Paul Raekstad | University of Amsterdam (original) (raw)

Books by Paul Raekstad

Polity, 2020

Many of us wonder what we could possibly do to end oppression, exploitation, and injustice. Peopl... more Many of us wonder what we could possibly do to end oppression, exploitation, and injustice. People have studied revolutions and protest movements for centuries, but few have focused on prefigurative politics, the idea of 'building the new society within the shell of the old'.

Fed up with capitalism? Get organised and build the institutions of the future in radical unions and local communities. Tired of politicians stalling on climate change? Set up an alternative energy collective. Ready to smash racism and the patriarchy? Root them out in all areas of our lives, not just in 'high politics'.

This is the first book dedicated to prefigurative politics, explaining its history and examining the various debates surrounding it. How can collective decision-making be inclusive? In what ways are movements intersectional? Can prefigurative organisations scale up? It is a must-read for students of radical politics, anarchism, and social movements, as well as activists and concerned citizens everywhere.

Articles by Paul Raekstad

Journal of Applied Philosophy, 2022

What should a free economic system look like? Socialists have long held that a universal human em... more What should a free economic system look like? Socialists have long held that a universal human emancipation requires replacing capitalism with socialism. However, it has recently been argued that Property-Owning Democracy (POD) safeguards freedom while allowing us to keep key features of capitalism. I challenge that claim by showing that the institutional features that make capitalist workplaces unfree are shared with POD. As a result, POD is insufficient for a free economic system. After discussing a number of objections, I conclude that we should look to more democratic alternatives instead.

European Journal of Political Theory, 2022

Digital platforms and application software have changed how people work in a range of industries.... more Digital platforms and application software have changed how people work in a range of industries. Empirical studies of the gig economy have raised concerns about new systems of algorithmic management exercised over workers and how these alter the structural conditions of their work. Drawing on the republican literature, we offer a theoretical account of algorithmic domination and a framework for understanding how it can be applied to ride hail and food delivery services in the on-demand economy. We argue that certain algorithms can facilitate new relationships of domination by sustaining a socio-technical system in which the owners and managers of a company dominate workers. This analysis has implications for the growing use of algorithms throughout the gig economy and broader labor market.

Recent years have seen growing concerns about corporate surveillance. Critics of surveillance cap... more Recent years have seen growing concerns about corporate surveillance. Critics of surveillance capitalism often use the language of domination and unfreedom to describe these new socio-technological conditions. Yet there has been little sustained normative analysis that has diagnosed the new forms of domination introduced by surveillance capitalism or considered the remedies needed to remove them. That is what this article provides. We draw on the latest republican literature to argue that surveillance capitalism introduces new forms of domination that compel ordinary citizens to subject themselves to surveillance, allows corporations uncontrolled power to determine the terms of surveillance, and even subjects corporations to new imperatives of extraction and prediction. Traditional republican remedies for domination were not designed to address these new challenges. We therefore outline a vision of an Information Republic that can do so.

By Alex Williams and Paul Raekstad

Constellations, 2021

The concept of ‘politics’ is central to political theory, so it’s no surprise that different theo... more The concept of ‘politics’ is central to political theory, so it’s no surprise that different theorists construe it in different ways, with major implications for what they take political theory should be concerned with. For example, Bernard Williams construes politics such that it necessarily involves coercion, presupposes the existence of a state, is strongly focused on the question of state legitimacy, and imposes what is called a ‘realism constraint’, whereas Raymond Geuss’ does none of these. These result in dramatically different conceptions of political theory, which have not been much discussed. This article begins to fill that gap by reconstructing Williams’ and Geuss’ different conceptions of politics, exploring their implications for the scope and vocation of political theory, and arguing that Geuss’ should be preferred to Williams’.

Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 2021

[Short summary: I argue that the best way of responding to the radical realist critique of Rawls ... more [Short summary: I argue that the best way of responding to the radical realist critique of Rawls is to re-interpet/change his approach to political theorising to the one advocated by radical realists.]

Despite the rapidly growing literature on realism, there’s little discussion of the ideology critique of John Rawls offered by one of its leading lights, Raymond Geuss. There is little understanding of what (most of) this critique consists in and few discussions of how Rawls’ approach to political theorising may be defended against it. To remedy this situation, this article reconstructs the realist ideology critique of Rawls advanced by Raymond Geuss, which has three prongs: (1) Rawls’ political theory offers insufficient tools to uncover and address distortions of our political values, beliefs, and intuitions; (2) it unacceptably reinforces these distortions by unduly legitimating them; and (3) it diverts attention from important features of real politics. With this done, I finish by considering how Rawlsians can respond, chiefly by employing a kind of reflective equilibrium, or reflective endorsement, broad enough to encompass different forms of genealogy and ideology critique.

Political Studies Review , 2022

Strikes often lack a reasonable chance of success unless they violate some basic liberties (of co... more Strikes often lack a reasonable chance of success unless they violate some basic liberties (of contract, movement, etc.). This creates a dilemma for liberal democracies that recognize a right to strike: either the right is toothless, or the basic liberties don't have priority, and so aren't basic. Alex Gourevitch argues that grounding the radical right to strike in an interest in freedom resolves the dilemma. We point out an ambiguity in this solution: it either doesn't solve the dilemma, or it tacitly presupposes that there is no dilemma. However, we go on to show that a modified, dynamic conception of the radical right to strike can ground its priority, albeit at the expense of the basicness of certain static basic liberties. What is more, we argue that this generalises to other forms of direct action, such as the recent Black Lives Matter blockades, and those at Standing Rock.

Inquiry, 2020

Genealogies are an increasingly important part of contemporary political philosophy. However, eve... more Genealogies are an increasingly important part of contemporary political philosophy. However, even recent genealogies differ a great deal in terms of their ends and methods. Strikingly, this has received virtually no discussion in the literature. This article begins to fill that gap. It does so by comparing and contrasting the genealogies of Bernard Williams, Quentin Skinner, and Raymond Geuss, exploring their different goals, methods, and value for political philosophy. This helps us better understand these different kinds of genealogy in their own right; shows the distinct value of each of these different kinds of genealogy to political philosophy; and enables political philosophers to better be able to select the kind of genealogical investigation most relevant to their interests and to employ the correct kind of genealogy better as a result.

Constellations, 2018

One of the most important debates in contemporary social and political movements concerns the imp... more One of the most important debates in contemporary social and political movements concerns the importance and value of “prefigurative politics”. Its meaning, along with its origins, is often misconstrued, and it has come under intense criticism. This article defends a strategic sense of prefigurative politics on the basis of a Marxist theory of practice. Thus it reconstructs Marx's theory of practice, clarifies the relevant meaning of "prefigurative politics", and presents three arguments for why prefigurative politics is essential to bring about a free and democratic socialist society. Prefigurative politics is important for (1) developing revolutionary subjects with the powers or real possibilities needed to organise deliberation and decision-making in free and democratic socialist ways. Secondly (2), it is important for developing revolutionary subjects with the needs or drives motivating them to institute such forms of deliberation and decision-making when able to do so. Thirdly (3), it is important for developing revolutionary subjects with the consciousness – i.e. the right knowledge, outlook, values, etc. – required to understand and implement such free and democratic modes of deliberation and decision-making. Finally, I defend this strategic commitment from three common criticisms.

Forthcoming in Constellations.

European Journal of Political Theory, 2018

Marx’s theory of alienation is of great importance to contemporary political developments, due bo... more Marx’s theory of alienation is of great importance to contemporary political developments, due both to the re-emergence of anti-capitalist struggle in Zapatismo, 21st Century Socialism, and the New Democracy Movement, and to the fact that the most important theorists of these movements single out Marx’s theory of alienation as critical to their concerns. Despite this renewed practical and theoretical interest, however, these and other writers have been sparing in their accounts of the normative components which the theory of alienation incorporates. Along with many recent commentators, I argue that the normative components of the theory of alienation are to be found in a notion of human development, and that a conception of the particular importance of the human species-essence plays a critical role in this respect. However, I take a different, and somewhat more detailed, tack than these previous authors in presenting a more detailed conception of human development and flourishing on the basis of Marx’s conceptions of powers and needs and comparing it to the most prominent non-Marxist theory of human development: the capabilities approach. I then show that this understanding of powers and needs, along with a notion of the particularly important human power of conscious self-directed activity, underpins the critique of capitalism Marx presents in his theory of alienation. This will allow us a better understanding of the normative components of Marx’s theory of alienation and its potential relevance and plausibility to the theorists and movements it is influencing.

European Journal of Philosophy, 2018

One of the more debated topics in the recent realist literature concerns the compatibility of rea... more One of the more debated topics in the recent realist literature concerns the compatibility of realism and utopianism. Perhaps the greatest challenge to utopian political thought comes from Bernard Williams' realism, which argues, among other things, that political values should be subject to what he calls the 'realism constraint', which rules out utopian arguments based on values which cannot be offered by the state as unrealistic and therefore inadmissible. This article challenges that conclusion in two ways. First, it argues that the rationale for accepting Williams' original argument for the 'realism constraint' fails. Secondly, it argues that there is at least one genuinely political value of liberty available which is both compatible with realism and something that cannot be offered by the state, namely that of the political anarchist. This opens the way for far more ambitious and utopian forms of realist political thought and implies that the arguments of what we call political anarchists must be met by (realist) political argumentation, not simply ruled out by methodological stipulation.

Accepted at the European Journal of Philosophy.

European Journal of Political Theory

Review Article discussing Alan Thomas' "Republic of Equals". Alan Thomas’ Republic of Equals: ... more Review Article discussing Alan Thomas' "Republic of Equals".

Alan Thomas’ Republic of Equals: Predistribution and Property-Owning Democracy sets itselfthe ambitious task of synthesising neo-republican political theory and Rawlsian justice as fairness. It is an important and challenging work that will set the stage for a great deal of the discussion not only on justice and republicanism, but also on property-owning democracy, market socialism and broader discussions of alternative economic institutions to come. After reconstructing the argument of the book, this review article turns to some specific points it raises that warrant further discussion. More precisely, it examines Thomas’ critique of market socialism, arguing that it fails to do what it sets out to do: show that market socialism is incompatible with justice as fairness. Having discussed and rejected his critique of the main other model that Thomas considers, I then turn to questions of the feasibility of POD as a feasible alternative to familiar forms of capitalism.

Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 2017

This article presents a novel reading of Marx’s early, pre-1844, democratic theory, and its conne... more This article presents a novel reading of Marx’s early, pre-1844, democratic theory, and its connection with his early views on alienation. It argues, contra established readings, that Marx had a properly developed theory of alienation prior to his famous Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844; that this theory is not centred solely on a critique of the modern state, or Hegel’s conception thereof; that it consists in suppressing a human species-essence for participation in collective deliberation and decision-making via people’s subjection to external power and domination; that it therefore applies widely both to the modern state and the capitalist economy, as well as to feudalism; and that this sheds light on the connections between Marx’s theory of alienation on the one hand, and his early conception of non-alienated society, democracy, on the other. This will help us better to understand the relationship of Marx’s to other, especially radical enlightenment, political thought.

Forthcoming at the Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie

Abolition: A Journal of Insurgent Politics

In recent years, radical movements from the Arab Spring to Occupy and beyond have been calling fo... more In recent years, radical movements from the Arab Spring to Occupy and beyond have been calling for “democracy.” These movements also claim to reject representation—a keystone of many contemporary liberal understandings of democracy. How can we make sense of this? There is ongoing debate about this in these movements and their descendants, part of which consists in figuring out what we should take “democracy” to mean. This article tries to contribute to this process of collective self-clarification by reconstructing one notion of what we could take “democracy” to mean. Thereafter, we will see how we can use this concept to make sense of the critique of representation in many contemporary radical movements and how useful it can be for helping to guide social change and the practices seeking to bring it about. I will thus argue that a coherent conception of democracy can be found, and that it can be a powerful tool both for understanding and critiquing the shortcomings of contemporary societies and for guiding our efforts to overcome them.

This article is part of Abolition’s second issue.

P. S. This was written a couple of years ago.Parts of it are a bit dated, and of necessity other parts a too briefly discussed. Its main idea of a radical concept of democracy may, however, still be of interest.

International Critical Thought, 2015

Broadly speaking, the form that contemporary Anglo-American political theory has taken since the ... more Broadly speaking, the form that contemporary Anglo-American political theory has taken since the 1970s, with its reinvigoration in the seminal work of John Rawls, can largely be described as Platonic and Kantian, focusing on the formulation, comparison, and evaluation of abstract principles of justice, and only subsequently looking to their application in the real world. Concerned about this, a number of critics of the contemporary paradigm in political theory have emerged to offer their own alternatives. This article will discuss two of them: Raymond Geuss and Amartya Sen. This article does three things. Its first section lays out the realist approach to political theory advocated by Raymond Geuss and the comparative approach advocated by Amartya Sen, respectively. Here I argue that Sen’s comparative approach can best be understood as a kind of realism. In the second section of this article, I explore what I take to be an underlying concern behind the work of both Sen and Geuss, and which, although it is rarely explicitly mentioned (and certainly never fully developed), I think we should bear in mind: namely a strand of anti-Platonism in political theory. Third and finally, I present three arguments for why a realist approach to political theory is likely to be superior to those of their contemporary adversaries: the argument from efficacy claims that realist approaches are more likely to impact real politics; the argument from cognitive distortions claims that realist approaches are better equipped to notice and critically evaluate and revise undue assumptions and distortions of various kinds; and the argument from abstractness claims that since such distortions are likely to increase with a theory's degree of abstractness, and since realist theories tend to be less abstract than their competitors, a realist approach will likely be less susceptible to such distortions to begin with.

Forthcoming in International Critical Thought

Res Publica

The realist revival in political philosophy is profoundly shaped by its opposition to a certain c... more The realist revival in political philosophy is profoundly shaped by its opposition to a certain contemporary approach to the subject taken by luminaries like John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, Robert Nozick, and G. A. Cohen. As a result, much of the recent work thereon has focused much more on what realism is, how it contrasts with Rawlsian moralism or ‘ethics first’ approaches, and on discussing the nature and membership of the realist tradition – though there are a handful of important exceptions to this. This has left many wondering what contemporary realist political philosophy would look like in practice. Two recent edited collections help to answer that question: Politics Recovered: Realist Thought in Theory and Practice, edited by Matt Sleat; and Realism in Political Theory, edited by Rahul Sagar and Andrew Sabl. This review article discusses three themes of wider interest to political philosophy which that appear in both: debates about the nature of politics and realism; the implications of realism for democratic philosophy; and addressing concerns about status quo bias.

Political Studies Review

In a recent article, Benjamin McKean defends utopian political theorising by means of an internal... more In a recent article, Benjamin McKean defends utopian political theorising by means of an internal critique of realism, construed as essentially anti-utopian, in order to defend human rights against realist objections thereto. I challenge that argument in three steps, focusing on the realism of Raymond Geuss. First, I show that the realism of Raymond Geuss is not incompatible with utopianism, that Geuss never opposes realism to utopianism and that he frequently argues that political theory should be both more realistic and more utopian. Second, I show that McKean misconstrues Geuss’ opposition to human rights as anti-utopian. Neither Geuss’ opposition to ethics-first political theory nor his objections to human rights can accurately be explicated in terms of McKean’s ‘utopianism’. Finally, I show how this misconstruing of Geuss’ realism renders McKean’s critique of Geuss ineffective, as a result of which his defence of human rights against Geuss’ realist objections fails. I conclude with some reflections on the importance of this for methodological debates in political theory, the value of realistically utopian theorising and the ideological power of contemporary ethics-first approaches to political theory.

Socialist Register, 2017

Recent years have seen calls for ‘democracy’, from the Arab Spring to Occupy to those constructin... more Recent years have seen calls for ‘democracy’, from the Arab Spring to Occupy to those constructing Democratic Confederalism in Rojava. In light of this, what could and should socialists take democracy to mean today? Is it problematically tied to the capitalist state, or can it be reclaimed for socialist politics? This article argues that a radical, socialist concept of democracy can be re-constructed from the early Marx, that its idea remains central to Marx’s later conception of socialism, and that it can be useful for socialists today. The early Marx’s radical concept of democracy can provide us with a coherent, compelling, and uncompromisingly radical way of spelling this value out both for critiquing capitalism and the capitalist state and for guiding their replacement.

Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie

There is long-standing disagreement about how radical Adam Smith should be taken to be. Recently,... more There is long-standing disagreement about how radical Adam Smith should be taken to be. Recently, Jonathan Israel's work on the enlightenment situates Smith as a moderate enlightenment thinker. This article challenges that assessment. Smith sees aristocrats as largely devoid of competence, wisdom, and virtue and thinks they do not wield significant political power in commercial societies. He is also highly critical of their economic power; and uses a neo-Roman concept of liberty to provide a powerful critique of slavery and feudalism. In so doing, he extends discussions of liberty and focuses them on economic relations in ways that prefigure labour republicanism. Finally, I show how these more radical commitments can be reconciled with his moderate proposals for political reform through his epistemology and realist anti-utopianism. These are aspects of Smith's thought that are essential for understanding it correctly and have much to teach us today.

Critique, 2017

The Party is once again the subject of sustained discussion among academics and popular movements... more The Party is once again the subject of sustained discussion among academics and popular movements. Jodi Dean’s most recent book, Crowds and Party, is an attempt to re-think the party form for contemporary politics after the experiences and lessons of Occupy. Crowds and Party is engaging and interesting, but falls short when it attempts to intervene in important strategic debates about organisational structure and seizing capitalist state power. In her attempts to defend the party form, she explicitly rejects three central emancipatory components of Marxism: the commitment to a future society collectively ruled by the associated producers; the commitment to a future society which does away with the hierarchical division of labour; and the commitment to working class self-emancipation.

Polity, 2020

Journal of Applied Philosophy, 2022

European Journal of Political Theory, 2022

By Alex Williams and Paul Raekstad

Constellations, 2021

Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 2021

Political Studies Review , 2022

Inquiry, 2020

Constellations, 2018

Forthcoming in Constellations.

European Journal of Political Theory, 2018

European Journal of Philosophy, 2018

Accepted at the European Journal of Philosophy.

European Journal of Political Theory

Review Article discussing Alan Thomas' "Republic of Equals". Alan Thomas’ Republic of Equals: ... more Review Article discussing Alan Thomas' "Republic of Equals".

Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 2017

Forthcoming at the Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie

Abolition: A Journal of Insurgent Politics

This article is part of Abolition’s second issue.

International Critical Thought, 2015

Forthcoming in International Critical Thought

Res Publica

Political Studies Review

Socialist Register, 2017

Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie

Critique, 2017

Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 2019

The meaning of political concepts is always tied to the practices that develop, sustain, and chan... more The meaning of political concepts is always tied to the practices that develop, sustain, and change them through time. Democracy is no different. One of the most interesting recent chapters in the history of democracy is the New Democracy Movement, which includes the wave of movements from the Arab Spring to the Movement of the Squares and Occupy, and is sometimes taken also to include later events like Nuit Debout. These movements used the language of democracy to critique our most basic institutions - both political and economic - and have changed the way many people think about politics, arguably leading to a spread of anarchist tactics of direct action and prefiguration along with the re-emergence of left populism in the growth of parties like Syriza and Podemos and candidates like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn. This review article discusses three books about the New Democracy Movement, with particular focus on the debate about whether it is best seen as an effort in 'translating anarchy' or as the birthplace of a new left populism.

Deleuze and Anarchism, edited by Chantelle Gray van Heerden and Aragorn Eloff, 2019

The work of Deleuze and Guattari has much to offer contemporary radical thought. Here I discuss a... more The work of Deleuze and Guattari has much to offer contemporary radical thought. Here I discuss an aspect often mentioned, but rarely explored to the extent I think it deserves, namely the importance of micropolitics for emancipatory social change. To do this, I clarify what the ‘micropolitical’ is for Deleuze and Guattari and why they think it is important for revolutionary practise. I argue that micropolitics is important for thinking about (1) developing revolutionary subjectivity and (2) developing connections between different organisations and movements that strengthen each other and feed into macropolitical change. I also discuss Deleuze and Guattari’s critique of vanguardist approaches to revolutionary organisation and consider some objections to Deleuze and Guattari’s emphasis on the micropolitical.

This paper argues that at least some forms of utopianism, such as Thomas Piketty’s, are entirely... more This paper argues that at least some forms of utopianism, such as Thomas Piketty’s, are entirely compatible with realism, even a form of realism restricted to what we might call ordinary or everyday legislation and policy-making. First (section 1), this paper reconstructs a model of political agency, namely the model of the statesman or legislator found in Adam Smith (in particular 1976a); secondly (section 2), I argue that this model can make coherent and unified sense of the lessons that contemporary political theorists such as Bernard Williams (2005) and Jonathan Wolff (2011) draw about the role of political theory in legislation and policy-formation; thirdly, I argue (in section 3) that utopianism as construed by contemporary discussants is not incompatible with the realism embodied in Smith’s model; and fourth and finally, I offer (in section 4) some brief considerations about the limitations of the model, in order to touch on the question of whether more ambitious utopian visions might also be compatible with a commitment to realism in political theory.

Presented at the 2016 MANCEPT Workshops.

Marx envisions communism as a participatory democratically planned society that replaces both cap... more Marx envisions communism as a participatory democratically planned society that replaces both capitalism and the state. In addition to being democratically structured and planned, a communist society, on Marx’s view, must also do away with the division of labour seen under capitalism. Why is this?

In this paper, I draw on Marx’s most developed writings on the division of labour, especially on Capital, to examine Marx’s reasons for objecting to the capitalist division of labour and advocating its supersession under communism. Here I argue that communism, as Marx conceives of it, requires an end to hierarchical divisions of labour in order to be a plausible vision of a free and non-hierarchical society democratically managed by and for the associated producers.

Next I consider Max Weber’s contention that bureaucratic power and control is a necessary component of modern technology and industry, and Robert Michels’ argument that all human organisation is subject to what he calls the ‘Iron Law of Oligarchy’ for technical reasons to do with the necessity of a hierarchical division of labour in any and all human organisation. If this is the case, it risks seriously undermining Marx’s critique of capitalism, since it implies that we either have to give up collective control over all of society by the associated producers or give up on either modern industry and technology or social organisation tout court. The latter route renders any view of communism highly unappealing as a vision for a future society, whereas the latter route entails accepting an inevitable rule by a minority over the majority, giving up Marx’s vision of a society of the associated producers.

Finally, I argue that both Weber’s and Michels’ arguments are unconvincing. Both Weber and Michels’ arguments fail because they lack sufficient empirical support, because experiments with re-organising divisions of labour in large organisations and in technologically advanced industries disprove it, and because, in Weber’s case in particular, they rely on tacit value-laden assumptions which Marxists should reject. Although Weber and Michels give convincing arguments for hierarchical divisions of labour resulting in de facto minority rule – which Marx agrees with – they fail to show that such a a division of labour is impossible to overcome. Marx’s critique of the hierarchical capitalist division of labour therefore stands, as does his case for replacing it with a vertical one.

Paper presented at the Marxism stream of the 2016 Manchester Workshops in Political Theory. Please don't quite without permission etc.

Many find it impossible to imagine an alternative to capitalism – some go as far as to claim that... more Many find it impossible to imagine an alternative to capitalism – some go as far as to claim that it’s easier to imagine the end of the world. If there really is no feasible alternative to capitalism, revolutionary organisation might justifiably be thought pointless. One line of reply to this is to develop more or less detailed visions of what a socialist society might look like. Common responses to such proposals include charges of utopianism and idealism. Usually one of four different things is meant by this: (1) any kind of conception of which direction our movement can and ought to move or societies in; (2) a broad substantial conception of what a future society might look like; (3) some more specific conceptions of the forms and procedures through which some of these substantial views can be instantiated; or (4) a complete description of what an alternative society would look like in toto.

This paper reconstructs Marx’s realist approach to political theory and argues for the potentially positive role that a form of vision of a future society can play within this framework. My reconstruction of Marx’s approach will show that he was clearly committed to both (1) and (2) for central methodological reasons; and that he clearly rejected, for excellent reasons, variants of (4). I will argue that within Marx’s realistic approach to political theory a good case can be made for (3) as well.

Rough paper presented at the Marx and Philosophy Society Annual Conference, London 2015.

This paper explores how Karl Marx’s conception of human development and practice can inform, and ... more This paper explores how Karl Marx’s conception of human development and practice can inform, and be informed by, the experiences of what David Graeber and others sometimes call the New Democracy Movement, especially Occupy. It argues that Marx’s conception of human development and practice gives us a unified and compelling way to think about the self-educational and emancipatory effects of struggles for social change, and that this provides an important corrective to some of the misconceived criticisms of movements like Occupy.

Presented at the 2016 ASPP Annual Conference in London and the Marx2016 conference in Stockholm.

Paper on Karl Marx's thoughts on human development, practice (or praxis), and its importance for ... more Paper on Karl Marx's thoughts on human development, practice (or praxis), and its importance for thinking about revolutionary organisation.

Norman Geras made a number of contributions to Marxist thought. Among them are two articles he wr... more Norman Geras made a number of contributions to Marxist thought. Among them are two articles he wrote as a contribution to the “Marx and Morality”-debates: “The Controversy About Marx and Justice” in 1985; and “Bringing Marx to Justice: A Rejoinder and Addendum” in 1992. They both set out to argue, with admirable clarity, depth and rigour, that Karl Marx had, or must have had, a theory of justice, either explicitly or implicitly, on which at least some part of his critique of capitalism rested, over and above well-known commitments to human flourishing and freedom. The contribution these have made to Marxist thought is beyond dispute: jointly they are both the definitive summary of the arguments on either side of the debate and the best summary presentation of the arguments for the position he defends. This paper examines and challenges these arguments, arguing that they do not in fact succeed in providing a good case for reading Marx as having, or needing, a theory of justice.

Although textually well-founded, many of the arguments Geras presents are far from definitive; the argument they provide is circumstantial and limited at best. Ultimately, his strongest non-circumstantial case is the evidence provided by Marx’s repeated descriptions of capitalist accumulation in terms of ‘theft’, ‘robbery’, and so forth. The question then becomes to what extent such descriptions ought to be read as committing Marx to an ethically laden theory of justice. I argue that in these instances Marx may be read in at least two ways such that these passages make sense and do significant work without necessarily committing Marx to a theory of justice – something Marx himself repeatedly and vociferously repudiates.

Whether one (or both) of these alternative readings is to be accepted, or whether Geras’s is to be preferred, comes down to Marx’s practice concerning, and perhaps also his conception of, language, or at least language-use. Geras’s reading presupposes that only with a principle of justice specified antecedently such that it has clear, coherent and determinate content could Marx have been able to characterize capitalist appropriation in terms of 'theft' and its cognates. There are four reasons to doubt that this is accurate as a reading of Marx’s conception and usage of language: (1) there is little or no direct evidence that Marx held, or took himself to hold, such a view of language and/or language-use; (2) his use of evaluative concepts in e.g. his earlier critiques of capitalism is hard to square with this conception; (3) this view of language and language-use does not cohere as well with Marx's theory of praxis or his general conception of the connections between concepts, modes of thought and their natural, social and cultural contexts; and (4) the more fluid and indeterminate conception of language and language-use my alternative readings imply, its connections to human practical activity and the needs and interests inherent therein, and the resulting thesis about the revisability of language, all seem to cohere better with Marx's consistent emphasis on developing the concepts one employs to understand an aspect of reality such that they are best able to match the ‘real movements’ of the object of study, rather than setting up an antecedently defined framework which the objects of study are then subsequently analysed and/or evaluated in terms of.

In his pre-1844 writings, the early Marx presents a critical diagnosis of the present in his theo... more In his pre-1844 writings, the early Marx presents a critical diagnosis of the present in his theory of alienation, and proposes a cure through his conception of democracy. His conception of democracy draws on both radical enlightenment and classical sources, but it moves beyond these to give more explicit attention to questions of representation, power, and the economy. To discuss this, I shall first explicate what Marx means by some of his central terms such as “Staat” and alienation (Entfremdung and Entäusserung) in order to get to grips with his critical diagnosis of modernity. I then move on to his views on democracy as the solution to the powerlessness and subordination which alienation implies. At the end I consider the relevance of this conception of democracy for (at least some) contemporary politics.

There are two living philosophers with a solid claim that their contributions to political theory... more There are two living philosophers with a solid claim that their contributions to political theory directly shaped the actions of a head of state and their government’s actions: Philip Pettit, whose ideas influenced some of the policies of Zapatero’s government in Spain; and István Mészáros, whose ideas fundamentally shaped the development and execution of Hugo Chavez’s Bolivarian process in Venezuela, as well as many of its leading theoretical contributors and participants, among them Michael Lebowitz and Marta Harnecker. Above all, it was Mészáros’ realist approach to political theory and strategic orientation that made him so relevant to the state-involved path to a form of libertarian socialism that’s being attempted in Venezuela (See Foster 2015). Neither of these are as broadly known and understood as they deserve to be – especially for those who take the vocation of political theory as practical philosophy seriously.

My paper will examine these twin themes. It will reconstruct Mészáros’ realist approach to political theory in the context of his theory of history and descriptive approach to understanding human society (i.e. what is sometimes called his dialectical and historical materialism). Next I will examine his theory of history and society, with the strategic orientation that this involves – in other words, his conception of base and superstructure and his theory of history. I will show why they are important for him methodologically and also defend them as superior both as readings of Marx and in their own right. Finally, I will show how this is important for thinking about the transition from capitalism to socialism.

Presented at the Left Forum, New York 2015.

Hegel Bulletin

"In a world where capitalism and the liberal state are (i) increasingly failing to provide decent... more "In a world where capitalism and the liberal state are (i) increasingly failing to provide decent living conditions for the working classes, (ii) continuing to reinforce different forms of racism, sexism and neo-colonialism, and (iii) carrying out an unparalleled destruction of the environment threatening all human life on this planet, what does Hegel have to offer us?"

Krisis, 2019

My review of Elizabeth Anderson's book, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why... more My review of Elizabeth Anderson's book, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don’t Talk about it).

Contemporary Political Theory

Review of "Political Uses of Utopia: New Marxist, Anarchist, and Radical Democratic Perspectives"... more Review of "Political Uses of Utopia: New Marxist, Anarchist, and Radical Democratic Perspectives", edited by S. D. Chrostowska and James D. Ingram. Fortchoming in Contemporary Political Theory.

Available online here:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41296-018-00287-8

Review of "Marx's Inferno: The Political Theory of Capital", by William Clare Roberts. Published ... more Review of "Marx's Inferno: The Political Theory of Capital", by William Clare Roberts. Published in Disputatio.

Review of a collection on Marxism and Anarchism. Published in the Marx and Philosophy Review of B... more Review of a collection on Marxism and Anarchism. Published in the Marx and Philosophy Review of Books.

Exactly what the title says. Published in the Marx and Philosophy Review of Books.

My MA thesis exploring Adam Smith's theories of class and state, and the role that these play in ... more My MA thesis exploring Adam Smith's theories of class and state, and the role that these play in his realist and comparative political theory, including his arguments for free markets.