International Journal on Criminology Volume 7, Number 2, Spring 2020 | Page 135

International Journal on Criminology
solely through concomitance. They do not admit that their genuine inadequacy is
much more closely linked to the non-existence of the root causes, namely freedom
of speech and freedom of choice, rather than simply the weakening of public effort,
which is additionally corrupted by the non-existence of a genuine separation
of powers and good governance.
In other words, the nature of the political system is far more the root cause
of deprivation, and more generally of a lack of human development, than the excessive
power of organizations like the CIA, although the monetarist reductions of
public finances have rather worsened matters. Yet the reality of the latter—due in
part to the concomitant crisis in statist and libertarian models, as seen in the unchecked
securitization of the mortgages held by households on modest incomes—
has been seen as solely responsible for people’s misfortunes. However, it is not possible
to overlook the fact that the sources of deprivation are historically generated
by the drive to acquire goods, distinguished by Max Weber from capitalism, 37 that
the political lack of good governance amplifies.
Finally, it is notable that this underestimation of the political dimension
always subordinates the social sciences to the model of physics, whether Newtonian
or quantum, because it posits movement, including living and human, as
the only automatic product of given circumstances, i.e. manufacturing reactions
or reflex stimuli (fury or humiliation) when they are interactions that involve a
relative (not relativist) interplay between ends and means and results. In other
words, not all motivations are automatically overdetermined in their substance
by an existing structure (the environment); as such, the unit of action concerned
(individual/group), while being interwoven within a system of interdependence
(agent) and in a relational system of interactions (actor) is able to obtain the power
not only to adapt, but also to transform the structure that binds it. Which means
characterizing this transformation as political in the sense of wanting this segment
of belonging to carry weight as the creator of history and status affiliation. These
are precisely the terms of the political system, particularly when it is not reduced
solely to the concept of power.
37 Weber 2010, 236–7, and also note 7, 237: “A ‘drive to acquire goods’ has actually nothing whatsoever
to do with capitalism, as little as has the ‘pursuit of profit,’ money, and the greatest possible gain.
Such a striving has been found, and is to this day, among waiters, physicians, chauffeurs, artists,
prostitutes, corrupt civil servants, soldiers, thieves, crusaders, gambling casino customers, and beggars.
One can say that this pursuit of profit exists in all ‘all sorts and conditions of men’ ( ... ), in all
epochs, and in all countries of the globe. It can be seen both in the past and in the present wherever
the objective possibility for it somehow exists. This naïve manner of conceptualizing capitalism by
reference to a ‘pursuit of gain’ must be relegated to the kindergarten of cultural history methodology
and abandoned once and for all. A fully unconstrained compulsion to acquire goods cannot be
understood as synonymous with capitalism, and even less as its ‘spirit.’ ( ... ) That which is specific to
the West—[is] the rational organization of work ( ... ).”
126