Radicalizing Rights: Basic Liberties and Direct Action
| Author | Paul Raekstad,Enzo Rossi |
| Published date | 01 August 2022 |
| Date | 01 August 2022 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1478929920984616 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929920984616
Political Studies Review
2022, Vol. 20(3) 353 –365
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1478929920984616
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
Radicalizing Rights: Basic
Liberties and Direct Action
Paul Raekstad and Enzo Rossi
Abstract
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 do not have priority and so are not
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 does not 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
generalizes to other forms of direct action, such as the recent Black Lives Matter blockades and
those at Standing Rock.
Keywords
basic liberties, direct action, oppression, right to strike
Accepted: 9 December 2020
Introduction
In 2016, Native American activists established Sacred Stone Camp at the Standing Rock
Reservation. In the words of its founder, the main purpose of the camp was “to stop [con-
struction of] the [Dakota Access] pipeline through prayer and non-violent direct action”
(Brave Bull Allard, 2016). In 2005, union activists in Atlanta “blocked deliveries and entry
into the building” of a company they were targeting (Fidelity Interior Constr. Inc v.
Southeastern Carpenters Reg’l Council, 2012). Both initiatives were incompatible with the
liberal legal order, and so incurred severe sanctions. In this article, we want to show that
there is an important sense in which those two kinds of direct action are normatively equiva-
lent. If we are right, those who are enthusiastic about the Standing Rock blockade should
become less squeamish about coercive picket lines in industrial disputes, and vice versa.
We approach the issue of direct action through a discussion of the right to strike.
Liberals tend to see workers’ right to strike as fully compatible with the framework of
Department of Political Science, The University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Corresponding author:
Enzo Rossi, Department of Political Science, The University of Amsterdam, PO Box 15578, 1001 NB
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Email: e.rossi@uva.nl
984616PSW0010.1177/1478929920984616Political Studies ReviewRaekstad and Rossi
research-article2021
Article
To continue reading
Request your trial