1. Karl Marx
The Foundation of Critical Criminology

2. Social Context Capitalism emerges: The Industrial Revolution
The development of overseas markets and products
Capitalist Effects:
Overcrowding
Underpaid/overworked
Unemployment as machines replace people
Harsh living conditions (urban mass)
Capitalists: workers are part of the machine

3. Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) German philosopher, economist revolutionary
Most influential theorist
Macro level critique (theoretical scope)
Not focused on crime in particular
Crime is merely a part of a broad social system
Material conditions…

4. Intellectual context Enlightenment Influence Traveled across Europe
Begins with Hegel and notion of society (ideas)
Society evolves ‘naturally’ from tribal to rational
Breaks from Hegel
People MUST be able to realize their potential
Focus on material reality
The culmination of a classless society
People act in their own interests
If you don’t, its because needs are hidden from you...
Outlook shaped by material conditions

5. Pre-Marx Consensus Model
Enlightenment ideals assumed:
Homogeneity
Laws and Social control practices reflects the morals and norms of the majority
CJS operates to benefit majority of the population
Change occurs: ‘evolution’
Does not questions what is crime and why....
E.g. Social Contract

6. Conflict Model (Marx)
Law - in both its application and codification - is not neutral; Law reflects the interests of powerful segments of society and functions to benefit certain populations at the expense of others.
Assumes:
Pluralism: diverse society
Definitions of deviance tied to dominant ideologies
morals and norms of the powerful
Change occurs:‘revolution’
Social institutions (including ‘crime’) are ordered by economy

7. Historical Materialism
Method of ‘doing history’ by looking at the ‘real’ conditions during particular periods
Economic conditions >> physical conditions
Historically specific modes of production
productive forces: labour power & means of production
social and technical relations of production: relations between classes of people and the objects of their work.
Materialism: change economic and social relations
E.g. WW2 Factory Demands
Veronica Foster 7

8. Class conflict will lead to revolution
Capitalism: The Superstructure
Class
People are ordered by their relationship to production
Proletariat: working class
only have labour
Bourgeois: own the means of production (e.g. Trump)
Class conflict will lead to revolution

9. Capitalist Mode of Production
Capitalism:
Economic system whereby the means of production are privately owned by capitalists who purchase labour power from those who do not own or have access to the means of production (proletariat)
Labour power is purchased for wages
Legal process:
Economic power = political power to control or create laws

10. Capitalist Mode of Production
Need for capital to realize profit through the sale of a product produced by a worker
Worker is paid less than the value that is contributed to the value of the product or service
Exploitive relationship between worker/capitalists

11. Class Consciousness
Development – Social Process Common Vested Interest in Collective Political Action Paternalistic Institution -Factories -Disciplined workers -Shift to Immigrant Labour

12. Capitalism: The Superstructure
Ideology
Ways of thinking support material reality
Position of ruling class reflected in ideology
Presented as natural or ‘common sense’
False Consciousness
People have natural interests & if they do not behave in these interests, it is because they have been deceived about their interests

13. Punishment & Production….
The rise of factory & prisons
The use of prisoners & slavery
Docile Bodies (normal?)
Class conciseness & resistance

14. “You say you want a revolution...”
Conflict is inherent to class structure
Revolt is inevitable...
Eventually the oppressed will become conscious of their exploitation
Socialism without exploitation....
Social control and legislation focused on quelling uprisings & not interested in addressing concerns...
Shift from enlightenment’s belief that the state was ‘naturally neutral’