4.3.1 - Marxist Theories of Crime

Crime and capitalism

Marxism is a conflict perspective, so it starts from inequality rather than social consensus. Marxists argue that crime is not mainly the result of individual wickedness or failed socialisation. Instead, it grows out of a capitalist system built on private property, profit, competition, and unequal life chances. From this view, crime is tied to the way society is organised.

Willem Bonger argued that capitalism encourages egoism: people are pushed to put their own interests first in a competitive system. This weakens social responsibility and can make harmful behaviour more likely across the class structure. Marxists therefore do not see crime as something confined to the poor. They argue that every class may offend, but in different ways and for different rewards.

David Gordon developed this argument by claiming that many crimes are rational responses to capitalist conditions. For some working-class people, theft, burglary, or fraud may seem like practical ways to get resources or status in a society that advertises consumption but distributes wealth unequally. At the top of the class structure, the same system can encourage tax fraud, financial dishonesty, and unsafe business practices because profit is treated as the main goal.

William Chambliss also stresses that capitalism creates a culture of self-interest. Marxists therefore distinguish between the visible crimes of the powerless and the less visible crimes of the powerful. Street crime is often treated as the main social threat, but Marxists argue that corporate crime can cause much wider damage through unsafe products, environmental harm, or the exploitation of workers.

Law and class power

Marxists are interested in more than law-breaking. They also ask who makes the law and who gets punished. This is one of the biggest differences between Marxism and approaches that treat law as neutral. Marxists argue that the state usually works in ways that protect capitalist social relations, especially private property and profitable business activity.

For Marxists, property laws are central because capitalism depends on ownership. Chambliss used historical examples such as vagrancy laws to show that legal rules can help secure a labour force and defend existing class relations. The law may look universal because it applies to everyone in principle, but Marxists argue that its real effects are unequal.

Law enforcement is also selective. Working-class crimes are more visible, more heavily policed, and more likely to lead to imprisonment. By contrast, crimes committed in offices, boardrooms, or by large organisations are often harder to detect and may be handled more leniently. Laureen Snider argues that states are often reluctant to regulate large corporations too aggressively because governments want investment, jobs, and business confidence. Marxists see this as a sign that the law does not simply serve the public interest.

The contrast is easier to see in a direct comparison:

The ideological effect matters as much as the legal effect. If the system occasionally prosecutes a wealthy offender, Marxists say this helps maintain the appearance that justice is equal for all. That appearance can hide the deeper pattern of class bias.