A Walzerian Theory of Exploitation

8/2/2019 A Walzerian Theory of Exploitation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-walzerian-theory-of-exploitation 1/19

Northeastern Political Science Association

A Walzerian Theory of ExploitationAuthor(s): Robert MayerReviewed work(s):Source: Polity, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Spring, 2002), pp. 337-354Published by: Palgrave Macmillan JournalsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3235395 .

Accessed: 20/03/2012 08:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Palgrave Macmillan Journals and Northeastern Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Polity.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pal

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3235395?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3235395?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pal



Polity * VolumeXXXIV, umber3 * Spring 2002

A Walzerian Theory of Exploitation

Robert Mayer

LoyolaUniversityChicago

Whatsorts of transactions hould countas exploitative?Marxianheoryhastendedto monopolizeanalysisof thephenomenon,but thispaperoffersan alter-

nativeaccountofexploitation erived romMichaelWalzer'sheoryofdistributive

justice.That heory ends itself o restatement s a theoryof exploitation ecausethe principaldistributivenjusticecomplexequalityaims to combat is "domi-

nance,"whichconsists ntakingadvantageof one resource n order ogainotherswith whichthe firsthas no intrinsic onnection.This s fundamentally conceptof

exploitation.Having reformulatedcomplex equalityas a general theory of

exploitation, then contrast twith its liberalandMarxianivals.Bothareshownto be species of "simple quality."As a result,theyoften render ncorrectudg-mentsaboutwhethera giventransactionhouldbe deemedexploitative.

Robert Mayeris AssociateProfessorof Political cienceat LoyolaUniversity

Chicago.Visithis webpageat http://www.homepages.luc.edu/-rmayer.

MichaelWalzer'sSpheres of Justice remains a puzzle to commentators.

Although escribed yitsauthoras an egalitarianheoryof distributiveustice, ev-eralcriticshaveargued hatcomplexequalitys neither trictly galitarian or an

integratedheoryof distributiveustice. t s notstrictly galitarianecausecomplexequality oes notseektoequalizea universalmetric ikewelfareorresources.'Andit is not an integratedheoryof distributiveusticebecausetheprinciples f which

complexequality onsists"onlydentifyomesideconstraints n acceptabledistri-butionalprofiles";hese principles"donot andcannotfullydetermine heirown

application." overt en Hartogh asthereforeoncluded hatcomplexequalitysnotso mucha theoryof distributiveusticeas "averyeffectivewayof doingappliedethicswithout heory."2

Butthere s anotherwayto interpretWalzer's rojectnSpheresofJustice hat

mightsuggest tstruetheoretical alue.InthispaperIargue hatcomplexequalitycanbe understoodsa general heoryof exploitation. hefundamentalistributive

injusticeWalzer imsto combatis "dominance," hichconsists n takingadvan-

tageof one resource n order o gainotherswithwhich the firsthas no intrinsicconnection."Takingdvantage,"owever, s merelya synonym or"exploitation."

1. Govert enHartogh,TheArchitectonicf MichaelWalzer's heory fJustice,"oliticalTheory, 7(August1999):491-522, t 511-14.SeealsoRichard rneson,"AgainstComplex' quality,"nPluralism,Justice, ndEquality,ds.DavidMillerndMichaelWalzerOxford: xfordUniversityress,1995), 26-52.

2. denHartogh,ArchitectonicfWalzer's heory,"16-18.



338 A WALZERIANHEORYOF EXPLOITATION

Inevery nstance he injusticesWalzer dentifies esult romthe exploitation f an

advantage hat is somehow extrinsic o the distributivephere in question.Histheoryof dominance, hen, s fundamentally theoryof exploitation,ndit can be

restated xplicitlyntermsof thisconcept.I provide hatrestatementn thispaperandthen contrast hecomplex-egalitar-

iantheoryof exploitationwith its liberaland Marxianivals. show thatthe com-

plex-egalitarianpproach ccupiesa middlepositionbetweenthe two andso can

be viewed as a distinctivelyocial-democraticccountof exploitation.As such, it

judgesa greater angeof capitalistransactionso be exploitativehandoes the lib-

eralstandard, utit is notas sweeping n itsindictmentf assetinequalitys Marx-

iantheory.Thedifference etweencomplexequality nditsrivals,however, s notso muchquantitatives qualitative.Whiletheydo set different tandardsorwhat

countsas anexploitativexchange, heliberal ndMarxianheoriesof exploitationare bothspeciesof whatWalzerdubs"simple quality." hey nsiston the equal-

izationof some metricoutcome,whereascomplexequalityakesas its standard f

fairnessa nonmetricormof equality.Onthis basisitarrives tdifferentudgments

aboutthe legitimacy f various ortsof distributions. omplex quality,hen,does

qualify s authenticallygalitarian,uttheoutcome t seeksto equalize s not divis-

ible ntoshares.Toanticipate,willshowthatdistributionsredeemedexploitative

bycomplexequalitywhenstatusequalitywithingroups s not sustained.Thefirstsectionof the papermaps analyticallyhe conceptof exploitationn

order to facilitatecomparisonof different heories.The second part restates

Walzer'sheoryof complexequality s a general heoryof exploitation. hethird

sectioncontrastshecomplex-egalitarianpproachwithrepresentativeiberaland

Marxianheoriesof exploitation.The conclusion dentifies omplexequalityas a

thirdway inexploitationheory.

I. The Conceptof

ExploitationGenerallypeaking, o exploitsomething s to use or takeadvantageof that

thing.3Exploitersenefit rom heobjectwhichtheyexploit nstrumentally.nsome

cases thisexploitations taken o be morallyneutral r evenpositive example: o

exploitone's talents),but in other instancesthe exploitations deemed unfair

(example: he exploitation f sweatshop abor).Beforewe can address he ques-

tionof when takingadvantages wrong,however,we mustfirstdistinguishmore

carefully etweendifferentypesof exploitation.

3. Foranintroductiono theconceptof exploitationee Richard rneson, Exploitation,"nEncyclo-

pedia of Ethics,ed. LawrenceBecker, New York:GarlandPublishing), :350-52;and AlanCarling,

"Exploitation,"nEncyclopediafAppliedEthics, d. RuthChadwickSanDiego:AcademicPress,1998),

1:219-32.



Robert Mayer 339

AsRobertGoodinpointsout,all casesof exploitationre instances f situation-

exploitation ors-exploitation)nwhichagentsturnsome favorable ircumstanceintheir ituation renvironmento theiradvantage.4heyuse one good thingavail-ableto them n order o getanother.The resource xploitedmaybe a quality f the

agentitselfor an opportunityr an inanimate bject,oryet anotheragentandits

qualities.Thelatter s the principal bjectof concern n exploitationheory, spe-

ciallywhen theexploited gent sa personorgroupofpersons.Person-exploitation

(or p-exploitation),hen, is a specialcase of s-exploitation ut is usefullydistin-guished rom tbecause of ourobviousmoralconcernaboutpeopleusingothersas meansto theirownadvantage. ycontrast,nthe literaturen exploitationmere

s-exploitationinwhich no person sdirectly xploited)s usuallyreated smorallyunproblematic.swe shallsee, thatassumptionschallenged ythecomplex-egal-itarian pproach.

P-exploitationnvolvesone personor groupgainingat the expenseof another.Notall instancesof suchgain,however, ountas p-exploitation.fyou exploitmycarelessness n a game of chess in orderto take my queen,you havecertainlygainedatmyexpensebutyouhavenotexploitedme. P-exploitationnlyoccurs n

exchangerelationshipsrbilateralransactions. he main ocus of p-exploitationsthe marketplace,utnon-marketxchangesmayalsoentailp-exploitationfthere

is gainat another's xpense.Forexample,children an exploit heirparents andvice versa)even if no moneychangeshands.The characteristicndicator f an

exploitativeransactions disproportionalitynthedistributionf benefitsandbur-dens: heexploited ssumedisproportionateurdens or hebenefit eceived,while

exploiters ainmuchat littlecost. Note,however, hatthe exploitedpartyusuallygainssomething rom hetransaction swell,andmay nfactgainmoreutilityhanthe exploiter.5fthe alternatives unemployment,weated abormay gaingreaterutility roma low-wagejob thanan exploitative mployergainsfromthe profitsextracted romthatlabor.Theseworkersare nonethelessexploitedbecausethe

employerhastakenadvantage f theunequalrelationshipnorder o gain profit ttheirexpense(throughheir weatedwork).

Inordinary sagep-exploitations a "moralized"oncept-it iswrongbydefini-tion.Toexploita person s to takeunfairadvantage f thatperson; heactionnec-essarily iolatesa normof justice.6 utdifferentheorieswilljudgeany given rans-

4. RobertGoodin, ExploitingSituationndExploitingPerson,"nModernTheories fExploitation,ed.AndrewReeve London:agePublications,987),166-200,t 166-67.

5. See AlanWertheimer,xploitationPrinceton: rincetonUniversityress,1996),223;andAllenWood,"Exploitation,"ocialPhilosophyndPolicy,12(Summer 995):136-58, t 148.

6. On p-exploitations a moralized onceptsee Goodin,"Exploiting Situation,"67, 182;andWertheimer,xploitation,.SomeMarxianheoristseny hatp-exploitationsunfair ydefinition,ut hattechnicalonceptions atoddswithordinarysage.For hepurposes f thispaperanexchangemustbedeemedunfairorit to countas a caseof p-exploitation.ora Marxistnterpretationf p-exploitationsmorally eutralee Wood,"Exploitation."



340 AWALZERIANHEORYOFEXPLOITATION

actionasexploitativer not onthe basisof a standard f fairness hat salways gal-

itariann some way.Thisstands o reason, orp-exploitations madepossiblebysome inequalitybetween individuals r groupswhich is deemed illegitimate.7Thosewho exploitothers akeadvantage f an initialnequality, hichtheyoughtnot to do. As a result, he exploitedget less thantheyshould fromthe exchange.Fairnesssonlyachievedwhenthecontending arties remadeequal,byeliminat-

ingthe illegitimate dvantage.Theories f exploitation iffer, owever,withregardto the typesof advantages r inequalities eemedunexploitable.Mostdo notcon-

demneverysort of inequality ut ratheringleout a specific ormthat riggershe

perception f p-exploitationr unfairness.8ncomparingheoriesof exploitation,

thecrucial ask s to identifyheformof equalityhatestablishests benchmarkorassessmentof transactions.

Beforewe turnto some examples, wo basictypesof equalitymustbe distin-

guished.Equalitys a comparativeoncept,butcomparisonsanbe quantitativer

qualitative.uantitativequalitys concernedwithrelativeharesof divisibleoods-

thingsofwhichone mayhavemoreorless.Goodsof thissort(money,power,wel-

fare) erveas metricsn termsof whichequality etweenpartiesanbeassessed.Let

us thereforeall this brandmetric quality.nthe debateamong egalitariansbout

"equalityfwhat,"Rawls,Dworkin, en,Cohen,andArneson re allmetric galitari-

ans,though heydisagree boutwhichparticular etric oodought o be equalized.Most heories f exploitationrealso basedon a metric ormof equality.

Divisible oods,however,arenot the onlysortof thingthatcan be equalized.

Considertatus(inthe senseof place n a hierarchicaltructure):ne cannothave

moreor less statusbutonly higheror lower.Statuss a positional ood;itcan be

sharedwithothersat one's levelbutitcannotbe dividedntodiscrete, onsumable

shares.Highand low statusgroupsareunequal,but the inequalitys not metric.

Instead,et us callthistypeof inequalityositional.As I shall demonstraten the

nextsection,complexequality nditstheoryof exploitations an exampleof posi-

tionalegalitarianism.LiberalndMarxianheoriesof exploitation,ycontrast, retypically remised

on a metric tandard f equality.Letus beginwitha representativexampleof lib-

eral exploitation heory:DavidMiller's ccountof exploitationn the market.9

7. As WillKymlickabserves,"exploitations one of themany ormsof inequality,ll of whichare

assessedbya deeperandbroader rinciplefequality."eeContemporaryolitical hilosophy: nIntro-

duction Oxford: larendonress,1990),180.

8. Theone exceptiono thisrule sArthur iQuattro'sheoryof communistustice,whichholds hatno inequalityfanysortmaybeexploited.ndividualsresimply uaranteedqualwelfare s anoutcome,

regardlessf theiralienable rinalienablessets.See"Liberalheory ndthe Ideaof Communistustice,"

American olitical cienceReview,92 (March 998): 3-96.

9. DavidMiller,Exploitationn theMarket,"nModernTheories fExploitation,49-65. or wosimi-

lar iberalheories f exploitationee Hillel teiner, ALiberal heory f Exploitation,"thics, 4 (January

1984): 25-41; ndWertheimer,xploitation,30-35.



Robert Mayer 341

Miller'sheory s liberalbecause taffirmshebasic nstitutionsf a capitalistcon-

omy;hereexploitationonsists n deviationsroma pure capitalist ituation.Thebenchmark n termsof which Miller ssessesfairness s equilibrium rice,when

competitions perfect.Bargainingower(a metricgood)mustbe equal,suchthatneitherparty an dictateprice.P-exploitationherefore risesduetoasymmetriesn

poweror information, hen the advantaged artycould offerto exchangeat alowerpricebut deliberatelyhooses not to in orderto exploitan advantageousmarketposition.As Millerxplains, he key"iswhether he situationprovideshebeneficiaries ithanyfreedomof maneuver.... Exploitations an activerelation-

ship:an exploitermustactually o something o deserve he label."'0Wherecom-

petitions robust,however,p-exploitationecomesimpossibleon this standard ffairness.Hencecompetitiveapitalismmustbe deemednonexploitative,veniftheassetsof parties regrosslyunequal.

Marxianheories f exploitation,f course,challengehat udgment.Many aria-tionsof thebasicMarxianositionhave been proffered, utwe will consideronlyone:JohnRoemer's roperty-relationsodel.1'HisbenchmarkorMarxianxploita-tion s theequalizationfalienable ssets.Unlessparties eginwithanequal hareofsuchassets(ametric ood),exchangesbetween hemresultnp-exploitation.hosewho possessmorecan takeadvantage f the inequalityo gainat the expenseof

those with less. Thisis trueeven if competitions perfect.Hencefor Roemerp-exploitations not necessarilyn activerelationship.t results undamentallyromstructuralnequalities. n hisview,competitiveapitalismsno lessexploitativehan

monopoly apital. nbothexploitations pervasive ndsystemic incecapitalismsfounded n theunequaldistributionf alienable ssets(wage-labor).

Whilesubstantivelyifferent,iberal ndMarxianheories f exploitationre for-

mally imilar.Eachevaluatesransactionsntermsof a metric tandard f equality;fairness s onlyachievedwhen partiespossessequalsharesof somedivisible ood.From hecomplex-egalitarianerspective, owever, hisapproach o thephenom-

enonof exploitations toosimple.

II. A General Theory of Exploitation

"Although ichaelWalzer's pheresofJusticeattemptsoadvance democraticsocialistvisionof justice,"AlanWertheimerbserves,"its ndexcontainsno refer-

10. Miller,ExploitationntheMarket,"60.11. JohnRoemer, GeneralTheory f ExploitationndClass(Cambridge:arvard niversityress,1982);Free to Lose:AnIntroductiono MarxistEconomicPhilosophyCambridge: arvard niversityPress,1988);andEgalitarianerspectives: ssays n Philosophical conomics Cambridge:ambridgeUniversityress,1994),13-11.Roemer'sworkhassparked wide-rangingebate nMarxianircles boutthenature fexploitation,uthisversion fthebenchmarksnonethelessepresentativefthebasicMarx-ianapproach.




enceto exploitation."'2his s indeed hecase,butifwe focuson theconcept tself,

and not merelythe word that usuallydesignatesthe concept, it turns out thatSpheresof Justice s almostexclusively oncernedwithexploitationn its various

forms.Allof the injusticesWalzer dentifiesn the bookresult rom he illegitimate

exploitation f situationsor persons.The argument an thereforebe restated n

termsofexploitationheorywithoutdoingviolence o itsconceptual tructure. nd

inanycase,as Jon Elster ointsout,"for nygiven heoryof distributiveustice,we

can definea notionof exploitationo go withit."'3nthetheoryof complexequal-

ity,however, he relationshiphouldprobablybe reversed:he arguments in the

first nstancea general heoryof exploitationromwhich we can thendeducea

notionof distributiveustice.Therelationships reversed ecauseWalzer oes notbeginby tellingus how to

distributeoods justly.nstead,hetheoryofcomplexequalitysframedn termsof

the principalnjusticewe are to avoid n the courseof distributingoods:domi-

nance.Distributiveustice s achieved,n otherwords,notpositively, yapplying

generalprincipleof distribution, ut only negatively,hrough he elimination f

dominance n allitsforms.As Walzer xplainsattheendof thepreface,his ideal s

simplya society"free romevery ortof domination."'4

Walzer's se of the term"dominance"r "domination"s unusual. tis notthe

equivalent f Weber'sHerrschaft, authoritativeowerof command."Rather,orWalzer"dominance escribes wayof usingsocialgoodsthat sn't imitedbytheir

intrinsicmeanings"10-11).Thespecific ormof thisusageis conversion; "domi-

nantgoodis moreorlesssystematicallyonvertedntoallsortsof other hings"12).

Moreprecisely,Walzeralls"agooddominantftheindividualsho have t,because

theyhave t,cancommand widerangeofothergoods" 10).But his sonlyanother

wayofdescribinghephenomenon f unfairxploitation.Walzerianominanceon-

sistsin usingone advantagellegitimatelyn order o gainothers.Theexamplehe

offers o illustratehe abstractoncept s a goodthat s "scarce ndwidelyneeded,

likewater nthedesert." hosewho monopolize oodsof thissortcan then"exploittheirdominance"o that"all oodthings ome tothosewho have he one bestthing.

Possess hatone,andtheothers omeintrain"11).Takingdvantagefa monopo-

listic ituationn order o enrichoneself s a paradigmaticaseof exploitation.

Asynonym ordominancen Walzer'sheory s "tyranny,"hichagainsuggests

a relationshipf authoritativeommandthatis not in factrequiredby thisnovel

12.Wertheimer,xploitation,.13. JonElster, RoemerersusRoemer:A Comment n 'New Directionsn the Marxian heoryof

ExploitationndClass',"olitics&Society,11(Winter 982): 63-74, t364.

14. MichaelWalzer,pheresof Justice:A Defenseof PluralismndEqualityNewYork: asicBooks,

1983),xvi.Referenceso thisbookarecited nthe textof thepapernparentheses. hetheory fcomplex

equalitysfurtherevelopednThick nd Thin:MoralArgumenttHomeand Abroad NotreDame:Uni-

versity f NotreDamePress,1994).



Robert Mayer 343

vocabulary. ate n the bookWalzer ellsus that"in ermsof the moraleconomy

whichIhavebeendescribing,hetyrants a personwho exploitsa mastergoodtomaster hemenandwomenaroundhim" 279;emphasisadded).Hereexploitationinthe sense of taking dvantages explicitly cknowledged s the coreelement nthe conceptof dominance.Tyrants,r thosewho achievedominance,are guilty

fundamentallyf unfair xploitation.ForWalzerdominance s a moralized oncept.It refers o exploitationhatis

unfair.Hencenotevery nstanceof takingadvantage ountsas dominance.Domi-nance resultsonlywhere individuals r groups"convert ne good into anotherwhen there is no intrinsic onnectionbetweenthe two" (19). P,utanotherway,

dominance nvolves he exploitation f an extrinsicadvantage.Thisis a purelyformaldefinition,orwhat counts as an extrinsicadvantage an be specified n

manydifferentways.Indeed, verystandard f unfair xploitationan be restatedas a principleof extrinsicality.orexample,Roemer'sbenchmarkholds thata

greaterhareof alienable ssets s anextrinsic dvantage. odescribeanadvantageas extrinsic,herefore,s merely o saythat tsexploitation iolatesa theory'spre-ferredprinciple f fairness.

Thecrucialquestion, hen,is whatWalzer's tandard f extrinsicalitys. Givenhis self-proclaimedluralism,we mightassumethereis no generalprinciple f

unfairness n Walzer's heory of exploitation,but severalcommentatorshaverecently hallengedhisassumption.Theypointoutthata principle f equalmem-

bershipappearsto playa regulative ole in each of the spheresof justice.'5 nWalzer'swords,distributions ust"upholdheunderlyingquality fmembership"(84).This sachievedwhensocialexclusion s prevented rabolished.'6ndividualsmust not be allowed o falldown in any spherein sucha way as to render heminternal xilesor second-classmembers.Theprohibition f socialexclusion s a

principle fstatusequality.ndividualsreentitledo equalstandingneachsphere;theirmembershipmustbe sustained.Theexploitationfanyadvantagehatunder-

cutsthisstandings illegitimate,or henparticipantso notstandatthesamelevelandbecomeunequal ntermsof status.Walzer's oncern s positional, s theveryterminology f dominance uggests.Exploiters ominate; heystandhigher hantheirvictims,who arenotat thesame level.Exploiterslsopossessmore of someresource,butmetric nequalitys notnecessarily n indicator f exploitationnthistheory.Onecan possess less thanothersyet nonetheless tandat an equallevel

15. Ontheprinciplef equalmembershipee denHartogh, Architectonicf Walzer's heory,"94-95;RobertanderVeen,"TheAdjudicatingitizen:OnEqualMembershipnWalzer's heory fJustice,"Britishournal f Political cience,29 (April 999):225-58; ndDavidMiller,Introduction,"nPluralism,Justice, ndEquality, -16, t 12-16.Theprincipleppearso be acknowledgedyWalzern"Response,"inPluralism,ustice, ndEquality,81-97, t 287.

16. Onsocialexclusion s theindicator f status nequalityee Walzer, Exclusion,njustice,ndtheDemocratictate," issent,40 (Winter 993): 5-64.



344 AWALZERIANHEORYOF EXPLOITATION

with them. In complexequalityquantitativemetric) nequalitiesmust result n

qualitativepositional)nequality efore hetaking-advantageecomesunfair.DavidMiller greesthatcomplex equality qualizes tatus:"Ina societywhich

realizes omplex equality, eopleenjoya basicequality f statuswhich overrides

theirunequal tandingnparticularpheresof justice uchas moneyandpower."17

Note,however, haton this accountstatusequalitys achievedoverallbut not in

eachparticularphere.Iamarguing,nstead,hatstatusequality f some sortmust

be sustainedn everydistribution;he assessment s madesphereby sphere.The

substantive atureof statusequalityneachcase, however,does notconform o a

globalprinciple utdependson themeaningof thegoodinquestion.Walzer's oc-

trineof sharedunderstandingsnters hetheoryhere(6-10).18Wemustrecognizethatequalstatus n the marketwillbe differentromequalstatus npolitical ssoci-

ations,andthismeansthatsome goodsmaybe takenadvantage f in one sphere

but not another.Wealth, orexample,maybe s-exploitedn the marketwithout

injusticef theparticipantseginas statusequals,butinthepolitymoneyisalways

an extrinsic dvantage ecausethe commodificationf politicalnfluenceneces-

sarilyundercutsheequalstatusof democratic itizens.

A seriesof exampleswillillustratehelogicof thecomplex-egalitarianpproach

to exploitation. etus beginwiththeone justmentioned, xploitationn thepoliti-

cal sphere.Walzers a staunchadvocateof democracybutnonethelessholdsthatthe democraticprinciple f political qualitydoes not requireall unequaladvan-

tagesbe unexploitablen order or the politicalprocess o be fair. na democracy,

citizensare guaranteed n equalvote but not necessarily qualpower.Afterall,

Walzer emindsus,thecitizen's

aim is to win-that is, to exerciseunequaledpower.Inpursuit f thisaim,he

andhisfriends xploitwhatever dvantagesheyhave.Theymakegoodaccount

of theirrhetoricalkillandorganizationalompetence; heyplayon partyoyal-

tiesandmemoriesof oldstruggles;heyseektheendorsement f readily ecog-nizedorpublicly onored ndividuals. ll hisis entirelyegitimate.... (309)

Exploiting ne's rhetorical r organizationalbilities o win votes is an example

of legitimate -exploitation ecausethese advantages o not undercut he status

equality f citizens.ButWalzer oes on to insist hat

17. DavidMiller,Complex quality,"nPluralism,ustice, ndEquality,97-225,t206.

18. Theappeal o "shared nderstandings"as beensubject o morecriticismhananyother acetof

thetheoryof complexequality.willnot rehash hisdebatehereorattempto defendWalzer's osition.

Even f we findcomplexequality ulnerablet thispoint,I think t is stillworthreformulating alzer's

approachodistributiveustice s a theory fexploitation.orWalzer'smostcareful iscussion fthe ssue,

see "ObjectivityndSocialMeaning,"n TheQuality f Life,eds. MarthaNussbaum nd Amartya en

(Oxford: larendon ress,1993),165-77.



Robert Mayer 345

It would not be legitimate.. if some citizenswere able to win theirpolitical

struggles ecausetheywerepersonallywealthyorhadwealthybackersorpow-erful riends nd relativesntheexistinggovernment.Therearesome inequali-ties thatcan,and others hatcannot,be exploitedn the courseofpoliticalactiv-

ity.(309;emphasisadded)

Taking dvantage f unequalwealth n order o monopolize he discussion r buyinfluence onstitutes nfair-exploitationndresultsndominance.Although ooneis directly -exploited hen money s allowed o distorthepolitical rocess, hosewithmoregainattheexpenseof theirasset-poor pponents,who arevictims f this

s-exploitation.he atter et esspower han hey houldbecause hecompetition asbecome unfair.Walzer laimsthat in democraticpolitics"the wellbornand the

wealthymakewhatareproperlyalledextrinsiclaims,whichdon't inkupwiththesocialmeaning fpower" 285).This sbecause heexploitationf theseadvantagesundercuts he standingof the disadvantageds political qualsin a way thatthe

exploitationf unequalrhetoricalbilitydoes not. Itis one thing o win a politicalargument ecauseyouare a betterdebaterbut anothero prevail ecauseonlyyoucanafford ccessto themedia.Thecommodificationf power ndemocratic oliticsis unfairbecause t renders hosewith less wealtheffectivelyecond-class itizens,

formallyntitledovotebutsubstantivelyenied heopportunityocompete or nflu-enceon anequalbasis.Their tatusas politicalquals s thereby ndercut.

A second exampleof unfairexploitation traddles he line betweenthe eco-nomicandpolitical pheres.Countrieshatrecruit uestworkersgrantadmissionandjob opportunitieso foreignunskilledabor.Froma complex-egalitarianer-spective heseprograms onstitutep-exploitationecauseadmissionandemploy-mentaretraded nexchange orthe right o claimcitizenship ndacquirevoiceinthepolity 52-61).Thehostcountrybankson theneedinessof foreignabor nordertodrivea hardbargainnwhichan entitlementhat snormallynalienablethecit-

izenshipowed to residents f thestate)is allowedto be alienatedbythisvulnera-blegroup.Citizens f thehostcountry ainat theexpenseofguestworkersbecausetheyacquire ubjectiono the polity rom hisgroupof residentswithout hedem-ocraticcompensationof equalpoliticalrightswhich theythemselvesenjoy.Thedominance s madepossibleby the unequalstatusof the partiesas contractors.Although ormally qual, substantivelyhey are not because prospectiveguestworkersusually indthemselves n desperatecircumstanceshat undercut heircapacityobargain rto refuseexploitativeffers.Their onsent o thetermsof theoffercannot herefore e acceptedas sufficientlyoluntaryocountasanexchangebetweenstatusequals(58). Hencecontractsof thissortmustbe blocked; f out-sidersareto be admitted s residents and notmerelyas tourists, isiting tudents,etc.),theymustbe accordedhestandardompensation fsubjectionothestate-the right o becomea citizenaftera reasonableprobationary eriodhas elapsed.This s the"minimum age"of politicalubjection.




Walzerpointsout thatguestworkersare victimsof a doubleexploitation:As

group,theyconstitutea disenfranchisedlass.Theyaretypically n exploitedoroppressed lassaswell,andtheyareexploited roppressed t least npartbecause

theyaredisenfranchised,ncapableof organizing ffectivelyorself-defense"59).Putanotherway,guestworkers re firstp-exploited ythe hostcountry,whichbuystheirpoliticalrights n exchangeforadmission,and this in turn makespossibleintensep-exploitationyemployers,who takeadvantageftheirdefenselessnessn

order o maximizeprofits.Guestworkersareusually weatshopemployeesor their

equivalent, n obviously xploitedgroup.Whatmakespossible he dominanceof

sweatshop abor,however, s notthedisparitynassetsperse betweencapitaland

laborbuttheirdisparityn statusas contractorsn the market.Walzer rgues hat"whatgoes on in the market houldat leastapproximate n exchangebetween

equals (a freeexchange)" 120).Thisrequiresnot a simple-egalitariandentity f

assetsbutonlypossessionbybothparties f some satisfactoryevelof assets such

thatneithers indesperate traits.The aimshouldbe

to freepeoplefrom heimmediate onstraints f physicalneed. So longas they

areunfree, heyareimmediatelyvailableoreverysortof hardwork,abased,

as itwere, byanticipation.Hungry, owerless,always nsecure, heyconstitute

"thereservearmyof the proletariat."ncetheyhavealternativesheywillrallyandsayNo. (167)

This s theaspirationf the welfare tate,which"underwriteshesphereof money

when it guaranteeshatmen andwomen will neverbe forced o bargainwithout

resources ortheverymeansof life" 121).Exchanges ornof desperation rethe

standard f unfair xploitationn themarketbecausethese transactionsiolate he

principle fstatusequalitynternalothissphere.'9Thethreshold t whichthatprin-

cipleis satisfied, owever, annotbe statedobjectivelyr once andforallbecause

"themeaningof desperations alwaysopen to dispute"102).A SocialDemocratwouldset thethreshold ighandconstruct n extensive ystemof communalpro-

vision n order o achieve t,butabovethat hresholdontracts etweenpartieswith

unequalassetswouldnot violatecomplexequality r result n dominance.Since

neitherpartysneedy, heremainingnequalitiesetween hemwouldno longerbe

extrinsico themarket s a realmof statusequalsandso couldbe s-exploitedwith-

out injustice.Onelastexamplewillillustratehebreadth f thecomplex-egalitarianheoryof

exploitation.Walzer bserves hat"theUnitedStates urrentlymaintains ne of the

shabbier ystemsof communalprovisionn the Westernworld" 84).Asa result,

19SeeArthur kun,EqualityndEfficiency:heBigTradeoffWashington,C:Brookingsnstitution,

1975),19-22.



Robert Mayer 347

significantevelof p-exploitationtilloccurs n the market incesome contractors

remainneedyand thusexploitable.Butthisgroup s alsoa victimof another ormof exploitation reciselybecause the scope of communalprovisions restricted.Walzer's xample s healthcareprovision,whichto a considerablextentremainsa commoditynAmerica.Health areproviders xploit hiscircumstanceo with-hold servicefromthosewho cannotafford o pay,thusgainingat theirexpense.Whiletheydo not p-exploit he pooror uninsured,he commodificationf careundercuts he statusof the disadvantageds membersof the community.Thosewhose basicneeds are unmetfor want of moneybecome second-class itizens.Theirmemberships not sustained 78). Walzer hargesthat"menand women

who appropriateastsums of moneyforthemselves,whileneeds are stillunmet,act liketyrants, ominating nddistortinghe distributionf security ndwelfare"

(76).Thecase is analogous o the problemof moneyin politics.Thesolution nbothinstances s thesame:decommodificationf thegoodso thatspherical tatus

equality anbe restored.

As these examplessuggest,fromthe complex-egalitarianerspective greatdeal of unfairexploitation r dominanceremains n contemporaryAmerica.P-

exploitationtilloccurs nthe market, ut it alsoarises n politicalransactionsike

guest-worker rograms.What is more, unfairexploitation s not confinedto

exchangerelationshipsut alsoresultswhen individualsrgroups -exploit xtrin-sicadvantages ndthereby ainattheexpenseof others,undercuttingheirequal-ityofstatus.Because omplexequality ssessestheentireuniverse fs-exploitation,and not merely he narrower ategoryof p-exploitation,t qualifiesas a generaltheoryofexploitation.20fcourse, aking dvantagesa pervasiveeature fhumanexistenceandis not necessarilywrong.Whatcomplexequalitydoes as a generaltheory s to identifyhegeneric ypeof taking dvantagehat s unfair. tholdsthata relationshipf status nequalitymaynotbe exploitedo gainbenefits.When ndi-viduals etlessof some goodthanwe think heyshould, his s becauseequality f

statuswithina spherehasnotbeensustained.

III. Simple Versus Complex Equality

Although -exploitations but one formof s-exploitation,tnaturallyttractshegreatest ttentionbecauseexploiting thers s alwaysdeemedan injustice.Havingstatedcomplexequality s a general heoryof exploitation,willnow focusmorecarefully n itsstandard f p-exploitationnorder o sharpen hecontrastwithrivaltheories.Asstated n theprevious ection,the principle f statusequalitys purelyformal;unlessa substantivetandards specified, t willbe impossible o come to

20. Inthissense itis moregeneralhanRoemer'sheory,whichdescribestselfas generalbecause tcanconceptualize-exploitationndifferentypesofsocieties.SeeRoemer,GeneralTheory, .




agreementaboutwhen p-exploitationxists forcomplexequality.GivenWalzer's

pluralism, o general ubstantive rinciple f statusequality ouldbe identifiedorthe entireuniverseof s-exploitation,ut the same is not true forp-exploitationn

particular. hattype of exploitation lwaystakes the form of an exchangeand

occurswithina specificsphere-the market. nthatspherewe can identify sub-

stantiveprinciple f statusequalitymplicitnWalzer's extthatsetsthe standard f

fairness n transactions.Withthe principlen hand,we can then comparethe

assessmentsof complexequalitywithliberal nd Marxianheoriesof exploitation.DavidMiller laimsthatstatusequality"obtainswhen each memberof society

regards im-or herselfas fundamentallyheequalof all theothers,and is regarded

by the othersas fundamentallyheirequal."21his is a perceptionaltandard fstatusequality, utI do not thinkt is the oneWalzer dopts nassessingexchanges.

Instead,we must look for a particularypeof disadvantagehatmakesgroupsor

individualsxploitable.Consider nce againhisanalysis f guest-workerrograms.

Guestworkersare exploitedbecausetheybeginwith a disadvantagen the bar-

gainingprocess,butthedisadvantages nota smalleramountof assetsorbargain-

ingstrength erse.22Rather,hedisadvantagesqualitative:rospective uestwork-

ers areneedy in a way thatthe host country s not. Neediness,however, s not

measuredbya fixedstandardikebaresubsistencebecause"needsarenot neces-

sarilyphysical henomena"76). Instead, eediness s calculated elatively,ntermsof gainsandlosses.23Walzer's xamplessuggestthat ndividualsreneedyifthey

stand o losemuchbyrefusingo exchangebut nonethelessgaintoo little rom he

transactionrpaytoo muchforwhattheyget.The atterudgmentsmplya thresh-

old ofsufficiency elowwhichonemustnotfall(gain oo little)orabovewhichone

mustnot rise (paytoo much).24Contractorsecome p-exploiterswhen theytake

advantage f the circumstancehatthe otherparty s needybuttheyarenot.This

qualitative ifference s positional, or it places the exploitable n a positionof

dependence.Thelanguage fdominances therefore ppropriate:heneedinessof

theothermakestheadvantaged artydominant. tatus quality oes notobtain.

21. Miller,Complex quality,"99.

22. Walzer ellsus thathiscritique f guest-workerrograms oes notapply o "privilegeduests,"

technicalworkerswithscarceandvaluablekills 60).Theyarenotexploitableventhoughassetequality

between hemandthehostcountry oesnot obtain.

23. IagreewithRichard rnesonhata populationuaranteednlysubsistence ythe welfare tate

wouldstillbe exploitable ycapital: Imaginecapitalist elfare ociety hataffords baresubsistenceo

eachcitizenn theformofa guaranteednnualncome.Dependingn furtheronditions,wouldwant o

saythat nsucha societyworkers uaranteedsubsistencewho proceedo work orcapitalistso obtainmorecommodiousivingmightyetbe exploited,hat s,their abormightplausiblye viewedas forced."

Bare ubsistences a flawedbenchmarkecause tsetsthethresholdoo low to sustain tatusequalityn

mostsocieties.See"What'sWrongwithExploitation?"thics, 1 (January981): 02-27, t226.

24. AccordingoWalzer, esperatexchanges redefined n termsof "a loor... below whichwork-

ers cannotbidagainst ne anotheroremployment"102).Athresholdf sufficiencys implied, utwhat

countsassufficiency illvaryacross imeandspace.



Robert Mayer 349

We can now state formallyhe complex-egalitarianenchmarkor assessing

exchanges: eitherpartymustbe needy n the sense described bove.Whenneitherisneedy, heparties restatusequals nthe market ndtheillegitimateisadvantagethatcausesp-exploitationas been removed.Because he equalityt mandatess

positional,he benchmarks not quantifiable.We focusnot on divisibleharesofsome metricgood buton the sharingof a commonstatuswhereneitherpartys

needy.Ofcourse, herewillbe disputesaboutwhen needinessexists;whatcountsas a large ossoran insufficientaincancertainly e contested.Butfrom hecom-

plexegalitarianerspectivehegreater umerical recision fforded ya metric tan-dardcomes at a significantost:thequantitativeudgmentswilloftenconflictwith

ourintuitions boutwhen exchangesareexploitative. hemetricswillsometimesovershoothemark, abeling transactions exploitative hen itdoes notseemtobe so, orundershoott andthusmissimportantasesof p-exploitation.hatmoral

imprecisions inevitablewhensimple(metric) qualitys thestandard f fairness.ConsiderirstMiller'siberalheoryof exploitation.tsbenchmarksequilibrium

prices,whenbargainingtrengths equal.Buta moment'sreflectionndicateshatmarket quilibriums no guaranteehatp-exploitationannotoccur.Likewise, evi-ation rom hatequilibriumoesnotnecessarilymeanthedisadvantagedartysp-exploitable.tseems thatone canhave essof the metricbutstillhaveenough; on-

versely, necanhaveanequalshareyetgetlessvalue rom heexchange hanoneshould.Sweatshop abor s an exampleof the latter ase,when the liberalmetricundershootshe mark.Perfect ompetitiondoes not ensurethatlaborwon't besweated fitenters hemarket na needycondition.Though mployersmaynot beabletodictatepriceor offergreaterwagesthan heydo givencompetitive ressure,if labor s abundantand subsistence nsecure, he workerswill stillbe exploited.Theywillhavemuchto lose byturning ownthe offerbutwillgaintoo little nanabsolutesense. By contrast, he employerwill lose little if the offeris spurnedbecause a reservearmy of exploitable abor is available.In this instancethe

exploitations not activebut structural.Henceliberalexploitationheorycannotrecognize t, but complex equalitydoes.25 tsbenchmarkor fairness s violatedsincetheneedinessof thedisadvantagedartyhas beenexploited.

Inothercases, however, iberal heoryactually vershoots he mark.Considerone of Miller'scenarios:a collectorbuysa masterpieceat a yardsale ora pit-tance.26Millerlaimstheseller s exploitedbecausethere san asymmetryf infor-mation,but it isn't ntuitivelybvious hatthistaking-advantages unfair.Thecol-lectorclearly xploits he seller's gnorance,butis the sellerherselfp-exploited?don'tthink o, because herneedinesshas notbeen established. tis truethatshe

25. Theliberalbenchmarkf equilibriumricesassumes hata competitivemarket orrectly eter-mineswhat ndividualshouldget.Thecase of sweatshopaborllustrateshedifficultyith hisapproach.Sweatshopworkersmayreceivehemarket rice or heiraborbutstillnotbe paidenough.

26. Miller,ExploitationntheMarket,"58.




gainslittle rom he exchange,butshe does not stand o lose a lot by refusinghe

offerandmay n factgainbydecliningt. Thecollector,bycontrast,will lose muchiftheoffer s rejected.He is unlikelyo say"take torleave t"and meanit,which is

thestandard argainingositionof p-exploiters, anking s theydo on desperationto drive he exchange.Onthe complexegalitariantandard,hen,statusequalityobtains n thiscase and the transactions nottherefore nfair.nequalitiesf infor-

mationmaybe legitimatelyxploitedn the market theyare all thetime)as longas

thedeficitdoes notconstitute kindof neediness.27

Moralmprecision lso afflicts he standardMarxianpproach o exploitation.On Roemer'snterpretation,tsbenchmarksthequintessentiallyimple-egalitarian

principle f assetequality.Thisstandardrequentlyvershoots he markand con-demns exchangesthat do not seem unfair.To see this, we must playone of

Roemer's ational-choiceames.28Roemer'smost valuablecontributiono exploitationheory s his insight hat

every heoryof p-exploitationan be modeledas a game playedby coalitionsof

agents.Foreachtheorywe canspecifya withdrawalulethatsets thestandardor

what countsas p-exploitation.29fa subordinateoalitionwouldbe betteroff with-

drawing rom the societywith the specifiedpayoff,and the dominating omple-

mentwouldbe worseoff,thenthe first oalitions p-exploited ythe second.The

withdrawaluleprescribes nalternativerrangementhat"embodies ne'snotionofwhatisethically referablendnonexploitative."30ccordingo Roemer,heexit

payoffnMarxianheory s a percapita hareofsociety'salienable ssets.Coalitions

receivingess thanthispayoffarep-exploited.Given hatstandard, xploitations

pervasivenacapitalistconomy:mostwho play hegamebeginandendwith ess

than a per capitashareof capitalassets.All who belongto this overwhelming

majorityrethereforeakenunfair dvantage f.

Toassesstheintuitive lausibility3lf thisstandard,onsider typicalcenarion

Roemer'swork.The game is concernedwith the distributionf labortime and

27. Wertheimerhowsthats-exploitingn asymmetryn informationeednotentailp-exploitation.

SeeExploitation,34-35.

28. Wewillplayone of Roemer's ames,butnote thatWalzer asexpressed oubtsabout heade-

quacyof thegame-theoreticpproachothephenomenonfexploitation.na brief ommentheremarks

thatRoemer'sheory"failsocapturehe concrete enseofbeingexploited,or tsaysnothing t allabout

theactual elations etweenworkers ndcapitalists....Onedoesn'tneed .. Roemer's ypotheticallter-

native,t seemsto me, to beginto explainwhat itmeans fora worker o be used."See "What'sLeftof

Marx?"ewYork eviewof Books,32 (21November 985): 3-46,at44.

29. Roemer,GeneralTheory, 94-96.

30. Roemer, galitarianerspectives,0.31. Roemer imselfassessesdifferenttandardsfexploitationnlightofour ntuitions.or xample,

see Egalitarian erspectives,8. Walzer alls these intuitions shared nderstandings."omeMarxists,

however, eject hisapproachbecauseof the problemof falseconsciousness.Forexample, ee Jeffrey

Reiman, WhyWorry boutHowExploitationsDefined? eplyo JohnRoemer,"ocialTheoryndPrac-

tice,16(Spring 990):101-13.But fwe don'tappeal o intuitiveudgments,t is difficulto see howwe can

assessalleged xamples f p-exploitations unfair.



Robert Mayer 351

leisure na hypotheticalconomy.32n thissociety hereare two basic methodsof

production:ne requiringnlylaborbutno capital the farm)andthe otherbothlaborandcapital thefactory). ndividualsre assumed o desireonlysubsistence;once this s secured heyprefereisure oanyfurtheronsumption. ubsistenceanbe achieved n the farmwithsixteenhoursof labor, ndthisoption salwaysavail-able toeveryndividualland s freeandabundant). ubsistences earnedn thefac-

toryaftereighthoursworkbutrequires apitalnput. fcapital s monopolized yasmallfraction f thepopulace, hiselitecanacquire ubsistence nddo no workby

offering o let some of the farmers mploythe elite'scapital n the factory ora

charge.Roemerassumes hat here sonlyenoughcapital o employhalf hework-

force nthe factory ndthat aborers reindifferento wheretheyworkas longasthe leisureopportunitiesreidentical.Given heseassumptions,heequilibriumnthiseconomy ssixteenhoursworktosecuresubsistenceorbothfarmers ndfac-

tory employees;an offerbythe eliteto paysubsistence o factoryworkers orlessthansixteenhoursworkwouldset offa stampedebyfarmerseeking eisure.The

competitionundercutshebargainingositionof laborso thatwork in thefactoryresults n no gainforworkers.Since each is indifferento the typeof workper-formedwhen compensations identical,ome remainon the farmandtheothers

go to the factorybutthestandard f living s thesame for bothclasses.Theelite,

however, xtractsurplusrom hefactoryaborand is thereby bletosubsistwith-out doinganyworkatall.

Accordingo Roemer'sMarxian ithdrawalule, hefactoryworkers nthissce-narioarevictimsof capitalist -exploitationecausetheywouldgainsome leisureifthecoalition xitedwithitspercapita hareofalienable ssets(theelite'scapital).From hecomplex-egalitariantandpoint, owever,heexchange snotexploitativealthoughhefactoryworkers recertainlyxploitable.Theexchange snotexploita-tivebecausetheseworkershavenothing o lose by refusinghe offer.Their abortimeremainshesamewhether heystayon thefarmorgo to thefactory.nexplic-ably, heygivesomethingnreturn ornothing.This ransfers inexplicable ecauseitisn't orcedordriven yneediness.Theworkers learly reneedy nthesensethat

theyneedmore eisure;heirneedinessmakesthemexploitable.But hecapitalistshave not exploited he neediness n orderto gainsince theyofferno benefitto

employees.Whattheyhaveexploited, nstead, s the indifference f labor,whichirrationallygenerously?)grees o benefit hecapitalists ithoutcompensation.

Tomake hegamemoreplausible, ssume hatworkingorothersentailsadisu-tility hatmustbe compensatedn order o attract workforce.Assumealso thatwitha percapita hareof capitaleachneed onlyworkeighthoursa day.Tocoax

32. Egalitarianerspectives,1-47.Variationsfthefactory-farmameappearnnearly llofRoemer'swritings n exploitation.hespecific aluesvary lightlyromonework othenextbuttheexample citeisrepresentativef thebasicapproach.




peasantsoffthefarm, hecapitalistsffer ubsistencenexchange or welvehours

of work. Do the capitalists xploitthe factoryworkers?Accordingo Roemer'sbenchmarkheydo, forwithdrawal iththepayoffwould afford actoryproletari-ans four extra hoursof leisure.Thecomplex-egalitarianenchmark eachesthe

sameconclusionbutina differentway.Given ur culturalxpectations,he offer s

exploitative ecauseprospective mployeeswilllose fourprecioushoursof leisure

if they reject t.Thegainis neverthelessoo small because twelvehoursa daystill

seems liketoo muchworkforbaresubsistence.Needinesshasbeenexploited.But let us changethe numbersonce againwhile maintaininghe proportions

betweenthem.Nowthefarmproduces ubsistencen fourhoursbuta percapita

shareof assetsonlyrequireswo hoursof workeachday.If hecapitalistsffer ub-sistence nexchange orthreehourswork,do they exploit heworkerswho agreeto theexchange?Roemermustsayyes,sincethe exitpayoffs superioro theoffer,

but a complexegalitarian ouldfind t hard o see how the offer s exploitative.n

thechapteron the distributionf freetimeinSpheresofJustice,Walzer haracter-

izespayoffs ikeRoemer's s "simple qualitynthesphereof leisure;we wouldfix

thelengthof theworkingdaybyaddingupthe hoursofworkanddividing ynum-

bers of people."Butcomplex equalityproceedsdifferently: thought rulesout

workingdays like those describedby Marx,"he principle f equalmembership

"doesn't equire hateveryonehaveexactly hesame amountof freetime" 189).In the game describedabove,the farmers renot needy anymore;romthe per-

spectiveof our societytheir ot seems enviable.Theylose little f they reject he

offer-one hourof free ime n aday ullof leisure.Though sset nequalityemains,

labor s no longerexploitable ecause tis notneedyaccordingoourculturaltan-

dards.Quantitativenequalitys notsufficientlyreat o engender tatus nequality.

Wecannow see whyRoemer'sMarxianpproach vershootshe mark.Metric

inequalities re its indicator f p-exploitation,ut the valuesarbitrarilyet in the

original cenario(forexample,sixteenhoursof workfor baresubsistence) acitly

appealed o the qualitativetandard f neediness ortheirmoral orce.Whenwe

changed hevalues o thatneitherpartywas any ongerneedy, he metric udgment

lost its intuitiveplausibility.tcontinued o categorizeexchangesbetween asset

unequalsas exploitativeventhoughbothpartieswereguaranteedlltheydesired

materiallysubsistence)as well as abundant eisure.The Marxiantandardwas

blind o the factthatmetric nequality as morallyunproblematicn thiscase.

Itsemphasison metric quality analsoleadMarxianheory o miss casesof p-

exploitation henalienable ssetsareequal.Considerwoagentswithequallypro-

ductive andin a closeduniverse.Becauseof differencesn theirratesof metabo-

lism,the landonly yields90%of subsistence orthe firstwhen cultivatedo themaximumdegree,but110%orthesecond.Suppose he secondoffers o makeup

thedeficit nsubsistenceorthefirst f the latterwill cultivate othplots.Istheoffer

exploitative?On Roemer'sbenchmarkt is not becauseeach beginswith a per

capita hareof thealienable ssets.But orcomplexequalityhe offers exploitative



Robert Mayer 353

since the secondagenttakesadvantage f the first'sneediness o drivea hardbar-

gain.Thefirstwill lose much (perhapsherlife)by refusinghe offerbutstillpaystoo much (intermsof hoursof hardwork)forthe benefitreceived.Thedifferentratesof metabolismn the contextof scarcitymakethe two statusunequalseven

though heirassetholdings reidentical.

Thescenario s hypotheticalut the flaw thighlightss real.Neediness ughttobe thestandard f unfairnessnexploitationheorybecausesomeonewithenoughcannotbe exploited.But fthat udgments correct, impleequalitymustgivewayto a morecomplexapproach.

IV.A Third Way

Complex qualitysa thirdwayinexploitationheory. t s thesocial-democraticalternativemissing romthe debatebetweenliberals ndMarxistsboutwhen p-exploitationxists.Aswe haveseen, complexequality ondemnsas exploitativegreater angeof capitalistxchanges handoes liberal heory,butitdisagreeswithMarxismhatassetinequalitys alwaysan unfairbackgroundircumstance.When

individulalsrgroupsgetlessthan heyshould roma transaction,his s notneces-

sarilybecause hey tartwith ess butrather ecause heydo nothaveenough.They

are needy in some way, but one can have less withoutbeing needy and thusexploitable. s aspeciesofsimpleequality,Marxismverlookshismoraldistinction.

Complex quality learlysn'tMarxian,ut itsthirdwayalsoisn'tas modestasthe program f New Labourn Britain.33hatpartyhas madeitspeacewithcapi-talist ndustry, utWalzerhasnot. InSpheresofJusticehe argues hat arge-scalecapitalist nterprisexploits abor n a pervasiveway,but theexploitations more

political haneconomic.Workers et less voice in the firm hantheyshould; heyare likeguestworkers n relationo thehostcountry 291-303).Their ight o self-

government asbeenbought,buttransactionsf thissortarealwaysexploitative.34

Accordingo Walzer,tatusequality equireshatworkplacesbe reorganizedem-ocratically. histhirdway therefore emainsdeeplycritical f contemporaryapi-talism,butassetinequalitys suchis notheldto be thefundamentalnjustice.35

As a thirdway,complexequality oesnotstandhalfwaybetween iberalismndMarxism n a metric cale.Instead,trepudiatesmetric qualitynfavorof a posi-

33. Foran authoritativetatement ee AnthonyGiddens,The ThirdWay:TheRenewalof SocialDemocracyCambridge:olity ress,1998).

34. Contrastingiscriticismfcapitalism ithRoemer's,Walzeruggestshat"whatheworker ctu-allyexperiencesna capitalistactorysmore ikedominationhanrobbery."he ossofpoweroverwork,not thesurplustcreates,s thereal njusticencapitalistndustrialelations. eeWalzer, What'sLeftofMarx,"4.

35. Fora critique f Walzer's rgumentorworkplace emocracyroma complex-egalitariantand-point ee RobertMayer,MichaelWalzer,ndustrialDemocracyndComplexEquality,"oliticalTheory,9(April001):237-61.




tionalstandard.nthiswaycomplexequality scapesHarryFrankfurt'sritique f

metric quality s morallyrrelevant.36rankfurtrgues hatonlysufficiencymattersmorally, everequalsharesperse. We should ensure hat all haveenoughrather

thanworryabout whethersome have less. With neediness(insufficiency)s its

standard f fairness,omplexequality dopts hesameperspective,ut t holds hat

sufficiencyorall is anegalitarian rojectoo. Wheneveryonehasenough,allstand

atthesamelevel;noneis higheror lower ntermsof status.That ypeof equalitys

morally elevant.t s theproperbenchmarkor dentifyingxploitation.

36. Harry rankfurt,Equalitys a Moraldeal," thics, 8 (October 987): 1-43; nd"TheMoralrrel-

evanceof Equality,"ublicAffairsQuarterly,4(April000):87-103.

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jamie-lin
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

A Walzerian Theory of Exploitation

Documents