Political Theory

H09(c) - Work, Capitalism, and Labor

Date: Jun 4 | Time: 08:30am to 10:00am | Location:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Seon Yuzyk (University of Alberta)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Robert Sparling (University of Ottawa)

Corporate Power in the 21st Century: Beyond the Factory Model: Chi Kwok (Lingnan University)
Abstract: Political theories of the firm and debates on workplace democracy have focused on what I term “traditional modes of power manifestation” (Anderson, 2017; Cipley, 2013; Singer, 2019). A particularly notable example is the "firm-state" analogy, which frames corporate power as structurally similar to state power (Landemore & Ferraras, 2014). However, recent research has highlighted the lack of analysis on how corporations exercise power. Additionally, the rise of the platform economy demonstrates that firms with relatively few employees can still exert significant influence over a large number of users and workers who depend on these platforms for their livelihoods. This paper seeks to develop an account of how evolving legal systems, digital infrastructures, and information communication technologies have given rise to new forms of corporate power with significant normative implications (Herzog & Zacka, 2017). Specifically, the paper aims to critique existing literature on corporate power, particularly within political theory, by demonstrating that much of it relies on outdated assumptions about how corporations exercise their power.

The Cobbler Shall Not ‘Stick to his Last’: Marx on Overcoming the Division of Labour between Rulers and Ruled.: Paul Gray (Brock University)
Abstract: Marx, in Capital, asserts that the division of labour under capitalism makes sheer nonsense of the “summit of handicraft wisdom,” namely, “Ne sutor ultra crepidam,” or, “Let the cobbler stick to his last.” Marx is referring here to a story, reported by Pliny the Elder, about how a cobbler told the painter Apelles that the sandal in his painting did not look right. Another way to translate Apelles’s reply is, ‘The cobbler should not judge above the sandal.’ In this paper, I argue that Marx cites this in response to Plato’s Republic, with which Marx briefly engages in his discussion of the division of labour. Marx asserts, “Thus large-scale industry, by its very nature, necessitates variation of labour, fluidity of functions, and mobility of the worker in all directions.” As long as this variation of labour occurs under capitalism, it perpetuates the old “ossified” division of labour between producing non-rulers and the non-producing rulers. But, capitalism also creates conditions in which “the partially developed individual, who is merely the bearer of one specialized social function,” can, with the transcendence of capitalism, become “the totally developed individual, for whom the different social functions are different modes of activity he takes up in turn.” For Marx, this has the potential to challenge the traditional justifications of social hierarchy through arguments from the division of labour. The quintessential case for Marx is Plato’s argument about the many-sidedness of our needs and the one-sidedness of our capacities. Conversely, for Marx, the variation of labour has the potential to establish social equality through the many-sidedness of our capacities. When every individual takes up different social functions in turn, each develops the knowledge necessary for taking responsibility for the social whole. Marx thinks that, with the ultimate defeat of handicraft wisdom, so too goes the justification for the idea of justice as ‘minding one’s own business.’ When Marx invokes the cobbler, he affirms the self-rule of all producers. It is not that Marx thinks we can, or should, overcome the differences, indeed, the inequalities, in natural endowments between individuals. Rather, Marx seeks the abolition of a division of labour that is natural insofar as it is spontaneously arisen. Therefore, he does not think that these natural inequalities between individuals warrant societal inequalities. He believes that the variation of labour makes possible ending the separation of individuals into specialized functions to which each is deemed naturally suited, and thus, treating responsibility for the social whole as the specialized function of a ruling minority.

What exactly is the freedom problem of work?: Iddan Sonsino (University of Toronto)
Abstract: Many hold the belief that work, as appearing around us in advanced economies, compromises freedom. But when analyzed carefully, this claim raises a number of theoretical difficulties and puzzles. My paper tries to systematically examine this question and provide a novel answer to it. In the paper’s first part, I articulate three possible answers to this question that the literature can be seen as offering - a republican answer, a negative freedom answer, and a positive freedom answer. I claim that all three are unsatisfactory, for either analytic shortcomings or empirical inaccuracies. In particular, I claim these answers tend to not reliably describe contemporary work arrangements – they rely on a largely anachronistic understanding of the economic terrain. In the second part, I try to offer a more satisfying articulation of the freedom problem of work, one that builds on sensibilities captured by past answers but that is able to better accommodate current trends in the labour market. I present an argument from conformity pressures, developing the idea that the structure of work in advanced economies is inconsistent with our freedom intuitions for the fact that market environments attempt to maximize the diversion of people from their own plans and projects. I claim that such an institutional design conflicts with various ways in which we understand freedom. In the last part of the paper, I take a look at possible remedies that can be offered for this diagnosis, and suggest 4 modest “imaginaries” for enhanced individual worker autonomy inside markets

Compassion and Conflict-centric Theories of the Workplace: Zen Buddhist Notion of Interbeing at Work: Yang-Yang Cheng (University of Toronto), Chi Kwok (Lingnan University)
Abstract: Contemproary theories on workplace governance predominantly emphasize solutions rooted in conflict. Essentially, these theories revolve around the idea that achieving workplace justice is best accomplished through the establishment of mechanisms that facilitate contestation, both internally and externally in the workplace. Examples of such mechanisms include the right to strike, the formation of unions, and other forms of contestation. While these measures are crucial, conflict-centric theories often overlook two critical facets of today's workplace governance. First, the intrinsic values of certain institutional settings, like the trust and cooperation nurtured by frontline entities such as work councils, are not always captured by these theories. Second, there is frequently an underestimation of the social and psychological strains arising from conflicts. In this paper, we posit that the Buddhist perspectives of compassion offer fruitful resources to address the limitations of conflict-centric theories of workplace governance. Specifically, the Zen Buddhist notion of interbeing sheds light on the interconnection between the suffering of self and others. We propose that by drawing on the Zen Buddhist insight into interbeing, we can reinterpret existing institutional structures by switching the focus from self-interest to caring for others, and offer original institutional proposals that lessen the social and psychological impacts of conflict-driven models.