Role of Marxist Critiques of Law and Ideology in Execution of Modern Law in the Society - Essay Example

Role of Marxist Critiques of Law and Ideology in Execution of Modern Law in the contemporary society Name: Course: Professor: Institution: City and State: Date: The law systems have the responsibility of upholding justice in the society. There have been critiques of the factors that motivate liberal jurisprudence. The Marxist theory of law is concerned about the role of law in addressing the structural inequalities that are a common feature in the capitalist societies. These critiques do not share the same perspective as orthodox jurisprudence. They question some elements of liberal legalism and feel that the gap between the members of the society should be addressed. They have always expressed an oppositional role as they attempt to controvert the conventional wisdom of liberal legalism. From the doctrines of these Marxists, we can mention a couple of themes on which their arguments incline. Firstly, Marx himself felt that Law happens to be inescapably political or to put in other words, law is a form of politics. Secondly, they feel that Law and the State are connected and thus subject to influence by the state. Law tends to exhibit a relative independence from the very state. Thirdly, they feel that the law has a direct effect on the status of the economy. It reflects just like a mirror the economic conditions of a given society. It tends to express the economic relations in a given society. Marx also felt that the law has the potential to be coercive. It is a reflection of the state’s position of being a monopoly of perpetrating coercion. The modern law has been faced by such criticism though we must agree that it has some aspects that benefit the common citizen in the long run. In the face of historical changes, there has been a transition from primitive communism to feudalism to capitalism and the possible future translation from capitalism to socialism. Marx challenged the oppression of the poor that came with the capitalist society. The society was alienated into social classes. Social actions in sixties and seventies also sought a change in jurisprudence of liberty. Social protests by civil rights movements by such groups as feminists, black power, and gay liberation suggested quest for liberty. Some scholars felt that such movements and protests were provoked by the modern nature of the legislation over the globe (Gavigan, 1981). Let’s examine Marx concern of the 19th-century capitalism about law. Marx felt that the transition from feudalism to capitalism and the subsequent rise of Bourgeoisie would suppress conservative traditions. He argued that further increase economic efficiency would be possible due to investment in capitalist principles within national borders and internationally. It would be appropriate to give capitalism a chance as it would lay a platform for scientific, technological and economic advancement, elements that would better the living standards of the citizens. However, Marx and Engels felt that capitalism was grossly unfair. It is a system that is unjust as it allowed exploitation of the poor by the rich. Moreover, it runs on an organization that hindered full development and exploitation of available economic resources for the benefits of all the members of the society (Haggar, 2013). Marx saw a detachment in social classes in the capitalist society. He identified them as the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat (Haggar, 2013). The former own all the means of production (Haggar, 2013). These are the capitals used to generate revenue from goods and services. They include land, machinery, factories, raw materials and the firms that run the businesses. On the other hand, the Proletariat owns just a little or have no property at all and work for the Bourgeoisie to earn a living. Those who fell in between would be absorbed either side. The two classes are totally dependent on one another as the Bourgeoisie hires the proletariat to facilitate production of goods and services for sale while the proletariats have to depend on the other class for jobs and income. The relationship amongst the two classes is characterized by exploitation and conflict (Norman, 1972). Marx later on suggested that advancement of shared stock companies would lead to whiter collar jobs and thus the formation of the middle class (Bob, 1978). These critiques felt that the law should see the harm done to the Proletariat by the capitalist society. They were victims of poor payment while they did the donkey work to earn a living. They would have to work for long hours and earning wages that never conformed to what they did. They were victims of poor housing, poor education and had no access to good health facilities. They were exploited before the eyes of the judicial systems. We see the concern of the Marxists that the capitalists are motivated by their quest for profit rather than a commitment to provide and meet human needs. They make decisions on what goods to produce and services to offer and set the prices without involving the other stakeholders. The eventual determination of creation of these goods and services is defined by the capitalists alienating the workers from the products they sweat to produce (Haggar, 2013). The law of liberty insists that, the goods produced by the capitalists for profit accomplish and meet the real human needs. Marxists are concerned by the tendency of the capitalists to create false needs through such means as advertising just for profit generation. In capitalism, workers lack control over the entire production process as everything is more about division of labor characterized by boring tasks that are ever repetitive. There is no room for creativity and these people only attend these jobs to make their ends meet. The jurisprudence of liberty has spared so much space for the capitalists to exploit the poor by providing cheap labour. They decide what these workers should do, decide their wage rates and set the rules without involving them. They have no chance to be creative in other forms of socially useful activities. There is a wall between them and those in the capitalist society. The capitalists look at them as objects of their production process to provide labor and generate profit for them. They ignore their gifts and talents and are made to look at other workers as competitors for the scarce job opportunities rather than their collaborators in the fruitful production process. The capitalists are never bothered that they take away human happiness and welfare by tying the workers in the production process and sidelining them in decision making. Marx believed that workers would finally stand against their sources of exploitation and join hands in abolition of capitalism and thus eliminate the aspect of their alienation from the production process. Those who advocate for capitalism believe that in advance capitalism, workers would derive satisfaction in highly advanced technology industries, from application of their skills as their autonomy and judgments would be fully involved. Marxists still feel that such arguments are overstated, and the law of liberty is not doing enough to bring about a balance. The aspect of alienation extends to other areas in the society as seen in schools where learners are sent to and are not directly involved with what happens in the society. They are alienated from such things as a political process that affects their future directly. The politicians make decisions that affect the system of education without involving them. Civil servants in some department having no much to offer in decision making as their roles are restricted to what they are hired to do. They are alienated and can do little about it as they have to earn a living. Their freedom is limited, and their responsibility in their every-day life would not allow them to quit their jobs. The Marxists see the conflict between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat as provoked by their different interests. The capitalists aim at increasing work intensity while restricting wages so as to maximize profits. The workers advocate reduced work intensity with increased wages so as to better their working and living standards. These different interests provoke social protests and strikes that someday might result to abolition of the capitalist system. The capitalist are the dominant class and tend to have a direct influence over the entire state which devices and implements laws. The law awards them the capacity to use force and grant some political and economic concern to the poor, and keep on exploiting them (Haggar, 2013). Modern Marxists also criticize the law of liberty as they haven’t seen changes pertaining the impact of capitalist in the society. Miliband argues that Managerial Revolution did not accomplish the intended project (Haggar, 2013). The managers’ attitudes and values were similar to those of the owners as divisions in classes still persisted. They also own a lot of company shares and are carried away by the quest for profits, as in fact, these companies depend on the profitability for survival. The onset of nationalization never moderated the power of the capitalist class as generous compensation had been involved (Norman, 1972). The nationalized industries hired managers from sectors that propagated similar business approaches and objectives. This sabotaged the initial intentions of eliminating class divisions. Any redistribution of available income happened just between the very rich and the comfortably off at the expense of the poor, in the eyes of the law of liberty. There were social class differences in the educational system as it was not affordable to all. The lower class would hardly manage to shoot to the upper class as an economic class would easily pass on power, wealth and privilege to the subsequent generations in the same family line. All these arguments have tried to show how law has been political in addressing the matters in the society. The power is stuck with the capitalists who run the economy. The connection between law and the state has been illuminated. The state formulates the laws that work for those in power at the expense of the needy who are constantly exploited by the capitalists. The Marxists have criticized the effect of law on the economy. While nationalization was meant to bridge the gap between classes (Bob, 1978), the state hired managers who had doctrines similar to those of the capitalists. The poor continued to suffer, and the middle class is taking too long to be realized. We have to agree that the law of liberty has been there for a society in so many ways. Despite all this criticism, it has facilitated justice for the poor and the less fortunate in the society. It has defended the rights of the people regardless of their position in the society. Nevertheless, the Marxists have done well in an attempt to bridge the gap between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. Works Cited Bob, F., 1978. Law and Class. London: Hutchinson. Gavigan, S., 1981. Marxist theories of law: A survey, with some thought on women and law. Canadian Criminology Forum, 4(1), pp. 1-12. Haggar, R., 2013. Marxist Theory and Capitalist Class Structures. [Online] Available at: http://www.earlhamsociologypages.co.uk/marxclasscap.htm [Accessed 30 November 2014]. Norman, G., 1972. Marx and Critique of Political Economy. London: Fontana. Read More