The Marxist Theories of Law

Introduction
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels developed a theory of history, known as
historical materialism, which argues that societal development is driven by
economic forces, particularly the mode of production. This theory posits that
human history is a series of struggles between classes, with the ruling class
exploiting the working class for economic benefit. Their most famous work,
The Communist Manifesto, outlines this theory and calls for a revolutionary
overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of communism. Unlike traditional
legal philosophies that often emphasize abstract principles of justice or natural rights, Marxist
theory situates law within the broader socio-economic context. For Marxists, law is inextricably
linked to the material conditions of society, particularly the ownership and control of the means
of production.
These theories approach law from a materialist and historical perspective,
emphasizing how law serves the interests of the ruling class in a capitalist
society. Marxist legal theory is critical of liberal legal traditions that portray
law as neutral or impartial.
In this presentation, we will explore the core components of Marxist legal
theory, its continuing relevance, its influence on various legal domains, and
its implications in both global and Sierra Leonean contexts.

Central Tenets of Marxist Legal Theory

The foundational premise of Marxist legal thought is the base-superstructure
model, wherein the economic base (relations and forces of production)
determines the legal and political superstructure (Marx, 1977). Law, from a
Marxist standpoint, is an instrument of class domination designed to
preserve existing property relations and the capitalist mode of production.
The Base-Superstructure Model
At the heart of Marxist analysis lies the base-superstructure model (Marx & Engels, 1969).
 The Base: This refers to the material conditions of society, primarily the forces of
production (e.g., technology, labor) and the relations of production (e.g., the social
relationships governing the production process, such as the relationship between
capitalists and workers). The base, particularly the economic system, is considered the
primary determinant of social organization.

1
  The Superstructure: This encompasses all other aspects of society, including law,
politics, ideology, culture, and religion. According to the base-superstructure model, the
superstructure arises from and is ultimately shaped by the economic base. 4 Legal
institutions, therefore, are seen as part of the superstructure, reflecting and reinforcing the
interests of the dominant economic class

Law as an Instrument of Class Oppression

Marxist theory posits that the legal system is not a neutral arbiter but a tool
employed by the ruling class to maintain its dominance. Laws are crafted to
protect the interests of the bourgeoisie, ensuring the perpetuation of
capitalist structures. This perspective is evident in the way property laws
safeguard private ownership and how labour laws often favour employers
over workers. The legal system thus becomes a mechanism through which
the ruling class enforces its will, suppressing dissent and legitimizing
exploitation (Collins, 1982).
This perspective argues that law is a direct instrument used by the ruling class (the bourgeoisie in
capitalist society) in two ways to maintain their power and suppress the subordinate class (the
proletariat).
 Direct Manipulation: Instrumentalists suggest that the ruling class directly influences
the content and enforcement of law to serve their specific economic interests. Laws
protecting private property, enforcing contracts, and criminalizing actions that threaten
the capitalist system are seen as examples of this direct manipulation.
 State as a Tool: The state, including its legal apparatus, is viewed as an instrument of the
ruling class.6 Police, courts, and prisons are understood as mechanisms for enforcing the
will of the bourgeoisie and controlling the working class.

Historical Materialism
This concept underpins Marxist legal analysis, suggesting that law evolves
according to the material and economic development of society. Legal norms
are not eternal truths but change in response to shifts in the mode of
production—from feudalism to capitalism and, potentially, to socialism. Thus,
understanding law requires situating it within its historical and economic
context (Marx & Engels, 1970). For example, feudal legal norms that
centered around land tenure and vassalage gave way to capitalist legal
principles that protect contract, commerce, and capital.
Historical materialism views history as a dynamic process driven by class
struggle and material needs. Legal institutions and doctrines are shaped and

2
reshaped by the prevailing economic structures and the interests of the
dominant class. In each historical epoch, the law reflects the prevailing mode
of production and reinforces the associated power structures. The transition
from feudal to capitalist societies illustrates how legal systems shifted focus
—from customary and hierarchical obligations to formal equality and contract
law, reflecting the needs of emerging capitalist relations. Historical
materialism emphasizes that understanding the evolution of law requires
tracing how material conditions—such as technology, labour organization,
and resource distribution—shape the nature and function of legal systems.

Alienation and Legal Formalism

Marx's concept of alienation describes the estrangement of workers from the
products of their labour, the labour process, their fellow workers, and their
own human potential. In the legal realm, this alienation manifests through
legal formalism, which abstracts individuals into legal subjects devoid of
social and economic context. Such abstraction obscures the realities of
exploitation and inequality, presenting the legal system as impartial while
perpetuating systemic injustices (Collins, 1982).

Law and Ideology

Law functions as an ideological apparatus that reinforces the dominant
ideology of the ruling class. It shapes societal perceptions, making the
existing social order appear natural and just. Louis Althusser introduced the
concept of Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs), which include legal
institutions that propagate the ideology of the ruling class, ensuring the
reproduction of capitalist relations (Althusser, 1971). Through law, the ruling
class instils a false consciousness among the proletariat, obscuring the
exploitative nature of capitalism and hindering revolutionary consciousness.
Marxist theory emphasizes the role of ideology in maintaining social order and obscuring the
underlying power dynamics. Law, according to this view, plays a crucial ideological function
(Althusser, 1971).
 Legitimization: Law helps to legitimize the existing social order by presenting it as fair,
neutral, and just, even when it inherently favors the ruling class. Concepts like the "rule
of law" can mask the underlying inequalities and power imbalances.
 False Consciousness: Legal ideology can contribute to the "false consciousness" of the
working class, leading them to accept their subordinate position as natural or inevitable.
By emphasizing individual rights and equality before the law, the systemic inequalities
inherent in capitalism can be obscured.

3
Beyond Instrumentalism: The Structuralist View
While the instrumentalist view highlights the direct manipulation of law by the ruling class, a
more nuanced structuralist perspective acknowledges the relative autonomy of law (Poulantzas,
1973).
 Relative Autonomy: Structuralists argue that while law is ultimately shaped by the
economic base, it possesses a degree of independence.10 This autonomy is necessary for
the legal system to maintain its legitimacy and effectively regulate social relations in the
long term, even if it sometimes operates against the immediate interests of specific
members of the ruling class.
 Maintaining the System: Law, in this view, functions to maintain the capitalist system
as a whole, rather than simply serving the direct interests of individual capitalists. It
establishes a framework of rules and regulations that are necessary for the smooth
functioning of the capitalist economy, even if these rules sometimes constrain the actions
of individual capitalists.

 Marxist critiques of capitalism contend that it is an inherently exploitative and unjust

economic system structured around private ownership of the means of production and the
pursuit of profit. This system generates vast inequalities of wealth and power,
commodifies human labour, and reduces social relations to market transactions (Harvey,
2010).

Pashukanis and the Commodity Form Theory of Law

Evgeny Pashukanis, a prominent Soviet legal theorist, expanded Marxist legal
thought through his Commodity Form Theory. In his influential work The
General Theory of Law and Marxism, Pashukanis (1978) argued that legal
relations are structurally analogous to commodity relations. Just as
commodities are exchanged as equivalents in the market, legal subjects
interact as abstract, formally equal entities within the legal system. This
abstraction conceals the underlying inequalities that exist in society.
According to Pashukanis, the legal form emerged with the rise of capitalism
and the generalization of commodity exchange. Law, particularly private law,
reflects the principles of market exchange—autonomy, equality, and will—
which are central to the ideology of capitalism. Thus, law itself is not merely
a tool of domination but a necessary ideological expression of capitalist
commodity relations (Head, 2008).
Key points of his theory include:
 Legal subjectivity mirrors commodity exchange: Just as
commodities are exchanged by equal legal persons in the market,
individuals are treated as autonomous legal subjects under the law.

4
  Law as a historical form: Pashukanis contended that law is not a
universal or eternal institution but one that emerged specifically in the
context of capitalist relations and would "wither away" in a communist
society where commodity exchange and class divisions no longer exist.
 Critique of legal fetishism: He emphasized that law, like
commodities, is fetishized—perceived as natural and autonomous
despite its roots in capitalist social relations.
While later Soviet legal theory distanced itself from Pashukanis, his work
remains foundational in Marxist jurisprudence for highlighting the intrinsic
link between legal forms and capitalist economic structures.

Capitalism and What Is Wrong About It

Marxist critiques of capitalism contend that it is an inherently exploitative
and unjust economic system structured around private ownership of the
means of production and the pursuit of profit. This system generates vast
inequalities of wealth and power, commodifies human labour, and reduces
social relations to market transactions (Harvey, 2010). Capitalism thrives on
the extraction of surplus value—workers produce more value than they are
compensated for, and this excess is appropriated by capitalists. This
fundamental dynamic underpins wage exploitation and the accumulation of
capital by the few.
Moreover, capitalism fosters alienation, where workers are estranged from
the products of their labour, from each other, and from their own human
potential. This alienation extends into the legal system, where individuals are
treated as equal legal subjects, despite deeply unequal material conditions.
Law, rather than challenging these inequalities, reinforces them by
protecting private property, legitimizing labour contracts that mask coercion,
and criminalizing dissent (Wood, 1995).
Another critical flaw in capitalism is its tendency toward crises—
overproduction, financial speculation, and uneven development periodically
destabilize the system, leading to unemployment, poverty, and social
dislocation. Legal systems under capitalism serve to stabilize these
instabilities by regulating labour, bailing out failing industries, and
maintaining order, all while ensuring the continuity of capital accumulation.
Ultimately, from a Marxist perspective, the central wrong of capitalism lies in
its prioritization of profit over human needs, its perpetuation of class
domination, and its ideological obfuscation of these realities. Law, as a key

5
component of the capitalist superstructure, is complicit in sustaining this
unjust system.

Criticisms of Marxist Theories of Law

While Marxist legal theory provides a powerful critique of capitalist legal
systems, it has been subject to substantial criticisms from various legal
scholars, political theorists, and practitioners. These criticisms center on its
economic determinism, lack of legal autonomy, inadequate account
of legal pluralism, and failure to account for human agency and
rights.

1. Economic Determinism and Reductionism

A central critique of Marxist theory is its tendency toward economic
determinism—the idea that all aspects of the legal system are ultimately
determined by the economic base. Critics argue that this approach
oversimplifies the complex relationship between law and society, failing to
account for the relative autonomy of legal and political institutions. Law
may reflect economic interests, but it can also shape those interests and act
independently, such as when courts rule against powerful capitalists or
governments introduce redistributive legal reforms. Max Weber, for
example, emphasized the multidimensionality of social life, where law,
religion, and politics each have distinct logics and developmental paths.
From this perspective, Marxist theory is seen as too one-dimensional,
reducing law to a mere reflection of class interests (Weber, 1978).
2. Underestimation of Legal Ideals and Human Rights
Another critique is that Marxist theory neglects the normative
dimensions of law, such as justice, fairness, and human rights. Critics argue
that law can serve emancipatory functions—protecting civil liberties,
advancing gender and racial equality, and restraining abuses of state power.
By viewing all law as a tool of class oppression, Marxist theory can be
pessimistic or dismissive of genuine legal progress. Liberal theorists
contend that the rule of law and legal equality, while imperfect, are essential
for democratic governance and protecting individual freedoms. They argue
that dismissing these achievements undermines efforts to reform legal
systems and improve access to justice.
3. Inflexibility Regarding Legal Pluralism and Culture

6
Marxist legal theory is also criticized for ignoring legal pluralism—the
coexistence of multiple legal systems within a single social field, such as
customary law, religious law, and international law. In contexts like post-
colonial Africa, including Sierra Leone, legal systems are shaped not only
by capitalist structures but also by colonial legacies, indigenous traditions,
and transnational legal orders. Critics suggest that Marxist theory's
universalist orientation and focus on capitalism may marginalize or
oversimplify these diverse legal experiences. By not adequately
incorporating cultural and historical specificities, Marxist analysis may fail to
fully understand how law operates in different societies.
4. Ambiguity Around Socialist Law
Another weakness lies in the lack of a coherent vision for post-
capitalist legal systems. While Marx and Engels anticipated the “withering
away” of law in a classless society, they provided little practical detail on
how legal institutions would function under socialism. This ambiguity has led
to varied interpretations and practices in Marxist-inspired regimes. For
example, the legal systems in the former Soviet Union, China, and other
socialist countries often replicated authoritarian practices, leading critics
to question whether Marxist theory truly supports justice or simply replaces
one form of domination with another. Evgeny Pashukanis’ theory that law
would become obsolete under socialism was later rejected even by Soviet
authorities, revealing internal inconsistencies within Marxist legal thinking.
5. Overemphasis on Class, Neglect of Other Forms of Oppression
Contemporary critics argue that Marxist legal theory overemphasizes class
at the expense of other axes of oppression, such as gender, race,
sexuality, and disability. While class is undeniably important, modern
legal struggles are often framed around intersectional concerns. Feminist
legal scholars, critical race theorists, and queer theorists point out that
Marxist approaches sometimes fail to capture the full complexity of
marginalization and identity in legal contexts. As a result, some scholars
have developed neo-Marxist or intersectional Marxist frameworks that
attempt to synthesize class analysis with other critical perspectives to
produce a more holistic understanding of law and power.

Enduring Relevance and Contemporary Applications

Despite these criticisms, Marxist legal theory continues to offer valuable insights into the nature
and function of law in contemporary society. Its enduring relevance can be seen in:

7
  Critical Legal Studies (CLS): This influential legal movement draws heavily on Marxist
ideas to critique the inherent biases and power structures within legal systems. CLS
scholars highlight how seemingly neutral legal principles can perpetuate social
inequalities.
 Understanding Inequality: Marxist perspectives remain relevant for analyzing how law
contributes to and reinforces various forms of social and economic inequality, including
those based on race, gender, and class.
 Global Capitalism: Marxist analysis can be applied to understanding the legal
frameworks that govern global capitalism, including international trade agreements and
the role of multinational corporations.
 Social Justice Movements: Many social justice movements draw on Marxist critiques of
power and inequality to advocate for legal reforms that challenge existing social
hierarchies.
Marxist theory also informs critical legal studies and socio-legal research,
emphasizing how law reproduces economic hierarchies (Hunt, 1993).
Marxist Perspectives on Specific Legal Domains
Applying a Marxist lens to specific areas of law reveals its analytical power:
 Criminal Law: Marxist criminology views crime not merely as individual deviance but
as often rooted in the social and economic inequalities inherent in capitalism. Laws
against property crime, for instance, are seen as primarily protecting the wealth of the
ruling class, while the criminalization of certain behaviors of the working class can serve
to control and marginalize them.
 Labor Law: While seemingly providing protections for workers, Marxist analysis often
critiques labor law as ultimately serving to regulate and contain labor struggles within the
capitalist framework. Collective bargaining, for example, can be seen as a mechanism to
manage conflict rather than fundamentally challenging the power imbalance between
capital and labor.
 Constitutional Law: From a Marxist perspective, constitutional rights and freedoms,
while appearing universal, can be interpreted as serving to individualize and depoliticize
social issues. The focus on individual rights can obscure the systemic inequalities that
shape people's lives. Furthermore, constitutional protections of private property are
central to capitalist accumulation.
 International Law: Marxist approaches to international law often focus on how it
facilitates global capitalism, protects the interests of powerful states and multinational
corporations, and perpetuates inequalities between the Global North and South. Concepts
like sovereignty can be analyzed in terms of power dynamics and the ability of dominant
states to exert influence (Chimni, 2004).

8
Contemporary Relevance in Sierra Leone (and Globally)
Marxist legal theory remains a powerful tool for analyzing the legal and
socio-economic landscape of post-colonial nations like Sierra Leone, where
capitalism intersects with legacies of colonialism and global dependency. The
enduring class stratifications and exploitative legal structures are particularly
evident in key sectors of the economy, exposing how law often upholds
capitalist interests at the expense of marginalized communities.
 Land Tenure and Extractive Industries
In Sierra Leone, land is central to livelihood, identity, and political
authority, particularly in rural areas. However, customary land tenure
systems have been increasingly supplanted by statutory frameworks
and lease agreements that benefit multinational corporations. Under
the Mines and Minerals Act 2009, foreign companies are granted
extensive rights to explore and extract minerals, often with little
consultation or compensation for local landowners. From a Marxist
lens, this legal framework exemplifies how law functions to secure
capitalist accumulation by facilitating the dispossession of land for
capital-intensive projects. Local populations are alienated from their
traditional means of production, while the state acts as an agent of
capital by enforcing legal instruments that favour investment over
community welfare. These dynamics reflect what Marx described as
“primitive accumulation,” where legal and coercive means are used to
transform communal resources into private capital.

 Labour Exploitation and Informal Economy

The Sierra Leonean labour market is characterized by a large informal
sector, weak regulatory oversight, and insufficient Labor protections.
Mining, agriculture, and construction sectors often rely on precarious,
low-wage labour with limited access to dispute resolution mechanisms
or collective bargaining rights.
Marxist theory views this labour framework as an extension of
capitalist exploitation. Workers are treated as commodified labour
power, their surplus value appropriated by employers without
equitable legal redress. The alienation of workers from both the fruits
of their labour and meaningful participation in legal processes
reinforces class domination. Legal abstractions of equality before the
law obscure the real inequalities between foreign investors and local
labourers.

 Access to Justice and Legal Inequality

Legal pluralism—where customary and formal legal systems coexist—

9
 creates a complex terrain in Sierra Leone, particularly for the poor. The
formal judiciary, shaped by colonial legacies, is under-resourced, slow,
and often inaccessible due to cost and geographic distance.
Customary courts, while more accessible, are frequently patriarchal
and inconsistent in upholding statutory protections.
This dualism perpetuates class and gender inequities. Marxist theorists
argue that access to justice in such a system is stratified along
economic and social lines. Law fails to protect the most vulnerable,
instead reinforcing their subordination through formal mechanisms
that appear neutral but serve to legitimize existing hierarchies.

 Criminalization of Poverty and Social Control

Criminal law in Sierra Leone is disproportionately enforced against the
poor, street traders, and youth. Petty offenses like loitering, minor
theft, and street hawking often result in arrest or detention without
trial, while corporate or elite malfeasance goes unpunished. Prisons
are overcrowded with pre-trial detainees, mostly from impoverished
backgrounds.
This selective criminalization reflects what Quinney (1974) described
as the use of criminal law to control surplus populations and maintain
social order under capitalism. Law becomes an instrument of
repression rather than justice, targeting behaviours associated with
poverty while ignoring structural causes.

 Neoliberal Legal Reforms and International Law

Sierra Leone’s legal reforms—driven by international financial
institutions and donor agencies—often prioritize market liberalization,
privatization, and deregulation. These reforms are reflected in
investment laws, public-private partnerships, and tax incentives for
foreign businesses.
Marxist critique highlights how international law and neoliberal legal
frameworks function as tools of global capitalist domination (Chimni,
2004). Rather than empowering developing nations, these legal
structures bind them into asymmetrical economic relations and
deepen dependency. Legal sovereignty is subordinated to global
capital interests, eroding democratic control over national resources
and policies.
Global Resonance
Beyond Sierra Leone, Marxist legal theory sheds light on global issues such
as:

10
  Climate injustice: Legal systems fail to hold polluters accountable,
privileging extractive industries over indigenous rights.
 Transnational corporate power: Multinational corporations use
investment treaties and trade laws to undermine state regulation.
 Surveillance and digital capitalism: New legal regimes protect
corporate data accumulation while eroding individual privacy and
labour rights.
In all these cases, law operates as part of the ideological and coercive
apparatus sustaining global capitalist hegemony. It legitimizes inequality,
disciplines resistance, and masks the contradictions of neoliberalism.
Conclusion
Marxist theories of law offer a compelling critique of legal systems rooted in
capitalist economies. By emphasizing the class character of law, Marxist
theory challenges the notion of legal neutrality and underscores the
ideological role law plays in reproducing social hierarchies. From Pashukanis’
commodity-form theory to contemporary analyses of global legal systems,
Marxist legal thought continues to provide invaluable insights into the
relationship between law, power, and society.

References
1. Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses.
Monthly Review Press.
2. Chimni, B. S. (2004). International law and world order: A critique of
contemporary approaches. Cambridge University Press.
3. Collins, H. (1982). Marxism and law. Oxford University Press.
4. Davis, A. (2003). Are prisons obsolete? Seven Stories Press.
5. Fine, B. (2002). Economic theory and ideology. Routledge.
6. Harvey, D. (2010). The enigma of capital and the crises of capitalism.
Profile Books.
7. Hunt, A. (1993). Explorations in law and society: Toward a constitutive
theory of law. Routledge.
8. Marx, K. (1977). A contribution to the critique of political economy.
Progress Publishers.
9. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1970). The German ideology. International
Publishers.
10. Pashukanis, E. (1978). Law and Marxism: A general theory. Ink
Links.

11
11. Quinney, R. (1974). Critique of legal order: Crime control in
capitalist society. Little, Brown.
12. Wood, E. M. (1995). Democracy against capitalism: Renewing
historical materialism. Cambridge University Press.

12