The cause of crime

Sir,—If, as you say, crime “is to be explained by the capitalist environment in which we live,” how is it crime flourished in pre-capitalist eras in Europe and also in ancient civilisations?
As for crime not flourishing in early communistic communities “when there was no private property and sex relations were free” that is a mere dogmatic assertion. If Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” or Engels’ “Origin of the Family” are accepted as authoritative, sex relations were never “free,” but were rigidly controlled even under the system of “group marriages,” the men of one genus being forbidden to marry outside other specified gens. Those who violated this “social rule of the time” were criminals, and judging by what we know of primitive tribes to-day, severely punished for violating this or any other tribal taboo. All anthropologists show that primitive tribes are more rigidly restricted than civilised, and their “criminals” are outlawed or more drastically punished.
To-day sex relations outside wedlock are not treated as crimes among the civilised, not are those responsible punished by the authorities. An unmarried couple living together are treated as married in respect to soldiers’ allowances, and I believe also with regard to receipt of unemployment benefit. In any case, sexual relations outside marriage are almost the rule among millions of people in Britain, and few normal men have failed to indulge in some intercourse some time in their lives without being punished.
War, you say, is not regarded as criminal because the rulers of capitalist society justify it. Actually war is as enthusiastically supported by Communists inside and outside Russia, and by Socialists all over the world, as by capitalists; otherwise war would be impracticable. Incidentally, how many pacifists went to goal in this war or the last who were members of the S.P.G.B.? I never heard of one. Socialists are to-day the most enthusiastic supporters of war and even Marx supported the Franco-Prussian War. Poor men as well as rich kill in war and justify the killing, and I have not noticed any very robust protest against Britain’s participation in the present war in the “Socialist Standard.”
You say that poor men who kill cannot be saved from hanging by any abstract principles. Actually, a large proportion who kill are, for one reason or another, not hanged. But I should like the details of the “many avenues for escaping hanging” you say are available for rich men who murder, that are not available to the poor murderers in Britain, who, incidentally, have adequate legal defences provided free of charge.
You say that prostitution, over-and-under-eating, over-drinking, war, blind pursuit of wealth, and enslaving of native people “are all consequences of capitalism.” Yet every one of these evils was as rife in days of ancient Rome, Babylon, etc., many centuries before capitalism was ever thought about.
If poverty is the chief cause of crime, how is it many rich persons are convicted, and why is it that America, the most prosperous nation, has the highest crime-rate and India, the poorest, has the lowest?
As for the suggested greater crimes of Protestants compared with Catholics upon native people and in mines and factories, while not defending Protestant crimes any more than I defend the colossal crimes and persecutions by Marxians in Russia, I might remind you that it was Catholics who introduced slavery in South America, and who, according to Buckle, destroyed two native civilisations in one generation. Also Catholics founded the Inquisition long before Capitalism was established.
Again, I remind you that Catholic Italy had the biggest homicide rate in pre-war Europe, and that Catholics in any environment are notorious for criminality. In a pamphlet recently written by Alderman Longbottom of the Liverpool Education Committee, you will find that 82 per cent. of the boy criminals of Liverpool in 1930 were from R.C. schools which had a minority of scholars. Council Schools with a far greater number providing only 6 per cent., the other 1.2 per cent. being from C. of E. Schools.
Alderman Longbottom meets the point about the alleged greater poverty of Catholics by comparing the children of Council Schools with a tiny crime rate with the Catholic children in the same area having an enormous crime-rate. Similar disparities were tabulated by Sir Percival Sharp (in “Education,” May 10, 1941), regarding Leeds, Wolverhampton and Newcastle.
Thus economic conditions are only one, and by no means the most important cause of crime. Improved economic conditions since 1939 have been accompanied by a still greater crime-rate among children and, judging by the reports of investigators and the striking increase of venereal diseases, among adults by greater immorality which you wrongly say is due to poverty. Actually sexual licence is greater to-day in Britain and America than ever before in history, although prosperity there was never so widespread. Over 20 per cent. more beer was consumed in Britain in 1943 than in 1938, and thefts among dockers and on railways were six times as rife in 1943 when wages were twice as high as in 1938.
Yours, etc.,
G. Whitehead.

Mr. Whitehead still side-steps the question at issue by putting forward irrelevant statements and repeating arguments that have previously been answered. Nearly all that lie brings forward in his present criticism was answered in the December “Socialist Standard” and be has not replied to those answers. It was our contention that what constituted crime and what produced it was the social conditions of the time and therefore crime to-day “is to be explained by the capitalist environment in which we live.” Obviously we can’t repeat all that we have written in the previous reply and must refer the reader to it for the detailed answer to Mr. Whitehead. However we will make one quotation from this reply :

“Prostitution, over-drinking,over and under-eating, the blind pursuit of wealth and the enslaving of native people, war, and the strain of modern life are all consequences of capitalism; and have a demoralising influence on people. All these things contribute to a weakening of the social instincts. They were all present in previous forms of society, but have reached their highest expression and greatest power for evil in the capitalist system.”

When we have thus pointed out that the causes of crime were also present in past forms of society, why does Mr. Whitehead ask again the question “how is it crime Nourished in pre-capitalist eras in Europe?” We have already said it did! and we have explained why.

Mr. Whitehead says that he is not defending Protestant crimes—but he is much concerned to urge that Catholics are greater criminals. And what is his evidence? He “reminds” us that Catholics introduced slavery in South America and founded the Inquisition. He has forgotten that later it was Protestants who introduced slavery in North America and did their best to exterminate the native Indian population. He has also overlooked the fact that at the time the most powerful military nations of the world were Catholic—Spain was in the plenitude of its power—and that Protestantism was professed by a small fraction of the world’s population. It was mainly Protestants who introduced child slavery into the factory hells of England and America. No, it won’t do! It is not because the dealers in human flesh and tears were Protestants or Catholics that they perpetrated the vile crimes that have blackened the pages of history, but because they were owners of private property and were adding to their wealth by exploiting their fellows. This apparently does not concern Mr. Whitehead, who seems to be simply anxious to whitewash one of the groups who vend “the opium of the people.”

Bad economic conditions in Italy and in other places have produced high rates of crime—most of which are crimes against property. We notice that in quoting the crime rates in Liverpool—a veritable cesspool of working class misery— it is the poor scholars and not the rich that are the basis of his rates. May we add that Liverpool is notorious as one of the first landing grounds of poverty stricken (and Catholic) Irishmen, Mr. Whitehead should pay more attention to the basis of his crime rates otherwise his figures produce an illusion. But the final joke. He tells us that crime among children, and venereal disease among adults has increased since 1939—in spite of “improved economic conditions.” Does Mr. Whitehead really grasp the meaning of economic conditions? Children have been moved all over the country.; families have been bombed out and are living in shelters; there is an acute housing shortage and families are crowded into unhealthy dwellings; children have been running wild on the street; a capitalist-produced war has made thousands of young men and girls in and out of the forces irresponsible and has brought into existence the black market and many other lures to crime. Yet Mr. Whitehead is surprised and nonplussed at the spectacle of increasing crime and prostitution! Why is it only during wartime that the government go to such lengths as putting up posters to warn people against the dangers of venereal disease ?

It is reasonable to infer from Mr. Whitehead’s letter that he is well acquainted with the contents of the “Socialist Standard” and therefore he knows how insistently we have urged that Russia is not a Socialist country and the Communist propaganda is a disservice to the cause of Socialism. In spite of his statements to the contrary he must also know that we have been opposed to the War from its outbreak until to-day. Our pamphlet “Questions of the Day” is sufficient answer on these points.

Mr. Whitehead asks for details of the avenues by which rich men can escape hanging when poor men can’t. The answer should immediately occur to him. Wealth can purchase medical testimony of useful kinds to impress judge and jury; it can fetch witnesses from all over the world; it can provide a barrage of the most skilful barristers and solicitors with assistants to hunt up records and precedents; it can also buy witnesses. There is also the general fact Mr. Whitehead overlooks—the undiscovered crimes committed by the wealthy which they can commit because they are wealthy, and which do not figure in crime statistics.

Now a few words about sex. Mr. Whitehead’s logic is peculiar. He asserts that intercourse outside of wedlock is committed by nearly everyone, therefore, it is not regarded as a crime. Very well. Theft is also committed by nearly everyone in one way or another is it on that account not a crime? Is he of opinion that only those who are found out commit a crime? If promiscuous intercourse is not regarded by present society as a crime, why is it kept so secret and why are “keepers :of disorderly houses” prosecuted? When a married man or woman has intercourse outside of wedlock and is found out they are liable to divorce procedure and punishment for committing adultery. If two unmarried people live together their union is unlawful, as they often find out to their cost, and their children are likely to be penalised by society in many ways. During war-time, and at other times when it suits our social rulers, the restraints on the production of children are relaxed so that factories and war machines may be kept well supplied.

In the earliest days of social development there was no private property and no restrictions on sexual intercourse. The restrictions came in slowly and for thousands of years were simply aimed at preventing intercourse between close blood relatives—brothers and sisters, fathers and daughter. mothers and sons, grandparents and grandchildren. Since Mr. Whitehead cites L. H. Morgan we will quote from him. The extracts are taken from the 1887 edition of “Ancient Society” :

“The organisation into classes seems to have been directed to the single object of breaking up the intermarriage of brothers and sisters, which affords a probable explanation of the origin of the system.” (page 58).
“If then community of husbands and wives is found to have been a law of the savage state, and, therefore, the essential condition of society in savagery, the inference would be conclusive that our own savage ancestors shared in this common experience of the human race.” (page 59).
“Intermarriage between brothers and sisters had not entirely disappeared from the Sandwich Islands when the American Missions, about fifty years ago, were established among them. Of the ancient general prevalence of this system of consanguinity over Asia there can be no doubt, because it is the basis of the Imanian system still prevalent in Asia. It also underlies the Chinese.” (page 386).
“The growth of the idea of property in the human mind commenced in feebleness and ended in becoming its master passion. Governments and laws are instituted with primary reference to its creation, protection and enjoyment. It introduced human slavery as an instrument in its production; and, after the experience of several thousand years, it caused the abolition of slavery upon the discovery that a freeman was a better property-making machine.” (page 505).

Thus the rigid control, in the sense in which Mr. Whitehead is arguing, at the dawn of human history is a figment of the imagination.

It is a waste of time for Mr. Whitehead to blindly repeat the same contentions without meeting the arguments we have put against them. We have given ample evidence to show that crime in general can only be explained by the social environment, and modern crime by the capitalist environment in which we live. He has been given plenty of scope, but has not attempted to meet this case and we therefore consider it useless to discuss the question further with him.

ED. COM.

(Socialist Standard, April 1945)