Critics of social injustice argue that the agent of transformative social change will (or should) be a mass agent; namely, an agent that is large, complex, and geographically dispersed. Traditional theories of collective agency emphasize the presence of shared intentions and common knowledge, but mass agents are too large for such cohesion. To make sense of mass agency, I suggest a new approach. On the solidarity theory of mass agency, a mass agent is composed of (a) organizers who intend to (...) fight for social change and (b) supporters who are in solidarity with organizers. (shrink)

This paper presents a critique of left republican writings from a non-republican socialist standpoint. It examines three claims that have been advanced by left republican authors: that workers are dominated 1) by their lack of access to the means of production; 2) by the market; and 3) by their employer. With regard to 1) and 2), it argues that alternative conceptions of freedom can identify the unfreedom in question, and that there are good reasons for pressing these complaints on the (...) basis of these alternative conceptions. With regard to 3), it argues that, while alternative conceptions of freedom may be able to identify the unfreedom in question, republican freedom provides a more suitable basis for pressing this claim. It concludes that while left republicans have shown that socialists have reason to care about republican freedom, they have not shown that socialists should adopt republican freedom at the expense of other conceptions of freedom. (shrink)

Individuals have different experiences of work when they are self‐employed, when they perform tasks in the gig economy, and when they follow directives from managers. But such differences are not represented in some of the most prominent non‐ideal theories of work. These describe workers as a coherent group, with a position in the structure of the liberal capitalist economy. I present an alternative that does better at acknowledging difference, through a description of work and workers that has greater ‘pluralism’ and (...) less ‘unifying coherence’. Some might insist that their ‘unifying’ description has superior empirical plausibility. But if ‘pluralistic’ descriptions are valid rivals to provide an accurate characterization of our current condition, then we should consider whether their use in theory can serve valuable aims. I identify the distinctive and valuable non‐ideal aims – epistemic, evaluative, and normative – that can be pursued with ‘pluralistic’ descriptions of work and workers. (shrink)

Recently, some scholars have sought to cast Marx and other socialists as participants in the republican tradition, expanding ideas such as non-domination and self-rule beyond what they had been typically conceived of as by many of the instigators of the revival of republican thought in recent decades. The ramifications of such an expansion, however, have not yet been fully grappled with in the area of rights. This article aims to remedy this by building a theory of social republican rights by (...) drawing on both prongs of this framework. I argue that (1) rights ought to function primarily as instruments to overcome domination and that Marxist and socialist analysis identifies novel forms of domination missed by other republicans, (2) certain liberal rights are themselves vectors of domination, (3) rights are realised through active will formation in politics and the public sphere rather than being pre-political claims against these things, (4) rights should be based on a social ontology that is relational rather than individualist and (5) rights are powers that are struggled for and operate as zones of contestation rather than trans-historical principles. (shrink)

Los llamados a huir del capitalismo, a “cambiar el mundo sin tomar el poder” y construir inmediatamente un afuera de las relaciones de dominación intrínsecas al primero han capturado de forma efectiva el imaginario político de los movimientos sociales en las últimas décadas. Este artículo pretende criticar lo que llamaré la “ideología de la huida”, presentándola como un ejemplo de falsa alternativa al capitalismo. Me centraré para ello en el análisis crítico de John Holloway y Raúl Zibechi como exponentes teóricos (...) de la misma, y en las llamadas “Escuelas alternativas” como una de sus expresiones prácticas, para después exponer cómo El Capital de Marx contiene una crítica de esta clase de proyectos. Se argumentará, primero, que sus defensores yerran al tratar de ubicar las potencias revolucionarias en un elemento externo al capitalismo, pues este acaba revelándose como una ficción ideológica. Posteriormente se demostrará que los intentos de buscar o construir un “más allá” de las relaciones de producción capitalistas son tan viejos como el propio capitalismo, y que la necesidad de su fracaso viene dictada por la misma naturaleza de este último, para acabar argumentando que la concepción marxiana de la política revolucionaria contiene una alternativa real a la ideología de la huida en todas sus versiones. (shrink)