Republican Freedom in the Labour Market

Abstract

In this article, I query whether participation in the labour market can hinder neo-republican freedom as non-domination. I briefly present the view of Philip Pettit on the topic, based on the distinction between offering a reward and threatening a punishment. I compare it to the analysis of labour republicans, recently reconstructed by Alex Gourevitch, according to whom, the exclusion of a group of individuals from the control of productive assets represents a form of structural domination. Then, I explain why I take a position that is different from both. I hold that capitalist structural domination leads only to exploitation, not interpersonal domination. In doing this, I consider two objections that might be raised against my argument. The first one is based on incomplete contracts and on a possible ideal benchmark for job offers. The second one challenges the supposed arbitrariness of unequal property relations within the capitalist social system.

Labouring in the Sex Industry: A Conversation with Sex Workers on Consent and Exploitation

“…This power dimension affects the ex-ante situation of negotiators, or what is at stake for the negotiators, a condition that refers to a person's vulnerability. Müller (2019) suggests that some persons will be more susceptible to exploitation, and this susceptibility is a function of structural exploitation, and here she is not alone, since others (Rueckert 2019;Miklos 2019;Mo 2018;Corvino 2019;Franck and Anderson 2019;Dewey et al 2017) also draw this conclusion.…”

“…I want to proceed as Mark Pulliam does from a society based on individual liberty, limited state intervention, and policies that safeguard private property (2019, p. 411). In this context, the ideal arrangement is a consensual economic exchange, free from threats of harm (Kim 2018;Corvino 2019), and not coerced (Müller 2019); one willingly accepts the transaction. Once this is established, Pulliam echoes Kim (2018, p. 34), stating that "no one has the 'right" to interfere with or prevent consensual exchanges by others on terms that are agreeable to them" (Pulliam 2019, p. 411); to intervene would be unfair.…”

“…Exploitation involves some unfair benefits and rights violations (Corvino 2019;Pulliam 2019;Müller 2019;Kim 2018). A transaction becomes exploitative when the employer violates the employees' rights, usually involving both micro and macro aspects.…”

“…Müller (2019) distinguishes between two accounts of exploitation-transactional (micro) and structural (macro) accounts. Corvino (2019), further differentiates exploitation from interpersonal domination. Kim (2018) offers us the mere Means account-a Kantian test, while Miklos argues that employers can take advantage of an "underlying injustice" (2019, p. 59).…”

“…A level of exploitation is acceptable and allowed if workers tolerate some transgressions, and this acceptance is voluntary (Kim 2018). However, unacceptable violations of these rights can not only lead to exploitation, which is one dimension of the issue, but can also lead to interpersonal domination (Corvino 2019). The inability to say no, the inability to interrupt the relationship with the employer even if the worker absorbs the cost, all of these are examples of interpersonal domination (Corvino 2019, p. 114).…”