Work and Democracy in Conflict
2025 (47) Issue 1
Editorial 
Editorial
The relationship between democracy and work under the conditions of a capitalist market economy is often described as conflictual. While democracy is based on principles such as equality, participation, deliberation and collective decision-making, the capitalist world of work is characterized by hierarchies, unilateral instructions, the logic of ownership and the imperative of profit maximation. These fundamental differences create a persistent tension between democratic ideals and the realities of work, and also, of course, between real democratic politics and the real economy in capitalist societies.
This field of conflicts invites the suspicion of an inherent incompatibility between democracy and capitalism that challenges the idealistic vision of their possible harmony. This vision was based on the observation that stable democratic systems have emerged primarily in capitalist economies in the West – and later also in economically powerful Asian countries like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. It expressed the social-democratic hope that the conflictuous powers of the capitalist firm and competitive markets can be politically mitigated. Has the welfare state not provided an amazing amount of economic and social security, indirectly justifying the legitimacy of such efficient capitalist working-conditions under a democratic regime? The crucial point in this argument is its indirect proof-character: the capitalist economy is not per se democratic, but democratically legitimized through its impressive efficiency.
Two developments have shaken this social-democratic dogma, dissolving its decades-long comforting certainty. One development was the experience of the devastating consequences of both the neoliberal transformation, gaining speed in the 1980s, and the ever more incisive consequences of the globalized market. Work has become increasingly precarious, with declining job security and rising economic inequality in an increasingly financialized capitalism. A second development concerns the loss of trust in democracy. While this loss also has several other causes, the experience of national politics’ helplessness in countering and mitigating the impact of globalization was one important reason for the loss of faith in the power of the democratic system. The structural changes in capitalism – growing financial capital, growing low-wage sector, insecurity through digitalization – played a central role and reinforced the contemporary experience of an increasing loss of control, both collectively and, politically disruptive, individually.
These two developments, a narrowly work-related one and a democracy-inherent one, are the most important reasons behind the dissolution of the social-democratic attitude to make peace with the per se non-democratic working sphere. Once this attitude is dissolved, however, the perspective on work within democracy takes a radical turn. If the work-sphere cannot be legitimized indirectly, why not try to do it directly? This new turn is shown in the rise of a growing academic dispute about how to democratize work more directly and about how a democratized work-sphere might help in the midst of the faltering public credibility of the democratic system. Most recently Axel Honneth emphasized – in his 2024 book The Working Sovereign – that work contributes to the process of constant socialization, shaping dispositions that are fundamental to democratic participation. Different from the earlier view of democracy, now authors like Honneth highlight as its preconditions not only material stability but also engagement in democratic discourse and decision-making, the development of a ‘democratic habitus’ – a set of dispositions that foster and sustain participation. This includes, for example, a practical sense of democracy as a practice of egalitarian and fair conflict resolution, as well as what Honneth calls ‘epistemic self-confidence’ – the belief in the worth of one’s own contributions to democratic deliberation.
A democratic habitus, like any other system of dispositions, is shaped by everyday experiences and social interactions within institutional contexts. Against this background, it seems plausible to argue that the workplace is a central arena for the development of democracy-relevant dispositions, given the significant amount of time individuals spend at work. The extent to which the world of work is suitable for greater democratization is the subject of an extensive current debate. This debate is primarily divided into principled, normative considerations on the ‘structural similarity’ of democracy and work as well as the empirical documentation of old and new attempts to democratize companies. The first field of dispute includes discussions about the similarities and differences between the state and the political order, on the one hand, and companies, on the other. This discussion touches on the legal and moral foundations of democracy, this time separated from the old capitalism versus socialism alternative by being resolutely individualist throughout. Is the individual right to property normatively superior or subordinate to the most basic rights of freedom and equality? If democracy in the sense of the second alternative (freedom and equality being basic) also spans a normative umbrella over the possession and distribution of property, then there can only be attempts of ‘democratizing the workplace’, not a full-blown and original democracy of work comparable to the political one.
This is how many empirical contributions to workplace democracy are understood. Democratization tendencies exist in varying degrees, from corporate co-determination, as in Germany, to worker producer cooperatives in different parts of the world. In Europe, as this issue again documents, reference is usually made to the Basque Mondragon Corporation as an exemplary enterprise that can be used to study the possibilities and restrictions of such collective capitalist production units. The existing studies demonstrate the possibility, but also the nature of the constraining forces for these types of democratized firms within a capitalist environment and under the pressure of global competition.
Alongside these two fields of discussion (normative, empirical) lies the interest in a hoped-for gain in the context of the democratic crisis, triggered by a ‘school of democratic action at work’. An individually freer and self-determined world of work is certainly not only, or even primarily, sought because of a profound enthusiasm for democracy. Rather, the immediate motives lie in the liberating experience of greater self-determination and individual control over a work activity that is experienced as meaningful. However, this new, partly hedonist expectation towards work initiated by liberal society could actually have consequences for an expanded, political form of workplace democracy with repercussions for society as a whole.
This hopeful ‘spillover thesis’ that workplace democracy supports political participation can only be evaluated empirically. Instead of guaranteeing non-alienated work ‘from above’, as under state socialism, the hope is for a reverse, now political effect of democracy ‘from below’. To which extent this may happen remains subject of empirical validation. Modern societies are characterized by a plurality of ‘value spheres’ (Max Weber), each governed by distinct substantive and normative logics (e.g., economy, politics, religion, science). It is conceivable that individuals compartmentalize these experiences, as they adapt to different normative expectations in different spheres. The spillover thesis, however, presupposes a change from the individual attitudes and experiences to a collective and social attitude. Thus, presumably, many conditions must be in place for the egocentric perspective to be transcended, which shows that the inquiry into the relation between democracy and work has just begun.
Table of Contents
Focus: Work and Democracy in Conflict
Title: Political Spillovers of Worker Representation: With or Without Workplace Democracy?
Author: Uwe Jirjahn
Page: 5-30
A series of studies show that unions and works councils have an influence on workers’ political activities and attitudes. However, at issue are the transmission channels through which worker representation impacts workers’ political activities and attitudes. This article discusses from a theoretical and empirical viewpoint whether the influence of worker representation reflects increased workplace democracy. The article also discusses possible policy implications.
Title: Workplaces as Schools of Democratic Resilience? Conceptual Considerations About the Spillover Effect
Author: Markus Pausch
Page: 31-51
Most democracy theories neglect the aspect of resistance to authoritarianism. Especially in times of an autocratic wave, the need for rebellion should be emphasised. In this article, I suggest conceptual considerations to enrich the debate on democratic competences and their strengthening in the context of the workplace. Our experiences at work affect our political behaviour and attitudes. Those who primarily encounter authoritarian conditions in their socialisation will find it more difficult to develop democratic skills. However, existing concepts of competences for a democratic culture are designed for times when democracy functions well and is not questioned. In phases of anti-democratic tendencies, these are not enough; what is needed then is democratic resilience. Theoretically, this can be argued with Erich Fromm, Albert Camus and Carole Pateman. She emphasised the need to democratise workplaces. However, assumptions of spillover do not consider democratic resilience. In this article, I explore three main aspects. First, I argue that rebellion and resistance to authoritarianism are at the core of democracy in all our social interactions. I then show that the aspect of resilience is neglected in existing concepts of democratic competences. Finally, I offer conceptual suggestions for democratic resilience in the context of workplaces.
Title: Challenging Democratic Deficit at Work Through Humoristic Criticism: Perspectives from Turkey’s Highly Qualified Employees
Author: Ayça Yilmaz
Page: 53-77
This article focuses on the lived experiences of highly-qualified employees facing contradictions in working life in contemporary Turkish society, engendered by the ambivalence between the managerial discourse, which promotes employees’ subjectivity, and de-democratization of society manifested specifically by the limitations of freedom of expression. The empirical research discussed in this article examines humoristic narratives shared by highly-qualified employees on social media, highlighting the contradictions they experience in corporate life. The study analyzed social media accounts that humorously critique working conditions, corporate culture, indebtedness, and co-worker relationships. It employs a qualitative approach, using content analysis to interpret the narratives and explore how humor is used to express negative working life experiences due to de-democratization of the society. The main findings of the study demonstrate that highly qualified employees, working in corporate companies, use humorous narratives to critique four key areas: psycho-social risks, corporate culture, co-worker relationships and indebtedness.
Title: Workplace Democracy Democratized: The Case for Participative and Elected Management
Author: Camille Ternier
Page: 79-105
Traditional versions of workplace democracy imply that the decisions in which workers should have a say primarily concern governance issues. Worker cooperatives are, therefore, often cited as some of the most promising examples of workplace democracy. In this paper, I argue that a comprehensive and fully developed theory of workplace democracy should aim to democratize both spheres of power: governance and management. Indeed, there exists a broad spectrum of intermediate decision-making – carried out by middle and line management, such as team leaders, supervisors, superintendents, and foremen – that constitutes an often-overlooked site of power in worker cooperatives. The primary responsibilities of managers – which should remain subject to oversight by the workers – should therefore include facilitating and fostering democratic deliberation on work-related issues, supporting coordination efforts, and providing assistance to workers. This perspective also supports the view that managers themselves should be elected rather than appointed by the cooperative’s general manager or board of directors, as is usually the case.
Title: Mondragon Cooperatives and the Utopian Legacy: Economic Democracy in Global Capitalism
Author: Anjel Errasti, Ignacio Bretos and Jon Las Heras
Page: 107-130
Mondragon’s worker-owned-and-governed cooperatives are rooted in the socialist utopian tradition of envisioning alternative economic organizations designed to promote worker well-being, workplace democracy, and community embeddedness. For many years, they have challenged capitalist logic and hierarchical power structures while remaining economically viable and democratically governed, countering the predictions of degeneration theories. However, recent transformation of Mondragon’s largest industrial cooperatives into multinational coopitalist hybrids, maintaining a cooperative core of worker-members while operating capitalist subsidiaries with wage workers lacking membership rights, pose risks to their democratic structures. This paradox highlights the tension between economic survival in global capitalism and cooperative identity. By examining Mondragon’s trajectory, the paper questions whether internationalization can coexist with economic democracy or whether global expansion inevitably compromises cooperative principles, forcing adaptation to market-driven imperatives. Understanding these tensions is crucial for the future of economic democracy and the development of sustainable alternative organizations.
Title: Plural Cooperativism. The Material Basis of Democratic Corporate Governance
Author: Hannes Kuch
Page: 131-159
This paper argues that democratizing corporations requires more than simply allocating control rights to employees while leaving ownership structures intact, because such an arrangement leaves democratic decision-making vulnerable to the persistent threat of disinvestment. True democratic control requires a deeper transformation – specifically, a foundation in social ownership. To this end, various models of social ownership are critically examined. While none offers a satisfying solution on its own, their strengths can be combined. From this emerges the concept of Plural Cooperativism: a hybrid, society-wide model of cooperative ownership that systematically integrates other forms of social ownership, allowing for limited private stock ownership, counterbalanced by public stock ownership and a more democratic reallocation of control rights over private ownership.
General Part
Title: Between Hermeneutics and Systematicity: The Habermasian Method of Theorizing
Author: Fabian Anicker
Page: 161-178
Jürgen Habermas’s work is analyzed as an outstanding combination of hermeneutic sensitivity to different theories and systematic theory integration. Habermas’s theoretical method revolves around a problem-centered understanding of theory that interprets it as a response to specific problems. The methodological reconstruction of key texts shows that he used the distinction of theory and problem as an all-purpose device for interpretation, critique, and theory construction. This method is superior to other, more common ways of integrating theoretical plurality.
Discussion
Title: McMahan on the War Against Hamas
Author: Daniel Statman
Page: 179-207
According to Jeff McMahan, Israel had a right to defend itself against Hamas’s aggression, but the Palestinians too had a right to fight against Israel to undo the injustice of its occupation of Palestinian territories. Thus, both sides had a just cause for war. However, both sides failed to satisfy other ad bellum conditions, with Hamas failing only the necessity condition and Israel failing both the necessity and proportionality conditions. McMahan concludes that Israel’s war against Hamas was unjust, unlike Ukraine’s war against Russia, which he views as ‘paradigmatically just.’ I reject his view, arguing that: (a) The strategic goals of Hamas are the annihilation of Israel, the murder of many of its civilians, and the expulsion of others – goals that are manifestly immoral – thus it had no just cause for war. (b) Even on McMahan’s premises, it is absurd to imply a symmetry in the unjustness of Israel and Hamas. (c) McMahan’s understanding of ad bellum necessity and proportionality is untenable. (d) Israel did, in fact, satisfy the necessity condition. (e) If Ukraine’s war is proportionate, as McMahan assumes, then all the more so is Israel’s war in Gaza.
Title: A Reply to Statman’s Defense of Israel’s War in Gaza
Author: Jeff McMahan
Page: 209-236
In ‘McMahan on the War Against Hamas,’ Daniel Statman systematically criticizes arguments advanced in the essay, ‘Proportionality and Necessity in Israel’s Invasion of Gaza, 2023–2024,’ which was published in this journal in 2024. The arguments in that essay assessed Israel’s war by reference to moral principles commonly recognized as governing the resort to war: in particular, principles of just cause, necessity, and proportionality. The present essay not only defends the arguments and claims of the earlier paper against Statman’s challenges, but also reinforces the earlier arguments with many new arguments intended to demonstrate that Israel’s war has been and continues to be an unjust war. It also includes further material comparing Israel’s war in Gaza with Russia’s war in Ukraine. The essay concludes with an appendix containing a short piece written in 2021 about the previous war in Gaza at that time. Its publication was censored then; hence it appears here for the first time.