During Europe’s Industrial Revolution the stark divide between the classes began to cause undeniable conflict. Poverty among the masses was dire and the land was ruled by a wealthy oligarchy. Similar conditions had historically plagued Europe under various monarchies but never had the disparity between the wealthy and the destitute been so cavernous. Marx believed this glaring inequality to be the underlying cause of crime, but not for the reasons that one may expect. The reasons that the poor committed crime was not because they would do anything to survive, or because they were jealous of the wealth of others but because it was impossible for them to acquire the things that they needed through conventional means and illegal for them to do so by alternative means. Marx and his frequent co-author, Fredrick Engels, theorized that the Bourgeoisie, the upper class owners of the factories, used the law as a weapon against the Proletariat, who were their employees. There had been a long history in the region of using the law to push the poor into working for barely livable wages, if any.
As far back as Henry VIII laws were being written to herd the poor and homeless into servitude. Beggars of a certain age were allowed licenses, but those young and well enough to work would be severely lashed if caught begging. If caught a second time another whipping and half of their left ear would be cut off. A third infraction meant death. (Marx & Engles, 1867/1976) With each succeeding monarch the statutes gained more control and guided more of the poor into the hands of inescapable masters. Edward VI began branding idlers as slaves, burning an “S” into their skin and giving them as property to whosoever had accused them of lazing. Slaves who attempted escape more than twice were executed. Vagabonds would be branded with a “V” and their children taken to be kept as apprentices until adulthood. These vagabonds would be returned to their place of birth to work the land there for the rest of their lives. If they lied about where they were born they would be given as slaves to the landholder, and branded with an “S.” Queen Elizabeth made it illegal for anyone over the age of fourteen to be work-shy. She, however, would only have them flogged if no one was willing to take them into service. Twice they would get that chance and the third time they would be executed. (Marx & Engles, 1867/1976) These laws were meant to make sure that those who were able to work were absolutely working. The only options available to anyone who did not hold land, anyone who was not of noble birth, eventually came down to only two choices: work or die.
The laws of the monarchs set a trend, which would be sustained as the economy changed. As cities began to grow and factories sprouted within them power shifted away from the monarchs and into the hands of those who owned the means of production, the Bourgeoisie. The average person could no longer fully sustain himself by use of his own hands. The work that had once been done in every household was being pieced out to specialists: Bakers, Tailors, Butchers, Farmers, and Landlords. Rather than spending the day maintaining one’s own home, people had to spend it earning wages to pay others for the work they once did themselves. This change stole the autonomy of the common man, and made him a slave to a different sort of master. The Bourgeoisie took the place of the nobles, and the Proletariat worked in place of the serf and slave. What had once been a simple commoner became a destitute and desperate victim of the new economy. (Marx & Engles, 1867/1976)
The cities bred squalor. There was little money to earn in farming, so the common people from the country flocked to the cities to find jobs. As a result there were far more workers than jobs, and many of those who had arrived with hope were soon worse off than they had been where they were originally. Poverty abounded. Workers were disposable because supply far outweighed the demand. There was therefore no need for the owners of the factories to pay anything more than the barest minimum, which was usually not enough for survival. Crimes now became those concerning property. This bread, that tenement, those shoes: who owned them? Were they paid for? Were they stolen? Anyone convicted of a crime would be sentenced to servitude of a certain length and forced to work off a debt equal to the worth of an item stolen or the amount that hadn’t been paid to a landlord. (Engels, 1845/1975)
There is clearly a pattern concerning what laws are made and whom they are meant to benefit. For centuries, not only in England but in all of Europe, the laws had been written to ensure the wealth of the upper class would be maintained at the peril of all who were not a part of this select group. Unfortunately, this fact is mirrored in the United States today. All laws concerning property exist for the purpose of maintaining and protecting the wealth of the owner. Laws such as bans on loitering and vagrancy make the simple act of not having a home or something specific to do illegal much like the laws in medieval England. The United States imprisons the convicted and puts them to work in a similar manner to the Lords of the motherland. It is even common for the state to take the children of those without permanent homes, which brings us to an interesting case.
On March the 20th of this year a woman in Arizona was attempting to obtain employment. She did not have permanent or secure living arrangement and had not been able to find anyone to care for her children. She loaded the two youngsters, one two years old and the other just six months, into her sport utility vehicle and drove the twenty minutes from Chandler to Scottsdale for her interview. Apparently believing the children would be safe, she left them in the vehicle while she went into the building to be interviewed. After an unknown amount of time a witness heard the baby crying inside the vehicle. Noticing the doors were locked and the children unattended, she called the police. When Shanesha Taylor returned to her vehicle approximately 45 minutes later she was arrested and charged with child abuse. The children were taken into the custody of Child Protective Services. (Bierman & Argos, 2014)
Shanesha Taylor was a homeless, single mother trying to get a job. Her attempt at bettering the lives of herself and her children was met with jail time and the loss of that opportunity. Unemployment in the United States may not be as high as the rates during the British Industrial Revolution, but every opportunity feels as important to those who have almost nothing. Entry-level work is currently extremely difficult to acquire, and if she is charged with felony child abuse then her chances of finding a job are slim to none. Until her case is heard the children will remain wards of the state. If she is convicted they will grow up in foster and/or group homes until they are old enough to be sent to Job Corps where they will theoretically learn a trade and prepare for the workforce. The family will have been effectively parceled into separate state facilities where they will serve the state with little to no reward or pay.
This crime can easily be explained, though not perfectly, using Marx’s theory of Social Conflict. If broken down into parts, what Ms. Taylor did wrong was to lack childcare and a home. It is illegal in many states to be homeless with legally dependent children; child abuse charges are not uncommon. The laws of this country are set up to keep children in the home and mothers dependent on husbands. Since those who are in the ruling class are all male, these laws obviously serve them. It is easiest to control those who have no choice but to serve. Since this woman has no husband or home, she did not have a choice to operate within the law. She was not, however, charged with child abuse for the simple act of being homeless with children. She was charged child abuse for the specific reason of leaving them unattended in a dangerously hot vehicle. It does not serve any power structure to make laws against abusing children; in fact, it would seem to countermand some of the Bourgeoisie’s earlier practices such as child labor.
To more accurately explain how Conflict Theory explains this crime it may be better to look at the entire subject from a completely angle. If one considers what a society may look like without a clear power differential, Ms. Taylor’s crime ceases to exist. Marx believed that human beings are naturally compassionate, and that if wealth and power were evenly disbursed they would take care of each other. (Marx & Engels, 1847/1969) In his vision of the world communities organize and care for the collective as a whole. People pursue their passions, and do work that they genuinely enjoy for the simple sake of doing it. People who like to lead would be leaders. People who like to care for and educate children would be teachers and childcare workers. People who like to study people would be Sociologists and Anthropologists and Psychologists. Most importantly, though, everything would be the property of everyone. Were this the way of American Society, no part of Shanesha’s situation would have occurred. Housing and childcare would have been provided either by her community or, ideally, by the state. She may still have been interviewing for a position, but it would likely not have been for an insurance job, unless of course that is where her passion lays. If, for some reason, she were still to be accused of child abuse someone else would still take the responsibility of raising her children, but rather than being punished for a crime it would more likely be like being released from a duty, or fired from a job. From this angle it becomes clearer that the crime of which Shanesha Taylor is accused would not exist at all if it were not for Social Conflict.
In a society with such bleak power and wealth disparities it is clear that much of the crime is somehow related to struggle. The poor struggle to survive and the rich struggle to remain rich. The incredible differences between these two groups of people are sometimes difficult to fathom. But the reality that life is not fair is clear every single day. A tiny percent of the population of the country controls the vast majority of the nation’s wealth. An even tinier percentage of the world’s population controls an even larger percentage of the world’s wealth. Most of the people on this planet share less of the wealth of the world than the top .05% own. This great a disparity cannot hope to create anything but conflict, strife, crime and war. Luckily for our grandchildren, or perhaps great-grandchildren, this conflict won’t last forever. The crime that it brings will disappear with the power hunger and greed that has plagued the last millennia.
In conclusion, it has been made clear that the main cause of crime today and historically has been the laws made by the ruling class in a quest to preserve their own wealth and power. Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels saw this in the 17th century and were good enough to share their ideas with the world. History has folded itself around their concepts in a number of interesting ways. Today the actions of one poor single mother make a little more sense.
Bibliography
Abra, G. (2014, 4 7). April 4, 7, 9. Lecture . Norman, ok: Abra.Bierman, B., & Argos, G. (2014, 4 7). PD: Mom pleads not guilty to abuse charges for leaving kids in car. Scottsdale, AZ.
Engels, F. (1845/1975). The Condition of the Working Class in England. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1847/1969). The Communist Manifesto. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Marx, K., & Engles, F. (1867/1976). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (Volume 1). Hardmonsworth: Penguin Books.
No comments:
Post a Comment