1
Marxism, Postmodernism, and Green
Critical Criminology: Marxism, Postmodernism and Green
Adam King
Liberty University
CJUS: Theories of Crime
Dr. Barbara Cooke
February 22, 2024
MARXISM, POSTMODERNISM, AND GREEN 2
Abstract
Critical criminology has many fields under its umbrella. Marxism, Postmodernism, and
green criminology are all part of this growing field. These schools of thought differ yet have
similarities as well as some observable real-world applications. Studies were researched where
concepts within these fields could be seen in action. Corporate control of the government has
dictated that there is no criminal liability in the Surfside condo collapse that killed nearly 100
people. A study in Denmark indicated that the inability to be a productive member of society
led to higher rates of crime. Marxist ideals could help us understand how to better both of
those situations. Postmodernism thought seeks to erase damaging language in the courtroom
and bring inclusivity to the forefront. Green criminology attempts to hold organizations
accountable, and a study of green spaces shows that crime is lowered in places where greenery
is abundant. All these fields contribute to understanding crime and interact differently with
capitalism and the status quo.
Critical Criminology: Marxist, Postmodern, and Green Criminology
Schools of critical criminology are those that are considered emerging perspectives. In
Vold’s Theoretical Criminology examples of Marxist, postmodern, and green criminology are
described as part of emerging theories. These theories all attempt to get to the underlying
reason why crime exists. These schools of thought postulate that social change is necessary to
change crime patterns. Critical criminology intends to seek a world of “what ought to be” and
not “what is”. Marxist, postmodern, and green Criminology are all developing, and the ideas of
their theorists are constantly changing and in opposition at times (Snipes, et. al. 2019).
MARXISM, POSTMODERNISM, AND GREEN 3
Marxist Criminology
Marxist criminology is derived from Marxist political ideology. The founder of Marxism,
Karl Marx, did not seek to answer problems of criminality with his theories. He endeavored to
link economic development to social, political, and historical change (Snipes, et. al. 2019). Karl
Marx was, and always will be a controversial figure in many communities of thought. His
political ideals of social uprising have always left government officials weary of the havoc born
from it. In 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels penned, “A spectre is haunting Europe – the
spectre of communism.” (Marx, 1848). This “spectre” of Communism was condemned through
much of Europe and Marx retreated from political life. Marx’s ideas came back in the late 1880s
through today and Marxist schools of thought have taken to interpreting the reasons behind
criminality (Sayers, 2021).
Understanding Marxist criminology requires that the basic tenets of Marxism are
understood. Friction between material forces of production and the social relation of
production is the principal idea of Marxism. This friction eventually causes a rupture when the
material forces impede the social relation. Marx prescribed this diagnosis to what happened in
feudal Europe. The feudal economy had to go by the wayside for capitalism to exist. Just as
capitalism overtook feudalism something must push capitalism out of the way. Marx theorized
that communism would be the mechanism in which economies and governments would work
after the inevitable fall of capitalism (Snipes, et. al. 2019).
Marx believed that human nature dictated that people should be productive in their
personal lives and work. He also acknowledged that capitalistic societies had large numbers of
unemployed citizens. These citizens would become demoralized making them more likely to
partake in criminal activity. A study from Denmark confirmed the Marxist thought of crime
MARXISM, POSTMODERNISM, AND GREEN 4
increasing from unemployment and underemployment. The Danish people enjoy great benefits
as a society to protect them from unemployment. In the 1990s these benefits were chiseled
away through the decade. Benefits slowly decreased in length of eligibility and amount. Patrick
Bennett and Amine Ouazad sought to find out what effect the loss of these benefits had on the
crime rates of those affected. They observed three spikes in criminality among those laid off.
They noted that laid-off workers were more likely to commit crimes during active benefits,
passive benefits, and loss of benefits than they were while employed. Criminality went up at
each stage of the decline in benefits (Bennet & Ouazad, 2020).
Ouazad and Bennett also considered what underemployment would do to the crime
rates of those affected. They found that individuals who dropped from the 80th to the 20th
percentile of wage earners had increasing rates of criminality. This drop in earnings
corresponded to a.7% increase in crime rate (Bennet & Ouazad, 2020). The data lends credibility
to the Marxist term Lumpenproletariat. This was a person who was demoralized from
unemployment or underemployment. These people would be subject to forms of crime and
vice. They would exist due to the capitalist state not allowing them to have the means to be a
productive member of society (Snipes, et. al. 2019).
Biblical writers point out that hard work is profitable for us and the negative to being
idle. In Proverbs, the author states, “There is profit in all hard work, but endless talk leads only
to poverty.” (Christian Standard Bible, 2017, Proverbs 14:23). Proverbs 16:27 tells us, “A
worthless person digs up evil, and his speech is like a scorching fire.” This verse has been
translated differently in the New Living Translation, “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop; idle
lips are his mouthpiece.” (New Living Translation, 2015, Proverbs 16:27). While the New Living
MARXISM, POSTMODERNISM, AND GREEN 5
Translation is considered a paraphrase the comparison can be made between the two
translations. Biblical principles appear to dictate that we are to be active and productive in
society. This is not just to create value monetarily, but to keep sin away.
In early Marxist theory, crime was seen as a primitive rebellion. Karl Marx believed that
this rebellion was against the dominant social order and could move toward revolutionary acts.
This thought is challenged by organized crime, which contrasts with the idea that crime is a form
of primitive rebellion. Capitalism can still be considered the underlying force behind organized
crime because greed is a central ideal of capitalism. A connection can be drawn to organized
crime as being born from greed. Criminal statutes can also be changed, by the powerful, which
influence the legality of certain industries. Across different countries, there are also varying laws
that can affect criminal activity. Cocaine cultivation is legal in certain areas of the world. In
America, this practice has been made illegal and punished as a felony. These varying laws and
punishments lend credibility to Marxist thought of crime as a construct. Something that can be
changed depending on the needs of the wealthy or the social attitudes of a culture (O’Malley,
1987). The marijuana industry has recently been going through change in America. In the past, a
marijuana distributor could get years in prison. Now, in many states, the sale of marijuana is
legal if the proper government channels are followed.
Prohibition is an expansive example of Governmental control. The United States
government attempted to control behavior by putting restrictions on the sale and production of
alcohol. The 18th Amendment was passed in 1919 outlawing the production of liquor. The two
decades previous saw many states lead the way and ban it at the state level. Marxism would
propose that government control and criminalizing of something once legal would increase
crime rates from primitive rebellion. Instead, crime rates did not rise, as observed through
MARXISM, POSTMODERNISM, AND GREEN 6
violent death statistics. The rate of violent death remained flat through the years of prohibition.
This comparison is multifaceted and complex. It could be that rates from different stressors
from different methods of obtaining alcohol raised crime rates, while the restriction of access to
alcohol lowered it. Studies show that 40% of criminal activity is committed while the offender is
under the influence of alcohol. It is possible these outcomes cancelled each other out causing
the flat crime statistics (Green, 2011).
Willem Bonger was an early 21st-century Marxist criminologist who argued that humans
are inherently greedy. He believed their selfishness led them to pursue their desires. This desire
is held by all people from all social classes. He theorized that crime was more prevalent in
poorer people because they didn’t have the political power to influence the laws in their favor
like the rich could (Snipes, et al. 2019). This idea that the rich can manipulate the system in their
favor can be seen in civil actions. An article published in 2022 regarding the Surfside condo
collapse may have inadvertently proved Bonger’s point.
On June 24, 2021, 98 people were killed when Champlain Towers South Condominium
collapsed in Surfside Florida. The cause of the collapse was due to structural issues from
exposure and improper building. It was noted in 2018 that significant repairs needed to be
completed on the building for over $16 million. These repairs were never completed and as a
result, the building collapsed. It was determined that the 2018 damage report not being acted
upon and other timely repairs from lack of financial planning for the condo were the primary
factors in the collapse. Criminal prosecution in the United States requires that intent be
established for successful prosecution. Since there can be no intent determined in this condo
collapse there can be no criminal prosecution. Instead, a settlement of $997 million has been
reached with surviving victims and families. In the same article, other multistory condominium
MARXISM, POSTMODERNISM, AND GREEN 7
collapses were analyzed. Since 1980 there have been 33 such collapses worldwide. The causes
of the collapses range, but a majority have been from mismanagement or improper building
techniques (Barreto, et. al. 2022). Considering that these complexes are often managed by
wealthy individuals or even investment firms, the principle that crime is a construct can come
into focus. Marxist criminologists would say that these “civil” torts should be classified as
criminal actions and be punished as such.
The structuralist view of Marxist criminology believes that the primary function of the
government is to protect capitalism. This could allow for individual capitalists to be punished in
the short term. This is a more complicated view that supplemented Bonger's view of greed.
These
Marxist ideals postulate that crime is a result of the oppression of the ruling class to shape laws.
The focus on the ruling class as the evildoers did little to understand lower-class street crime
perpetuated by the poor against the poor. Marxists who lived in these lower-class communities
began to understand this was a legitimate issue that needed to be dealt with. They moved away
from the primitive rebellion explanation back to the idea of the Lumpenproletariat. This
lowerclass crime was seen as a pathological repercussion birthed from capitalism (Snipes, et. al.
2019).
This pathological condition could be explained by more traditional criminologist theories such as
strain or control theory. Marxist theory does not argue against those theories, it seeks to
diagnose capitalism as the underlying cause for them.
“Left-realist” criminologists understand that criminal activity is an issue for the working
class. They have capitulated to the idea that the criminal justice system should assist with crime
problems even if capitalism is not vanquished. They believe that community policing,
MARXISM, POSTMODERNISM, AND GREEN 8
whitecollar prosecution, prison reform, regulation of certain street crimes, decriminalization,
and social reform are appropriate policy recommendations to combat the effects of capitalism.
Left realists believe policies centered around those ideals would decrease alienation,
oppression, and marginalization.
Postmodernism
Postmodern thinking attempts to move past modernism by stating that thinking is
mediated by language, which varies depending on the role of the speaker. It theorizes that
language is not conducted in a vacuum. Language can promote and disparage depending on the
relationships among participants (Snipes, et. al. 2019). Believers in postmodernism are
comfortable with the idea that people will come to differing truths even if they are
contradictory after hearing the same thing. Each person’s presuppositions and previous
interactions with individuals in the speaking role have shaped their possible inferences (Farhan,
2019).
Postmodernists will attack commonly held viewpoints to deconstruct privileged
viewpoints. They will also seek out disparaged viewpoints and attempt to legitimize them.
Ultimately, the goal is not to give one viewpoint more credibility than the other but to give
equal opportunity to both. Postmodernists haven’t just evolved from modernism to live in
harmony with it, they actively champion against it. Postmodern followers believe that modernist
ways led to marginalization and oppression (Snipes, et. al. 2019). Language systems are believed
to support dominant views of the world according to postmodernists. They use discourse
analysis to understand language and its relationship between people. Discourse analysis studies
the speaker or writer and their social position to understand the intention of what is being
communicated by them. The determination language used by the speaker is used to determine
MARXISM, POSTMODERNISM, AND GREEN 9
their discursive subject position. Essentially, the process of studying the language is discourse
analysis and the determination of the role of the speaker is the subject position (snipes, et. al.
2019).
Postmodern theory has brought rise to varying different movements in modern society.
Movements such as the uprising of gender fluidity as a concept would be described as
postmodern. When criminal justice systems are examined under a postmodern lens, ways to
improve can be found. In the courtroom, there is a certain language used. Prosecutors have a
particular subject position that affects the language they use. This language fits into the system
that has been created around the courtroom and all who enter traditionally use this language in
this judicial arena. Defense attorneys, police, and judges are all accustomed to this language.
The people the justice system is set up to protect and prosecute are not so accustomed to it.
This can lead to victims feeling as though their story was not articulated in a way that leaves
them satisfied with the system. This can leave the victim believing justice wasn’t done even if
the offender is found guilty. On the flip side, defendants may be feeling as though they have
been bullied by their attorney regardless of the outcome. This leaves both participants feeling as
though the system exercised power over them (Snipes, et. al 2019).
Postmodernists believe there is always one discourse that is dominating the other. This
dominant discourse could be that of the court system vs the participants. Different cultures are
going to be dominant over others in different circumstances. The goal of postmodernist
criminology would be to create a discourse that elevates diversity and liberation. A careful
balance needs to be struck or postmodern thought can lead to appreciative relativism. This is
when the pendulum swings too far to the criminal side and the discourse may seemingly
celebrate the offender. Postmodernist criminology has concluded that punishment that is
MARXISM, POSTMODERNISM, AND GREEN 10
violent has only increased violent crime. Only when the public acknowledges that violence
doesn’t solve violence will criminals change (Snipes, et. al. 2019).
Green Criminology
Green criminology is one of the newer fields of criminology. It first appeared in the
1990s as a way for criminologists to consider the damage done to the environment by
corporations. Green criminology is more of a collection of theories than it is a unified
movement. Unity among these theories is that the environment should be considered a victim
along with wildlife. Green criminology pushes an ecocentric approach which flips the burden of
proof so that corporations have to demonstrate they will not harm the environment. Green
criminology also challenges what society sees as a crime. Traditionally crime is seen as an
offense against another person. When the environment, animals, and humanity are seen as the
victims it pushes the envelope on what we can do in criminal courts versus civil litigation
(Snipes, et al. 2019).
Another hurdle for green criminology is the global concept surrounding it. As a criminal
matter, there exists no criminal court for ecological offenses. Green theories are at odds with
the comfortable way of life that societies have created for themselves. Humanity is constantly
pillaging the planet for capitalistic gain. Even if several nations created a governing body to
enforce eco-global ideals there would be other countries that opposed the body.
A study that could give merit to saving and protecting environments was conducted in
2019. The authors set out to determine if green spaces had any effect on crime. Parks,
community gardens, Vegetated streets, tree cover, and undeveloped green areas were studied
for their impacts on crimes in the area. It was found that these areas had lower rates of crime
than others. Several reasons need to be considered to understand why this may be. Community
involvement and lower rates of social disorganization were most likely considerable factors for
MARXISM, POSTMODERNISM, AND GREEN 11
the lower crime rates. Cleary established territory is also shown to lower crime. Lower
temperatures are also responsible for lower aggression. When there is more tree cover in urban
environments there is a reduction in the heat island effect. These lower rates of aggression from
cooler temperatures lower crime (Fournier, et. al. 2019). While this study has other
criminological factors such as strain and control theories involved the impact of ecological
factors shouldn’t be ignored.
Conclusion
Marxist, Postmodern, and green criminology are all emerging and changing fields of
study. Marxist criminology is the oldest of the three with roots dating to the middle of the 19th
century. Karl Marx was a known opponent of capitalism and the theories of criminology born
from his ideals have lived up to his despise for the economic system. Marx argued that people
who are oppressed by capitalism are more likely to submit to vice and crime. Current criminal
systems do not allow for corporations to be held criminally liable to the rate that the individual
can be held to. This goes hand in hand with green criminology where corporations are seen as
the number one enemy to the environment. Green criminology is an emerging field with few
but very active members who seek ecological justice. Postmodern criminologists have turned
the fight to language that leaves feeling left out. The language of the class in charge leaves
people feeling marginalized and having no say in the systems that they are a part of.
References
Bennet, P., Ouazad, A., (2020) Job Displacement, Unemployment, and Crime: Evidence from
Danish Microdata and Reforms (The Link Between Human Capital, Mass Layoffs, and
Firm Deaths). Journal of the European Economic Association, 18(5) 2182-2220,
https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea.jvz054
Christian Standard Bible, Holman Bible Publishers. (2017) Nashville, Tennessee
MARXISM, POSTMODERNISM, AND GREEN 12
Engels, F., Marx, K., 1818-1883. (1996) The Communist Manifesto. London; Chicago, Ill. Pluto
Press
Farhan, R., (2019) Understanding Postmodernism: Philosophy and Culture of Postmodernism.
International Journal Social Sciences and Education, 02(04), 22-31
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33590.04165
Fournier, C., Peditto, P., Sachs, N., Sadatsafavi, H., Shepley, M., (2019) The Impact of Green
Space on Violent Crimes in Urban Environments: An Evidence Synthesis. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24)
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245119
Green, E., (2011) Are Underground Markets Really More Violent? Evidence From Early 20th
Century America. American Law and Economics Review, 13(1), 1-44
https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahq017
Holy Bible: New Living Translation. 2015 Carol Stream, IL Tyndale House Publishers
O’Malley, P., (1987) Marxist Theory and Marxist Criminology. Crime and Justice, 29 70-87
https://www.jstor.org/stable/29766346
Sayer, S., (2021) What is Marxism? International Critical Thought 11(3), 377-388.
https://doie.org/10/1080/21598282.2021.1965493
Snipes, J., Bernard, T., & Gerould, A. (2019) Vold’s Theoretical Criminology (8th ed). New York:
Oxford University Press
