Marxist Legal Theory: Exploring Determinism and Ideology in Law

Classified in Philosophy and ethics

Written at on English with a size of 1.97 KB.

Marxist Legal Theory

Deterministic View

For Marx, society divides into two distinct classes: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. These classes are distinguished by their relationship to the means of production. The bourgeoisie, owning the means of production, exploit the labor of the proletariat, creating an inherent power struggle. This struggle manifests in various aspects of society, including law.

Marx argues that law, morality, and religion serve to mask bourgeois interests. Law, defined and implemented by the economic elite, perpetuates their dominance. This deterministic view suggests a direct link between a society's economy and its legal system, with the imbalance of power perpetuating conflict between the classes.

Ideology and Law

Marx posits that ideology arises in societies where social conditions are ripe for criticism. It acts as a shield, protecting these conditions from those disadvantaged by them. In a just society, devoid of exploitative conditions, there would be no need for law or its ideological justifications.

Marx views ideology as a distorted reflection of reality, a set of ideas that serve the interests of the ruling class. These ideas, presented as truth, are embraced by both the advantaged and disadvantaged. Law, in this context, is understood not through the lens of justice but through the interests it serves.

The ideological perspective is crucial to legal scholarship for two reasons. First, it encourages a critical examination of law's role in society, revealing its potential to reinforce existing power structures. Second, it highlights the significance of sociological and political factors in understanding the law.

The Promise of Lawlessness?

Marx's view of law as an instrument of class domination led him to believe that a classless society would necessitate the disappearance of law. This vision of"lawles" perfect justice was critiqued by legal theorist Hans Kelsen as a utopian prophecy.

Entradas relacionadas: