Why Socialists Should be Republicans
(2025) FPRM02 20242Department of Philosophy
- Abstract
- According to Jan Kandiyai (2020), socialists should not make the republican understanding of freedom as non-domination central to their political theory. He argues that although co-called socialist republicans can successfully criticise the market economy for enabling employers to impose their wills upon workers, they are less successful when considering its structural and impersonal mechanisms. That is, he does not think that unfreedom resulting from (i) a lack of access to productive assets or (ii) choices being dictated by the internal logic of the market should be understood as forms of domination. Kandiyali’s point being that these two forms of market unfreedom are not agential in the specific way that socialist republicans, given... (More)
- According to Jan Kandiyai (2020), socialists should not make the republican understanding of freedom as non-domination central to their political theory. He argues that although co-called socialist republicans can successfully criticise the market economy for enabling employers to impose their wills upon workers, they are less successful when considering its structural and impersonal mechanisms. That is, he does not think that unfreedom resulting from (i) a lack of access to productive assets or (ii) choices being dictated by the internal logic of the market should be understood as forms of domination. Kandiyali’s point being that these two forms of market unfreedom are not agential in the specific way that socialist republicans, given their approach to freedom, must assume them to be. This paper responds that non-domination is, against Kandiyali’s claims to the contrary, uniquely useful for analysing structural and impersonal forms of market unfreedom; doing so by stressing the quintessentially political nature of this concept. As it pertains to structural market unfreedom, it argues that the lack of access that workers have to productive assets depends upon public officials – acting as agents – passing and enforcing private property laws. As it pertains to impersonal market unfreedom, it argues that market competition is reproduced by police forces – understood as group agents – imposing their wills upon workers. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9191771
- author
- Allen Öhnström, Anthony LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Varför Socialister Borde vara Republikaner
- course
- FPRM02 20242
- year
- 2025
- type
- H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
- subject
- keywords
- Socialism, Republicanism, Neo-republicanism, Socialist-republicanism, Freedom, Domination, Politics, Economy, Power
- language
- English
- id
- 9191771
- date added to LUP
- 2025-09-29 16:03:56
- date last changed
- 2025-09-29 16:03:56
@misc{9191771,
abstract = {{According to Jan Kandiyai (2020), socialists should not make the republican understanding of freedom as non-domination central to their political theory. He argues that although co-called socialist republicans can successfully criticise the market economy for enabling employers to impose their wills upon workers, they are less successful when considering its structural and impersonal mechanisms. That is, he does not think that unfreedom resulting from (i) a lack of access to productive assets or (ii) choices being dictated by the internal logic of the market should be understood as forms of domination. Kandiyali’s point being that these two forms of market unfreedom are not agential in the specific way that socialist republicans, given their approach to freedom, must assume them to be. This paper responds that non-domination is, against Kandiyali’s claims to the contrary, uniquely useful for analysing structural and impersonal forms of market unfreedom; doing so by stressing the quintessentially political nature of this concept. As it pertains to structural market unfreedom, it argues that the lack of access that workers have to productive assets depends upon public officials – acting as agents – passing and enforcing private property laws. As it pertains to impersonal market unfreedom, it argues that market competition is reproduced by police forces – understood as group agents – imposing their wills upon workers.}},
author = {{Allen Öhnström, Anthony}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Why Socialists Should be Republicans}},
year = {{2025}},
}