Criminality and economic conditions

by Willem Adriaan Bonger

We shall now understand why primitive men feel themselves to be first of all the members of a unit; why they not only abstain from acts harmful to their companions, but come to their aid whenever they can; why they are honest, benevolent, and truthful towards the members of their group, and why public opinion has so great an influence among them—characteristics which the quotations that I have already made have established. The cause of these facts is to be found in the mode of production, which brought about a uniformity of interest in the persons united in a single group, obliged them to aid one another in the difficult and uninterrupted struggle for existence, and made men free and equal, since there was neither poverty nor riches, and consequently no possibility of oppression.

It is only in such an environment that the social instincts innate in man can be developed, and the more the mode of production binds men’s interests together the greater will this development be. It is a truth as old as the world that one respects the interests of others and does not deceive them, only when these others do not make life more difficult, but aid in supporting it. If not, social instincts will be suppressed and the contrary instincts formed. The development of the social feelings is based upon reciprocity. When this is lacking these feelings lie dormant, but when reciprocity exists they grow stronger by constantly reacting from one to the other.[44]

There is still another reason which helped strengthen the solidarity among the members of the same group. The primitive peoples, who practiced agriculture little or not at all, needed an immense territory to provide for their needs. Lands whose population would seem small to the Europeans of our day, had in reality as dense a population as the mode of production would permit. From this there sprang [[398]]continual wars between groups disputing the possession of a certain territory. The necessity of defending as a body the territory acquired, or of conquering it anew, resulted in drawing always tighter the bonds uniting the members of the same group.

The same mode of production which drew the members of a group into an altruistic solidarity, forced these same persons into a position of excessive egoism toward those who did not belong to their group and opposed them in obtaining what they needed. The same act, killing an enemy for example, is the most egoistic act possible from the point of view of the enemy but a very altruistic act from the point of view of the slayer, since he has increased the security of his group. The development of the social feelings is, then, only determined by the form of the struggle for existence.

How then shall we explain certain egoistic acts directed against members of the same group? How, for example, can the infanticide so common among primitive peoples be explained? In seeking for a solution we shall see that this egoistic act does not result from innate insensibility toward children (the contrary is true, as we have seen above), but from the fact that the limited control over nature makes a great increase in the population impossible. The children were killed immediately after birth; no one dreamed of ridding himself of a child of greater age. Further, the nomadic life prevented the carrying along of a great number of children.[45]

It is for the same reason that the sick and the aged were sometimes abandoned by the primitive peoples. They were driven to this because these feeble persons were unable to make long journeys, and because their economic means did not allow them to support those who could no longer work. Here again there could be no question of innate insensibility.[46] In these cases then, there was an opposition of interests; the act that was egoistic toward the individual was altruistic toward the group. If different action had been taken in such cases all would have succumbed. Thus these acts have fallen into desuetude as the productivity of labor has developed.

The continual development of the productivity of labor has modified the structure of society greatly. As soon as productivity has increased to such an extent that the producer can regularly produce more than he needs, and the division of labor puts him in a position to exchange the surplus for things that he could not produce himself, at this moment there arises in man the notion of no longer giving to [[399]]his comrades what they need, but of keeping for himself the surplus of what his labor produces, and exchanging it. Then it is that the mode of production begins to run counter to the social instincts of man instead of favoring it as heretofore.

In his work already quoted Nansen has described the influence exercised by exchange upon the character of the Eskimos studied by him. (The fact that this commerce has been developed by the coming of the Europeans makes no difference. Among primitive peoples exchange must have developed in the same way, only more slowly.) He says: “How baneful to them has been the introduction of money! Formerly they had no means of saving up work or accumulating riches; for the products of their labor did not last indefinitely, and therefore they gave away their superfluity. But then they learned the use of money; so that now, when they have more than they need for the moment, the temptation to sell the overplus to Europeans, instead of giving it to their needy neighbors, is often too great for them; for with the money they thus acquire they can supply themselves with the much coveted European commodities. Thus we Christians help more and more to destroy instead of to develop their old self-sacrificing love of their neighbors. And money does still more to undermine the Greenland community. Their ideas of inheritance were formerly very vague, for, as before mentioned, the clothes and weapons of a dead man were consigned with him to the grave. Now, on the other hand, the introduction of money has enabled the survivors to sell the effects of the deceased, and they are no longer ashamed to accept as an inheritance what they can obtain in this way. This may seem an advantage; but, here, too, their old habit of mind is upset. Greed and covetousness—vices which they formerly abhorred above everything—have taken possession of them. Their minds are warped and enthralled by money.”[47] Thus are born avarice and rapacity, which, opposed in the beginning by altruistic sentiments developed earlier, become stronger from one generation to another.[48]

However, this is only one side of the question. Through the development of exchange not only does man become egoistic towards those who for any reason are unable to provide for their needs, but exchange itself is an entirely egoistic act for the two parties who enter into it. Each tries to get as much profit for himself as possible, and consequently to make the other lose. The existence of economic laws which in many, and even in most cases prevent the two parties from injuring each other, does not change the fact at all. Commerce [[400]]weakens the social instincts of man; the loss of one becomes the gain of another. When two persons are trading there springs up a tendency on the part of each to overvalue his own property and to disparage that of the other; commerce is one of the important causes of lying. In addition to this tendency another arises, that of giving goods of quality inferior to that agreed upon; the constant attention to one’s own interests produces and develops fraud.

The more production for one’s own use decreases, and the greater becomes the production for exchange, the more do habit and tradition produce in men the characteristics mentioned. As soon as exchange has developed to a certain point commerce begins to be a special trade. The merchant is much more exposed to the conditions named than those who trade only occasionally. Not only does he pass a great part of his life in exchanging but he is by profession egoistic in two directions; toward the producer from whom he buys, and toward the consumer to whom he sells.[49]