“There are, then, evidently innocent poor people; and there are others

so much the more pardonable as the consequences have been aggravated by

the fault of others. Is it then in the intermediate region that we must

seek for the influences that lead to evil? It may be. This region is

not unknown to us. Let us seek here, without taking sides in any way,

and examine the facts as well as we can.” [211]

In opposition to the continual increase of criminality the author shows

that the national wealth has increased, although—and this should not be

forgotten—real property, with the exception of small holdings, has

decreased; the condition of the rural workers, on the contrary, has

improved.

In the second place Joly calls attention to the condition of

working-men in the cities. According to him the question of whether it

has grown worse must be answered in the negative, for the emigration

from the country to the city always keeps up. Notwithstanding their

higher wages men are no better off there, since they spend upon

amusements their additional earnings. If criminality increases among

them it is not, then, in involuntary poverty that the cause is to be

found.

At the same time with the increase of wages the price of food must be

noted. In most of the departments of France these prices have risen in

the same proportion as wages. Consequently the working-man has not

become better off. He has new needs, but when he has met these he has

not enough left for the primary necessities. It is not economic

factors, but moral factors, that come into play here.

The proportional increase of wages and the price of food, of which

mention has been made above, in the different departments of France, is

not met with in the departments of Morbihan, Vendée, Bouches-du-Rhône,

and Hérault. In the first two, prices have risen much more than wages,

while the contrary appears in the last two. As regards criminality, the

first two take their place among those that show the lowest figures,

the last two among those that show the highest. Joly draws from this

the conclusion that social life is too complicated for us to be able to

learn the morality of persons merely from the rise or fall of wages. In

any case it is certain, according to him, that the increase of

criminality that has been shown is not due to poverty, and that

consequently we have not the right to say that poverty in general is

one of the primary causes of crime.

However, it must not be lost sight of that in speaking of the increase

of wealth and the rise in wages, we are speaking only of average

figures, and that there are many individuals whose wages remain below

this average. “Now, where do we see the greatest differences, and where

are they most felt? Exactly in wealthy epochs and in wealthy

surroundings. So it is in the poor departments that crimes against

property develop the least. There are two reasons for this,

psychological and social. What any man feels the most is not being or

having absolutely; it is being or having more or less than those who

surround him. What must drive men to crime chiefly, then, is the

comparison of wealth with poverty.” [212]

Joly thinks he can produce further data upon the connection between

crime and poverty by checking up the kind of articles that are most

frequently stolen. Out of 1000 cases of theft (assizes, 1830–1860)

there were 395 cases of theft of money, next came thefts of personal

property, then clothing, etc., then successively, different kinds of

merchandise, jewelry and table-ware, food, grain, etc., and living

domestic animals. This information does not teach us much about the

relationship in question. For the articles stolen can be sold, which

prevents our discovering the motives of the crime.

The analysis of the value of the objects stolen also gives us little

information. During a period of 25 years the cases of theft of 10 to 50

francs were the most numerous (about 30%), next those of 100 to 1000

francs, then those of less than 10 francs. Ten years later the most

numerous were those of 100 to 1000 francs (33%).

However, on the strength of the statements of an old police officer,

Joly thinks he can draw the conclusion that poverty enters only to a

small extent into the etiology of crime. Nevertheless the established

fact that a rise in the price of grain is associated with an increase

of criminality, contradicts this. But according to Joly the

contradiction is only apparent. “Famines are exceptional; theft is

constant and while famines are always decreasing, theft is always

increasing. Suppose that in ordinary years people did not steal or

stole very little; the difficult moments would find them more patient,

more resolute to have recourse to legal and permissible means; we

should not see them so prompt to extricate themselves from their

difficulties by simply taking the property of others. But what

resistance can we count on from those who have long had the habit of

stealing from fancy, cupidity, or a desire to gormandize? What

resistance can be hoped for, especially when the habit has begun in

youth? Now, we have seen that a third of the thefts are committed by

minor children.” [213]

The weakness of the influence of economic conditions upon criminality

is, according to Joly, further proved by the fact that times of

prosperity are not accompanied by a decrease in the number but by a

change in the kind of crime committed (as Prins and Garofalo have

shown). Cheap wine makes most crimes against persons increase. But the

low price of grain has the same effect, since the working-man, when his

condition has improved even a little, spends his additional earnings in

all kinds of amusements, which, in their turn, may be the source of

crime. This is proved, for example, by the fact that in Marseilles

suicides are most numerous on Sunday and Monday, and fewest on Friday

and Saturday, a fact explained by the pay-days of the working people.

This is also applicable to crimes against persons.

To prove his thesis the author reminds us of the fact that domestics,

although not subject to privations, furnish a large percentage of the

thefts; that the percentage of thefts committed by unmarried persons

continually increases; and finally, that the investigation (of 107

cases tried in 10 years before the assizes at Rheims), made by a

magistrate (Ch. Vuébat), has proved that economic factors have little

importance for criminality, and moral factors much. “To sum up, it is

not the increase of poverty that is the cause of the increase of crime;

it is not property in general that leads to crime against property.

This is not saying that poverty, and innocent poverty, does not exist,

nor that it is not a bad counselor, nor that it is not the duty of the

upper classes and of the government to concern themselves with the lot

of the poor. It does mean that a man is less led into evil-doing by the

faults of others or by the fault of destiny than by his personal

faults.” [214]

—If one considers the study of the question by Joly from a critical

point of view, the thing that most strikes the attention is this; that

he puts economic causes by the side of the moral causes of criminality.

As I have already more than once remarked, this is not sound. Every

crime finds its origin in moral causes, or better, in the lack of moral

ideas dominant at a certain period. But one of the principal questions

to be answered is this; how far do these moral ideas find their origin

in definite economic conditions? Joly, being a spiritualist, has not

succeeded in formulating this problem well, still less in solving it.

His entire treatment of the relation between criminality and economic

conditions is characterized by a striking narrowness. He speaks of

poverty and wealth as if they were the most natural things in the

world, and had no need to be explained. Then he makes a distinction

between voluntary and involuntary poverty, and excludes the former from

the discussion as having nothing to do with the problem in question.

This manner of reasoning has rather the air of a penitential sermon

than of a scientific investigation. “Voluntary poverty” [215] is a

contradiction in terms. For a man tries as far as possible to spare

himself suffering and to gain happiness. There can never be any such

thing then as voluntary poverty.

Though his terms are unhappily chosen, Joly only wishes to point out

that poverty may originate in circumstances or in the person himself.

But in treating this problem he should not have been silent on a very

important, and very difficult point, namely how far these individual

causes of poverty are based upon the present economic system.

If the question treated by Joly is incomplete, what he says neither has

any great value, nor does it prove at all his statement that the

influence of economic conditions is small. He gives but a few pages to

the very difficult question of whether the standard of living of the

working class has been raised. He brings out the universally observed

fact that the wants of all classes have increased, but he seems not to

have noted that this is intimately bound up with the present mode of

production. He cites the testimony of an old police officer, and the

investigations of a magistrate (investigations, it may be said in

passing, that reached the colossal number of 107 cases) in order to

prove that most crimes are not committed as a consequence of immediate

privations—as if this were enough to solve the question of how far

economic conditions enter into the causes of crime.— [216]

II.

L. PROAL. [217]

In his ninth chapter, entitled “Le crime et la misère,” this author

gives some pages to our subject. It is incontestable, according to him,

that poverty exerts an influence upon criminality. The number of crimes

increases in the years of poor crops, or when there is a lack of work

owing to industrial or agricultural crises. Thus, criminality reached

high figures in 1840, 1847, and 1854, when the price of grain was high.

In consequence of this and of his personal experience (the author is a

magistrate) he thinks the opinion of Garofalo is incorrect, that

poverty only gives crime its form and is not a cause of it. For

indigence not only puts morality in danger by depriving some persons of

the bare necessities, but it also causes the children of the poor in

the great cities to be brought up in a pitiable manner.

Although the author is of this opinion, however, he does not subscribe

to the view that “the poor man is dedicated to crime.” On the contrary,

a great proportion of the poor are as honest as possible, and have

honorable toil as their only means of support. Judicial statistics show

that the rich are as guilty of crime as the poor.

“We see, then, that even if all the citizens had means and education,

there would always be criminals; the number of them would be a little

less, but not much. There would always be traders practising deception

with regard to the quantity and quality of their goods, merchants

adulterating food, employes abusing the confidence of their employers,

notaries embezzling the funds entrusted to them; there would always be

wives poisoning their husbands, and husbands killing their wives, and

teachers of lay and denominational schools committing sexual crimes.”

[218]

Most crimes are not committed to escape from want, but rather to

procure luxury and pleasure. Hence the rich as well as the poor commit

them. “To sum up, I do not believe that the rich are less tempted to

take the property of others than the poor. The more wealth one has the

more he wants; further, the more wealth increases, the more factitious

wants increase, and if one’s wealth becomes insufficient to satisfy

these wants, the thought of increasing it by any means is not slow in

coming. Admitting that some day all men may be rich and educated,

though that seems to me to be an impossible dream, cupidity will always

make thieves, rogues, and forgers; hatred and revenge will always

inspire homicide, murder, and arson; debauchery will always lead to

sexual crimes. Material and intellectual progress will never suppress

the passions and will not free men from the struggle that must be

maintained against them. It will always be necessary to repress anger

and sensuality, to put a bridle upon cupidity, and, in a word, to set

the soul free from its passions. The increase of well-being and

education will never make the police and the penal code unnecessary.”

[219]

—It will be superfluous to give a criticism of this discussion. We have

already met several authors who took this point of view. Proal is like

the others who do not even know how to put the question of the

influence of economic conditions clearly, who do not comprehend that

poverty and riches are both the inevitable consequences of the same

system.—

III.

M. DE BAETS. [220]

“It is an incontestable fact that the influence of poverty upon

criminality is immense.” It is thus that the author expresses himself

in the introduction to his work. I shall set forth his manner of

defending this thesis in the following lines.

The most disastrous consequence of poverty is the temptation to procure

illicitly what is needed for one’s well-being. We can see this in the

crimes of crowds as well as in individual crimes. At the 3d Congress of

Criminal Anthropology, Professor H. Denis gave certain facts with

regard to the correlation between crime and the economic status. [221]

During the years from 1845 to 1849 the curve of criminality coincides

exactly with that of the price of wheat. But at the close of 1850 the

two curves diverge, when the curve of wheat is replaced by that of

staple foods in general. If we follow the trend of wages attentively we

shall note that they also are higher in the last years. The increase of

criminality is no longer to be explained, therefore, by this rise. To

what, then, is it due?

In the author’s opinion we must note, first, that forced unemployment

is increasing; second, that poverty and wealth have force only by

comparison.

The well-being of the working man has increased, but that of men in

general much more so. This explains only a part of the phenomena given

above. The rest of his explanation is as follows: “There are, in fact,

other elements, which may neutralize the influence of the environment.

To all the solicitations of vice and crime man can offer resistance,

finding his refuge and support in moral force.

“Now, go to the poor and unhappy, and ask them what prevents them from

quickly slipping downhill into crime, and you will find in their mouths

the expression, naïve, but strong, of the idea of duty; and this idea

of duty you will find precisely and clearly only in that of submission

to an absolute, incontestable, unconditioned authority, that of God. A

man whom no one would suspect of any extraordinary good-will toward

religion, M. Jules Simon, said a few months ago, ‘The peoples must be

brought to God if we want justice and order to reign.’

“Must not even those who do not themselves believe, recognize in this

idea of duty, of law imposed by a God, the creator, an ‘idée-force,’ a

source in itself of energy and activity against evil and for good?

“It is in the diminution of this energy, in the efforts that have been

made to tear out of the hearts of the poor this root, whose flower is

hope, and whose fruit is virtue, that I am inclined to see one of the

causes of the frightful increase of crime, which all concede, some with

surprise and all with dismay.” [222]

In the second part of his discussion the author brings up the

degenerating influence of poverty. Although a man has a free will at

his disposal, it is necessary that he should also have an organism

capable of putting the will into action. Hence it is that degeneracy

makes its effect felt upon man.

“Now, misery is just the totality of the most imperious desires

remaining unsatisfied; it is the love of life, the love of well-being

left without gratification; it is the suffering of the wife one would

like to see happy, the hunger of the children to whom one would like to

give bread. And if crime can give this bread that one cannot find, if

crime can satisfy all these appetites, all these desires, it will

present itself with the most powerful attractions, with the charm of

fascination. Will the unfortunate man have the supreme energy to prefer

duty to enjoyment?” [223]

Poverty is a bad preparatory school for this contest; a weakened

organism will succumb more easily to temptation. And generally this is

accompanied by a lack of education and of the development of the higher

faculties.

In following the course of life of a proletarian we see that the child

of the proletariat carries, often from his birth, the signs of

degeneracy, since his mother was forced to work hard during her

pregnancy. From his childhood he is ill nourished, and grows up in an

unhealthful environment. There can hardly be any question of education,

for his father and mother work in the shop, which prevents any family

life. The child is not attached to the dwelling of his parents and

wanders in the street, where he picks up bad habits. Arrived at

adolescence, he enters the factory to pass the greater part of his time

in monotonous occupations. And once full grown, life for him consists

only in routine labor, monotonous and without end. “However, this man

has a soul, he has a mind! But it slumbers in a perpetual inertia.

Nothing in his life has awakened what is grand, noble, and divine in

this reasonable being. How can we hope to have the moral energy and the

sublime ambition for good survive in him?” [224]

However unhappy this manner of life may be, there is still lacking the

greatest misfortune that can befall the proletarian; forced inaction.

This is one of the chief causes that can drive him to commit crime! And

then there is another scourge of the working class, alcoholism. “Source

of poverty without any doubt, but fruit of poverty incontestably.”

Finally, of all the proletarians the most unhappy are the women. Low

wages and the monotony of tiresome work too often make prostitutes of

them.

To all these criminogenous causes the Christian must oppose the moral

sentiments which are drawn from his religion. His motto must be,

“rather death than dishonor.” But for that he must have heroic courage,

which most people lack. Perhaps before God these sinners will find

grace.

But all this cannot be a reason for society to allow to exist these

scandalous conditions, which, in a few words, are as follows:

“Insufficiency of the means of subsistence; work too long continued, as

measured by the exhaustion resulting from it; work demanded of mothers

of families; excessive and unsuitable labor expected of children;

improper conditions in certain industries.” [225]

This must be changed, and it is possible to do so. Not, however, with

the aid of the state, for then industry would lose the elasticity so

necessary to it. But the change must be brought about by association of

the proletarians. “In the forced individualism of the laborers is to be

found the cause of their ruin; the salvation must be found in

association.” The author closes by referring to the encyclical, “Rerum

novarum”, in which it is said that Christian workmen must band

together, and by encouraging the rich to help their less privileged

brothers. [226]

IV.

CRITICISM.

The authors of whom I have just been speaking, together with others,

like von Oettingen and Stursberg, of whom I have spoken in Chap. II,

have this idea in common, that the continually growing irreligion is a

cause of the increase in criminality; in other words, that irreligion

is a powerful factor of crime and that the irreligious are predisposed

to crime.

What proofs have been given by these authors in support of their

thesis, their very serious accusation against those who are no longer

religious? Most of them have not even tried to prove it. It is a dogma,

with which, therefore, we have nothing to do. An increase of irreligion

had been shown, also an increase in criminality, therefore there is a

causal connection. Protest must be made against any such methods of

reasoning. If there is a parallelism upon the chart between two curves

that do not undulate, we must be very careful about drawing the

conclusion that there is a connection, much more a causal one. That

irreligion has increased is certain; is the same thing true of

criminality? Certainly not. The trend of criminality as a whole is very

rarely uniform, there is almost always a divergence; for example,

economic criminality and violent criminality very rarely keep pace with

each other. If we wish to give a general idea of the trend of

criminality, we can only say that it is decreasing rather than

increasing. The spiritualist authors often cite Germany in support of

their thesis. This is no longer possible, for, after an increase in the

total figures up to the end of the nineteenth century, there is now a

fluctuating decrease.

In the Netherlands we can estimate the increase of irreligion; [227]

according to the censuses of 1879 and 1909, the percentage of those who

are not members of any church has increased enormously, from 0.31 to

4.97, an increase of 1500% in 30 years! What an increase of crime must

we look for! The reality is very different. The curve of crime has

fallen without any doubt. [228] The facts and the thesis do not agree.

Another way of examining the question is to be found in “criminal

geography.” Since irreligion shows enormous differences in the

different parts of a country, we ought to find considerable criminality

in the provinces where the lack of religion is most in evidence. For

the Netherlands, in my study already referred to, I have given detailed

tables with the result that there is no connection between the

phenomena in question. In general we have even the right to say that

the provinces with the lowest figures for irreligion show a high

criminality, and vice versa!

The best means of settling the question is by a direct statistical

study. I have made calculations, based upon the criminal statistics, of

more than 126,000 individuals sentenced during the period from 1901 to

1909, in the Netherlands. Here are the results:

Netherlands, 1901–1909.

====================================+===========================================================

| Number Sentenced to 100,000 of the Population

| Over 10 Years Old.

+-------------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------------

| | | | Not |

Offenses. | | | | Members | Total

| Protestant. | Catholic. | Jew. | of Any |Population.

| | | | Religion. |

------------------------------------+-------------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------------

All offenses | 308.6 | 416.5 | 212.7 | 84.2 | 337.3

Theft | 40.0 | 54.8 | 25.5 | 9.6 | 43.9

Aggravated theft | 19.9 | 24.0 | 12.7 | 5.2 | 20.7

Receiving stolen goods | 2.6 | 3.5 | 9.2 | 0.7 | 3.0

Embezzlement | 8.6 | 9.3 | 13.1 | 1.9 | 8.7

Fraud | 2.4 | 2.5 | 3.9 | 0.4 | 2.4

Offenses against public decency | 1.9 | 3.4 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 2.4

Minor sexual offenses | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 1.0

Rape | 1.5 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 1.8

Sexual crimes with persons under 16 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.3

All sexual crimes | 5.1 | 7.1 | 4.1 | 1.6 | 5.7

Rebellion | 25.9 | 37.0 | 13.2 | 12.2 | 29.0

Assaults | 74.4 | 98.2 | 43.2 | 20.1 | 80.1

Serious assaults | 8.5 | 11.0 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 9.1

Homicide and murder | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.5

====================================+=============+===========+=======+===========+=============

The results are the following, then: the first place is almost always

occupied by the Catholics, the second by the Protestants, and then come

the Jews (except in cases of receiving stolen goods, embezzlement, and

fraud), and the minimum of criminality (in all crimes without

exception) is shown by the irreligious!

Here we have not the task of explaining this fact, we only bring it

out; and we have the right to declare that the thesis: “irreligion

leads to crime”, is not correct.

CHAPTER VII.

THE THIRD SCHOOL [229] AND THE SOCIALISTS.

I.

F. TURATI.

In the first chapter of his “Il delitto e la questione sociale”, the

author shows that among the numerous misfortunes from which the

proletariat suffers, this must be reckoned, that it is almost

exclusively from its ranks that criminals are recruited. “The criminal

tribute is the almost exclusive privilege of one social class. And as

the bourgeoisie has so far thought out no better plan than to oppose

the degradation of crime with another degradation called punishment, it

has come about that to the monopoly of the criminal tribute is added,

for the poor, the monopoly of the penal tribute.” [230]

After having spoken, in the following chapter, of “free will”, Dr.

Turati gives his attention to an opinion of Dr. Lelorrain, who says

that we must modify man if we wish to make criminality disappear or

decrease. Dr. Turati objects that it is exceedingly difficult to change

man, and that there is an easier and more effective way, namely to

change society. In a society where everything is bad, where the

exploitation of one by the other is the rule, where the enjoyment of

some goes on at the detriment of others, and this under the protection

of the law—in such a society there is a perpetual incitement to crime.

It is the ideal of socialism to create a society in which crime shall

be neither necessary nor advantageous. However short its duration, the

colony of New Lanark founded by Owen, is one of the best proofs of the

correctness of this idea. In a society formed in accordance with this

socialistic ideal, crime would appear only exceptionally, by atavism,

for example, and would cease to be a general and always threatening

danger.

“The social penal question is a question above all of social

transformation.” Many objections have been made to this statement. The

school of Lombroso and Ferri sets up in opposition its theory of the

triplex character of the factors of crime; cosmic, individual, and

social. When society is so modified that the interests of the

individual are identical with those of the community, it would be only

one part of crime that would disappear; one could not, for example,

prevent an extraordinary heat from causing crimes against morals.

According to Dr. Turati it is not impossible to refute this objection,

though it may be difficult to do so. In the first place Ferri

recognizes the social causes as more important than the other two put

together. He estimates that the number of persons driven to crime by

social reasons (passion and occasion) is more than 60%; the others

(insane or half-insane criminals, born-incorrigibles, and habituals)

form a minority, then. But among these there are many criminals by

habit, who were not born as such, but have become such from force of

circumstances. Dr. Turati estimates that from 70% to 75% of criminals

have come to commit their crimes from social causes. When we take

account further of the fact that about 18% of the prisoners are insane,

the number of real criminals who have become such from other than

social causes is reduced to 10% at the most.

According to Dr. Turati the physical and anthropological factors exert

an influence upon the form, but not upon the nature, of the crime.

Further, these three causes are present in every crime, but almost no

crime would be committed without the social cause. It is this last that

is always the predominant factor. When it is removed, then, the other

two are reduced to zero. The facts have proved this. Owen’s colony was

not made up of peculiar material, and the physical surroundings were

neither better nor “more honest” than any other. Nevertheless, crime

was unknown there. But the author furnishes still further proofs in

support of his thesis that physical and anthropological causes amount

to nothing in comparison with social causes, which in turn are

dependent upon economic conditions. With the exception of crimes

committed by the propertied class, which are in general the result of

excessive cupidity, or a commercial uneasiness, and which will “ipso

facto” disappear without any doubt when once society is otherwise

organized, the greatest contingent of criminals is furnished by the

class of non-possessors. Now all the physical influences, such as

climate, act upon the two classes in the same way, nor are there

anthropological differences between the two classes, yet the difference

between them as regards criminal tendencies is great. It is the social

factors, then, that explain the difference.

However, another observation must be made here. Ferri cites in a mass,

as social factors, the increase of population, emigration, public

opinion, customs, etc. But when we examine and classify these factors

minutely, it becomes clear that in reality they are based upon economic

conditions alone.

However, this observation is not applicable to “criminals by passion”,

since in their case the influence of the environment appears to be but

weak. Lombroso estimates that they form 5% of all criminals, and Ferri

is of the opinion that it is only 5% of those who commit crimes against

persons who are criminals by passion.

One of the anthropological causes of crime is “man”, and one of the

cosmic causes is “the universe.” But neither has anything to do with

crime as such. Otherwise the air we breathe and the food that we eat

would be causes of crime. On the contrary, it is the organization of

society that is the cause of crime, and physical and anthropological

influences are only conditions. (Speaking scientifically we do not

separate causes and conditions, but this is the common usage.) If the

causes ceased to exist the conditions would have no further importance.

Next, Dr. Turati treats of certain kinds of crime. First, crimes

against property. As almost every criminologist will admit, these

crimes are intimately connected with the unequal division of property.

“But,” an opponent will object, “it is not possible, by means of social

institutions, to change cosmic influences, such as a low temperature,

or the failure of the crops, both of which cause an increase of the

crimes against property.” Those who are of this opinion forget,

however, that a man does not become criminal because he is cold, but he

who is cold becomes criminal only if society neglects to provide for

the needs born of the cold.

The influence of society is not seen so distinctly when crimes against

persons are in question. Nevertheless it is very great; the economic

conditions of our day work in two ways, through poverty on the one

side, and injustice on the other. Poverty injures not only the physique

but also the morals of a man, since it leaves him in ignorance and

grossness, and does not develop his moral sentiments. And then it is

harder to bear the evils caused by society than those caused by nature.

In the second place, economic inequality stifles the sense of justice

in man, since it accustoms him to this inequality. “The law is equal

for all”, is only a phrase, for all are not socially equal.

One of the most wide-spread objections to the proposition that crimes

spring from social conditions is that if an improvement in these

conditions leads to a decrease of the crimes against property, the

crimes against persons increase. This is urged by Ferri, among others,

as one of the most effective arguments against Turati and his

partisans. But against this may be urged another fact brought out by

Ferri, namely that while crime is increasing, it is becoming less

intense and less brutal. We see clearly, then, that it is possible to

have a powerful counter-determinant to the tendency to commit crimes

against persons, i.e. education.

As to sexual crimes, they increase when the food supply increases. This

is the cause: sexual needs have a direct relation to nutrition. An

increase of the sexual needs, however, has nothing to do with

criminality. It is only the social organization that changes these

needs that have become more intense, into crimes, by subordinating the

satisfaction of them to economic considerations. There are, besides,

other social causes, like bad housing etc., that lead the proletariat

to commit the crimes in question.

The author then points out the enormous influence of the abuse of

alcohol upon criminality, the causes of this abuse being also found in

the social organization.

Another argument of Ferri’s must be refuted, i.e. that Turati and his

followers attach too much weight to education. Notwithstanding the

equality in the education of two brothers, says Ferri, one becomes a

scamp and the other a hero. To which the author replies that we can say

with just as good right, thanks to education the brother of a scamp

becomes a hero.

But in speaking of education Ferri has in mind that of the bourgeoisie,

which is in opposition to morality, and can consequently have but

little influence. From the day when the state of society shall have

become sound, and the interests of all taken to heart, morality can be

in harmony with reality.

“The true, all-inclusive penal substitute is the equal diffusion, so

far as is socially possible, of well-being and education, of the joys

of love and thought.”

II.

B. BATTAGLIA.

Before speaking of the influence of economic factors upon criminality,

I feel obliged to point out, by the following quotation, what the

author of “La dinamica del delitto” understands by crime: “Primarily it

must be noted that crime is not, in itself, a phenomenon that assumes

the criminal character from its own nature; but the criminal character

is affirmed or denied according to certain purely accessory

circumstances that accompany the act; and in all cases the crime is

such with reference to social relations.” [231]

“From the human point of view a crime represents the satisfaction of a

need of the criminal, like the satisfaction of any other need, and

comes under the law of the struggle for existence. In fact, a need not

satisfied constitutes a pain, and pain, whatever its nature be, first

excites and then depresses and exhausts the functional power of the

organism. The organism, under the influence of pain, loses a quantity

of phosphates proportional to the intensity of the pain; the

physiological equilibrium is broken, and some functions important for

the internal economy are neutralized. The organism, because of the law

of conservation, is called upon to relieve the pain. Often it can do

this without injury to others; at other times it comes into collision

with social interests, and in such a case falls into crime.” [232]

After having spoken of the anatomical and physiological characteristics

that have been observed in criminals, Dr. Battaglia comes to the

investigation into the causes that produce crime. In examining the

factors of crime we see, according to the author, that they consist of

two great groups, first, criminogenous factors, and second, occasional

factors. These last are important only when they are present with the

first. Among the occasional factors are to be classed in the first

place, age, meteorological occurrences, etc., in short, the influences

to which the whole population are subjected. In the second place, sex,

economic conditions, education, etc. i.e. influences which have a less

universal sphere. However, none of the occasional factors can, by

itself, cause a crime to arise. Otherwise a whole population would be

criminal in the same way, since some factors, climate for instance,

exercise their influence upon the whole population. In order to lead to

crime these factors must exert their influence upon intellectual

faculties especially disposed toward crime.

The factors really criminogenous, are those which create certain

physico-psychical conditions, from the complexus of which results the

personal capacity for crime, such as the diseases and defects of

development and nutrition, cranial and intracranial; improper

education; psychical heredity; and atavistic reversions.

“When these factors have prepared the mental condition, by making it

different from that of all others, any opportunity whatever is a

sufficient psychical factor, and a crime is committed. Therefore the

criminogenous factors are those that have the real social importance,

because they prepare inevitably for delinquency.

“It is true, on the other hand, that any of the occasional factors,

acting in a certain way, and with a certain intensity and persistency,

can produce criminogenous factors, like education or alimentation.”

[233]

The author then treats some of the so-called “occasional factors”, such

as age, sex, and religion. I shall speak only of what Dr. Battaglia

says upon the influence of alcoholism and poverty upon criminality,

since this is pertinent to my work.

Alcoholism is a cause of crime in two ways, first, direct, i.e. when

crimes are committed under the actual influence of intoxication;

second, indirect, since chronic alcoholism causes demoralization and

degeneracy. As evidence in support of this the author cites the

opinions of Baer, Virgilio, and others.

As to poverty, Dr. Battaglia remarks that the opinion of Professor

Lombroso on this subject cannot be correct. The latter believes that

the importance of the fact that crimes against property decrease when

prices fall, is weakened by the circumstance that, according to Guerry,

the theft of food holds only the hundredth place in the table of

articles stolen. According to Dr. Battaglia this has no weight in a

critical examination of the influence of poverty. For anyone who is

driven to crime by hunger tries by preference to seize articles that

are of great value and little volume, since he can at once exchange

them for other articles that are directly consumable. Further it must

not be forgotten that alcoholism and bad education are intimately

connected with poverty, and lead in their turn to crime. Not only does

acute hunger incite to theft indirectly, it may lead to it directly,

for it may (according to Professor Follet) bring on a delirium. Chronic

hunger and malnutrition may cause pellagra, rachitis, tuberculosis,

scrofula, etc., or predispose to these diseases, which may cause crime

in their turn.

In the second part of “La dinamica del delitto” the author makes an

examination of what he has called the “criminogenous factors.” Crime is

a phenomenon that develops itself in society in accordance with certain

constant laws. Consequently the criminogenous factors must be found in

society. To discover them, then, it is necessary to examine the

different social institutions.

The family. In nature and in primitive society there rules a natural

selection by which the weak and sickly are prevented from reproducing

themselves, or from reproducing themselves as freely as those who are

stronger. But at present this selection is no longer felt; even the

most wretched, the most diseased can procreate, since it happens

constantly that marriages take place with a secondary object. Hence

transmission of degeneracy may go on from one generation to another,

and consequently, the indirect propagation of crime.

The social position of woman. The inferior position in which woman

finds herself in general (the cause of this is in social conditions,

since the position of woman varies among different people) occasions

crimes in different ways. First, since woman takes no part in the

public life, she is circumscribed in intellect, and consequently, vain,

egoistic, and ignorant. It follows that her influence upon her children

is often very bad. Then, because of her inferior position she easily

becomes the victim of unscrupulous men, who seduce her, so that she is

often driven to prostitution. In consequence of her ignorance she often

marries a man who has asked for her in marriage with an interested

motive. Further, her manner of living (lack of healthful work, etc.)

may bring on neuroses that are transmissible to her children.

Human reproduction. As an animal, man must satisfy two predominant

necessities, that of feeding himself, and that of procreating. Though

this last is not as strong as the other, it must nevertheless be

satisfied, and without this the human organism would experience very

painful consequences. Celibacy is very harmful to morality; it leads to

prostitution (with its consequences, like syphilis), to misconduct, and

hence to the abuse of alcohol, etc.—in short, it favors the birth of

anti-social sentiments.

The present laws governing the relations between man and woman are also

harmful to morality. The author here refers to the indissolubility of

marriage. When the motive for a marriage has ceased to exist, namely

when mutual love no longer exists, the marriage ought to be dissolved.

The harmful consequences of this indissolubility are numerous. Adultery

and many homicides flow from it; the education of children suffers from

it enormously; and finally if the mother expects a child, the vexation

consequent upon discord may exercise an unfavorable influence upon the

newly born.

Education. The development of the intellect and especially of the

feelings is of the highest importance to morality. For example, where a

disagreement will be settled in an amicable manner among persons who

are well brought up, the same disagreement among persons ill-trained

will often lead to brawls. Education is a very complex and difficult

task, requiring much tact and knowledge. It is not astonishing that as

practised it leaves much to be desired. And the consequences of this

absence of a good education are exceedingly favorable to the

development of criminality. However, it must not be forgotten that some

persons, in consequence of qualities transmitted by heredity, become

immoral despite the best imaginable education. The answer to the

question “should education be left to the parents, i.e. to private

persons, who can consequently corrupt their pupils entirely, and not be

under public control?” must, according to Dr. Battaglia, be absolutely

negative. In order that education may be effective in the family it

must be supplemented by the moral influence of the environment, which

also plays an important part in the education of the child. The great

congestion of persons in the cities, for example, should disappear,

because of its bad influence.

Instruction. The double end of instruction is in the first place to

strengthen the intellect by exercising it, from which it will result

that it will have a greater power over the feelings; and in the second

place to furnish a certain amount of positive knowledge, by which the

individual is put into a position to adapt himself to his environment

and to foresee the consequences of his acts. From this it follows that

instruction is of great importance in dealing with criminality. Those

who deny this mean by the “instructed man” one who has learned to read

and write; but it is evident that such instruction is not enough to

exercise an influence of any real importance. It is undeniable that

persons well reared may also become criminals, but in every case their

crimes have a less ferocious character than those of persons without

education.

Religion and State. Religion is opposed to progress, to the development

of the faculties, and to the general dissemination of knowledge that

improves men and increases solidarity; and it incites to intolerance.

Further, the confessional instruction is harmful to the intellectual

faculties of children. The state puts obstacles in the way of the free

movements of individuals; maintains civil marriage; prevents free

discussion, one of the primary requirements for progress; it sets up

compulsory education, but does not prevent the population’s being

brought up in error; by drafting great armies, it withdraws the best

forces from agriculture and manufacturing, so that the vigorous

individuals marry late, and prostitution is thereby encouraged; it

tolerates stock exchanges and lotteries; it favors crowding into great

cities, something that is very favorable, directly and indirectly, to

crime (bad housing conditions, alcoholism, etc.).

In the chapter that follows, Professor Battaglia reduces the factors

that he has just named “criminogenous”, to economic elements. “All the

inconveniences, the anomalies, the errors, the disorders, found in the

family, in the state, in social and religious relationships, etc., are

provoked by the economic situation in which society finds itself....”

[234]

Civil Status. In the communistic villages of Russia it is advantageous

for the father of a family to have many children, for the work in the

common fields is then performed more easily. Hence the marriages of

persons less than 20 years old are numerous. In the rest of Europe the

situation is entirely different. By marrying, a man makes himself worse

off, and at the birth of each child his cares increase. Hence marriages

are put off (especially among professional men) when the man cannot

provide for the needs of his family. For analogous reasons some deny

their sexual desires and contract a marriage to better their position.

In both cases economic conditions exercise an unfavorable influence.

When his income is not sufficient to support himself and his family

properly, the workman is obliged to labor longer than his strength

permits; he and his family are not well enough fed, their dwelling is

bad; consequently their physical condition deteriorates. The effects

are not only diseases, like scrofula, pellagra, phthisis, anemia, etc.,

but also a great predisposition to contract them. Poverty undermines

the organism and exhausts its strength.

In consequence of present economic conditions it is possible to amass

enormous wealth; but wants are still further increased relatively,

which brings it about that frauds, embezzlements, etc., are often

committed by persons of means, especially since the moral sentiments

are lost when one thinks only of gaining money. But wealth is

inconstant; he who has plenty today may be very poor tomorrow. This is

what causes the disquiet and agitation that characterizes the

bourgeoisie, and the neuroses that often follow. Finally the author

dwells upon the work of women and children, so harmful to morality and

to health.

Alcoholism. The inevitable consequence of poverty is the abuse of

alcoholic drinks. One who works too much and eats too little, who is

badly housed and ill-clad, and has no intellectual occupation, finds in

alcohol a means of forgetting his poverty. The life led by a great part

of the bourgeoisie leads also to alcoholism. The harmful consequences

of alcoholism are numerous, especially as regards criminality, because,

first, it leads directly to violent crimes, and, secondly, it

indirectly favors degeneracy.

Fatherhood. It is only for economic reasons that legal marriage, its

indissolubility, and all that belongs to it, are maintained. If each of

the parents kept his or her economic independence, there would be no

reason to take up the matter of legal regulation, and thus the question

of whether the father of the child is or is not the legal husband of

the mother would no longer concern the State.

Prostitution. Most prostitutes come from the lower strata of society.

Like the criminals they present signs of degeneracy, and from the sole

fact of degeneracy have taken on larger proportions in the proletariat

than in the other classes, though the chance that these women will

recruit themselves in this class is already greater. The other causes

of prostitution are of an economic nature, such as exploitation by

parents, bad housing, etc. In consequence of prostitution syphilis

spreads and in its turn favors degeneracy. Further, from the weakening

of their moral sentiments prostitutes are more easily led to commit

crimes.

Ignorance. The cause of the great ignorance of the working-people—an

important factor in criminality—is of an economic nature. The workers

have to exhaust their strength, and have neither the leisure nor the

means, for mental development.

Laxity of morals. In indigent families all the members sleep in one

room, often even in one bed. Hence it comes that sexual morality is

lacking. The parents, often absent on account of their work, leave

their children to their fate. These latter do not know how to look

after themselves, and easily learn bad habits from other children. The

education of the children of the bourgeoisie is no more favorable.

Often they learn only that they must make money, or acquire a social

position, or make a “good” marriage, a thing which leads them to all

sorts of deceits and intrigues to arrive at their end.

Plutocracy. The great armaments and wars of European powers are the

consequence of the present system of competition, which obliges the

constant search for new outlets for commerce.

Plutocracy of the Church. It is only upon its economic resources that

the great power of the Church rests.

Corollary. Poverty alone causes many moral situations from which crime

must logically result. The majority of criminals are in fact recruited

among the less privileged classes.

But the bourgeoisie is not happy simply because the proletariat is

unhappy. The cause of the unhappiness of both is in the present

economic conditions, by which the great majority of the population

vegetate in the blackest misery, while the others are immersed in idle

luxury. There is only one remedy for this injustice; it is to divide

the total product of labor among the workers, and not among the

capitalists.

III.

N. COLAJANNI.

The whole of the first volume and the first chapters of the second

volume of “La sociologia criminale” [235] contain a criticism of the

theses of the Italian school. The author denies the correctness of

these, since he believes that we must consider the anthropological and

physical causes as having little or no importance. This he demonstrates

in detail. In his last chapters Dr. Colajanni treats of social and

economic factors.

While admitting that economic conditions are of the highest importance

in the development of the whole social life, and consequently in the

matter of criminality, the author does not agree with Marx and Loria,

who consider every social occurrence, whether political, or religious,

or æsthetic, or moral, as the unique and direct product of an economic

phenomenon. [236]

According to the author, this assertion is carried too far, since the

feelings and passions of superior people, who do not think of material

profits, influence the masses at certain moments.

A great number of philosophers, moralists, poets, statisticians, and

economists have seen in economic conditions the “causa causarum” of

morality, and consequently also of crime. Pietro Ellero, among others,

says very decisively: “From private property are derived all crimes, or

almost all. Property engenders cupidity and haughtiness on the one side

and depravity on the other, even when it does not produce the perfect

tyranny of the one class and the degradation of the other. It is the

cause of most of the evil passions, faults, and crimes that are

committed, of the troubles, anxieties, sadness, and rancor from which

both rich and poor suffer alike. The immoral influence of property is

continued afterwards, and that terribly, in the present organization of

the family, constructed, as it is, almost always upon the basis of

calculation!” [237]

It is incontestable that economic conditions have a direct influence

upon the origin of crime. The lack of the means of satisfying the

numerous wants of a man is already a goad to incite him to procure

these means in any way whatever, honest or dishonest. And it is the

dishonest way that one will choose by preference when society makes it

difficult or impossible to act otherwise. A London pickpocket gets

$1500 a year on the average; on the other hand, the misery of those who

wish to earn their living honestly is indescribable. Further, the

honest man’s chance of being killed or becoming incapable of working is

greater than the thief’s chance of being punished. Honest work results

in fewer advantages and more dangers than dishonest work.

The indirect influence is not less important than the direct. War, our

present industry, the family, marriage, political institutions,

revolutions, vagrancy, prostitution, education, etc. are important

causes of crime, but they can all be reduced to economic causes.

According to many persons education is the one means of preventing

moral evils, but John Stuart Mill has already said: in our present

society the poor have no education, and that of the rich is bad. There

is no possibility of a good education if a certain material well-being

is lacking. Hence those who expect everything from education under the

present conditions are wrong.

But where does well-being cease and poverty begin? Both are only

relative conceptions; consequently we cannot fix their limits. In order

to attain the minimum of criminality in any given society there must be

the certainty of the means of subsistence, stability of economic

conditions, and equality in the distribution of wealth.

Some authors deny that political revolutions have their causes in

economic conditions. Lombroso and Laschi, for example, attempt to

explain them chiefly by physical influences; which is the more

astonishing, because in the general opinion it is from economic causes

that they are derived. They adduce, among other things, to support

their opinion, the fact that out of 147 revolts that took place in

Europe between 1793 and 1880, only a third were attributable to

economic conditions. It goes without saying that this does not at all

prove the correctness of their thesis, since in all these cases the

authors are speaking only of direct causes, while most military

revolutions, revolts against the royal power, etc., spring from

economic conditions, even if indirectly. It is true that in the 19th

century the direct revolutionary influence of crises and famines has

decreased, because of the measures taken by the governments. This does

not however prevent there having been revolts occasioned by such

conditions (Lyons in 1831, etc.). The frequent revolts in Belgium and

France, rich countries, do not furnish any proof against the thesis of

Dr. Colajanni; for notwithstanding the great wealth of these countries,

nothing proves that it is equally divided. As soon as the poverty of a

people has passed certain limits, we see in that country neither

crimes, revolutions, nor suicides, since all energy is then extinct.

Another question is this: how far is there a correlation between the

progress made by socialism and the increase of criminality. [238]

Several authors, like Garofalo, are of the opinion that there is an

intimate connection between the two. But they do not furnish any facts

as proofs in support of their assertion, to which, on the contrary, the

facts give the lie.

The countries where socialism is most widely spread do not show the

greatest criminality; rather the contrary. The German and Italian

districts where there are the most socialists are no longer the most

criminal. How could it be otherwise? While socialism is the conscious

and collective reaction against the existing order, crime is the

unconscious and individual reaction against that order.

Next, Dr. Colajanni turns his attention to idleness and vagrancy, which

are both causes of crime. Out of 32,943 thefts in Paris in 1882, 57%

were committed by vagrants.

But are idleness and vagrancy considered in themselves also offenses?

Any man is harmful to his species, says Féré, when he does not

collaborate, either materially or intellectually, in production.

According to Dr. Colajanni, idleness and vagrancy, viewed from such a

high social point of view, are really offenses. But then the idle rich

are also guilty of these offenses. Finally, what are the causes of

these crimes? Spencer, Féré, and Sergi say: the vagrants are the weak,

the degenerate, the parasites of society. The question is this, then:

do these phenomena find their origin inside or outside of the human

organism? Romagnosi says that vagrancy and idleness ought to be

punished only when they are not excusable. To make them inexcusable it

would be necessary to procure employment for every man who was willing

to work. Spencer, Sergi, and Garofalo, on the contrary, are of the

opinion that these crimes are almost always to be imputed to the same

persons. However, Spencer should not have forgotten that in his own

country, aside from industrial crises, numerous occurrences have forced

a great number of persons to become idlers and vagrants through no

fault of their own, as for example, the Irish and Scotch farmers driven

from their lands by the landlords.

And Garofalo should have known that it is capitalism that has made the

work of men superfluous by employing women and children, and that the

cause does not rest with those who suffer from it; on the contrary, the

cause of economic crises is not in their victims, but in the system

that is in force.

An examination of the causes of these two phenomena obliges us to

distinguish between habitual and accidental, or forced, vagrancy.

However—and this is too often forgotten—the latter transforms itself

into the former, for the taste for work is, like morality, an acquired

social product. This is why this quality is lost when one is long

without work.

One of the most important causes of the possible transformation of a

worker into a vagrant is a long illness. Having lost the habit of work,

and being enfeebled, a man will find great difficulty in going to work

again. If he does not succeed he descends step by step until he comes

finally to mendicity. But it is chiefly the economic transformations,

inventions, overproduction, that must be called the “causa causarum” of

the phenomena cited above. [239]

Prostitution, which occupies so important a place in the etiology of

crime, in almost every case finds its origin in poverty, in a bad

education, in a corrupting environment, as is proved by the official

investigations and the writings of specialists, like Parent-Duchatelet,

Fiaux, Augagneur, and many others. [240]

The correlation that exists between crimes against property and

economic conditions is very evident, and is direct. This causality

appears also with regard to crimes against persons. Only it is then

indirect. The influence of poverty upon criminality is especially great

when it has been of long duration. Proudhon is quite right when he

says: “Hunger that is every instant present, during the whole year,

during the whole life, hunger which does not kill in a day, but is

composed of all deprivations and all griefs, and unceasingly consumes

the body, ruins the spirit, demoralizes the conscience, corrupts the

race, generates all vices and diseases (drunkenness, among others), and

an aversion towards work and thrift, baseness of spirit, callousness of

conscience, laziness, and prostitution together with theft.” [241]

The fact that the number of thefts of provisions is relatively small

has little importance, since the thief always tries to steal some

article of small bulk and great value. Also it must not be forgotten

that little thefts of food often pass unnoticed, or without complaint

being made, because the party injured does not consider the act a

crime, since committed from necessity.

Another convincing proof of the influence of economic conditions is the

incontestable fact that it continually happens that a person will

declare himself guilty of a crime that has not been committed, with the

sole purpose of obtaining a lodging in jail. The great percentage made

up of crimes committed from cupidity, as well as the fact that the

number of recidivists is greater for crimes against property than for

others, shows the great influence of economic conditions.

The study of the morality of primitive peoples shows us that the crimes

of abortion, for example, of infanticide, and homicide upon the aged,

have their origin in economic conditions exclusively, the means of

subsistence not being sufficient to support a large population. When

these crimes occur among civilized peoples they have the same causes.

For example, cases of infanticide are very common in Trevise, one of

the poorest provinces in Italy. The lack of education or the influence

of other factors opposed to education are the reason why the corrupting

influence of which we have been speaking often rages in the lower

classes with all its force.

To prove the assertion that economic conditions have little influence

upon criminality, some authors cite the fact that England, with its

great wealth, shows a greater number of crimes against property than

Italy, which is much poorer. He who reasons in this way forgets that

the absolute wealth of a country may be very great, but the

distribution of that wealth not proportional. England gives us the

proof of this; in no other country is the difference between rich and

poor more pronounced, and without the presence of other important and

opposing factors, the criminality would be much greater than it is now.

One might also bring up the difference between the criminality of

Ireland, which is smaller despite the proverbial poverty there, and the

great criminality of Italy. However, when we study conditions in the

two countries we find that those in Italy are still more undesirable

than those in Ireland, which explains the greater criminality against

property in Italy. The mysterious assassinations of large landholders

and their agents in Ireland have also their cause in the bad

distribution of the land. In Belgium criminality is greatest where

well-being is least (in Flanders). According to the researches of Liszt

and Starcke, the poorest districts of Germany are also those that are

most criminal, etc.

Upon the economic condition of criminals the author gives the following

data: In 1870–71 there were among the prisoners at Neufchâtel 10% who

had some property, and 89% who had only their work for their support

(in the non-criminal population the percentage of these is much

smaller). According to the data of Stevens the prisoners in Belgium

were divided as follows: 1% of well-to-do persons, 11% of persons with

some income, and 88% of indigent persons.

The statistics of recidivists in Sweden from 1870 to 1872 give the

following information:

Well-to-do 0.64 %

With sufficient means of subsistence 10.08 ,,

,, insufficient ,, ,, ,, 43.54 ,,

,, miserable ,, ,, ,, 45.63 ,,

Marro, in his “I caratteri dei delinquenti”, gives us the following:

=====================================+============+================

| Criminals. | Non-criminals.

-------------------------------------+------------+----------------

Without property | 79.6 % | 43.4 %

Minor children of well-to-do parents | 4.1 ,, | 10.5 ,,

With a little property | 6.7 ,, | 18.4 ,,

With considerable property | 9.4 ,, | 27.6 ,,

=====================================+============+================

At the time that they committed their crimes 43% of these criminals in

general, and more than 50% of the criminals against property were

without work.

All that has been given above has to do with statics; what follows has

to do with dynamics. The rule universally observed is this:

modifications in economic conditions are followed by modifications in

criminality. When the former grow worse, the number of crimes (and

especially of those against property) increases, and vice versa. It is

especially the proletariat, who have no means of resisting the

unfavorable influence of crises, a rise in the price of food, etc., who

are hardest hit in these cases.

The author gives some data. In Italy in 1880 a great increase of crime

coincided with a lack of work and with a rise in the price of

provisions. The gradual diminution in criminality must be attributed to

the good harvest and the large emigration. In Belgium the number of

prisoners rose during the crisis of 1846 from 6750 to 9884. In Norway,

in consequence of the depression of 1869, crimes against property

reached the maximum. The number of prisoners in Sweden rose from 1835

to 1839, chiefly because of poverty, from 12,799 to 18,357. A great

increase in crime took place in England in consequence of the crises of

1826, 1830, 1847, and others. In the United States there were in 1884

not less than 400,000 working-men without work, which explains the

following figures:

===================+=========+=========

| 1883 | 1884

-------------------+---------+---------

Homicides | 1,494 | 3,377

Cases of lynching | 92 | 219

Suicides | 910 | 1,897

===================+=========+=========

In consequence of the economic crises of 1839, 1840, 1843, 1847, 1867,

1876, and 1881, the number of murders increased in France. [242]

The maximum stability and the minimum lack of proportion in the

distribution of wealth is the best preservative against crime. The

correctness of this rule is proved by the facts. The small number of

crimes among the Irish is explained by their altruistic sentiments,

which are the consequence of their social institutions from before the

conquest of their country by the English. Among Mohammedans crime is

rare. Also there may be remarked among them a true democracy, based

upon equality and fraternity. The Yorubas (in Eastern Africa) have a

mild character, and they are benevolent and true to their word; with

them the land is considered as common property, etc., etc.

“These are facts which speak clearly: the collectivism of the Javanese

dessa, of the Berber diema, the Russian mir, the Slav zadrouga, and the

village community of the early Aryans and North American Indians,

produces everywhere, with all climates, among all races, identically

the same results—morality and solidarity.

“It is to be noted also, that everywhere and at all times, whether in

the temperate or the frigid zone, in the North, in the South, or at the

equator, laws and institutions which aim to insure certainty of

subsistence and to maintain a certain equality, go far to cut down

crime; and they do it in such a way as to make those who live under

them more moral than those who are subject to different institutions

and laws. We have clear examples of this among the Hebrews, Iroquois,

Peruvians, Chinese, Berbers, etc., although they differ greatly as to

the grade of civilization they have reached.” [243]

IV.

A. BEBEL.

In “Die Frau und der Sozialismus” the author gives the following pages

to the relation between the present social organization and crime: “The

increase of crime of every description is intimately connected with the

social conditions of the community, little as the latter is inclined to

believe it. Society hides its head in the sand, like the ostrich, in

order not to be forced to recognize a state of things that bears

witness against it, and silences its own conscience and others’ with

the lying pretense that laziness and love of pleasure on the part of

the workmen and their want of religion is accountable for everything.

This is hypocrisy of the most revolting kind. The more unfavorable and

depressed the condition of society, the more numerous and grave do

crimes become. The struggle for existence then assumes its most brutal

and violent shape, it throws man back into his primæval state, in which

each regarded the other as his deadly enemy. The ties of solidarity,

not too firm at the best of times, become daily looser.

“The ruling classes, who do not and will not recognize the causes of

things, attempt to effect a change by employing force against the

products of these conditions, and even men whom we should expect to be

enlightened and free from prejudice, are ready to support the system.

Professor Haeckel, for instance, regards the stringent application of

capital punishment as desirable, and harmonizes in this point with the

reactionaries of every shade, who on all other subjects are his

bitterest enemies. According to his theory, hopeless criminals and

ne’er-do-wells must be rooted out like weeds, which deprive the more

valuable plants of light, air, and soil. If Professor Haeckel had

occupied himself even to a slight degree with the study of social

science, instead of limiting himself to natural science, he would have

discovered that all these criminals could be transformed into useful,

valuable members of society, if society offered them more favorable

means of existence. He would have found that the annihilation of the

criminal has just as little effect on crime, i.e. on the development of

fresh crimes, as if on a number of farms the ground were superficially

cleared of weeds while the roots and seeds remained undestroyed. Man

will never be able absolutely to prevent the development of noxious

organisms in nature, but it is unquestionably within his power so to

improve the social organism created by himself, that it may afford

equally favorable conditions of existence and an equal freedom of

growth to all; that no one may be forced to gratify his hunger or his

desire of possession or his ambition at the expense of someone else.

People only need to investigate the causes of crime and to remove them,

and they will abolish crime itself.

“Naturally those who seek to abolish crime by abolishing its causes

cannot take kindly to measures of brutal suppression. They cannot

prevent society from protecting itself against crime in its own way,

but they demand all the more urgently the radical reformation of

society, i.e. the removal of causes.” [244]

“The relationship between social conditions and crime has often been

pointed out by statisticians and sociologists. One of the offenses that

comes closest to us—for our society, in spite of all the Christian

teaching about charity, regards it as a crime—in times of business

depression, is mendicity. We learn from the statistics of the kingdom

of Saxony, that in measure as the last great commercial crisis grew

worse, beginning in Germany in 1890 with the end not yet in sight, the

number of persons sentenced for mendicity also increased. In 1889, in

the Kingdom of Saxony 8566 persons were punished for this offense, 8815

in 1890, 10,075 in 1891, and in 1892 as many as 13,120, a very great

increase. The impoverishment of the masses on the one hand, with

increasing wealth on the other, is the chief mark of our period. In

1874 there was one poor man to 724 persons, while in 1882 the number

had reached 1 to 622. [245] Crimes and misdemeanors show a similar

tendency. In 1874, there were 308,605 persons sentenced in

Austria-Hungary, and 600,000 in 1892. In the German Empire in 1882

there were 329,968 persons sentenced for crimes and misdemeanors

against the laws, i.e. 103.2 persons to 10,000 of the population over

12 years old; in 1892 the number of those sentenced reached 422,327, or

143.3 to the 10,000, an increase of 39%. Those convicted of crimes and

misdemeanors against property were:

1882 169,334 persons, or 53.0 to the 10,000 over 12

1891 196,437 ,, or 55.8 ,, ,, ,, ,, ,,

“We think that these figures speak volumes, that they show how the

deterioration of social conditions increases and multiplies poverty,

need, misdemeanors and crimes.” [246]

V.

P. LAFARGUE.

The first part of the study, “Die Kriminalität in Frankreich von

1840–1886”, is taken up with an examination of the trend of criminality

during these years. The author comes to the conclusion that during this

period crime has increased, and that the line that shows this increase

is made up of a succession of curves, alternately concave and convex.

In the second part, he treats of the causes of crime. He first points

out that the belief that the proclamation of liberty, equality, and

fraternity in the French Revolution would be speedily followed by a

diminution in crime, was not borne out by the facts. Then he takes up

the idea, so widespread in the first half of the 19th century, that one

of the most important causes of criminality is the lack of education.

This hypothesis has been generally recognized as false, in consequence

of an examination of the facts. According to Lafargue, who is entirely

in agreement with Quetelet on this point, it is necessary not only to

examine the qualities of the individual, but also especially to analyze

society, and to try thus to discover the sources of crime. Next the

author shows the results of the researches of Quetelet with regard to

the influence of the season, age, and sex upon criminality, and sets

forth and criticises briefly the theories of Lombroso and his partisans

with regard to the criminal man. We should run to too great length if

we gave more fully his refutation which is as brilliant as it is

accurate.

Some statisticians connect the returns of the harvests and vintages

with criminality. An investigation upon this point as regards France,

gives the following results: the years 1847, 1854, 1868, and 1874,

which are characterized by a great increase of crime, were preceded by

years of bad harvests.

The average of the crops of grain was:

from 1840 to 1853 about 80 million hectolitres

,, 1856 ,, 1885 ,, 100 ,, ,,

the crop rose:

in 1846 to 61 million hectolitres

,, 1853 ,, 63 ,, ,,

,, 1867 ,, 83 ,, ,,

,, 1873 ,, 84 ,, ,,

However, the bad harvests of 1855, 1861, and 1879 did not have these

results, and with the good crops of 1847 to 1852 crime increased. Here

there were, therefore, other factors. Consequently, although the price

of grain can partially explain the fluctuations of criminality, it does

not account for the general increase from 1840 to 1886.

The author combats further the opinion of Professor Lacassagne that

crimes against persons are especially under the influence of the

production and consumption of wine. If this were the case the

wine-growing departments ought to furnish the highest figure for crimes

against persons, which is not the case. On the contrary, Lafargue is of

the opinion that in this respect, the consumption of brandy is of more

importance. The continually increasing abuse of alcohol (i.e. of

spirituous drinks like brandy) which in its turn is due to the

miserable condition of the proletariat, is one of the causes of the

increasing criminality.

Quantity of alcohol consumed:

=======+======================+======================

Year. | Total (Hectolitres). | Per Capita (Litres).

-------+----------------------+----------------------

1850 | 585,200 | 1.46

1855 | 714,813 | 2.00

1860 | 851,825 | 2.27

1865 | 873,007 | 2.34

1875 | 1,010,052 | 2.82

1880 | 1,313,849 | 3.64

1885 | 1,444,342 | 3.86

=======+======================+======================

In the third part Lafargue makes special investigations with regard to

the correlation between economic conditions and criminality. If the

theory of Lombroso were correct, criminality ought to decrease; bad

harvests no longer explain the increase, and the climate has not

changed. However, the increase of criminality coincided with the

enormous increase in the productive forces in France.

=======================================+===========+=============+=============+============

| 1840 | 1860 | 1880 | 1884

---------------------------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+------------

Horse-power of steam engines used | | | |

in manufacturing and agriculture | 34,350 | 177,652 | 544,152 | 683,090

Consumption of coal (in tons) | 4,256,000 | 14,270,000 | 28,846,000 | 30,941,000

Production of iron (in tons) | 585,000 | 1,430,000 | 2,790,000 | 2,747,000

Production of steel (in tons) | 8,262 | 30,000 | 389,000 | 503,000

Exports and imports (in millions | | | |

of francs) | 1,442 | 4,174 | 8,501 | 7,575

Increase of inheritances (in millions | | | |

of francs) | 1,608 | 2,724 | 5,265 | 5,244

National wealth (in millions of | | | |

francs) | 64,320 | 108,960 | 210,600 | 209,760

=======================================+===========+=============+=============+============

There is a close correspondence, then, between the development of the

economic forces and the increase of criminality. Must we regard this as

simply chance, or is there causality between the two? Quetelet has

already pointed out that the poorest districts, i.e. those in which the

absolute wealth is not great, but where the contrasts are not very

marked, furnish fewer criminals than the wealthier provinces. According

to Lafargue this has become still more striking with the development of

capitalism.

“The colossal development of the productive forces and the national

wealth does not lead to the increase of the well-being of all the

members of society, but to enormous fortunes on the one hand, and on

the other to misery and need, for the great majority of the

population.” [247] If the multiplying, grading, and perfecting of

punishments have been incapable of checking the upward progress of

crime, this proves that crimes and misdemeanors against the common law

are the necessary products of conditions, and are closely bound up with

the form and fashion of the creation of social wealth in capitalistic

society.

“The development of the capitalistic mode of production is not uniform;

at times it is over-rapid, and then slows up again and undergoes crises

that destroy the living of thousands and millions of individuals. If it

is correct that modern criminality is a necessary consequence of the

method of the production of wealth in capitalistic society, then the

fluctuations of crime must correspond with the variations in

production. The number of offenses must increase in times of crisis,

and decrease when economic conditions improve; in other words,

criminality is determined by the flourishing or depression of the

capitalistic mode of production.” [248]

As a means of measuring comparative economic conditions, Lafargue has

taken the annual number of failures. He has also traced a curve for the

price of flour. [249]

Examining the first plate we see that lines I and II, although not

entirely parallel with V, follow it in general. According to Lafargue

there are three counter-determinants that caused the deviations: first,

changes in the price of flour; second, political events; third,

extraordinary industrial activity. Thus, for example, it was the

political events of 1848–52 that prevented the decrease of crime during

those years, though the failures and the price of flour went down; and

at the close of 1854 a feverish economic development recommenced,

which, with the fall of the price of flour in 1856–59, caused a

decrease of criminality during those years. At the same time the

failures rose a little; but the line would doubtless show a different

course if it were drawn with reference to the ratio of failures to the

total number of commercial and industrial enterprises in this period.

The low price of flour in 1869 neutralized the increase of failures and

even diminished the criminality. From 1874 to 1878 a new industrial

revival kept crime stationary or reduced it. Since 1876 the failures

have increased greatly and crime follows at a little interval; the

falling price of grain (1881–1885) certainly exerted an influence.

[PLATE I.

I. Crimes against Persons and Property, tried at the Assizes. II.

General Criminality (Crimes and Misdemeanors). III. Offenses against

the Common Law, tried by the Correctional Tribunals. IV. Price of a

Sack of Flour in the Markets of Paris. V. Number of Failures.]

[PLATE II.

I. Thefts with Aggravating Circumstances, tried by the Assizes, and

Simple Thefts, tried by the Correctional Tribunals. II. Theft, Fraud,

Embezzlement, tried by the Correctional Tribunals. III. Number of

Failures and the Price of Flour Combined.]

The curves are almost constantly parallel; the deviations are caused by

political events and by the industrial revival. [250]

Vagrancy and mendicity take the same course as failures; they increase,

however, from 1848 to 1852 in consequence of the political troubles of

those years. From 1878 on, failures, and vagrancy and mendicity

increase and are parallel. In the periods of industrial revival

(1854–59 and 1874–76) vagrancy and mendicity decline sharply. In

examining the curve of recidivism it must be remembered that since 1884

many recidivists have been transported.

[PLATE III.

I. Vagrancy and Mendicity. II. Failures. III. Recidivists sentenced by

the Assizes or the Correctional Tribunals.]

Here we see a result contrary to that on the preceding charts: If the

failures increase the rapes generally decrease, and vice versa.

According to this plate the consumption of alcohol has no relation to

crimes against morals.

[PLATE IV.

I. Rape. II. Consumption of Alcohol. III. Failures.]

At the end of his study the author comes to the following conclusion:

“The effect of bankruptcy upon criminality and politics is undeniable;

it furnishes one of the most striking proofs of the correctness of the

historical theory of Karl Marx, that the phenomena of literature and

art, of morality and religion, of philosophy and politics, in human

society, lead back to the phenomena of economic development.” [251]

VI.

H. DENIS.

Professor Denis begins his report to the 3d Congress of Criminal

Anthropology, entitled “La criminalité et la crise économique”, by

calling attention to the effect that the crisis of 1846–47 had upon

criminality. The crops of wheat, rye, and especially potatoes had been

bad, and the price of these articles of food had accordingly risen. The

breaking up of household labor and the introduction of machines brought

about a revolution in the linen industry at the same time. So the

figures for crime indicate an enormous increase during these years, and

at the close of the period a continuous decrease.

=======+===========================

| Numbers of Delinquents

Years. | to the 10,000 Inhabitants.

-------+---------------------------

1845 | 28.8

1846 | 47.9

1847 | 65.3

1848 | 42.4

1849 | 25.-

1850 | 19.8

1851 | 19.8

1852 | 19.2

1853 | 19.7

=======+===========================

Then the author treats of the effect produced upon criminality by the

crises of 1874 and the years following. The price of grain no longer

giving, in consequence of importation, an exact picture of the economic

conditions, he adds to the chart which he uses, the “nombres

indicateurs” (of 28 of the more important articles of commerce). The

curve of these numbers shows a fluctuating rise during the period from

1850 to 1865, and a fluctuating decline during the period following the

years 1874–75. During the first period, in which the economic

conditions were favorable (the years 1870 to 1873 being characterized

by an economic development that was even feverish), criminality

remained fairly stationary. Only during the years 1856–57 and 1861–62

was there an increase, and this is probably to be ascribed to the high

price of grain. The economic depression that commenced after 1874 was

severely felt, and crime continually increased without the low price of

grain being able to prevent it.

Professor Denis closes his report with the following words: “The

solution of the problem of criminality must be in part sought in

economic conditions; and the more regular and constant the social

movement of wealth, the more we approach a normal equilibrium of

collective functions, the more we instil justice into our economic

institutions, the more shall we be able to gain the mastery over

criminality.

“An Italian criminologist, Ferri, studying the evolution of criminality

in France in relation to the income of the most numerous class, has

shown that with a general rise in wages we see a decrease in certain

kinds of crime. The general increase of prosperity is a sure pledge of

a decrease in criminality. But there is another, and that is a decrease

in those more or less marked oscillations, in the economic world, whose

periodic return is certainly one of the gravest aspects of the modern

state.

“In the second place, the economic causes that affect the tendency to

crime reveal an immense solidarity, which continues to extend itself

into space, as heredity plunges its roots into time. The great

fluctuations in prices are common to the whole world, and the

individual whom these perturbations drive to crime by a series of

shocks, comes into conflict with a great number of other individuals,

without being conscious of this infinite solidarity. But science must

endeavor to collect the evidence of it. Finally these great economic

influences tend, on the one hand, to reduce the field of the individual

responsibility, and on the other, to give a precise character to the

responsibility of society in this connection. It is responsible, in

fact, within the limits within which it might have restrained the

economic fluctuations and corrected their effects, but has not done so.

Here the terrible saying of Quetelet is still true: society herself has

put the weapon into the hand of the criminal.” [252]

VII.

H. LUX. [253]

In the chapter, “Die degenerirenden Einwirkungen des Kapitalismus”,

this author treats of the question of criminality and its relation with

present economic conditions.

“The property-holders, those who enjoy the benefits of all the

political and social institutions, alone have the right to exist. Those

without possessions do not have this right, despite the fiction of the

Prussian code with regard to the matter. The simple instinct of

self-preservation causes them to engage in a continual attack upon a

legal system that protects only the stronger. It is this attack which

those who are in possession of power, those who have drawn up the laws

for the purpose of protecting their power, characterize as a breach of

the law, as crime.... This is the simplest relationship between the

form of society and crime. Naturally, complications come in.... The

stronger those without property, the outlawed, themselves become

through some chance, the more do they modify the law that was set up by

those who were formerly stronger, the more do complications arise in

the primitively simple right of property, the right to the protection

of social institutions, and the law of marriage, and the greater and

more complicated becomes the circle of crimes.” [254]

After having next spoken briefly of free will, and having shown that it

is incorrect to connect criminality with a single social phenomenon

alone, since the social mechanism is too complicated, the author begins

to treat of the crimes against property. In the first place he gives

the following tables:

Germany. [255]

========+========================================================++=========================

| Prices. ||

+----------------------------------+---------------------++ To 10,000 Inhabitants

| In Marks per 1,000 Kilogr. | In Pf. per Kilogr. || Over 10 Years Old.

Years. +-----------+----------+-----------+----------+----------++----------------+--------

| Of Bread. | Of Peas. | Of | Of Beef. | Of Pork. || Crimes Against | Theft.

| | | Potatoes. | | || Property. |

--------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+----------++----------------+--------

1881 | 198 | 251 | 43.5 | 114 | 128 || -- | --

1882 | 171 | 236 | 56.5 | 116 | 128 || 52.9 | 32.6

1883 | 155 | 241 | 45.5 | 120 | 128 || 51.0 | 31.6

1884 | 145 | 229 | 47.0 | 120 | 120 || 50.7 | 30.1

1885 | 147 | 212 | 38.0 | 119 | 120 || 48.6 | 27.9

1886 | 130 | 209 | 39.5 | 117 | 119 || 48.1 | 27.2

1887 | 135 | 198 | 41.5 | 113 | 115 || 47.1 | 26.0

1888 | 144 | 219 | 59.0 | 112 | 114 || 45.9 | 25.4

1889 | 162 | 209 | 42.0 | 117 | 128 || 49.3 | 28.1

========+===========+==========+===========+==========+==========++================+========

Hungary.

============================+======+=======+=======+======+======+======+======+======

| 1881 | 1882 | 1883 | 1884 | 1885 | 1886 | 1887 | 1888

----------------------------+------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+------

Convicted of theft | 19. | 26.7 | 25.7 | 23.4 | 32.2 | 22.0 | 21.7 | 22.3

Crop of maize per hectare | 16.1 | 20.0 | 16.8 | 17.2 | 20.5 | 15.5 | 14.2 | 18.0

,, ,, potatoes per hectare| 81.8 | 110.7 | 109.9 | 80.1 | 92.0 | 77.2 | 79.0 | 85.4

============================+======+=======+=======+======+======+======+======+======

Finally, Dr. Lux cites some statistics from Kolb’s “Handbuch der

vergleichenden Statistik”, which show the close connection between

crimes against property and economic conditions.

Political crimes. “In the case of crimes against the State, public

order, and religion, the dependence upon the form of society is

immediately apparent. The ‘classes’, i.e. the property-owners as a

whole, see in the institutions that they have set up, the strongest

support of the capitalistic system, which must be maintained at any

cost. The property-owners have the power to uphold their unique

position by laws directed against those who would break down that

power. And if the laws are no longer sufficient, their place is taken

by judicial interpretations in the interests of the classes. This is

only the logical consequence of the whole spirit and aim of

legislation. The greater become the rights founded upon property, the

more do those without property feel themselves to be deprived of their

rights,—in the fullest sense of the word—in jeopardy as to their

existence, their full life; the more energetic is the reaction against

the laws, which are felt as despotism; and the more serious is the

attack upon those laws,—a characteristic phenomenon of all periods of

transition as to the form of society.” [256]

The question which presents itself now is this: how far are these

factors connected with existing economic conditions? But before

entering upon this the author calls attention to the environment in

which the children of the proletariat live, and especially of the lower

proletariat, an environment in which misery and vice contend for the

preëminence. There it is nearly out of the question to learn ethical

conceptions. Whence it comes also that in our days criminality among

the young has greatly increased. However, alcoholism must also be named

as one of the most important causes of psychical perturbations.

It is not only the non-possessors, but also the possessors who are

driven to commit crimes as a consequence of existing economic

conditions. “But not only for those without property, for the

proletariat, does capitalism furnish the psychically prerequisite

conditions for crime ... but for the property-holders themselves.

Entirely aside from business practices and tricks of the trade, which

stand upon the hairline between right and wrong, apart from the frauds,

forgeries, etc. that are evoked by too tempting opportunity, there are

more general effects of the capitalistic system. The hurried chase for

gain, the accelerating of commerce by railroad, steamship, telegraph,

and telephone, the multiplication of commercial crises, which earlier

came at intervals, but now are a permanent accompaniment of the social

life, bring about a nervousness running through all circles of society,

that is continually increasing, and is the forerunner of more serious

psychoses. The terrible increase of cases of insanity (in Prussia, to

the 10,000 of the population, in 1871, 5.94 cases; in 1875, 7.28; in

1880, 9.87), appears to be thus directly caused by capitalistic

society.” [257]

However, there act in man as counter-determinants, combating the

factors called criminogenous, the ethical factors (“ethische

Hemmungsvorstellungen”), which are determined by education, character,

the fear of punishment, etc. Those who do not wish to investigate the

deepest causes of criminality, are of the opinion that the best way to

combat crime is by increasing the penalties. The persons who speak thus

forget that the so-called ethical factors have no longer any effect

when the conditions have reached a certain degree of seriousness.

Crimes against persons. It is the industrial workers who form the

greatest contingent of criminals against persons. “The continually

changing conditions of earning a living, the desire for drink, the

slight influence of the family, the being crowded together with persons

of defective education and little training ... these all necessarily

breed crimes of violence; entirely aside from the habitual rowdyism of

the bully [“Zuhälter”], which is to be regarded as the consequence of

prostitution. [258]

Besides the external conditions named above, the person of the criminal

is also to be noticed. We may consider it as proved that in some cases

of crime one of the causes is a mental perturbation (for example, that

caused by drunkenness). These perturbations play a great part in sexual

crimes (perverted instincts). What characterizes most of these mental

anomalies is that they blunt the social instincts. But there is another

cause of psychic degeneracy. “It is a universally valid psycho-physical

law that man, ‘the more he depends upon an agreeable stimulation for

the satisfaction of his senses, demands ever stronger stimuli, even to

secure the same degree of pleasure.’ Pleasures, especially sensual

pleasures, must always become more intense, more titillating, in order

to afford satisfaction, but the more their intensity increases, the

more do the nerves become irritated and exhausted, and the more quickly

is the ground prepared for mental diseases either in the individual

himself or in his descendants.—It must be emphasized, however, that

such an increase in the stimulus is only possible to the rich, and

accordingly it is with reference to them chiefly that these sources of

mental disturbances are to be taken into consideration.” [259]

After having called attention to the great amount of recidivism among

female delinquents, to the great increase of crime in our own day, and

to the great percentage of young people among the criminals, the author

closes with the following words: “Crime belongs in a society founded

upon capitalism just as necessarily as do prostitution, the destruction

of countless human lives through economic exploitation, etc.”

VIII.

P. HIRSCH.

After having shown in the first chapter of his work, “Verbrechen und

Prostitution”, [260] the relation between criminality and prostitution,

and the increase of the two at the same time, the author gives, in his

second chapter, a short exposition of the doctrine of criminal

anthropology, and in the third chapter he takes up the doctrine of the

social environment.

Here he treats first of the encouragement of prostitution and crime by

the marriage restrictions. Marriages increase or decrease as economic

conditions grow better or worse. So, for example, in Prussia there

were, from 1866 to 1870, 1605 marriages to 100,000 of the population;

this number rose to 1896 in the period of prosperity between the years

1870 and 1875, only to fall, in 1888, to 1624. In bad times the number

of illegitimate births makes a consequent increase. It is very

comprehensible that natural children furnish a greater number of

criminals than legitimate children, since they have more difficulty in

enduring the combat of life than the others.

Then he sets forth as a cause of crime the influence of domestic

relations. When the parents belong already to the class of criminals,

it is almost inevitable that their children should fall into the hands

of justice while still young. And the present system of production

brings it about that the education of the children of the proletariat

is almost nil, since it obliges the father, and very often the mother

also, to work away from home during a great part of the day and often

of the night. The situation is still more unfavorable for the children

who have lost their parents when they were still quite young. Starke

says that about 57% of the legitimate children among the juvenile

prisoners in Plötzensee were orphans or had been abandoned by their

parents.

The third part has to do with the housing conditions of the

proletariat. “A lodging fit for a human being is the first requirement

for the bodily and mental welfare of the family; it is the prerequisite

for a well-regulated family life, and for the rearing of the children

to be moral men and women. The improprieties resulting from the

exigencies of insufficient lodgings are innumerable, and this condition

is an inexhaustible source of crime, prostitution, and vice of every

kind.” All the data prove that the proletariat, who, of all classes,

pay the highest rent, are the most miserably housed. In Berlin, for

example, the poorest classes have been shown to spend on an average a

quarter of their income for rent. In Hamburg the part of the income

that had to go for rent among the class whose income was from 600 to

1200 marks, in 1868 was 18.77%, in 1874 20.90%, in 1882 23.51%, and in

1892 24.71%, while the percentage remained the same or decreased for

all other classes. In order to make up the resulting deficit, resort is

often had to night-lodgings. “The disadvantages of subletting are

obvious. ‘Children of both sexes have to sleep with their parents, and

often with strangers, in the same room, often even in the same bed; the

advantages of domesticity are lost; the tavern offers more pleasant

entertainment than being crowded together with wife and children in one

room that must be shared with strangers, and in which the opportunity

for quarreling and fighting, in consequence of the narrow quarters, is

constant. It is the bad housing conditions that are the cause of the

increasing alcoholism, of the break-up of the family life, and of the

lack of education for the youth.’ (Braun).” [261]

The chapter that concerns us next treats of the subsidiary businesses

engaged in by school children. It goes without saying that in the cases

where the wages of the father of the family must be increased by the

labor of the mother, the children also must be put to work at an age at

which they ought to have their leisure time for play. For though

child-labor in factories is a little limited by legislation, it is

still commonly practiced in household industry. Further most of the

children of the proletariat must, in their free hours, do all kinds of

work harmful to their physique and their morals. “It is plain to be

seen how greatly the school-children are injured by engaging in

additional work. Entirely aside from the harm they suffer in the matter

of health, and from the fact that the tired children cannot give

sufficient attention to the words of the teacher and that for many of

them their instruction is as good as lost, is the great fact that their

morals are in the highest degree endangered. Under the pressure of

necessity, these children learn to grasp every advantage, whether

allowable or not, and—not through their own fault, but through that of

society—are precociously familiar with vice.” [262] “Any one who

examines these conditions will not be surprised that according to the

statement of Superintendent Schönberger, out of 100 juvenile prisoners

in the Plötzensee prison near Berlin, 70 had been employed during

school days as breakfast-carriers, newsboys, messengers,

bowling-alley-boys, etc., early in the morning, from half past four on,

and in some cases still earlier, until school time, and in the

afternoon either the whole time, or from four till half past seven or

half past eight at night.” [263]

Next, Hirsch examines the influence of economic crises. He quotes,

among other things, the following from the researches of J. S(chmidt).

During the economic depression from 1875 to 1878 the number of

punishments inflicted by the “Ordnungspolizei” in the country of Baden

rose from 16,218 to 22,264, and that of the penalties inflicted by the

“Sittenpolizei” (having surveillance of prostitution) from 1995 to

4485. There were increases, therefore, of 40% and 125%. In the period

of prosperity from 1882 to 1885 these figures fell from 22,765 to

18,856 (16%), and from 4106 to 4007 (3%). During the critical years

from 1889 to 1892 the number of recidivists convicted of theft rose

18%, and the number of other thieves convicted 6%. In the period from

1875 to 1878 (years of crisis) the number of offenses against property

rose 17.4%, and decreased 13% in the years 1882 to 1885 (a period of

prosperity).

In conclusion the author points out the fact that there are also

criminals who are predisposed to crime by their physical constitution

(mental disorders), and treats of “the repression of crime and

prostitution.” [264]

CHAPTER VIII.

CONCLUSIONS.

Having come to the end of my exposition, I have still to sum up the

different chapters. As we have seen, a very small proportion of the

authors who have taken up the subject, deny the existence of the

relation between criminality and economic conditions, and in my opinion

they have not proved the correctness of their position.

The great majority of authors are of the opinion that economic

conditions occupy a more or less important position, but that other

factors besides these are also at work. I have tried to show that as

far as these factors are of a cosmic or religious nature, this thesis

cannot be correct; that as far as they are of an anthropological

nature, they play a rôle only with regard to a part of criminality.

Finally, we have seen that a small number of authors are of the opinion

that the influence of economic factors is sovereign. I have been able

to find no inaccuracies in the foundations of their theses.

Nearly all the authors—later I shall speak of the exceptions—have this

in common, that they give a very limited meaning to the words “economic

factors”, under which they include only poverty and wealth, and that

they do not inquire whether these phenomena do not themselves need

explanation, and whether economic conditions have not a great influence

upon the whole social organization. They consider them as being

phenomena of the same value as the other sides of the social life. In

other words, most authors have omitted to explain the present mode of

production and its consequences.

However, economic conditions, in my opinion, occupy an entirely

different place; they are the foundation upon which the social

structure rests. To make my thought clear I will once more call

attention to the classic formula of this doctrine, originated by Marx

and Engels, taken from the preface to the work, “Zur Kritik der

politischen Oekonomie”, which I have already quoted in treating of the

theories of Professor Ferri.

“In the social production of their life men enter into fixed, necessary

relationships in production, independent of their will, relationships

which correspond to a definite stage in the development of their

material powers of production. The sum total of these relationships

forms the economic structure of society, the real basis upon which the

juristic and political superstructure is erected, and to which definite

forms of social consciousness correspond. The form of production of the

material life conditions the social, political, and intellectual

life-process in general. It is not the consciousness of mankind that

determines their being, but their social being that determines their

consciousness.” [265]

In the second part of this work I will try to sketch a treatment of the

question according to this theory. As regards economic conditions I

shall limit myself, for different reasons, to the present system, i.e.

modern capitalism.

These reasons are the following:

First. A really scientific examination of the causes of criminality is

only possible since the existence of criminal statistics, i.e. since

the beginning of the 19th century. [266]

Second. Criminality has increased greatly under capitalism, and is of

the greatest importance to the whole social life.

Third. An examination of historic criminality is very interesting; that

of our own day is still more so. However, social science is not simply

a means of solving interesting problems, but also, and chiefly, a means

of pointing out to society the way to protect itself from scourges like

criminality, or if possible, to get rid of them entirely. Here the

saying of Marx applies: “The philosophers have only interpreted the

world differently; the important thing is to alter it.”

Above I have already remarked that some authors have an opinion that

differs from that of the majority, and are in agreement with the theory

cited. Among these must be cited Engels, one of the two founders of

this theory, and most of the authors of whom I spoke in the last

chapter. However, Engels has only made, in passing, some observations

upon the influence of capitalism on crime among the workers in

factories; Hirsch, in his interesting brochure, has pointed out only

certain sides of the economic life; and although the studies concerning

this question published by Lafargue and by Lux are more complete than

those of the first two authors, there are nevertheless important points

which these last have not examined, or to the bottom of which they have

not gone, as it seems to me. And it is quite comprehensible that it

should be so; for the work of Lafargue is only a magazine article, and

that of Dr. Lux is one of the subdivisions of a social-political

manual, in which he treats of crime among other social phenomena. The

works of the other authors noticed in Chapter VII, do not make the

study of the question in the manner noted, useless.

I am of the opinion, then, that while the works quoted have made

considerable progress, there is still much to be done. It therefore

appears to me that it will not be without profit to take up the

subject.

The theory of Marx and Engels results in our having a method of

investigation already marked out. While most authors who have published

studies upon the question, have thought it unnecessary to give an

exposition of the economic system in which we live, or perhaps have

given a little attention to it along with other social conditions, I

shall begin by setting forth the present economic system as that upon

which the other parts of the social life rest. These I shall treat in

their turn, in so far as they are connected with criminality. It is

obvious that this will be only a sketch, for if one wished all the

details, it would be enough to refer to the special literature upon the

subject. Then I shall investigate the question of how far criminality,

under its different forms, is the consequence of the conditions we have

found.

[Note to the American Edition: According to some criticisms of my book

it should have been my task not only to give a sketch of the economic

theory of Marx, but also to prove it “in extenso” and to refute the

criticisms of it, since it is not universally accepted.

It is true that this theory has not been generally accepted—a thing

that would be impossible from the social consequences of such

acceptation—but I claim that of all the economic theories, that of Marx

is the only one that daily wins more adherents, and more and more

interpenetrates all social science—even in the case of authors who are

the bitterest opponents of this theory.

To require that a book like mine should once more set forth and defend

the theory of Marx “in extenso”, is as impossible as to require that a

modern biologist, who proceeds upon the basis of the Darwinian theory,

should prove over again that his basis is sound. That there may be more

or less error in detail in the theory of Marx, as in that of Darwin, is

possible, but in general they have resisted, like a wall of bronze, all

attacks in the most pitiless of contests, that of opinions.

Let the adversaries of Marx’s theory judge without prejudice whether

that theory does not constitute a great step in advance in

criminology!]

PART TWO.

BOOK I.

THE PRESENT ECONOMIC SYSTEM AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

CHAPTER I.

THE PRESENT ECONOMIC SYSTEM. [267]

In order to provide for his needs man has always been obliged to work,

and this work has always depended upon the physical environment and

especially upon the means of production. It is not our province to

enquire how or why the means of production were developed. It is enough

to show that because of their development the products which man had at

his disposal were multiplied. Now when these products become too

abundant for one group of producers, a surplus results, which may be

exchanged for products of a different sort of which the first group of

producers are deprived by reason of their circumstances. These

products, which are not destined for personal use but for exchange are

called commodities. Consequently it is its social qualities and not its

natural qualities that make a commodity of any given product. That an

exchange may be made, then, two conditions must be satisfied:

First, There must have been a division of labor; for there would be no

point in the exchange of identical products. The objects to be

exchanged are those which have no immediate usefulness for the person

who possesses them, while they are useful to those who do not possess

them.

Second, The persons who are exchanging must have full power to dispose

of their products—in other words, they must be the possessors of the

product which they wish to exchange.

In the beginning the relative quantities of the products exchanged for

each other must have varied greatly. But in course of time the exchange

of commodities took place in a ratio fixed for any one place and time;

ten hatchets, for example, being equivalent to five bows, etc. These

commodities must have a common quality which makes a comparison

possible; and it is this common quality which we call their value. The

first problem to be solved, then, is this: “What constitutes the value

of commodities?”

To become a commodity anything must provide for some need of man; it

must have the value of usefulness. Without this value a product can

never be a commodity. However, it is impossible that the quality which

different commodities have in common, and on the basis of which they

are compared, should be their usefulness, that is to say, their natural

qualities. For it is just because of their difference in usefulness [to

their possessors] that goods are exchanged.

“As regards their use-value goods are primarily of different quality;

as regards their exchange-value they can only be of different quantity,

without including a particle of use-value.” [268]

Since usefulness does not count in exchange there is only one quality

of the commodity that remains, that of being the product of labor. And

as we have withdrawn the consideration of usefulness in estimating

exchange-value, we must do the same for different kinds of work, so

that the only quality which remains to a commodity is that of being the

product of the labor of man in general. Any commodity, then, derives

its value only from the circumstance that it represents a certain

amount of labor of man in general.

The value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labor it

represents, measured by the time required. Naturally by “work” is to be

understood here not individual work, but social work; or as Marx says:

“It is ... the quantity of work socially necessary, or the time

socially necessary for the production of a commodity, which determines

its value.” [269]

In measure as the division of labor is developed, production for

personal use diminishes, and the production of commodities increases,

until it finally becomes the universal form of production, and one

commodity (money) is developed as a universal equivalent. As a

consequence of the development of the production of merchandise, the

purchase and sale of goods becomes a special profession. The merchant

buys for a different reason from that which influences his customers.

While the latter buy for consumption, the former buys to sell again and

make a profit out of the transaction. The commodity which serves for

this purpose is called capital.

Consequently capital comes into existence at the moment when the

production of commodities has attained a certain degree of development.

Private property, the basis of the production of commodities, begins

from that point to show its capitalistic character, at first in an

imperceptible manner, which nevertheless becomes more and more

developed. The income of the artisan depends primarily upon his

personal qualities; that of the capitalist—as such—depends in the first

place upon the amount of his capital. The working power and capacity of

an individual are limited, so that the quantity that he can produce is

also limited; while money can be heaped up without limit. The larger

the sum of money anyone uses as capital, the more the money can

produce. But the reverse of the medal is not so pretty. Side by side

with the possibility of accumulating a fortune there is that of

becoming poor. This fact was not prominent at the entrance of

capitalism into the field, when poverty was not yet a general

phenomenon, but it increased more and more, so that at present we live

in a society in which the greater part of the population is poor.

In the Middle Ages the trades were developed in Europe; the division of

labor increased; tools were perfected; and commerce was developed,

chiefly as a consequence of the improvement of the means of

communication. The maritime route to India was discovered as well as

the American continent. Enormous sums of money, acquired by means of

commerce and pillage, flowed into Europe. With the discovery of these

countries the outlets for trade correspondingly increased. The trades,

however, not being in a position to furnish the great quantity of

commodities required, the merchants determined themselves to undertake

the wholesale production of articles intended exclusively for sale.

There was no lack of money to procure the raw materials and the tools,

to establish workshops and to hire workmen. The only difficulty to be

overcome was that of procuring these last. The workman who has in his

own possession the means of production will not sell his labor. To

attain their end the capitalists had to seek for persons who, having no

means of production, were obliged to sell their productive energy or

die of hunger.

For certain reasons it was possible for the needs of the capitalists to

be satisfied. On account of the development of the market in the cities

the demand for food, and for raw materials of every kind, such as wood,

wool, etc., increased, and agricultural production for the purpose of

sale increased, so that the peasants began to have money. This latter

fact complicated the relation between them and the feudal lords. So

long as the rent was paid in kind the lord demanded only as much as he

could consume; but from the day that the rent began to be paid in money

the landowner began to press the peasant more and more, since money can

always be used, and no one ever has enough. From this fact arose so

severe an exploitation that many peasants left the country to take

refuge in the towns.

The second reason why a large number of workmen were obtainable was

that the lords themselves began to produce commodities for city

markets, especially wool and wood. This took fewer laborers than

agriculture, but required more land, so that many peasants were driven

from their farms and, like the others, went to swell the population of

the cities.

Thus there was no further obstacle to wholesale production, and from

then on raw materials were purchased, workshops established, and the

labor of the proletariat procured. Human labor thus has become a

commodity, corresponding exactly to definition: first, it has no

use-value for the possessor if he has not the means of production, and,

on the other hand, has such a value for the person possessing these

means; second, the possessor of labor has the free disposition of it.

The contract is made; the proletariat on the one side furnishes the

commodity—labor—and the capitalist on the other gives the equivalent of

it. Now how much must be given for this commodity? In other words what

is the value of the labor delivered? The value of a commodity is

determined by the labor-time socially necessary for its production, in

this case necessary for the proletarian and his family to live; for the

workman being mortal, and capital having need of new forces, the wage

must be sufficient to raise a new generation of workers. The standard

of the workman’s needs is subject to variation according to time and

place (the causes of which variation we need not examine here), but it

is fixed for a certain country, time, and category of workers.

Let us suppose now that the process of production has a normal course,

that is to say, that it comes out as the capitalist wishes. He has

begun with a sum, A, and ends by possessing A + a. We must now explain

this surplus a, which, in the terminology of capitalistic production,

is called surplus-value. The surplus obtained from the labor of slaves

is easily explained. The owner leaves the slaves a part of the product

of their own labor to live on. The rest is his. His surplus springs

from the labor of others. The relation of the serf and his lord is, if

possible, even clearer. The serf works part of the week for himself and

on the remaining days for his master. The explanation of the surplus

produced by capital employed at usury or in primitive commerce (the

most ancient forms under which capital was employed) no longer offer

any great difficulties. The usurer appropriated to himself the

possessions of the borrower little by little and so ruined him

completely. The primitive merchant made himself a surplus by selling

dear something that he had bought at a trivial price, a transaction

which involved no increase in value. Now it is just this increase in

value that is to be explained upon the basis of the law that things of

equal value are exchanged, and not, as in the cases cited above, upon

the exceptions to the law.

If we represent the transaction of one who buys, not to make a profit,

but to exchange something which has no use-value for him for something

which has such a value (the simple circulation of commodities), by the

formula C—M—C, in which C stands for commodities and M for money, we

can represent the transaction of the capitalist by M—C—(M + m). In this

formula m stands for the surplus-value accruing to the capitalist at

the end of a successful operation. The latter formula is composed of

the factors M—C, the purchase of the commodity, and C—(M + m), the

sale. According to the law of the circulation of commodities the value

of M ought to be equal to C, but C in turn must be equal to M + m, a

thing which is possible only if C is a commodity which, while it is

being consumed, produces a value greater than what it has. However,

there is no value without labor; consequently the formula cited can

harmonize with reality only if labor is itself a commodity. And, as we

have seen above, it is such from the moment that the economic

development has reached a certain point.

What is now the course of the production of the surplus-value? The

capitalist has fitted up a factory, has procured tools and raw

material, has hired labor, and the process of production commences.

Suppose that the necessaries of life for the workman and his family may

be produced by six hours of work socially necessary; by making him

work, then, six hours the capitalist will have a product equal to that

of the raw material used, increased by that which is given it by the

tools and by the labor which the workman has put upon it. This value,

however, has been entirely paid out by the capitalist; he has no

surplus left; the transaction has failed. But ordinarily the process

succeeds in procuring profits for the capitalist, since in the contract

between him and the laborer it is not stipulated that the latter shall

work only the number of hours necessary to produce enough for his own

needs. On the contrary the workman is compelled to labor as long as his

strength will permit. The value produced by the workman after the time

necessary for the production of the equivalent of his needs falls to

the capitalist, and this it is which constitutes the surplus-value, the

value derived from work not paid for.

The aim of the capitalist is to procure for himself as large a

surplus-value as possible. He can attain his end at once by forcing the

laborer to work as long a time as it is possible for him to work. From

this springs the irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the

proletariat and those of capital, the combat over the length of the

working-day. The day has its natural limits (it is necessary that

certain hours be left to the workman for food and rest), its legal

limits (decreed too late by the state, driven on one side by the

workers themselves, and on the other by the plain certainty that

without this protection the working class would become enfeebled), and

finally its limits fixed by the pressure of the labor unions.

However, there is still one other way in which the surplus-value is

increased, as I shall explain by what follows. Let us suppose the

length of the working day to be twelve hours, and the time necessary

for the production of the equivalent of the workman’s needs to be six

hours. We can then represent the day as follows:

A----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----B

C

CB is consequently the time in which the surplus-value is produced. The

aim of the capitalist, then, is to protract the period CB as much as

possible, and this he can accomplish in two ways: first, that of which

we have just spoken, the prolongation of AB; second, the shortening of

AC in order that CB may be as long as possible, or in other words, the

shortening of the time necessary for the production of the necessaries

of life for the workman and his family. When the productivity of labor

rises, the value of the commodities falls; and when the value of the

commodities which the workman needs for his support falls, the value of

labor falls also. However, the increase of the productivity of labor is

only possible through the improvement of the means of production and

the methods of working, so that capitalism modifies its manner of

production unceasingly. In general the capitalist does not take account

of the fact that the more cheaply commodities are produced for sale,

the more the value of labor falls, and, other things being equal, the

more the surplus-value increases. The capitalist strives constantly to

make improvements in his methods of production in order to surpass his

competitors. Supposing that, by the employment of a new method of

working, he succeeds in producing in half an hour an article up to that

time generally made in an hour, he will then obtain an extra profit as

long as his competitors do not employ this method. But as soon as the

latter have improved their production in the same way, the time

socially necessary falls from an hour to half an hour, and the extra

profit of the man who first introduced the method ceases. The result

that remains is this: the value of labor has decreased, and the

relative surplus-value has consequently increased, in so far as the

commodities whose value has declined are destined to provide for the

needs of the workmen.

Before entering upon the consideration of some of the methods for

shortening the necessary hours of labor, attention must be fixed upon

the fact that, aside from this method, the capitalist tries above all

to lower the price of labor below its value, while the workers, for

their part, oppose this tendency and try to obtain the contrary; whence

there results a new cause for an inexorable struggle between labor and

capital, side by side with that over the length of the working-day.

Let us now examine the methods of abridging the labor-time necessary,

beginning with coöperation. As we have seen above the capitalistic

method of production begins when the capitalist has in his service a

sufficiently large number of workmen. In the days of the guilds the

master had also paid workers, but the surplus-value which he procured

from them was not great, since their number was small, a fact which

obliged him to work with them, since without this his income would have

been too small. The true capitalist is he who is permitted by the

amount of the surplus-value which he receives to live according to his

rank, without working with his laborers, reserving to himself only the

direction of affairs.

The difference, therefore, between capitalistic production and that at

the time of the guilds is in the first place only quantitative, but

there come in qualitative differences as well. In the first place the

differences in the individual capacities of the workmen disappear; the

ability of one neutralizes the smaller ability of the other, so that

the capitalist can count upon an average amount of labor. Next there is

economy in the new arrangement; because a structure to hold twenty-five

workmen working together costs less than twenty-five structures with

one workman in each. Finally, and most important of all, by having a

number of men working together, each doing his own share toward the

common end, we bring about a systematic working together, that is to

say, coöperation, which brings into being a new collective force

greater than the sum of the individual forces. Not only does

coöperation permit the accomplishment of work requiring a greater

expenditure of energy, but it also raises the productivity of labor.

The direction necessary for this joint labor falls to the capitalist as

such. Submission of the workman to the capitalist is, then, an

indispensable condition of the capitalistic method of production.

We come now to another method for increasing the relative amount of the

surplus-value, the manufactory proper, a more developed form of

coöperation, which became general between the middle of the sixteenth

century and the end of the eighteenth. This comes from two causes. On

the one side it is due to the combination of different trades, up to

that point independent of each other. The manufacture of a carriage,

for example, requires the work of a wheelwright, a harness-maker, a

painter, etc., who all exercise their trades independently of each

other. The capitalist unites them all in one trade, that of

carriage-maker, in which the occupation of each becomes more limited,

more specialized. The painter, for example, becomes especially a

painter of carriages. On the other side the manufactory is due to the

bringing together of workmen of the same trade into a single workshop,

and to the division of labor made possible in this way. Thus, for

instance, in the manufacture of pins, each pin is no longer made by a

single workman but by several, each of whom does only a special part of

the work.

It is clear that through the introduction of manufactory methods the

productivity of labor has been enormously increased, so that the time

necessary for the production of the necessaries of life for the workmen

has become shorter, and the surplus-value correspondingly augmented.

The part taken by the workman in the process of production is quite

different from what it was in the time of the guilds. The different

operations that he performed in making the complete product are now

replaced by the monotonous and repeated production of a single one of

the parts. From this point dates the division of workmen into skilled

and unskilled laborers. The latter are those whose work is such as to

require little or no apprenticeship, and they are the cause of a new

lowering of the price of labor.

We have still to take up the question of the introduction of machinery

and of manufacturing on a large scale. Although at the period of the

early manufactories the workman was obliged to perform a monotonous

task, which in so far may be called “mechanical”, yet this task was

performed, though with the aid of tools, by his own hands. But in the

eighteenth century the machine was invented, that is to say, a

mechanism which took the place both of the workman and of his tools.

Machines were introduced because they saved hand-work, and consequently

lowered the price of the product and relatively increased the

surplus-value.

Each developed mechanism is composed of three parts: the motor, the

transmission, and the operating part. It is to the development of this

last that the economic revolution of the eighteenth century is due.

However, there was needed a motive power greater and more regular than

those then available. The steam-engine, invented by James Watt,

provided for this need and, in its turn, led to new developments of

operating machinery. The steam-engine was capable of running many

operating machines at the same time, and thus the modern factory was

established. In branches in which the product requires a series of

different manipulations, a system of machines has been contrived of

which one furnishes the material to the next without the intervention

of hands, so that a system of automatic mechanism has been produced.

The revolution caused by the introduction of machines in one branch of

industry necessitated its introduction into another, etc. The means of

communication and of transportation were extended. The steamboat, the

railroad, and the telegraph were invented. Because of important

inventions in the manufacture of machines it finally became possible to

produce the necessary quantity of machines of all kinds.