Fin de Siécle Marxist Criminology Since the Fall of the Soviet Union
| Author | Stephen Ranalow |
| Position | Senior Sophister Law Student, Trinity College, Dublin |
| Pages | 180-195 |
FIN
DE
SIECLE:
MARXIST
CRIMINOLOGY
SINCE
THE
FALL
OF
THE
SOVIET
UNION
STEPHEN
RANALOW*
Introduction
The
failed
coup
of
August
1991
marked
the
end
of
the Soviet Union's
prolonged experiment
in
Marxism-Leninism.
By
rejecting
both
the
authoritarian
centralism
of
the
coup
leaders
and
the
reform
agenda
of
the
progressive
Communists,
Yeltsin's
improvised
brand
of
democracy
was
a
very
public
indictment of
the
whole
spectre
of
state
socialism.
Gorbechev's
twin
projects
of
rejuvenation
were
lambasted
both
for
failing
to
deliver
the
goods
politically,
in
the
case
of
glasnost,
and
literally,
in the case
of
perestroika.
Before
the
year
was
out
the
free
market had
been reintroduced
and
the
Soviet
Union
itself
had
disintegrated.'
In
the ten years
since
these
events
western academia
has
debated
the
implications
of
this popular
rejection
of
one
manifestation
of
Marxist
ideology
for
the theory
as
a
whole.
2
For
some,
including
many
left
Senior
Sophister Law
Student,
Trinity
College,
Dublin.
On
24
August
1991
Gorbachev
resigned
as
secretary
of
the
Communist
Party
of
the
Soviet
Union
(CPSU).
Within
two
months
the
framework
for
what
would
become
the
Commonwealth
of
Independent
States
(CIS)
had been
established. On
25
December
1991
Gorbechev
resigned
as
President
having
agreed
to
the
final
dissolution
of
the
USSR.
For
the
text
of
the
original
documents
pertaining
to
these
events
see,
CNN
International,
Cold
War:
Episode
24
16
February
2001).
On
the
coup
and
its
aftermath
see,
Antonovich,
Post
Communist
Transition:
Recollections
and
Perspectives
(University
of
Edinburgh,
1996);
Cox
ed.,
Rethinking
the
Collapse:
Sovietology,
the
Death
of
Communism
and
the New
Russia
(Pinter,
1998);
Nagy,
The
Meltdown
of
the
Russian
State
(Edward
Elgar,
2000).
2
While
the
collapse
of
most
of
the
communist
regimes
of
Eastern
Europe
in
1989
has
also
provided
a further
historical
axis
to
this
discussion,
the
focus
of
the
debate
has been
overwhelmingly
on
the
Soviet
Union's
demise.
It
is suggested
that
there
are
a
number
of
reasons
for
this.
First,
the
longer period
of
communist
rule
in
the
USSR
and
thus, the
greater
number
of
attempted
and
failed
communist
reforms
provides
a
better example
for
study.
Second,
the
USSR
had
a
clearer
and
more
advanced
programme
of
reform
within
a
Marxist
framework
than
was
the
case
elsewhere
in
Eastern
Europe.
Third,
as
a
political
and social
science,
sovietology,
the
study
of
the
USSR,
was
well
established
as
a
discipline
in
many
US
universities
and
thus
the
study
of
its collapse
had
a
larger natural
audience.
Fourth,
the
USSR
presented
a
'purer'
example
of
State
socialism
in
that
it
was
introduced with
significant
©
2001 Stephen
Ranalow
and
Dublin University
Law
Society
Fin
de Sibcle
thinkers,
the
economic
flaws
of
the
Soviet
Union
are
endemic
to
the
ideology
and
undermine
its
historical
materialist
core
-
a
position
most
succinctly summarised
by
Verdery's
redefinition
of
socialism
as
"'the
longest
and
most
painful
route
from
capitalism
to
capitalism".
3
For
others,
however,
the
collapse
has
been
recast
as
an
opportunity
to
re-examine
and
strengthen Marxism,
unburdened
by the
perceived
association
with
the
Soviet
menace and
central
planning
economics.
The
debate
has
been
argued
against
the
backdrop
of
the
economic trends
of
the
1990s.
In
particular
the
global
prevalence
of
market
deregulation
and
the
sustained
(and
apparently)
cycle-resistant
growth
of
some
of
the
world's
most
open
economies
have provided
a
further
dimension
to
the
arguments
of
both
sides.
While
at
times
this
debate
has
been
marred
by
both
triumphalism
and
dogmatism,
it
has
presented
a
platform
for
the
engagement
of
left
and
right
using
innovative
arguments.
This
article will
attempt
to
construct
an
analysis
of
Marxist
criminology
capable
of
applying
some
of
the
principle
elements
of
the
general
post-Soviet
Marxist debate.
In
doing
so, it
will
be
argued
that
the
Soviet
collapse
has
raised
serious
doubts
about
the
viability
of
the
Marxist
criminological
praxis,
and
more
fundamentally,
that
the
events
of
the
1990s,
including
the
general
Marxist
theory
debate
itself,
have
damaged
this
criminological
school
to
its
aetiological
foundations.
Locating
the
Marxist
Criminologies
within
Marxism
As
a
first
step
to
examining Marxist
criminology
in
the
context
of
the
wider
post-Soviet
Marxist
debate,
the
theoretical
connection
of
the
criminology
with
the
general
ideology
must
be
ascertained
if
the
arguments
of
the
latter
are to be
of
any
relevance
to
the
former. Specifically,
the
common points
of
reference
between,
on
one
hand,
the
criminologist,
and
on
the
other,
the
economist,
the social
philosopher
and
the
political
scientist
have
to be
identified
with some
degree
of
precision.
This
task
is
complicated
by
the
existence
of
a
number
of
different
and
sometimes
competing
types
of
Marxist
criminology.
Moreover,
each
of
these
is
further
subdivided
into
a
multiplicity
of
overlapping
variants,
hybrids
and
offshoots.
4 This
is
not
to
say
that
searching for
common
points
popular
support
-
in
contrast,
its
introduction
in
Eastern
Europe
was
based
largely
on
the
strategic political interests
of
the
USSR.
3
Verdery,
What
Went
Wrong
and
What
Comes
Next?
(Princeton
University
Press,
1996),
at
opening
page.
4
Void,
Bernard
and
Snipes,
Theoretical
Criminology
(4th
ed.,
Oxford University
Press,
1998),
at
260. The same
can
also
be
said
of
Marxism
in
general.
See
McLellan,
Mar.xismz
after Marv:
2001]
To continue reading
Request your trial