Real Freedom for All: What (if anything) can justify capitalism? (Oxford Politician Theory)

343 Pages·1998·1.81 MB·English

by  Philippe Van Parijs

Oxford Political Theory
Series editors: David Miller and Alan Ryan
Real Freedom for All
Oxford Political Theory
Oxford Political Theory presents the best new work in contemporary political theory. It is intended to be broad in
scope, including originalcontributionsto political philosophy, and also work in appliedpolitical theory. The series will
contain works of outstanding quality with no restriction as to approach or subject matter.
OTHER TITLES IN THIS SERIESJustice as Impartiality
Brian Barry
Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights
Will Kymlicka
The Politics of Presence
Anne Phillips
On Nationality
David Miller
Richard Hillier (1993)
Justificatory Liberalism: An Essay on Epistemology and
Political Theory
Gerald Gaus
Real Freedom for All
What (If Anything) Can Justify Capitalism?
Philippe Van Parijs
CLARENDON PRESS · OXFORD
GreatClarendonStreet,OxfordOX26DP
OxfordNewYork
AucklandBangkokBuenosAiresCapeTownChennai
Dar esSalaamDelhiHongKongIstanbulKarachiKolkata
KualaLumpurMadridMelbourneMexicoCityMumbaiNairobi
SãoPauloShanghaiTaipeiTokyoToronto
Oxfordisaregisteredtrademark ofOxfordUniversityPress
intheUK andincertainothercountries
PublishedintheUnitedStatesby
OxfordUniversityPressInc., NewYork
©PhilippeVanParijs1995
Firstpublished1995
Firstissuedinpaperback1997
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,or transmitted,inanyform orbyanymeans,
withoutthepriorpermissioninwriting ofOxfordUniversityPress,
oras expresslypermittedbylaw, or under termsagreedwiththeappropriate
reprographcsrightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproduction
outsidethescopeoftheaboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,
OxfordUniversityPress,attheaddressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisbookinanyotherbindingorcover
andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationData
Parijs,Philippevan,1951–
Realfreedomforall:what(ifanything)canjustifycapitalism?
/PhilippeVanParijs.
—(Oxfordpoliticaltheory)
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
1. Socialjustice.2. Capitalism—Moralandethicalaspects.
3.Guaranteedannualincome.4.Income.5.Basicneeds.
6.Liberty. I.Title.II.Series.
JC578.P371995330.1—dc2094-44910
ISBN0-19-827905-1
ISBN0-19-829357-7(Pbk.)
For Sue
This page intentionally left blank
Preface
Workonthisbookstartedintherainyspringof1977,asIwassettlingdowninasmallgreencommunewithinhitching
distanceofBielefeld University. Whatexactlyis fundamentallywrong, Iwanted tofindout,withthecapitalistsocieties
welivein?Froma closereadingofDasKapital,mysearchgraduallybroadened,as ImovedontoBerkeleyandthento
Oxford, into an attempt to survey critically old and new economic indictments of capitalism. When I returned to
Belgium in 1980, I discovered with excitement John Roemer's novel approach to the theory of exploitation. This
prompted metowidenfurther mycriticalsurveytoencompass ethicalcondemnations ofcapitalism. Around 1985 the
outcome became, under the title What (If Anything) is Wrong with Capitalism?, what I believed to be a full draft of the
whole book. In fact, I had only a very preliminary version of its last two chapters.
Three intellectual developmentsconspired to preventthebook from achieving rapid completion alongthese lines and
toimpose instead itspresent, unexpectedstructureand character. First, I became convinced thatitwas only by taking
so-calledneo-liberalthought,andaboveallthelibertariandefenceofcapitalism,as seriouslyas itdeservesthattheLeft
could ever hope to regain the ideological nerve which it so badly needed in order to reach beyond purely defensive
struggles. Secondly, as a resultofthinking about radical strategiesfor fightingunemploymentinWestern Europe,I hit
upon a simple idea—here called basic income—that I later discovered had already been discussed and advocated by
others under a variety of labels. Rather suspicious at first, I grew increasingly confident of its importance and of its
crucial relevance to the question of the legitimacy of capitalism. Finally, I was persuaded that the book would be far
better organized iffromtheoutsetI speltouttheconceptionofjusticetowhichI graduallyrealized I couldsubscribe.
Intheprocessofdoingso,Icameupagainstunsettlingdifficultieswhichcompelledmetodelveintoliberaltheoriesof
justice to an extent I had not anticipated.
Some stepping stones along this long and tortuous road have formed separate publications. The most recent among
them are earlier versions of (parts of) chapters 2 to 4: ‘Basic Income Capitalism’, Ethics, 102/3 (April 1992), 465–84;
‘EqualEndowments as Undominated Diversity’, RechercheséconomiquesdeLouvain,56/3–4 (1990),327–56; ‘WhySurfers
Should be Fed: The Liberal Case for an Unconditional Basic Income’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 20/2 (spring 1991),
101–31. I am
viii PREFACE
very grateful to the publishers and editors for allowing me to use the material contained in these articles. In addition,
the critical explorations of Anglo-American political philosophy and of Marxist social thought which form the
substance of Qu'est-ce qu'une société juste? (Paris: Le Seuil, 1991) and Marxism Recycled (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1993), respectively, have been precious ingredients in—though also to some extent unwelcome digressions
from—the preparation of this book.
Alongthe road, I have accumulated many debts. Johannes Berger and Andrew Glyn guided my first steps. Thanks to
IanSteedman and HillelSteiner, Robert van der Veenand Percy Lehning,Erik Wrightand Steven Lukes, workonthe
book benefited greatly from the exceptionally productive periods I spent at the Universities of Manchester (1983),
Amsterdam (1985), and Wisconsin (1990) and at the European University Institute in Florence (1990–1), where I
wrotethefinalfulldraft. However, most oftheworkwas doneinLouvain-la-Neuve. As a seniorfellowoftheBelgian
National Fund for Scientific Research, I wrote the bulk of the preliminary drafts in the friendly and stimulating
surroundings of the University of Louvain's economics department. And after returning from Florence to Louvain's
newly created Hoover Chair of economic and social ethics, I used all my spare time to make the thousands of local
improvements which I felt the book could not do without, and also to do some further thinking on the argument's
overallsignificance and onwhatI believedtobeitsmost vulnerablesteps. To allthose who enabledme toenjoythese
environments and benefit from them as much as I did, I am extremely grateful, not least among them to the Hoover
Chair's secretary Annick Dabeye, who—along with OUP's competent editorial staff—efficiently helped me through
the final stages.
Further,I cannotimagine what thisbook wouldhave looked likehad I notjoined, in 1981, what later became known
as the September Group. The Group's ambition to combine unflinching intellectual rigour and a passionate
commitment to the values characteristic of the radical Left, the tremendous stimulation provided by its annual
meetings,thepainsittookinsubjectingtoitscriticalscrutinysomeancestorofmostchaptersofthisbook,havedeeply
affected both its form and its content. To all present members of the Group (Pranab Bardhan, Sam Bowles, Bob
Brenner, Jerry Cohen, John Roemer, Hillel Steiner, Robert van der Veen, and Erik Wright) and not least to its two
former members(JonElsterandAdamPrzeworski),Iam deeplygratefulforwhatIhavelearnedbothfromtheirown
work and from their comments on mine.
In addition, earlier versions of one or more chapters benefited from helpful written comments by Dick Arneson,
Christian Arnsperger, John
PREFACE ix
Baker, Wendy Carlin, Ian Carter, Andrew Glyn, André Gorz, Sue James, Jeroen Knijff, Anton Leist, David Miller,
Gérard Roland, Ian Steedman, and three anonymous readers, and from stimulating oral reactions from audiences to
which they were presented in Amsterdam, Antwerp, Barcelona, Beijing, Berlin, Bristol, Brussels, Cambridge (Mass.),
Canterbury, Chicago, Davis, Florence, Geneva, Ghent, Leuven, Liège, London, Louvain-la-Neuve, Madison, Madrid,
Montevideo, Montreal, New York, Paris, Pisa, Plios, Siena, and Thessaloniki. Brian Barry, Louis Gevers, Erik
Schokkaert, and Susan Strange deserve special thanks because they served as thorough discussants on at least one
occasion, and so do several cohorts of my MA students in economics, who were subjected to different stages of
various chapters. Among allthese comments, some haveforcedme toclarifymy formulations. Others haveledme to
workout furtherimportant twists in my argument.Others stillhaveleftme with thenaggingfeelingof an unresolved
difficultytowhichI, or someonebetterequippedor moreingenious than I, should onedayreturn. But Ihavelearned
from all of them, and am most grateful to their authors for having taken the trouble to make them.
Finally, Rebecca,Jonathan, Benjamin, and Sarah were all born at some point in the course of the long preparation of
what at home was simply called ‘the book’ (somewhat confusingly, as I unwittingly wrote and unexpectedlypublished
threeother books overthisperiod).Eachofthem displayedsomeunderstandingfor thepeaceIneededtoworkonit,
andnowandthenpolitelyenquiredintohowfar itstillwasfromcompletion.Noneofthem, Iam sure,willregretthat
it is finally out of the way. Nor will, I am even more certain, their mother. Combining the lonely writing of a lengthy
theoretical text with a (fair?) share in the running of a large household—and a number of other things besides—was
never easy. It even repeatedly seemed impossible. That it proved possible in the end I undoubtedly owe in part to
having stubbornly resisted some of the demands the family made on me, but to an incomparably greater extent, in
countless ways, and more than to anyone else on Earth, to Sue.
P. V. P.