A socialist republican theory of freedom and government

AuthorJames Muldoon
Date01 January 2022
Published date01 January 2022
DOI10.1177/1474885119847606
Subject MatterArticles
Article EJPT
A socialist republican
theory of freedom
and government
James Muldoon
Department of Politics, University of Exeter, UK
Abstract
In response to the republican revival of the ideal of freedom as non-domination, a
number of ‘radical’, ‘labour’ and ‘workplace’ republicans have criticised the limitations
of Philip Pettit’s account of freedom and government. This article proposes that the
missing link in these debates is the relationship between republicanism and socialism.
Seeking to bring this connection back into view in historical and theoretical terms, the
article draws from contemporary radical republicans and the writings of Karl Kautsky
and Rosa Luxemburg to propose a socialist republican theory of freedom and govern-
ment. This consists of a conception of freedom as collective autonomy and a partici-
patory democratic vision of a decentralised state with parliamentary institutions, the
rule of law, worker-controlled workplaces, community-directed investment and a polit-
ical culture of solidarity and public-spiritedness. This theory of socialist republicanism
seeks to overcome the weaknesses and limitations of each respective independent
theory and should appeal to republicans and socialists alike.
Keywords
Democracy, domination, freedom, republicanism, socialism
Introduction
Philip Pettit’s neo-Roman republican conception of liberty as non-domination has
made a lasting contribution to debates in political philosophy over the nature of
freedom. Domination occurs for Pettit when one party has the capacity to
Corresponding author:
James Muldoon, Department of Politics, University of Exeter, UK.
Email: j.muldoon@exeter.ac.uk
European Journal of Political Theory
!The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1474885119847606
journals.sagepub.com/home/ept
2022, Vol. 21(1) 47–67
arbitrarily interfere with and control the possible choices of another on the basis of
an opinion or an interest not shared by the dominated party (Pettit, 1997: 22). To
be free, on this view, is to be free from the possibility of being subjected to the
exercise of arbitrary power. In addition to its many adherents and supporters, it
has also been met by a growing number of critics who question the democratic and
egalitarian commitments of Pettit’s particular appropriation of republican ideolo-
gy (Gourevitch, 2014; McCormick, 2011; Thompson, 2018b). Many of these
‘radical’ republicans aff‌irm the importance of the reconstruction of republican
political thought, even though they remain critical of certain aspects of Pettit’s
interpretation. This article proposes that such criticisms are now longstanding,
persuasive and constitute a ‘social’ turn in republican political thought, which
justif‌ies ref‌lection on the underlying principles and orientation of a narrowly
def‌ined neo-Roman republican tradition. It suggests that a more robust and com-
pelling conception of freedom and government can be formulated through system-
atically reorienting the republican political project by drawing on the resources of
republican and socialist political thought.
Radical republicans have identif‌ied a number of weaknesses and omissions in
Pettit’s neo-Roman republican project. Exemplary criticisms are those raised by
Alex Gourevitch’s ‘labour’ republicanism, Michael Thompson’s ‘radical’ republi-
canism and Keith Breen’s ‘workplace’ republicanism. Gourevitch argues that Pettit
and other neo-republicans are inattentive to modern forms of economic domina-
tion enacted through a system of wage labour and private property (Gourevitch,
2013; Gourevitch, 2014: 12). For Gourevitch, Pettit fails to address concerns of
structural domination resulting from workers’ lack of control over the productive
assets of the economy and the conditions of their work activity (Pettit, 2007).
While formally free and equal, modern workers are forced to sell their labour to
survive, which places them in a position of structural dependency (Gourevitch,
2014: 106–115). Michael Thompson contends that Pettit’s focus on inter-agent
forms of domination misses the centrality of routinised and systemic forms of
domination in modern societies (Thompson, 2018b: 45). Pettit’s emphasis on the
arbitrary exercise of power by agents overlooks the core republican insight of the
dangers of social institutions arranged to systematically distort the public’s
perception and legitimise oligarchic systems. Keith Breen argues that the neo-
republican strategy of a right of exit for employees fails to counter employer
domination in the workplace (Breen, 2015, 2017). Workplace republicans such
as Breen claim that the organisational structure of capitalist f‌irms requires strict
state regulation and the democratisation of workplaces to ensure worker voice and
control within f‌irms (see also Gonza
´lez-Ricoy, 2014).
All of these critics share a common concern for developing an adequate account
of structural domination and enhancing popular participation in political and
economic institutions. I claim that their criticisms of Pettit’s theory of liberty as
non-domination push in the direction of a reappraisal of this ideal from the per-
spective of a more fully developed socialist republican position. This article draws
from contemporary radical republicans and the writings of Karl Kautsky and
48 European Journal of Political Theory 21(1)

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT