Cultural Marxists are the Real Capitalists: A Critical Critique of Critical Criminology

Critical Criminology claims that:

  1. The legal system was created by and for the ruling class (cishetero white males) in order to keep the rich rich and the poor and oppressed poor and oppressed.
  2. To this end, crimes the poor commit (such as burglary) are heavily penalized, while crimes the rich commit (such as racism or insider trading) are not.
  3. Many of the “crimes” of the oppressed (like rape, assault, mugging, and mass rioting) shouldn’t be considered crimes at all, but are just desperate attempts at survival
  4. The “real crimes” are things like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., which create the oppressive capitalist society that creates common street crime
  5. When racism sexism, homophobia, etc. are outlawed, then we can create the perfect socialist state which will have no crime.

Creationism is more factually solid than Critical Criminology, but Critical Criminology is taught in real universities alongside real theories about how the world works.

But let’s step back a moment. #1 is at least partially true–the rich do have a disproportionate influence on the legal system and the poor are often at its mercy. Corporations and wealthy individuals do use their money and influence to get legislation written and enforced in ways that benefit themselves.

But which crimes, exactly, are the rich interested in prosecuting? Do they care if a drug addict steals wallets down in the ghetto? They don’t live in the ghetto. They use their money to insulate themselves from violent crime by buying houses in nice, gated neighborhoods with private security forces.

It’s the poor who are the primary victims of crime, and it’s the poor who’d like murderers to be arrested. Only someone who is rich enough not to live with the threat of violent crime could possibly say something as stupendously idiotic and  insensitive as “rape and assault aren’t real crimes.”

If critical criminologists are the wealthy, then wouldn’t they, logically, be trying to reshape the legal system to benefit themselves?

Meanwhile, they accuse the wealthy of  racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., but these attitudes are actually associated with the poor. Rich whites absolutely pride themselves on being open-minded, tolerant, anti-racist, feminist, etc, and are horrified at all of the racist, sexist, Islamophobic bigotry embodied in low-class Trump voters.

So the crimes these wealthy critical theorists are trying to get outlawed are not things that the rich are doing, but things the rich want the poor to stop doing.

Here I could cite a dozen examples, from Hate Speech laws in Britain being more strongly enforced than rape laws to Hillary Clinton’s “Would bringing down the banks end racism?” speech to Piers Morgan complaining about Islamophobia.

Why are the capitalists so intent on smashing bigotry in all its forms?

Simple: Capitalism wants to make money. Capitalism doesn’t care about oppressing brown people, or women, or gays, or Muslims, or foreigners, or anyone. Capitalism just wants the best possible ratio of worker quality : worker cost. If Mexicans can do the same job as Americans for half the cost, then capitalists want to hire Mexicans and they want Americans to stop trying to pass laws limiting the number of Mexican immigrants who can come work for the capitalists. If Europe is facing a labor crisis because Europeans haven’t made enough new workers to fill the factories and finance the welfare state, then European capitalists must import new workers and they want European workers to stop complaining about the terrorist attacks. Capitalism just wants to hire “the best person for the job” or at least the cheapest person who’ll do an adequate job.

The only odd part is that capitalists are wrapping themselves in the Communist flag while imprisoning people for objecting to the importation of cheap, union-breaking labor. We could accuse them of lying–or gaslighting–except many of them seem to really believe it. Perhaps socialism provides the necessary tool for lying to themselves. “Oh, I am not actually screwing over the poor by advocating on behalf of my own profits.” Most people don’t like to think of themselves as nasty, evil, and self-serving, but they will often project those qualities onto others. (“I’m a nice person, it’s everyone else who’s backstabbing cheaters!”) By casting their enemies (middle and working class white males who don’t want to lose economic security)’s concerns onto the cartoonish figure of the evil capitalist, they simultaneously dismiss those concerns and recast themselves as heroic defenders of the “oppressed.”

Wikipedia has an interesting theory on self-deception:

Some evolutionary biologists, such as Robert Trivers, have suggested[6][page needed] that deception plays a significant part in human behavior, and in animal behavior, more generally speaking. One deceives oneself to trust something that is not true as to better convince others of that truth. When a person convinces himself of this untrue thing, they better mask the signs of deception.[7]

This notion is based on the following logic: deception is a fundamental aspect of communication in nature, both between and within species. It has evolved so that one can have an advantage over another. From alarm calls to mimicry, animals use deception to further their survival. Those who are better able to perceive deception are more likely to survive. As a result, self-deception evolved to better mask deception from those who perceive it well, as Trivers puts it: “Hiding the truth from yourself to hide it more deeply from others.” In humans, awareness of the fact that one is acting deceptively often leads to tell-tale signs of deception, such as nostrils flaring, clammy skin, quality and tone of voice, eye movement, or excessive blinking. Therefore, if self-deception enables someone to believe her or his own distortions, they will not present such signs of deception and will therefore appear to be telling the truth.

3 thoughts on “Cultural Marxists are the Real Capitalists: A Critical Critique of Critical Criminology

  1. Making me work on this one, because it makes logical sense, but feels wrong to me. The wealthy and powerful use the legal system not to punish the poor and downtrodden, but to eliminate the threat of the upwardly mobile and competent. I don’t think that anyone in power actually cares about bigotry or smashing bigotry or any of that, even for Capital’s sake. Instead, it is a convenient cudgel with which to bludgeon their competitors. Therefore, the racist incident in the World Series is no big deal, because the perpetrator was not legacy American, and is therefore no threat to the people who care about racism.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. There’s a guy I think you’ve heard of or read and he has a recent post that has great bearing on this issue. It may seem to be tangential but I believe it’s actually and underlying layer of what you’re talking about. You’re talking about what’s seen above which is much more murky without seeing the foundation. That the rich are Communist is not necessarily true. What they’re doing is confusing a certain demographic of the public. Anonymous Coward wrote a book and blogs on “r/K theory” related to the breeding habits of different species. Best example rabbits and Wolves to get the idea. He says that Humans have the same tendencies in different groups of their populations.

    Many times in history people have rapidly switched sides and all of sudden the whole country seems to flip over into a whole other psychic thought pattern. We don’t know why this is, exactly. It’s possible that A.C. has come up with a explanation for this. He says the “r’s”, (I’m not going to go over r/k, if you’re interested you’ll find out or already know), when they sense a certain amount of power immediately switch to the other side and become even more strongly aligned to a cause that even the original proponents. They run with the crowd. This has strategic implications. It means even bad optics is good optics. The “r’s” could care less about logic and reason they only are impressed by numbers and power. So you can wave whatever flag you want as long as you get the numbers out and look powerful. If you look at Jewish strategy this also seems to be their strategy and they’ve studied swaying crowds to different view points far more than we have(color revolutions, etc.). This has practical implications.

    1. Get out the crowd.
    2. Even if different groups have different values get them out in mass. Charlottesville is a big win looking at it like this. No matter violence or not.
    3. Optics don’t matter as much as volume and mastery over the situation. Even if there’s violence if our side is not seen to collapse then it’s still in our favor.
    4. Our online mass can make us look much more powerful than we are. Trolling has positive results in the mind war.

    Anyways I think A.C.’s resent post is blockbuster in understanding human society.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s