A systematic, critical examination of Karl Marx's social theories and their philosophical presuppositions. Through extensive discussions of the texts Jon Elster offers a balanced and detailed account of Marx's views that is at once sympathetic, undogmatic and rigorous. Equally importantly he tries to assess 'what is living and what is dead in the philosophy of Marx', using the analytical resources of contemporary social science and philosophy. Professor Elster insists on the need for microfoundations in social science and provides a systematic (...) criticism of functionalism and teleological thinking in Marx. He argues that Marx's economic theories are largely wrong or irrelevant; historical materialism is seen to have only limited plausibility ; Marx's most lasting achievements are the criticism of capitalism in terms of alienation and exploitation and the theory of class struggle, politics and ideology under capitalism, though in these areas too Elster enters substantial qualifications. The book should take its place as the most comprehensive and sophisticated modern study available. (shrink)

Philosophical writing on the welfare state has taken a defensive turn in recent years, largely in response to two related phenomena: the re-emergence of pro-market ideologies in the larger political culture and the imperiled condition of real world welfare states in a global economy in which national governments have diminishing capacities for shaping the social and economic lives of their citizens. But thanks in part to the tireless advocacy of Philippe Van Parijs, an even more radically redistributive form of public (...) provision than the welfare state has come onto the intellectual agenda—and the political agenda too, at least in Belgium and the Netherlands. Van Parijs proposes that all citizens be accorded an unconditional “basic income grant” as large as is compatible with the need to generate as much wealth as possible for redistribution. By now, this idea has many defenders. It also boasts a genealogy extending back to such writers as Tom Paine, François Huet, Edward Bellamy and G. D. H. Cole. But Van Parijs has become its best-known and most adept philosophical proponent, and this book represents his most sustained effort to date to investigate its normative foundations. (shrink)

It is universally agreed that involuntary unemployment is an evil for unemployed individuals, who lose both income and the non-pecuniary benefits of paid employment, and for society, which loses the productive labor that the unemployed are unable to expend. It is nearly as widely agreed that there is at least a prima-facie case for alleviating this evil – for reasons of justice and/or benevolence and/or social order. Finally, there is little doubt that the evils of involuntary unemployment cannot be adequately (...) addressed in contemporary societies without state intervention – whether through monetary or fiscal policies, cash payments or other subsidies to the unemployed, direct provision of employment by the state, or some combination of these measures. (shrink)

Philosophical writing on the welfare state has taken a defensive turn in recent years, largely in response to two related phenomena: the re-emergence of pro-market ideologies in the larger political culture and the imperiled condition of real world welfare states in a global economy in which national governments have diminishing capacities for shaping the social and economic lives of their citizens. But thanks in part to the tireless advocacy of Philippe Van Parijs, an even more radically redistributive form of public (...) provision than the welfare state has come onto the intellectual agenda—and the political agenda too, at least in Belgium and the Netherlands. Van Parijs proposes that all citizens be accorded an unconditional “basic income grant” as large as is compatible with the need to generate as much wealth as possible for redistribution. By now, this idea has many defenders. It also boasts a genealogy extending back to such writers as Tom Paine, François Huet, Edward Bellamy and G. D. H. Cole. But Van Parijs has become its best-known and most adept philosophical proponent, and this book represents his most sustained effort to date to investigate its normative foundations. (shrink)

On 5 Nivôse of the Year II, addressing the National Assembly on behalf of the Committee of Public Safety, Robespierre declared: “The theory of revolutionary government is as new as the revolution that has brought it about. It should not be sought in the books of political writers, who have not foreseen this revolution, nor in the laws of tyrants, who content to abuse their power, are little concerned to investigate its legitimacy.” It is tempting to suppose Robespierre is exaggerating. (...) Whatever the relation of revolutionary government to “the laws of tyrants,” Robespierre's ties to the republican tradition in political philosophy, and especially to Rousseau, are striking and nearly everywhere acknowledged, not least by Robespierre himself. However, I am not concerned here with the question of Rousseau's influence upon Robespierre, but with the rather different question of conceptual affinity. Even if Robespierre's intent were just to put The Social Contract into practice, it is still appropriate to ask whether Robespierre is a Rousseauean. (shrink)

For more than two decades, C. B. Macpherson has waged a relentless campaign to expose and critize the ‘possessive individualist’ assumptions of classical and liberal democratictheory. This new book —a collection of essays, including several not previously published —gives a clear focus to this campaign and provides the fullest expression to date of its positive side: the elaboration of a social philosophy incorporating liberal values but free from possessive individualist assumptions. What is defective in the assumptions is less the internal (...) theoretical problems they generate than that they have become historically outmoded. For Macpherson, liberal democracy is historically — even politically — inadequate, before it is theoretically inadequate. It is inadequate for us — now — because it rests on assumptions we no longer need, assumptions that have ceased to be historically progressive. However, liberal democracy is not, as surgeons would say, beyond operation. On Macpherson's view, nearly everything that is attractive in liberal theory can be salvaged. Democratic Theory is appropriately subtitled: Essays in Retrieval. (shrink)

In what follows, “persons” are ideal-typical concepts of human beings, deployed expressly or supposed implicitly in particular theoretical contexts. Thus, the person of Kantian moral philosophy is a pure bearer of moral predicates, bereft of all properties that empirically distinguish human beings from one another: properties that, in Kant's view, are irrelevant to moral deliberation. No man or woman, actual or possible, could be so starkly featureless. But Kant's aim was not to describe human beings in actual or possible deliberations, (...) but moral agency as such. Similarly, homo oeconomicus, economic man, is not a composite man or woman, but also a person, a theoretical construct introduced for explanatory purposes in models of economic behavior. My aim is to investigate capitalist persons: ideal-typical concepts of human beings deployed in justifying theories of capitalist property relations. I shall identify two capitalist persons, and impugn one of them. To situate my position historically, I call the impugned person Lockean, and the other Kantian. It is tempting to designate the Lockean person “ the capitalist person.” However, this characterization would be misleading. Justifying theories of capitalism can employ either concept, and both can serve in accounts of socialist economies. Nevertheless, the Lockean person is tendentially procapitalist while the Kantian person is not. What follows is therefore relevant to the broader capitalism/socialism debate. To fault the Lockean person is not quite to fault capitalism itself. But a case against the Lockean person, if successful, would undermine an important strain of procapitalist argument. More importantly, the considerations I will adduce suggest a way of thinking about distributive justice and, ultimately, an ideal of equality that socialism, but not capitalism, can in principle accommodate. (shrink)

On 5 Nivôse of the Year II, addressing the National Assembly on behalf of the Committee of Public Safety, Robespierre declared: “The theory of revolutionary government is as new as the revolution that has brought it about. It should not be sought in the books of political writers, who have not foreseen this revolution, nor in the laws of tyrants, who content to abuse their power, are little concerned to investigate its legitimacy.” It is tempting to suppose Robespierre is exaggerating. (...) Whatever the relation of revolutionary government to “the laws of tyrants,” Robespierre's ties to the republican tradition in political philosophy, and especially to Rousseau, are striking and nearly everywhere acknowledged, not least by Robespierre himself. However, I am not concerned here with the question of Rousseau's influence upon Robespierre, but with the rather different question of conceptual affinity. Even if Robespierre's intent were just to put The Social Contract into practice, it is still appropriate to ask whether Robespierre is a Rousseauean. (shrink)

Human history is a history of the domination of some groups by others, sustained in part by the willing subordination of the members of dominated groups. How can this remarkable fact be explained? On Michael Rosen’s telling, some of the best political theorists of the early modern period, from Machiavelli through Rousseau and Hume, grappled with this question. But it was, of course, in Marx’s work that the problem of voluntary servitude received its most philosophically trenchant and historically influential treatment. (...) Rosen’s central claim is that Marx ultimately failed to explain this phenomenon satisfactorily. He does think that at least one self-described Marxist, Walter Benjamin, advanced promising suggestions, and he concludes On Voluntary Servitude with his own sketch of a solution, drawing in part on Jon Elster’s reconstructions of Marxist positions. But, as Rosen makes painfully clear, we are still some way from a full understanding of why people voluntarily accept forms of political domination opposed to their own interests. (shrink)

In our essay ‘What’s Historical About Historical Materialism?’, we drew two contrasts between the Darwinian theory of evolution (ET) and the Marxist theory of historical materialism (HM).1 We described the former as a ‘micro-theory’ and the latter as a ‘macro-theory’. We also argued that, in Darwinian theory, evolution is driven by exogenous forces, specifically, by natural selection induced by environmental factors; whereas historical materialism sees the transformation of a society from feudalism to capitalism and then to socialism as a consequence (...) of an endogenous process, involving ‘contradictions’ between forces and relations of production and class struggle. Nolan has taken issue with both of these contrasts; his view is that the two theories are more similar than our account allows. (shrink)