Complexities of the capitalistic state reinforce the higher economic class, while crises between classes in society will reset the socially constructed inequalities. Social inequalities become perpetrated by the state, by upholding the higher class. The way to equalize the classes is for overthrow the state and expose the contradictions of capitalism. Quinney states that the role of the state in capitalist society is to defend the interests of the ruling class” (Quinney 2001 261). The state defends the ruling class interests through the creation of law. The law, created by people of power, structures the class system. Distinctions of classes are based on social characteristics. This dominance in society is “maintained and promoted” …show more content…
. Quinney fights that any action of the state is done to benefit the higher class in the capitalist system. The state does not act as a third party in conflict, but solely reinforces the higher classes. Meanwhile, the conflicts between the classes are rooted in the economics of society. The state holds citizens in their respective classes, politically and economically, even though our nation is declared to be democratic. A critical analysis of our societal legal order, according to Quinney, must observe certain aspects of crime control in the capitalist state (Quinney 2001 262). First, a look into the nature of the state must be made. The state was designed as a system, which is designed to oppress lower classes. The second assessment is the determination of the relationship between the dominating economic class and the state, which is not distinguished between the ruling class and the state. The important questions posed in this aspect are to discover how the ruling class came to rule, and how the state governs in a way to maintain the inequalities. The third observation in assessing the legal order is to observe how the state develops in comparison to the capitalist economy. Engles is quoted to argue that the development of the state is to become an entity which protects the “riches of individuals” (Quinney 2001 263) in opposition to
Moreover, it argues that economic exploitation causes political oppression and the powerful will then use their power to turn the state into a “servant of bourgeois economic” (Marx). For that reason, the only way to breakout of this conflict is through revolution, in which the working class people overthrows the owner of the capitalist system. Conflict theorists might argue, for instance, religion fulfills the bourgeois interests by appeasing the population by pacifying them. In essence, under this theory there will always be conflicts for scarce resources, and whenever one group gains control of the resources there will be an oppressed group. And according to Marx, this can be broken if we have a classless society where resources are allocated equally.
In their theories, Marxists say that certain types of crime are more likely to be punished compared to others. Street crimes (brawls, binge drinking, theft, muggings, social unrest and disorder) are more likely to be pursued than white collar crime (fraud, tax evasion, ‘insider training’ and even gambling and prostitution). This is because the capitalist governments who have run the country are sympathetic to those who are of the same belief and class, but have just got carried away with their search for wealth. In this society of greed, the working class have to turn to crime just to stay alive and to obtain the materialistic goods or lifestyle, which is typical to a capitalistic state, and that general standard of living and attitude to life, is enforced on them, when living in this type of society. Money and personal gain, and the ‘every man for himself’ attitude is what life is like in an unfair, and socially unequal way of life under a capitalist government.
“The heart of the capitalist economic system is the protection of private property, which is, by definition, the cornerstone upon which capitalist economies function. It is not surprising, then to find that criminal law reflects this basic
The works of Richard Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, and Allan Johnson, Privilege, Power, and Difference, address privilege, inequality, and capitalism through sociological and historical references. Through reading and analyzing these works along with our class lectures it has become apparent that there is a clear relationship between these systems. Capitalism causes and enforces systems of inequality and privilege. Capitalism is able to do this through the construct of social reality, the matrix of capitalist domination: segmentation of class, gender, and race, and through the manipulation of society by capitalistic culture.
Seymour M. Lipset2 contends that negative traits that plague the American landscape, such as “high crime and economic inequality”, are fundamental characteristics of and are inherently linked to a capitalistic and openly admirable democratic society. Not only does American history reside in the nature for “disdain of authority”, but current American norms signal that everyone must elevate their own status and rise above the ranks, both economically and socially. In analyzing the trends of high crime, acts such as theft, narcotics production and distribution, fraud, etc. are a means to
For example, it shapes the nature of religion, law, education, the state and so on. According to Marx, capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. For example, by polarising the classes, bringing the proletariat together in ever-increasing numbers, and driving down their wages, capitalism creates the conditions under which the working class can develop a consciousness (or awareness) of its own economic and political interests in opposition to those of its exploiters. As a result, the proletariat moves from merely being a class-in-itself (whose members share the same economic position) to becoming a class-foritself, whose members are class conscious – aware of the need to overthrow capitalism. The means of production would then be put in the hands of the state and run in the interests of everyone, not just of the bourgeoisie. A new type of society – socialism developing into communism – would be created, which would be without exploitation, without classes and without class conflict. Marx’s work has been subjected to a number of criticisms. First, Marx’s predictions have not come true. Far from society becoming polarised and the working class becoming poorer, almost everyone in western societies enjoys a far higher standard of living than ever before. The collapse of so-called ‘communist’ regimes like the former Soviet Union, and growing private ownership and capitalist growth in China, cast some doubt on the viability of the practical implementation
Karl Marx developed his theory on class division by suggesting that all societies have two major classes, a ruling class and a subject class. The ruling class owned a means of production such as land or capital, whereas the subject class did not. Marx argued that this leads to the ruling class exploiting the subject class. The ruling class use a superstructure of the legal and political systems to justify its position and prevent protests by the subject class. In capitalist societies the main classes are the bourgeoisie (capitalist) and the proletariat (working class). In these societies the bourgeoisie exploits the working class through wage labour. The capitalists pay wages to the workers, but make a profit because they pay the workers less than the value of what they produce. Capitalism is the newest type of class society but it will also be the last. Eventually it will be replaced by a communist society in which the means of production
Crime in the light of critical criminology is an obvious outcome of disparities established in a system. Capitalist economic policies result in economic misery among powerless class in society and certain conditions are created in which adapting the criminal behaviors become the only possible survival strategy. Critical criminology follows the Marxist approach in stating that criminal laws are based on the interests of
In Capital, Karl Marx reveals the ugly truth that capitalism lays on the foundation of class exploitation. Without such exploitation, there is no profit to be made and capitalism will cease to exist. Capitalism, which relies on the reproduction of capital, creates and concentrates wealth to a small portion of society’s population while reproducing poverty and widening the size of inequality.
Marxism is a macro/structural approach to society, meaning that it looks at the large-scale societal structure for answers about how society works and operates and explores crime and deviance in relation to classes within a capitalist society. Marxists claim that laws do not reflect a value consensus, instead laws and law enforcement benefits the rich (protection of private property), and discriminate the poor which brings about social class reproduction, the working class are criminalised for their crimes but the criminal just system are more lenient towards the crimes of the wealth such as white collar crime or
The Marxian Critique of Criminal Justice This chapter presents the theoretical approach of Karl Marx, applying Marxist theories to criminal justice. Essentially, criminal justice is used to dictate practices and practitioners of criminal justice (Reiman 2012:225). However, Marx argues the criminal justice system as an “economic reflex” (Reiman 2012:225) and legality as merely ideological (Reiman 2012:229) in favour of the capitalists. This is explained through the effect capitalism has on the relationships between individuals and a capitalist society. Capitalism produces an indirect coercion (Reiman 2012:228) on those who do not own any means of production; also known as the worker.
Karl Marx, also a philosopher was popularly known for his theories that best explained society, its social structure, as well as the social relationships. Karl Marx placed so much emphasis on the economic structure and how it influenced the rest of the social structure from a materialistic point of view. Human societies progress through a dialectic of class struggle, this means that the three aspects that make up the dialectic come into play, which are the thesis, antithesis and the synthesis (Avineri, 1980: 66-69). As a result of these, Marx suggests that in order for change to come about, a class struggle has to first take place. That is, the struggle between the proletariat and the capitalist class, the class that controls
To start of my essay I will compare and contrast between the two theories of Karl Marx and Max Weber on the topic of social class that will be discussed widely. The inequality between people is the basis of the democratic system, which is “a political system”. It is said that “those who have the skills and abilities to perform and produce will succeed in life.” But this belief is the assumption that all people are given equal opportunities and advantages. During the 19th century Karl Marx and Max Weber were two of the most influential sociologists who developed their own theories about why inequality is maintained with social class in society. Many might argue that there are many similarities and differences between these sociologists theories, however although Marx’s and Weber’s both examined similar ideas. This essay will compare the differences and similarities between Marx and Weber’s theories of class within society, which are based on economic inequality and capitalism. And lastly this essay will demonstrate that Max Weber comes across as the greater theorist as he can relate his concept more towards today’s society. Anthony Giddens (2nd edition) quoted that “You need greater equality to achieve more social mobility.” Therefore social class is referred to a group of people with similar levels of wealth, influences, behaviours and status. Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887) American Politician states that the “ignorant classes are the dangerous classes.”
Human societies have been class based in some way and the class factor has been the most basic dividing or differentiating factor between broad social groups. In the economic sphere that Marx’s theory focuses on, there is a class that own and control means of economic production which could be referred to as the upper class, and there is the class that maybe own nothing, but their ability to sell their labor power in return for wages which could be referred to as the middle or low class. From that understanding, and based on the conflict theory, one might argue that unequal distribution of resources and access
From a criminological perspective several criminologists would agree that many of society’s laws are not neutral. Whilst Marxists recognise that for a society to function efficiently, social order is necessary, “the founders of Marxism thought that crime, same as all other problems of human society, is a direct result of the unjust structure of capitalism” (Marxism and Criminology). Furthermore, Marx argued that one should always ask of the law who benefits from it? And in doing so, one may note that most laws are formulated to protect the interests of the most powerful members in society from those with the least power (Chablis, et al.). It may further be