whereas the evolution of society has reached such a point that a new social order is necessary.

The power in the State sometimes passes from one party of the ruling class to another. All profit by the temporary opportunity not only for the realization of their political program, but also to procure advantages for their partisans. This struggle for power is carried on partly by means prejudicial to the character of those interested, while the end aimed at by some parties can be frankly avowed. It is for the same reason that international politics is such a source of lying and hypocrisy, the states not being able to avow their real intention—the weakening of their neighbors. [407]

The proletariat. To be thorough we begin by making mention of one of the consequences of the economic position of the proletariat, of which we have already treated briefly, namely the dependence in which persons of this class find themselves in consequence of their lacking the means of production, a state which has a prejudicial influence upon character. The oppressed resort to means which they would otherwise scorn. As we have seen above, the basis of the social feelings is reciprocity. As soon as this is trodden under foot by the ruling class the social sentiments of the oppressed become weak towards them.

We come now (following the order adopted in the first chapter of Part II) first to the consequences of the labor of the young. The paid labor of the young has a bad influence in several ways. First, it forces them, while they are still very young, to think only of their own interests; then, brought into contact with persons who are rough and indifferent to their well-being, they follow these only too quickly, because of their imitative tendencies, in their bad habits, grossness of speech, etc. Finally, the paid labor of the young makes them more or less independent at an age where they have the greatest need of guidance. Even if the statistical proof of the influence of the labor of children and young people upon criminality were totally wanting, no one could deny that influence. Child labor is entirely a capitalistic phenomenon, being found especially in the great manufacturing countries like England and Germany. And then one of the most salient facts of criminality is the amount of juvenile crime, which is so enormous that England, followed by other countries, has established a special system to combat this form of criminality. Certainly this increase of juvenile crime is chiefly due to the influence of bad domestic conditions (wage-labor of married women, etc.), but the labor of the young people themselves also plays its part.

Although figures upon the relation in question are not totally lacking, they are, as far as I know, quite rare. In the first part of this work I have given the figures furnished by P. Hirsch, to which I refer the reader.52 The director of the “Erziehungsheim am Urban” at Zehlendorf near Berlin, mentions that 80% of his pupils had formerly practiced a trade.53

The following figures are given for the Netherlands:54 [408]

These figures are very significant. Among the young delinquents there are two or three times as many persons following a trade as among non-delinquents.

I do not know of any other statistics giving information upon this point directly.56

As to statics (the geography of crime) we encounter great difficulties of a technical nature. The statistics in which we can compare juvenile delinquency with the local extent of child labor are rare, often taking no account of the figures for the non-criminal population.57 On this point the statistics of Germany, Italy, and Austria are the best.58

Since the work of young people has increased enormously, and in general is still increasing, we may expect an increase in juvenile crime also, unless there are other determining factors, such as special laws, which work in the opposite direction.

In order to give an example of the extent of child labor we take from one of the best sets of statistics of occupations the following figures.

In the census of occupations in the German Empire in 1895 it was shown that whereas in 1882 16.46% of the population under 20 had some occupation (other than that of domestic servant), in 1895 there were 17.97% so employed, an increase of 9.1%.59 The absolute figures are the following. In 1882 the number of persons below the [409]age of 20 at work was 3,333,791; in 1895 it was 4,161,600, an increase of 827,809.

In 1895 the number of persons at work below the age of 20 was divided among the different ages as follows:60

If the paid labor of young people has really an influence, then, upon juvenile criminality, statistics must necessarily show an increase in this criminality, unless other factors exercise an influence in the other direction.

The following figures have a bearing on this subject:61

Consequently, in Germany there is a great and constant increase in juvenile criminality, both as to crime in general and also in each crime separately.62 [410]

The following table gives a comparison between the criminality of the young and that of adults.63

If we remember that in 1890 persons from 12 to 18 years of age formed 12.75% of the population,64 the study of this table will show how large a part the young play in certain crimes, and in crime in general. Still it must not be forgotten that criminal statistics include only a part of the crimes really committed, and that this affects particularly the figures for juvenile crime, since the persons injured make complaint against the young less readily, on account of pity.65

According to the figures given below (which, it is true, only cover a short period) juvenile delinquency in England has remained almost stationary.66 Here we must remember: first, the great number of acquittals; second, that the criminality of the young is nowhere [411]better combated than in England with its system of Industrial and Reformatory Schools; third, that industrialism has been prevalent in England longer than elsewhere, and that the increase of criminality during the period designated cannot be as great as in other less industrial countries.

Finally, the following table shows of what crimes the young are guilty in England:69

[412]

If we take into consideration the fact that generally about 23% of the population are between the ages of 10 and 21, this table shows that persons at this age have a large part in certain of the crimes.