Alan Wood's claim that ‘Marx did not consider capitalism unjust’ is based on three reasons: 1) According to Marx, the conceptions of justice is the highest expression of the rationality of social facts from the juridical point of view; 2) Marx argues that whether an economic trade or social institution is a just one depends on its compatibility with modes of production; 3) according to Marx, possession of surplus value by the capitalists does not include unequal or unjust trades. Wood (...) presents these three reasons in detail and provides specific referential support for them. This paper argues that Wood fails to provide sufficient referential support to his proposition and his interpretation of the relevant texts is mistaken, and hence that Wood’s claim is invalid. (shrink)

En la teoría de Marx hay un dilema bien conocido entre la crítica de la ética y la condena del capitalismo como injusto. Por un lado, el marxismo ha considerado que la evaluación moral tiene componentes ideológicos cuya elucidación afecta a la posibilidad de emancipación política. Por otro lado, Marx detectó importantes limitaciones éticas en el individualismo liberal, pero tampoco consideraba aceptable el tradicionalismo comunitarista. Este artículo explora cuestiones éticas relacionadas con el cuidado y la dependencia para avanzar en la (...) resolución de esas paradojas. (shrink)

Introduction: Foucault and political philosophy -- Marx: antinormative critique -- Lenin: the invention of party governmentality -- Althusser: the failure to denormativise Marxism -- Deleuze: denormativisation as norm -- Rorty: relativising normativity -- Honneth: the poverty of critical theory -- Geuss: the paradox of realism -- Foucault: the lure of neoliberalism -- Conclusion: What now?

If we know one thing about Karl Marx, it is that he denounced the modern economic system that we now call ‘capitalism’1 for being immoral and unjust, didn't he? To question whether Marx thought, an...

Is exploitation always unjust? Is it by definition unjust? If we answer both these questions negatively, as I do, then we need to ask: when is exploitation unjust and when is it not? Exploitation is the use of a vulnerability for the exploiter's ends. This is sometimes morally wrong, even when it is not unjust. But it is unjust when it violates the exploited person's rightful freedom. When is labor for hire exploitative? Whenever the terms of the labor contract permit (...) either the employer or the employee to make use of the vulnerability of the other. But when is such exploitation unjust? When it involves the ownership by either of the conditions of life of the other, because then one is in a position of control over the other and deprives the other of a free mode of life. In capitalist wage labor, this is often the case—the employer, or a class to which the employer belongs, owns the conditions of life for the employed. When this is so, the employed do not have the free life which is basic to human rights. (shrink)

A paradox, according to the OED, is ‘a statement seemingly self-contradictory or absurd, though possibly well-founded or essentially true’. In this article I shall try to show that the classical orthodox Marxist view of morality is a paradox. I shall seek to resolve the paradox by trying to show that it is only seemingly self-contradictory or absurd. But I shall not claim the standard Marxist view of morality to be well-founded or essentially true. On the contrary, I shall suggest that, (...) though coherent, it is ill-founded and illusory. (shrink)

A paradox, according to the OED, is ‘a statement seemingly self-contradictory or absurd, though possibly well-founded or essentially true’. In this article I shall try to show that the classical orthodox Marxist view of morality is a paradox. I shall seek to resolve the paradox by trying to show that it is only seemingly self-contradictory or absurd. But I shall not claim the standard Marxist view of morality to be well-founded or essentially true. On the contrary, I shall suggest that, (...) though coherent, it is ill-founded and illusory. (shrink)

Marx's thought about justice is essentialist and dialectical. It has been interpreted in terms of immoralism. It is rather a synthesis of the traditional natural law, based on the Aristotelian concept of nature as the potential for perfection or ideal fulfilment, radically different from the Hobbesian reductionist concept of nature as atomistic and mechanical; of the tradition of dialectics in its German idealist form; and of Feuerbach's humanism. Marx's explicitly realist idea of science reveals 'veiled wage-slavery'. Concentration on the market (...) exchange, to the exclusion of the subsequent exploitative use of labour power, deceives exclusively analytic observers into the belief that there is some justice in capitalism. Marx characterized the proletariat as the 'universal class', capable of bringing about the fulfilment of the human essence in a family-style mode of production , because it is the victim of total injustice . However, he criticized workers for not rising above such bourgeois selfishness as demanding 'a fair wage', which is not even a coherent concept. Capitalism is not only a moral injustice, but an ontological injustice, a violation of the worker's humanity. It is coercion into alienation, fetishism and idolatry. (shrink)

It is often either assumed or argued that political liberalism respects rights, while Marxism does not. In fact, many believe that the omission of rights in communism counts decisively against the viability of Karl Marx's social philosophy. Is there room for rights in Marx's social philosophy?This paper examines Allen E. Buchanan's interpretation of Marx's critique of rights. Contrary to Buchanan's view, I shall argue that Marx's critique of rights is limited rather than comprehensive in scope. I shall also set forth (...) part of a foundation of a Marxian theory of rights. (shrink)