You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Marxism is a conflict structuralist perspective that views society as fundamentally divided by social class and structured around the exploitation of the proletariat (the working class who sell their labour) by the bourgeoisie (the ruling class who own the means of production). From this starting point, Marxist criminologists insist that crime cannot be understood in isolation from the capitalist economic system in which it occurs. Crime is not, for Marxists, the product of individual pathology, faulty socialisation, or even simply blocked opportunity within an otherwise fair order; it is an inevitable expression of a system that is itself based on greed, competition and structured inequality. Marxist analysis directs attention in two directions that mainstream criminology tends to neglect: downward, to the way capitalism generates working-class crime, and upward, to the largely unpunished crimes of the powerful. This lesson examines traditional ("instrumental") Marxism, the neo-Marxist New Criminology, Hall's analysis of moral panics and the question of corporate crime, before a full evaluation.
Key Definition: Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, in which goods and services are produced for profit through wage labour. Marxists argue that the pursuit of profit and the inequality it generates make capitalism inherently criminogenic — crime-generating.
This lesson addresses the AQA A-Level Sociology (7192) Paper 3: Crime and Deviance specification requirement that students understand Marxist and neo-Marxist (critical) theories of crime and deviance, the relationship between crime, power and social control, and crimes of the powerful (white-collar, corporate and state crime). It connects to the specification's concern with the social distribution of crime, the role of the state, and the analysis of official statistics, and it supplies the principal conflict-theory counterweight to the consensus account in the functionalist lesson.
Traditional (sometimes "instrumental") Marxists argue that capitalism is criminogenic: it is the nature of the system itself, not the deficiencies of individuals, that generates crime. The argument has four interlocking elements.
The exploitation at the heart of capitalism denies the working class a fair share of the wealth they produce. Poverty, low wages, unemployment and insecurity create conditions in which crime becomes, for some, a means of survival; while alienation — the experience of work as meaningless and powerless — and the frustration of want amid plenty can find expression in non-utilitarian crime and violence. The intellectual roots of this argument lie in Karl Marx's own analysis of capitalism as a system that reduces human relationships to the "cash nexus" and produces a "reserve army of labour" — a surplus, often impoverished, population whose marginal position generates the conditions for crime. The first systematic Marxist criminologist, the Dutch scholar Willem Bonger (1916), in Criminality and Economic Conditions, argued that capitalism breeds an egoism — a culture of competitive, self-seeking individualism — that is itself criminogenic, encouraging both the poor and the rich to pursue their own advantage at the expense of others. Bonger contrasted this with the altruism he believed a socialist society would foster, predicting that crime would decline under socialism. David Gordon (1976) developed the same logic for the modern era, arguing that crime is a rational response to the conditions of capitalist competition: in a system that elevates self-interest and the pursuit of gain into cardinal virtues, it is unsurprising that some pursue those ends illegally. On this view crime is endemic to the capitalist personality structure, found across all classes rather than confined to the poor — a "dog-eat-dog" society produces dog-eat-dog behaviour.
Crucially, capitalism does not generate crime only among the poor. The competitive, profit-driven logic of the system pressures actors at every level to maximise advantage by whatever means, producing the crimes of the powerful: fraud, tax evasion, bribery, breaches of health-and-safety and environmental regulation. Laureen Snider (1993) argued that corporate crime causes far more harm — financial and physical — than ordinary street crime, yet attracts a fraction of the legal and political attention. She further argued that the capitalist state is reluctant to pass or enforce laws that threaten profitability, so that the most powerful actors are also the least regulated.
Marxists argue that the law is neither neutral nor equally applied: the criminal justice system protects ruling-class interests by policing the working class while overlooking the crimes of the powerful.
| Aspect | Working-Class Crime | Crimes of the Powerful |
|---|---|---|
| Policing | Heavily policed: stop and search, surveillance of deprived neighbourhoods | Lightly policed: corporate fraud and tax evasion rarely investigated by under-resourced regulators |
| Prosecution | More likely to be charged and prosecuted in the criminal courts | More likely to be handled by regulators through warnings or out-of-court settlements |
| Sentencing | Custodial sentences, especially for property crime | Regulatory fines rather than imprisonment; individuals rarely held personally liable |
| Media framing | Prominent coverage; the raw material of moral panics | Limited coverage; framed as "technical" or "regulatory" rather than truly criminal |
William Chambliss (1976), in his study of organised crime and corruption in Seattle, demonstrated this selectivity empirically: those at the apex of the city's criminal economy — businessmen, politicians and senior officials — were shielded by their wealth and connections, while the low-level participants were routinely arrested and prosecuted. The visible, prosecuted crime, in other words, was overwhelmingly the crime of the powerless, even though the most lucrative and organised criminal activity was directed and protected from above. Chambliss concluded that the law operates, in both its content and its enforcement, to protect the interests of the economically dominant.
Traditional Marxists, drawing on Louis Althusser's notion of the law as part of the ideological (and repressive) state apparatus, argue that the criminal justice system performs an ideological function that helps to reproduce capitalist relations:
A particularly subtle version of this argument concerns apparently pro-worker legislation. Frank Pearce (1976), in Crimes of the Powerful, argued that even laws that seem to benefit the working class — health-and-safety law, for example — ultimately serve the long-term interests of capital, by keeping the workforce fit enough to be exploited and by lending the state a benevolent, neutral face that secures the consent of the governed. On this reading, the occasional regulation of business is not evidence against the Marxist thesis but an instance of the system protecting itself while sustaining its own legitimacy. Whether this argument is genuinely explanatory or merely unfalsifiable — capable of absorbing any evidence — is itself an important evaluative question (see below).
Key Definition: Selective law enforcement is the unequal application of the law whereby the crimes of the powerful are largely ignored or lightly regulated, while the crimes of the working class are vigorously policed and punished.
The making of law as well as its enforcement is, for Marxists, shaped by class power. Chambliss (1976) argued that the development of vagrancy laws in England, for instance, can be traced to the economic interests of the landowning class in controlling the supply and movement of labour. The content of the criminal law, on this view, is not a neutral codification of shared values (as functionalists suppose) but a record of the interests that have been powerful enough to secure protection: above all, private property. This is why so much of the criminal law concerns offences against property, and why the law has historically been slow to criminalise the harms inflicted by the propertied upon the propertyless.
Ian Taylor, Paul Walton and Jock Young (1973), in The New Criminology, produced a neo-Marxist (or "critical") criminology that accepts the structural primacy of capitalism but rejects the determinism of traditional Marxism. They criticised instrumental Marxism for portraying the working-class criminal as a passive product of economic forces, and they sought to combine the structural insight of Marxism with the interactionist attention to meaning, choice and social reaction. Crime, for them, is a voluntaristic act — a meaningful choice — that may even carry a political charge: some offenders, they suggested, are engaged in an inchoate resistance to capitalist exploitation, "robbing the rich" in their own terms.
Their programme called for a "fully social theory of deviance" that integrates seven dimensions, summarised here:
graph TD
A["Wider origins of the act: capitalist inequality"] --> B["Immediate origins: the actor's specific situation"]
B --> C["The act itself and its meaning to the actor"]
C --> D["Immediate origins of social reaction"]
D --> E["Wider origins of reaction: the state and ruling-class interests"]
E --> F["Effects of labelling on the deviant"]
F --> G["Fully social theory of deviance (structure + meaning + reaction)"]
This synthesis — structure plus agency plus social reaction — was highly influential, but its suggestion that crime is proto-political resistance proved contentious (see Evaluation).
The differences between the traditional and neo-Marxist positions are worth setting out clearly, since examiners reward candidates who can show that "Marxism" is not a single, monolithic theory:
| Dimension | Traditional / instrumental Marxism | Neo-Marxism / critical criminology |
|---|---|---|
| View of the offender | Largely passive — shaped by economic forces | Active agent making meaningful, sometimes political, choices |
| Method / influences | Structural, economic determinism | Combines Marxist structure with interactionist attention to meaning and labelling |
| The criminal act | A symptom of capitalist conditions | Potentially a conscious form of resistance to capitalism |
| Key figures | Bonger, Gordon, Chambliss, Snider | Taylor, Walton and Young; Hall et al. |
| Main criticism attracted | Economic determinism | Romanticising the offender as a political rebel |
Neo-Marxism thus represents an attempt to overcome the determinism of traditional Marxism without abandoning its structural insight — to put agency and meaning back into a class analysis of crime.
Stuart Hall et al. (1978), in Policing the Crisis, produced the landmark neo-Marxist study of the moral panic over "mugging" in early-1970s Britain. Hall argued that the panic was not a proportionate response to a genuine surge in street robbery but was effectively manufactured through the interaction of media, police and state.
The context: British capitalism in the early 1970s faced a crisis of profitability and legitimacy — inflation, industrial conflict, rising unemployment and challenges to authority.
The argument: the mugging panic served the ruling class by:
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.