Advertisement

Res Publica

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 453–473 | Cite as

Karl Marx and Wilt Chamberlain, or: Luck Egalitarianism, Exploitation, and the Clean Path to Capitalism Argument

  • Paul Warren
Article

Abstract

This paper focuses on the claim that luck egalitarianism is incompatible with Marxian theory because it allows for the possibility of a ‘clean path’ to capitalism. It explores the nature and structure of the clean path argument generally and critically discusses luck egalitarian versions of the argument. It contends that the Marxian theory of exploitation can meet the challenge of the clean path to capitalism argument, that luck egalitarianism and the Marxian theory of exploitation are not incompatible, and that luck egalitarianism can explain why Marxian exploitation is unjust.

Keywords

Luck egalitarianism Marxian theory of exploitation Capitalism Robert Nozick G. A. Cohen 

References

  1. Anderson, Elizabeth. 1999. What’s the point of equality? Ethics 109: 287–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cohen, G. A. 1995. Self-ownership, freedom, and equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, G. A. 2008. Rescuing justice and equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, G. A. 2011. Why not socialism?. Princeton, NJ, and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dworkin, Ronald. 2000. Sovereign virtue. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Elster, Jon. 1983. Exploitation, freedom, and justice. In NOMOS 26: Marxism, ed. Roland Pennock, and John Chapman, 277–304. New York, NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Elster, Jon. 1985. Making sense of Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fried, Barbara. 1995. With Chamberlain revisited: Nozick’s “justice in transfer” and the problem of market based distribution. Philosophy & Public Affairs 24: 226–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kymlicka, Will. 2002. Contemporary political philosophy. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Marx, Karl. 1976. Capital, vol. I. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  11. Marx, Karl. 1978. Critique of the gotha programme. In The Marx-Engels reader. 2nd edn., ed. R. Tucker, 525–541.Google Scholar
  12. Meyers, Chris. 2004. Wrongful beneficence: Exploitation and third world sweatshops. Journal of Social Philosophy 35: 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nove, Alec. 1983. The economics of feasible socialism. London: George Allen & Unwin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Pogge, Thomas. 2008. World poverty and human rights. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Rawls, John. 1999. A theory of justice. Rev. edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Roemer, John. 1983. Are socialist ethics consistent with efficiency? Philosophical Forum XIV: 369–388.Google Scholar
  18. Schweickart, David. 2011. After capitalism. 2nd edn. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  19. Tan, Kok-chor. 2012. Justice, institutions, and luck. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Vallentyne, Peter. 2011. Nozick’s libertarian theory of justice. In The cambridge companion to Nozick’s anarchy, state, and utopia, ed. Ralf Bader, and John Meadowcroft, 145–167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van der Veen, Robert J., and Phillipe Van Parijs. 1985. Entitlement theories of justice. Economics and Philosophy 1: 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vrousalis, Nicholas. 2013. Exploitation, vulnerability, and domination. Philosophy & Public Affairs 41: 131–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vrousalis, Nicholas. 2014. G. A. Cohen on exploitation. Politics, Philosophy & Economics 13: 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Warren, Paul. 1997. Should Marxists be liberal egalitarians? Journal of Political Philosophy 5: 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. White, Stuart. 2007. Equality. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida International UniversityMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations