Capital Without Wage-Labour: Marx’s Modes of Subsumption Revisited

Vrousalis, Nicholas

doi:10.1017/s0266267117000293

Cited by 20 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…cannot be always procured in the market. In contrast with the estate and plantation model, non-equity production arrangements such as contract farming allow capital (agribusiness, buyers, processors) to set in motion the production process without requiring their ownership of the means of production or their direct hiring of labour by contracting with direct producers (UNCTAD 2009;Vrousalis 2018). Hence, different currents of critical agrarian studies concur that both in regions fully integrated into global commodity markets as well as in agrarian frontiers, the specific character of contract farming arrangements is indicative of the balance of forces between direct producers on one hand and agribusiness, processors and traders on the other; of the ways in which direct producers resist buyers' attempts to appropriate surplus value and of the ways in which capital attempts to erode such resistance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Handbook of Critical Agrarian Studies

Akram‐Lodhi¹,

McKay²,

Dietz³

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Handbook of Critical Agrarian Studies

Akram‐Lodhi¹,

McKay²,

Dietz³

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Many cases of this kind will also involve relations of domination rooted in the distribution of political power. 8 See, for instance,Roemer (1982) andVrousalis (2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural Domination and Freedom in the Labor Market: From Voluntariness to Independence

Bryan

2022

Am Polit Sci Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The claim that workers are subject to structural domination in the labor market is a central contention of the recent radical turn in republican political theory, but it remains undertheorized. Two core components—the claim that workers have “no reasonable alternative” to selling their labor to capitalists and the relevance of exposure to potential interference in such cases—remain unclear. Without a more precise specification of the conditions of structural domination, it is difficult to assess how well republican prescriptions minimize it. I develop a revised defense of the central claim through an analysis of these components. I clarify what it is to have reasonable alternatives in the labor market but show that holding such options is insufficient to avoid structural domination. I argue that the dependence at the heart of structural domination can be constituted multifariously and develop an additional criterion directed at capturing such dependence in production.

show abstract

“… 18 18 What about exploitation of LMFs by other LMFs through the exploitation of “each other's surplus labor” (see: Vrousalis 2018. 434)?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Workplace democracy, exploitation, and liberalism: Why labor‐managed firms are neither exploitative nor illiberal

Braun

2021

Journal of Social Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Democratic workplaces or what I call "labor-managed firms" (LMFs) have been supported by a number of theorists who believe they would lead to a more just and wholly good society that better secures equality across social positions, increased democratic engagement, opportunity for meaningful work, and autonomy. For example, Robert Dahl has famously argued that "if democracy is justified in governing the state, then it must also be justified in governing economic enterprises" (Dahl 1985, 111). Carol Gould (1988 has maintained that workplace democracy is necessary for an equal positive right to self-development (1988)/self-transformation (2014). Those sympathetic to republican thought such as Elizabeth Anderson (2017) and González-Ricoy (2014) have referenced LMFs as a way to protect workers against arbitrary interference. Andrea Veltman (2016) and Ruth Yeoman (2014) think that LMFs are important vehicles in securing the good of meaningful work. LMFs are also attractive to liberal-socialist thinkers including David Miller (1989) and David Schweickart (1996), who, to quote Miller, claim that an economy of LMFs "combine the freedom and efficiency advantages of markets with a more democratic organization of work and more equal distribution of resources" (Miller 1989, 1).However, despite the purported benefits of LMFs, they have not spontaneously developed in any appreciable number. They currently constitute at most 3-4 percent of total firms in any developed economy and typically much less (Dow 2018b, 66). After several decades of economic investigation, the reasons for this dearth are starting to become clear. The fact of the matter is that for LMFs to predominate and an LMF economy to develop, LMFs will likely need to be mandated (more below). However, an LMF economy that is developed through state mandates is a different beast to one that develops entirely spontaneously since the state is intending for LMFs to predominate.The seeming necessity of direct state involvement has led several liberal thinkers to criticize an LMF economy as exploitative and illiberal, despite its reliance on the ostensibly freedom preserving market mechanism. This charge has been most recently advanced by Alan Thomas (2017) who,

show abstract

Capital Without Wage-Labour: Marx’s Modes of Subsumption Revisited

Cited by 20 publications

References 26 publications

Handbook of Critical Agrarian Studies

Handbook of Critical Agrarian Studies

Structural Domination and Freedom in the Labor Market: From Voluntariness to Independence

Workplace democracy, exploitation, and liberalism: Why labor‐managed firms are neither exploitative nor illiberal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About