This document provides an overview of Marxist jurisprudence and applies it to the 2006 case DPP v Lennon. It first introduces Marxist theories such as historical materialism, which holds that economic relations determine social development and consciousness. Laws are seen as reflective of these material conditions. The document then summarizes the Lennon case, which dealt with a new type of cybercrime, and argues it shows how laws cannot keep up with rapid technological changes as predicted by Marxist theory. Overall, the document uses Marxist jurisprudence to analyze how legal systems react to rather than direct social and economic changes.

1. Marxist Jurisprudence w12003024
Page 1 of 15
An essay applying the classical theory on Marxist
Jurisprudence to the modern society, and comparing
it to the recent decision in DPP v Lennon [2006]
EWHC 1201

2. Marxist Jurisprudence w12003024
Page 2 of 15
Introduction
The theories in Marxist jurisprudence focus on the material changes in the world around us,
and their causes. Marx believed the point is not just to interpret the world, but to change it1.
Marxism is a theory which can be applied to legal thinking, it theories that the law is
reflective of the world around us and is in one sense retrospective. This can be shown in the
recent case of DPP v Lennon2 (hereinafter Lennon). This case shows that modern society has
moved into an internet age, developing at inconceivable rate, and the law, being retrospective,
cannot possibly keep up with such developments.
This paper will introduce the principals of Marxist jurisprudence, how they compare to other
jurisprudential theories. It will go on to show how the theory is still alive today, more so than
it ever was, which is emphasised in Lennon. To do this, the core theory of Marxism must first
be understood.
1 Bhaskar Sunkara,‘Why the ideas of Karl Marx aremore relevant than ever in the 21st century’ The Guardian
(London, 25 January 2013) <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/25/karl-marx-relevant-
21st-century> accessed 10 March 2015
2 DPP v Lennon [2006] EWHC 1201

3. Marxist Jurisprudence w12003024
Page 3 of 15
Theory of History
Marx discovered a particular evolutionary pattern controlling human progress. Behind the
complexity of mankind human civilisation has been gradually moving towards the goal of
history. Once the direction of this progress and the reasons for social change are apparent,
then we can start to look forward3. According to Marxism, the meaning of history is that
man’s destiny lies in the creation of a communist society, where everyone’s needs are equally
satisfied and where true freedom has been achieved 4. This theory was derived from a
scrutiny of the past to establish what causes social change. By focusing on the material,
man’s work in the world, Marx was able to develop historical materialism, which states that
historical evolution of man is a product of the ‘modes and relations of production’ which will
determine the nature of each historical period5. Derived from this, is the additional theory of
historical determinism, but first we must understand what historical materialism is.
Historical materialism forms the basis of Marxist thought. Marx was influenced by, but
critical of, two very different jurisprudential thoughts to create this theory. These two
thoughts were materialism, as advocated by Hobbes, and idealism and Hegelian Philosophy,
as advocated by his German predecessor, Hegel. Materialism is the theory that there is only
physical substance. When we think, it is just material in our minds. This theory reduces
human behaviour to an evolutionary pattern, where everything is determined by external
factors6. Idealism is the opposite. Idealism is the theory that we as humans structure the world
through our ideas, and so the human mind has the ability to transcend the circumstances of
existence and to make our own history7. The centre piece of Hegelian philosophy, which
Marx drew on the most, was change. Hegel philosophised that conflict was responsible for
this change, and that continuous conflict produces inevitable progress as a historical process8.
Hegel said that every idea is met with an opposing one, and when the two ideas clash, a new
idea combining the truths of the two opposing ones will form. Eventually a new opposing
idea would conflict with the combined idea and the cycle will repeat itself. He called this
‘dialectic’9. Marx used a varied form of the dialectic for the basis of his own historical
3 Hugh Collins, Marxism and Law (Oxford University Press,1982) 2
4 ‘Beginners Guide to Marxism’(Marxists Independent Archive, 2009)
<https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/hist-mat/index.htm> accessed 26 March 2015
5 Ibid
6 Hugh Collins, Marxism and Law (Oxford University Press,1982) 17-18
7 J E Penner and E Melissaris, McCoubrey & White’s Textbook on Jurisprudence (5th edn, OUP 2012) 201-202
8 Friedrich Hegel, Philosophy of Right (Firstpublished 1820,Thom Books 2012) 84
9 Ibid

4. Marxist Jurisprudence w12003024
Page 4 of 15
materialism theory. Marx’s varied form, instead of relying on development of more
sophisticated truths, emphasised changes in economic relations as the engine of social
development10. Marx proposed that through historical materialism, society will go through
different stages of development as the material world develops. It was the material basis of
human life where Marx argued the dialectic operated. By focusing on the material from
Hobbes’ theory and man’s labour in the world, and applying it with Hegel’s dialectic, Marx
was able to develop this concept of historical materialism. Marx stated that there were three
pillars of society. First, he believed we had forces of production. This was described by Marx
as the available natural resources and the knowledge of technologies for exploiting them11.
Second is the economic structure of society, which is the product of man’s relations of
production and the definite stage of development of their material technologies12. Finally
there is the superstructure. Marx wrote that the productive forces and the economy were the
material base, or the real foundation, from which a legal and political superstructure rises13.
As Marx famously wrote, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but,
on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness”14. Thus laws are
determined in their form by the relations of production15.
From this, we can say that the law only changes as the material world changes. It is reactive,
not proactive. This can be seen in Lennon. This was the first case in the UK dealing with
what are now known as denial of service attacks, or ‘mail-bombing’ attacks16. A mail bomb
has since been defined as the sending of a massive amount of e-mail to a specific person or
system and legislated against17. The Crown Prosecution Service brought a charge under the
Computer Misuse Act 1990 against Lennon for ‘causing an unauthorised modification to the
contents of a company's computer with the intent to impair its operation’ 18 . The case
illustrates how new acts, which the law believes should constitute offences, are being dealt
with by old legislation, instead of already having the legislation in place beforehand. This
10 ‘Beginners Guide to Marxism’(Marxists Independent Archive, 2009)
<https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01.htm> accessed 1 April 2015
11 ‘Beginners Guide to Marxism’(Marxists Independent Archive, 2009)
<https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm> accessed 1
April 2015
12 Ibid
13 Ibid
14 Ibid
15 Hugh Collins, Marxism and Law (Oxford University Press,1982) 19
16 DPP v Lennon [2006] EWHC 1201 [2]
17 Policeand JusticeAct 2006,s 36
18 Computer MisuseAct 1990, s 3

5. Marxist Jurisprudence w12003024
Page 5 of 15
shows that the law cannot keep up with technological developments. The law is reactive and
ultimately determined by the relations of production in society.
Historical determinism is the theory that the various stages of history are inevitable. Marx
believed he could, with scrutiny of the past, determine the evolutionary pattern in which
human civilisation had taken, what the reason for that was, and where it was going in the
future19. His theory, as stated in the Communist Manifesto20, indicated that there is a class
separation in our society. This is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat 21 . The
bourgeoisie are the ruling class and the owners of the means of production. The proletariat
are the working class who constantly find themselves in a worse position than, and exploited
by, the bourgeoisie22. Marx theorised that the modern bourgeoisie, the capitalist, sprouted
from the ruins of the feudal society, which was the predecessor of capitalism. He also said
that it was the introduction of private property that drove this. He believed that, although
prima facie for everyone, private property only existed for the minority and had already done
away with nine-tenths of the population. This claim is the basis for the rest of his reasoning
and ideas for a communist government23.Through the expansion of mankind, such as the
discovery of America, new wants and needs emerged. This was due to rising demands and
growing markets. This gave way for the increase in exchange of commodities and thereby to
the revolutionary element of development24 and ultimately the demise of the feudal society.
The manufacturing system took the place of the feudal system, and the modern industry took
its place in turn, developing the bourgeoisie over a period of time. This was the start to
modern capitalism and commodities and gives rise to the modern capitalist state that we find
ourselves in today. Historical determinism is the theory that all these various economies will
inevitably result in conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, who will realise their
exploitation as a result of external social factors, the world developing around them and the
advancement of technology. As a result of these previous conflicts, capitalism is now the
dominant mode of production in the world and has been since the end of the nineteenth
19 ‘Beginners Guide to Marxism’(Marxists Independent Archive, 2009)
<https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm>accessed 2 April 2015
20 ‘Beginners Guide to Marxism’(Marxists Independent Archive, 2009)
<https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm> accessed 2 April
2015
21 caccessed 2 April 2015
22 Ibid
23 ‘Beginners Guide to Marxism’(Marxists Independent Archive, 2009)
<https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm>accessed 2 April
24 Ibid

6. Marxist Jurisprudence w12003024
Page 6 of 15
century25. Eventually, like all modes of production, we will come out of the capitalist society
that we are in as a result of a conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and
historical materialism. This is where the proletariat will finally overthrow the bourgeoisie,
and as Marx theorised, a communist society will be the only answer to the class conflict26.
Marx said that the utopian communist society was the final stage of the human evolutionary
process27. It is at this final stage in the human evolutionary process where there will be no
superstructure, so in turn we will have no need for laws, as the law is only a product
reflecting the material world. It is used to keep the proletariat oppressed and drive the forces
of production at the gain of the bourgeoisie. Contrasting this, everyone’s needs would be met
in a classless society.
25 J E Penner and E. Melissaris,McCoubrey & White’s Textbook on Jurisprudence (5th edn, OUP 2012) 203
26 ‘Beginners Guide to Marxism’(Marxists Independent Archive, 2009)
<https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm>accessed 3 April
27 Ibid

7. Marxist Jurisprudence w12003024
Page 7 of 15
Class Oppression and the Legal System
“Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for
oppressing another”28. The current bourgeoisie, the capitalist, do not want to see the current
capitalist state change or collapse. This is due to the fact that they own all the wealth and
capital, and have all the power. However, when we apply Marx’s theory of history, we see
that change is inevitable. To understand why this change is inevitable, it is crucial to
understand capitalism.
As mentioned above, capitalism is now the dominant mode of production across the world.
Marx theorised that those who owned the capital would own the power, and that the capitalist
class would use this power to oppress the proletariat29. This can be seen in modern society. In
a work environment, the proletariat find themselves exploited. Using a factory assembly line
as an example, like those used at the beginning of the industrial revolution, we can see how
this is so. A series of workers each preform an individual task within the larger process of
creating a product. The machines used, the work done, and the end product itself all belong to
the owners of the means of production, the bourgeoisie. The only thing that the workers can
sell is their capacity to work30.Once a product makes it to market; it is sold at a premium, a
price higher than the worker’s salaries or the production costs. This excess money is owned
by the bourgeoisie whose wealth is therefore increased, disproportionately to that of the work
put in, compared to that of the proletariat. If the proletariat then wants to enjoy the fruits of
their own personal labour, they must buy the product which they personally have produced,
using the wages they earned from producing it, bettering the bourgeoisie position further31.
The way in which this process works is by a process called ‘alienation’. Marx theorised that
the creation of money in exchange for labour had created a society where people would be
doing their jobs autonomously32. He said that it is an illusion that they have a freedom to
work when it is required they do so in order to live33. Capitalism relies on this process of
alienation. The ruling class, the bourgeoisie, must be in control of the environment and the
product of labour. Without alienation from their labour, their production and each other, the
28 Ibid
29 Ibid
30 J E Penner and E Melissaris, McCoubrey & White’s Textbook on Jurisprudence (5th edn, OUP 2012) 203
31 Ibid
32 ‘Beginners Guide to Marxism’(Marxists Independent Archive, 2009)
<https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm>accessed 3 April
33 Ibid

8. Marxist Jurisprudence w12003024
Page 8 of 15
proletariat would realise their exploitation and revolt. This would in turn lead to a conflict
between the classes and the ultimate demise of capitalism.
It is perceived that the legal system is in place for the maintenance of social order. Both
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke compared the laws to that of the rules of a game. Rules of a
game prevent one player from gaining an unfair advantage over another and laws do the same.
They stop one gaining unfair advantages over another in life. Marxism on the other hand
argues that the law is there to secure and protect the current mode of production and its
corresponding class structure. In a modern society this is called capitalism. The law is there
to try and prevent the collapse of capitalism and ensure that the wealth is owned by the
bourgeoisie34 .
Modern Marxists believed that the objective of the legal system is to oppress the social
classes that are excluded from wealth and power, the proletariat35. One way of viewing this is
through the instrumentalist approach. This approach uses the fundamental basis of the ideas
and arguments proposed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, that the state was
an instrument of the ruling class to oppress the working class36. It adds that the legal system
was an integral part of the state with a similar function of oppression37. Vladimir Lenin was
an advocate of Marxism and this instrumentalist theory. He argued that laws were created by
the ruling class as a means of legalising oppression of one class over another38. This can be
evidenced by laws against crime, such as theft, and the punishment they bear, which protect
private property. This is a means of oppression over the proletariat as it protects the
bourgeoisie’s interest in private property39 . It’s a way to keep the proletariat in check.
Additional support for this concept can be found in unlawful governmental behaviour. When
faced with a rebellion a legal system will exhibit signs of strain by allowing short cuts over
legality in order to quell a revolt effectively. The fact that brute force has to be used if the
criminal law fails to protect private ownership of property is the proof that the function of law
is to impose regularised and institutionalised class oppression40.
34 Ibid
35 Hugh Collins, Marxism and Law (Oxford University Press,1982) 29
36 ‘Beginners Guide to Marxism’(Marxists Independent Archive, 2009)
<https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm>accessed 3 April
37 Hugh Collins, Marxism and Law (Oxford University Press,1982) 27
38 V I Lenin, The State and Revolution (Firstpublished 1917,Penguin 1992) 9
39 Hugh Collins, Marxism and Law (Oxford University Press,1982) 29
40 Ibid

9. Marxist Jurisprudence w12003024
Page 9 of 15
This can, again, be seen in Lennon. At the time, ‘mail-bombing’ attacks were not well known
and with no laws against it, Lennon’s actions were completely legal. There were no laws
against the use of ‘mail-bombing’ attacks as they were not well known. The legal system had
to bypass the normal procedure of introduction of laws to criminalise something that was not
a crime, and protect the interests of the ruling class. Laws are not reflections of the mode of
production in any sense, but are deliberately constructed by the ruling class to serve and
maintain their own interests41.
41 Ibid 28

10. Marxist Jurisprudence w12003024
Page 10 of 15
Comparison to other Jurisprudential Theories
Marxism is a relatively new theory. Its uniqueness can be highlighted in reference to other
theories of jurisprudence, which can be seen to be critical of Marxism. Whereas Marxism
primarily focuses on the law acting as a tool of oppression, John Stuart Mill’s theory of
liberty addresses the law as a tool of protection.
Mill believed that the law and legal systems were not in place to oppress us, but on the
contrary, were there as a tool to protect our liberty. Mill’s essay ‘On liberty’42 provides
theories to justify and support the political and legal system we have in a Western liberal
democracy. Mill identified a possible danger within our democratic system of tyranny to
occur. He branded this as ‘the tyranny of the majority’43. Although Mill was writing in a time
where the state was becoming more and more representative of society44, he believed that the
individual’s liberty was still at danger, and that it was just a different format in which this
danger was present45. He suggested that this tyranny could occur as Parliament could express
the prejudice of the majority. This, in turn, would pose a threat to the minority or the
individual’s liberty46. To combat this, Mill suggested we needed various safeguards in place.
This is what is known as Mill’s harm principal. This set out the limits of society’s power over
an individual, and when a society could compel an individual against his wishes, when it
would be justified47. The principal is concerned with the nature and limits of power by
society over the individual. Mill stated it as the following, ‘The only purpose for which power
can be rightly exercised over any member of civilized community, against his will, is to
prevent harm to others’48. Mill tried to create a private social space for every individual,
which would create conditions where free thinking, independent individuals would thrive49.
What is important about this principal is that it distinguishes two kinds of activity, self-
regarding action and other regarding action 50 . Self-regarding activity is activity that
individual does which does not affect others, and so which he cannot be held accountable to
society for. Other regarding action are actions that are prejudicial to the interests of others.
42 J S Mill,On liberty (Firstpublished 1859,Ticknor and Fields 1863)
43 Ibid 13
44 The Reform Act 1832
45 J S Mill,On liberty (Firstpublished 1859,Ticknor and Fields 1863) 8-9
46 Ibid
47 Ibid 28
48 Ibid 23
49 Ibid 62-69
50 Brian Bix,Jurisprudence: Theory and Context (6th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012) 170

11. Marxist Jurisprudence w12003024
Page 11 of 15
The individual would be accountable and maybe subjected to social or legal punishment51.
Mill considered governmental interference a great evil, even if for a person’s own good, as he
was very opposed to the idea of paternalism. The kind of actions that affect others shouldn’t
be governed by the state52. Mill valued liberty in two ways, which were that liberty had an
intrinsic value, a value within itself, and it had instrumental value. He said it could be used to
gain social diversity53. “The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our
own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs”54. From
this we can see it is important for Mill that, so long as they did not harm each other,
individuals are able to choose their own life.
Marx’s ideas are similar to Mill’s principles in several ways. Marx claims that the
overthrowing of the bourgeoisie would allow more freedoms to the working class, since they
would not be forced to work and live in poverty. Mill is clearly in favour of more freedom for
everyone, as that is his main ideology. Mill’s idea that every individual must have the right to
their own opinion, no matter how unpopular, is similar to the fundamental ideas of Marx’s
utopian communist society. In addition, Marx is adamant that the oppression by the
bourgeoisie must be overcome by the proletariat, is similar to Mill’s theory on the tyranny of
the majority, that the government has no right to suppress citizens. However, this is where the
similarities between Mill and Marx end.
While Marx warns against the tyranny put forward by the bourgeois, his notion of
overthrowing them and abolishing private property can be seen as a tyranny in itself. He is
ignoring the wishes and opinions of the upper class simply because the lower class makes up
the majority. Mill warns against this tyranny of the majority, stating that just because the
majority holds a certain opinion, that opinion isn’t necessarily right55. Marx’s idea of a
revolution, and the overthrowing of the bourgeoisie and the class conflicts, completely
contradicts Mill’s idea of the majority not imposing on the minority.
Although Mill and Marx agree on some points in their writings, the crucial idea given by
each theorist strongly opposes the other. Both men want more freedom. Marx wants freedom
for the oppressed, the proletariat, to create an equal society. Mill wants freedom for
everybody, the individual, to create a diverse society. However, Mills arguments for the harm
51 Ibid
52 J S Mill,On liberty (Firstpublished 1859,Ticknor and Fields 1863) 21-22
53 Ibid 109
54 Ibid 28-29
55 Ibid 14

12. Marxist Jurisprudence w12003024
Page 12 of 15
principle can be seen as too broad. They don’t offer enough guidance as to what could
constitute harm, the nature and extent of it, and what we would do in specific situations. This
creates practical problems. Almost anything that someone does will affect others in some
form. It is arguable that purely self-regarding actions don’t even exist.
If we apply Mill’s harm principal to Lennon, would a ‘mail-bomb’, the sending of large
amounts of emails, constitute harm?
It is also arguable that Mills theory is contradictory. Regardless of complete non-interference
and ultimate choice and freedom, forced choices will always occur, such as gender equality,
so how can the individual be wholly independent? Marx, on the other hand, acknowledges
that social circumstances around human development reflect that the creation of an equal
society is beneficial to everyone. Marx’s vision of a communist society is respected more so
as it allows for the critique of modern society, which will in turn lead to a more rapid
development of human nature and society.

13. Marxist Jurisprudence w12003024
Page 13 of 15
Conclusion
In this piece we have seen how a theory put forward in the 18th century still has presence and
meaning in the modern world. The theory put forward by Marx that the law is used as a tool
of oppression is a compelling argument; however, there are other opposing theories.
Although not initially meant as a legal theory, we can see how it still holds weight towards
other jurisprudential theories such as Mill’s harm principle.
When applying Marxist jurisprudence to Lennon we saw that as technology advances, the law
becomes more reactive rather than proactive. This shows that the law changes as the world
develops, and that the law is based on the material world. Bypassing the normal procedure of
the introduction of laws evidences how they can be used to oppress a certain class of people.
What Lennon did was not a crime at the time of his act. A guilty verdict is proof that laws are
deliberately created by the bourgeoisie to maintain their own interests in private property and
to keep the proletariat at bay.
Word Count: 3,498

14. Marxist Jurisprudence w12003024
Page 14 of 15
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
UK Primary Legislation
Police and Justice Act 2006
Computer Misuse Act 1990
Cases from England and Wales
DPP v Lennon [2006] EWHC 1201
Secondary Sources
Books
Bix B, Jurisprudence: Theory and Context (6th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012)
Collins H, Marxism and Law (Oxford University Press, 1982)
Hegel F, Philosophy of Right (First published 1820, Thom Books 2012)
J S Mill, On liberty (First published 1859, Ticknor and Fields 1863)
Penner J E and Melissaris E, McCoubrey & White’s Textbook on Jurisprudence (5th edn,
OUP 2012)
V I Lenin, The State and Revolution (First published 1917, Penguin 1992)
Websites and Blogs
‘Beginners Guide to Marxism’ (Marxists Independent Archive, 2009)
<https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/hist-mat/index.htm>
‘Beginners Guide to Marxism’ (Marxists Independent Archive, 2009)
<https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm>
‘Beginners Guide to Marxism’ (Marxists Independent Archive, 2009)
<https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm>
‘Beginners Guide to Marxism’ (Marxists Independent Archive, 2009)
<https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm>
‘Beginners Guide to Marxism’ (Marxists Independent Archive, 2009)
<https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm>
‘Beginners Guide to Marxism’ (Marxists Independent Archive, 2009)
<https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01.htm>

15. Marxist Jurisprudence w12003024
Page 15 of 15
Newspaper Articles
Sunkara B, ‘Why the ideas of Karl Marx are more relevant than ever in the 21st century’ The
Guardian (London, 25 January 2013)
<http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/25/karl-marx-relevant-21st-century>