IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/agspub/v3y2014i2p151-178.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unfree Labour under Capitalism: A Contradiction in (Useful) Terms

Author

Listed:
  • J. Mohan Rao

    (J. Mohan Rao is Professor of Economics at University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Email: rao@econs.umass.edu)

Abstract

Is free labour under capitalism a contradiction in terms? Two aspects of this long-debated question are considered. One is the divide between the libertarian insistence on individual freedom and the socialist contention of proletarian class unfreedom. Is there a viewpoint free of judgments or valuations as to what is or is not interesting or valuable about any given view of freedom? We argue that the Rawlsian original position defines a value-free benchmark of maximal freedom from which the degree of unfreedom under any set of social rules can be assessed. While negative individual freedom and class unfreedom are not incompatible, ‘free labour under capitalism’ has got to be a contradiction in terms. But capitalism classically defined is production by doubly ‘free’ labour which sharply distinguishes it from forms of ‘unfree’ labour that constitute its pre-history. This raises both conceptual and substantive empirical questions defining the second divide we consider, between Marx’s view linking capitalism and free labour and its detractors. Our contention is that keeping capitalism and unfree labour properly apart is a practical imperative of the continued use of these historically fruitful categories even if, as a corollary, ‘unfree labour under capitalism’ must seem a contradiction in terms.

Suggested Citation

  • J. Mohan Rao, 2014. "Unfree Labour under Capitalism: A Contradiction in (Useful) Terms," Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, Centre for Agrarian Research and Education for South, vol. 3(2), pages 151-178, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:agspub:v:3:y:2014:i:2:p:151-178
    DOI: 10.1177/2277976014550771
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2277976014550771
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2277976014550771?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Prasanta K. PATTANAIK & Yongsheng XU, 1990. "On Ranking Opportunity Sets in Terms of Freedom of Choice," Discussion Papers (REL - Recherches Economiques de Louvain) 1990036, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ballester, Miguel A. & de Miguel, Juan R. & Nieto, Jorge, 2004. "Set comparisons in a general domain: the Indirect Utility Criterion," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 139-150, September.
    2. Dinko Dimitrov & Ruud Hendrickx & Peter Borm, 2004. "Good and bad objects: the symmetric difference rule," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(11), pages 1-7.
    3. Ferreira, Francisco H. G. & Peragine, Vito, 2015. "Equality of Opportunity: Theory and Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 8994, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Suzumura, Kotaro & Xu, Yongsheng, 2001. "Characterizations of Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 423-436, December.
    5. Barbera, S. & Bossert, W. & Pattanaik, P.K., 2001. "Ranking Sets of Objects," Cahiers de recherche 2001-02, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    6. Reiko Gotoh & Naoki Yoshihara, 2018. "Securing basic well-being for all," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(4), pages 422-452, October.
    7. Vito Peragine & Ernesto Savaglio & Stefano Vannucci, 2008. "Poverty Rankings of Opportunity Profiles," Department of Economics University of Siena 548, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    8. Anand, Paul & van Hees, Martin, 2006. "Capabilities and achievements: An empirical study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 268-284, April.
    9. Carmen Herrero & Juan Moreno-Ternero, 2008. "Opportunity analysis of newborn screening programs," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 12(4), pages 259-277, December.
    10. Ernesto Screpanti, 2006. "Taxation, Social Goods And The Distribution Of Freedom," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 1-12, February.
    11. Fang Tang & Yongsheng Xu, 2011. "On thoughtfulness and generosity in sequential decisions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(4), pages 707-715, October.
    12. Klaus Nehring, 2003. "Preference for Flexibility and Freedom of Choice in a Savage Framework," Working Papers 51, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    13. Antoinette Baujard, 2006. "Conceptions of freedom and ranking opportunity sets. A typology," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes 1 & University of Caen) 200611, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes 1, University of Caen and CNRS.
    14. Amartya K. Sen, 1997. "From Income Inequality to Economic Inequality," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(2), pages 384-401, October.
    15. Kaname Miyagishima, 2010. "Ranking linear budget sets," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(1), pages 163-173, June.
    16. Martin van Hees, 1998. "On the Analysis of Negative Freedom," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 175-197, October.
    17. Jimena Galindo & Levent Ülkü, 2020. "Diversity relations over menus," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(2), pages 229-242, August.
    18. Martin Van Hees, 2003. "Acting Autonomously Versus not Acting Heteronomously," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 337-355, June.
    19. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Miguel Ballester & Jorge Nieto, 2012. "Freedom of choice: John Stuart Mill and the tree of life," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 209-226, March.
    20. Walter Bossert & Prasanta K. Pattanaik & Yongsheng Xu, 2003. "Similarity of Options and the Measurement of Diversity," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 15(4), pages 405-421, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:agspub:v:3:y:2014:i:2:p:151-178. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.