William Bonger (1916)

Download Word version

[…] [I]t is certain that man is born with social instincts, which, when influenced by a favourable 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 consequence 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 a 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.

                The present economic system is based upon exchange.  […] 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 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 labour into things which increase his well-being in place of giving the benefit of it to those who are derived 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 labour power.  However, the influence of this simple circulation of commodities is weak compared with that exercised by capitalist exchange.  It is only the exchange of the surplus of labour, 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 himself 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 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 other 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 tom 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 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 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 the morality of the consumer, who is merely duped, but it is far otherwise with the press, which is almost entirely in the hands 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.

                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.

                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 labour, and this purchase is ‘sui generis’.

                Deprived as he is of the means of production the working man sells his labour only in order not to die of hunger.  The capitalist takes advantage of this necessitous condition of the worker and exploits him.  […] 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 labour 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 that 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 that befalls another, envy at his good fortune, these forms of egoism are the evitable consequence of competition. 

[…]

What are the conclusions to be drawn from what has gone before?  When we sum up the results that we have obtained it becomes plain that economic conditions occupy a much more important place in the etiology of crime than most authors have given them. 

First we have seen that the present economic system and its consequences weaken the social feelings.  The basis of the economic basis of our day being exchange, the economic interests of men are necessarily found to be in opposition.  This is a trait that capitalism has in common with other modes of production.  But its principal characteristic is that the means of production are in the hands of a few, and most men are altogether deprived of them.  Consequently, persons who do not possess the means of production are forced to sell their labour to those that do, and these, in consequence of their economic preponderance, force them to make the exchange for the mere necessaries of life, and to work as much as their strength permits. 

This state of things especially stifles men’s social instincts; it develops, on the part of those with power, the spirit of domination, and of insensibility to the ills of others, while it awakens jealously and servility on the part of those who depend upon them.  Further the contrary interests of those who have property, and the idle and luxurious life of some of them, also contribute to the weakening of the social instincts. 

The material condition, and consequently the intellectual condition, of the proletariat are also a reason why the moral plane of that class is not high.  The work of children brings them into contact with persons to associate with whom is fatal to their morals.  Long working hours and monotonous labour brutalize those who are forced into them; bad housing conditions contribute also to debase the moral sense, as do the uncertainty of existence, and finally absolute poverty, the frequent consequence of sickness and unemployment.  Ignorance and lack of training of any kind also contribute their quota.  Most demoralizing of all is the status of the lower proletariat. 

The economic position of woman contributes also to the weakening of the social instincts. 

The present organization of the family has great importance as regards criminality.  It charges the legitimate parents with the care of the education of the child; the community concerns itself with the matter very little.  It follows that a great number of children are brought up by persons who are totally incapable of doing it properly.  As regards to the children of the proletariat, there can be no question of the education properly so called, on account of the lack of means and the forced absence of one or both of the parents.  The school tends to remedy this state of things, but the results do not go far enough.  The harmful consequence of the present organisation of the family make themselves felt especially in the case of the children of the lower proletariat, orphans, and illegitimate children.  For these the community does but little, though their need of adequate help is the greatest. 

Prostitution, alcoholism, and militarism, which result, in the last analysis, from the present social order, are phenomena that have demoralising consequences. 

As to the difference kinds of crime, […] the very important group of economic criminality finds its origin on the one side in the absolute poverty and the cupidity brought about by the present economic environment, and on the other in the moral abandonment and bad education of the children of the poorer classes.  Then, professional criminals are principally recruited from the class of occasional criminals, who, finding themselves rejected everywhere after their liberation, fall lower and lower.

[…]

Upon the basis of what has gone before, we have a right to say that the part played by economic conditions in criminality is preponderant, even decisive. 

                This conclusion is of the highest importance for the prevention of crime.  If it were principally the consequence of innate human qualities (ativism, for example), the pessimistic conclusion that crime is a phenomenon inseparably bound up in the social life would be well founded.  But the facts show that it is rather the optimistic conclusion that we must draw, that where crime is the consequence of economical and social conditions, we can combat it by changing those conditions. 

                However important crime maybe as a social phenomenon, however terrible may be the injuries and the evil that it brings upon humanity, the development of society will not depend upon the question as to what are the conditions which could restrain crime or make it disappear, if possible; the evolution of society will proceed independently of this question. 

                What is the direction that society will take under these continual modifications?  This is not the place to treat fully of this subject.  In my opinion the facts indicate quite clearly what the direction will be.  The productivity of labour has increased to an unheard of degree, and will assuredly increase in the future.  The concentration of the means of production into the hands of a few progresses continually; in many branches it has reached such a degree that the fundamental principle of the present economic system, competition, is excluded, and been replaced by monopoly.  On the other hand the working class is becoming more and more organized, and the opinion is very generally held among working men that the causes of material and intellectual poverty can be eliminated only by having the means of production held in common. 

                Supposing that this was actually realized, what would be the consequences as regards criminality?  Let us take up this question for a moment.  Although we can only give personal opinions as to the detail of such as society, the general outlines can be traced with certainty.

                The chief difference between a society based upon the community in the means of production and our own is that material poverty would be no longer known.  Thus one great part of economic criminality (as also one part of infanticide) would be rendered impossible, and one of the greatest demoralizing forces of our present society would be eliminated.  And then, in this way those social phenomena so productive of crime, prostitution and alcoholism would lose one of their principal factors.  Child labour and overdriving would no longer take place, and bad housing, the source of much physical and moral evil, would no longer exist. 

                With material poverty there would disappear also that intellectual poverty which weighs so heavily of the proletariat; culture would no longer be the privilege of some, but a possession common to all.  The consequence of this upon criminality would be very important, for […] even in our present society with its numerous conflicts, the members of the propertied classes, who have often but a veneer of civilization, are almost never guilty of crimes of vengeance.  There is the more reason to admit and in a society where interests were not imposed and where civilization was universal, these crimes would be no longer present, especially since alcoholism also proceeds in large part from the intellectual poverty of the poorer classes.  And what is true of crimes of vengeance, is equally true of sexual crimes in so far as they have the same etiology. 

                A large part of the economic criminality (and also prostitution to a certain extent) has its origin in the cupidity excited by the present economic environment.  In a society based upon the community of the means of production, great contrasts of fortune would, like commercial capital, be lacking, and thus cupidity would find no food.  These crimes will not totally disappear so long as there has not been a redistribution of property according to the maxim, ‘to each according to his needs’, something that will probably be realized, but not in the immediate future. 

                The changes in the position of woman which are taking place in our present society, will lead, under this future mode of production, to her economic independence, and consequently to her social independence as well.  It is accordingly probable that the criminality of woman will increase in comparison with that of man during the transition period.  But the final result will be the disappearance of the harmful effects of the economic and social preponderance of man.

                As to the education of children under these new conditions it is difficult to be definite.  However, it is certain that the community will concern itself seriously with their welfare.  It will see to it that the children whose parents cannot or will not be responsible for them, are well cared for.  By acting in this way it will remove one of the most important causes of crime.  There is no doubt that the community will exercise a strict control over the education of children; it cannot be affirmed, however, that the time will come when the children of a number of parents will be brought up together by capable persons; this will depend principally upon the intensity that the social sentiments may attain.

                As soon as the interests of all are no longer opposed to each other, as they are in our present society, there will no longer be a question either of politics (‘a fortiori’ of political crimes) or of militarism.

                Such a society will not only remove the causes which now make men egoistic, but will awaken, on the contrary, a strong feeling of altruism.  […] In a larger measure this will be realized under a mode of production in common, the interests of all being the same.

                In such a society there can be no question of crime properly called.

justice4victims.org