Those who are familiar with Marxist economic theory know that Karl Marx in the third volume of Capital actually refuted his labor theory of value, recognizing that prices can deviate from value for a long time. Here, too, is the refutation of orthodox Marxist theory in a somewhat different aspect, in the aspect of the interconnection between the class struggle of the proletariat and economic crises: It would simply be a tautology to say that crises occur because of a lack of solvent consumption or solvent consumers (Hagan, 2017). The capitalist system does not know of any other forms of consumption other than consumption of paid consumption, except for consumption of sub forma pauperis (in the form of consumption of a beggar-ed.) Or consumption of a swindler The fact that goods cannot be sold means only one thing: for these goods there are no solvent buyers, i.e. consumers (since ultimately the goods are bought for the producer when this tautology is attempted to give a more in-depth justification, arguing that the working class receives too little of its own product and that, consequently, trouble can be helped if it receives a larger share of the product.
That is, in this case, in fact, Marx argues that the struggle of workers to improve their situation can aggravate the crisis phenomena in the capitalist economy. Practice shows that if workers fight in isolation, within the framework of their enterprise or industry, then this, in fact, can lead to negative consequences. In this case, some groups of the proletariat gain advantages at the expense of other groups of the proletariat; since such a struggle leads to an increase in prices (the capitalists shift their increased costs to consumers, raising the prices of products). But this does not mean that the workers should stop their struggle altogether (Hagan, 2017).
Examples include the prevention of juvenile delinquency, economic and malfeasance, etc. After the revolution, the above-mentioned representatives of the sociological school, then enjoying international authority and being real scientists, standing in their positions, did not engage in conceptual issues of criminology. Their work was reduced to very narrow topics. But even this did not save some of them. Practical study of the state of crime, its causes, the identity of the criminal in the early years of Soviet power was concentrated in the criminal investigation (then in the police), the courts, the prosecutor’s office, the People’s Commissariat for Education. At various institutions – judicial, correctional labor, medical, etc., criminological rooms and clinics were created, whose employees, together with practitioners, studied various types of crimes and types of criminals on the basis of statistical, empirical and clinical material. As a result, the Institute for studying crime and the criminal, criminological offices in the field were liquidated. The analysis of crime has acquired a purely departmental limited nature, and scientific development has practically ceased. The next stage in the development of Soviet criminology begins in the late 1950s (Hagan, 2017). The crime investigation is included in the plans of some legal research institutions of the country. Criminological problems began to be developed at the departments of law schools. And if we talk about the conclusions for the theory, then it is obvious that Marxism cannot be regarded as a dogma. From it one should take only what passed the test of time, throwing off all the husks (for example, such as belief in the infallibility of the proletariat, the labor theory of value, ignoring the relations in the system society-nature).
One of the largest in its influence on social thought philosophers and economists of the 19 century was Karl Marx (1818-1883). The subject of study in the economic theory of Marx, like all representatives of classical political economy, was the sphere of production. Marx attributed it so paramount that he called all economic relations productive. The method was based on his philosophical theory of historical materialism (Hagan, 2017). The materialistic approach of Marx to social relations was as follows. A certain set of social relations Marx calls a social formation. Basis of these social relations, he considers the economy, which, in turn, is determined by the level of development of technology (productive forces). All social relations that are not related to the economic (political, cultural, etc.) are superstructure over the basis. Thus, technology (productive forces) determines the nature of the economy (production relations), and the economy is the character of all other social relations.
References
Hagan, F. E. (2017). Introduction to Criminology: Theories, methods, and criminal behavior (9th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
