Professional Documents
Culture Documents
For other commentators, crime is produced by the aspirations of the employed worker
combined with a denial of legitimate opportunities, leading to an unequal class
society. This is a useful argument for binding be employed to their work, and in
producing crime among the unemployed. Similar inversions occur with those who see
crime as a problem for capitalism -- the reality is that crime is produced by the
problems of capitalism. Similarly prison is obviously dysfunctional as a corrective,
but it is thought to be functional as a deterrent, precisely because it is so ineffective!
This leads to a discussion of ideology, as in Mepham and Lefebvre. The argument is
that reality is contradictory, which makes ideologies credible: thus notions of formal
equality on not just propaganda or a sham, even though they do reproduce
inequalities. In a similar vein, the law is not just a simple reflection of ruling class
interests. It is independent to some extent, as well as functional for capitalism.
Abstract equality does only favour the rich, but some bourgeois forms of equality are
still worth defending: they have some political mileage, they help us participate in the
law and order debate, and they can lend a legal dimension to political struggles. This
must, of course, be a matter for some calculation, rather than some principled
rejection or acceptance.
As examples of the usefulness of bourgeois law:
(a) we might be able to develop new categories of mitigating
circumstances, perhaps even class categories [ actually, categories that
mitigated the crimes of females seemed more promising at one stage]
(b) we might be able to confront law and order campaigns [using legal
means such as demonstrations?]
(c) we should appreciate the diversity of legal apparatuses, and work
with the best ones, although contradictions are easy to encounter here
(d) we could use the law to defend the working class, although we
would need to be sensitive to history, and defend them against Socialist
abuses too.
Picciotto S ' The Theory of the State, class struggle and the law'
We need to engage in new struggles over law-and-order, resisting dismissals by the
Left. There is a general problem of the legitimacy of the State, as seen in its stance on
terrorism. A crisis has arisen from the need to restructure capitalism after a period of
affluence. Left analysis often involve seeing law and coercion as connected, mostly in
terms of how the law justifies State coercion -- but the law can be invoked against the
State too. The law is therefore ambiguous: the State must continue to act legally, but it
is then open to critique by the same standard. This is consistent with Gramsci's views,
who saw the source of the old power as aimed at consent rather than coercion, and
thus as open to struggle. However, even this is too limited, operating with a simple
binary, rather than looking at specific ways in which the law has been used
historically. We should examine forms of coercion, or how exactly consent has been
won.
We need some new conceptualisations. The idea that law appears neutral, while
arising from class social relations leads to some familiar debates about the State and
its connections to social class -- whether it has been captured by a class, or whether it
must be an organ of class rule. Concepts of neutrality, and autonomy are specific
notions in capitalist social relations, offering the following possibilities:
These woolly areas require us to develop new categories, beyond the simple binaries
such as those of coercion or consent. At the moment, professionals mediate and apply
laws, so we need to deprofessionalise the issues. Some restructuring is needed too -both bureaucratisation and the flexibility of private property can challenge the State.
The laundries to be revitalised, but then it becomes policy, which reveals the State as
partisan, which then leads a new space for struggle.