Analyse & Kritik

Journal of Philosophy and Social Theory


"Philippe Van Parijs"

Titel: Real Freedom, the Market and the Family. A Reply
Autor: Philippe Van Parijs
Seite: 106-131

Abstract: The conception of social justice presented and defended in Philippe Van Parijs, "Real Freedom for All" entails, among other implication, the justification of an unconditional basic income. It was the subject of seven critical comments that forms issue 22 (2) and part of 23 (1) of ANALYSE & KRITIK. In this article, Van Parijs offers a comprehensive reply.

Zur Ausgabe →

Titel: Sind Marktpreise gerecht? Eine Kritik am Van Parijsschen Ökonomismus
Autor: Heiner Michel
Seite: 179-197

Abstract: This article objects to two major economistic shortcomings of Philippe Van Parijs's 'Real Freedom for All': (1) Van Parijs claims that market prices are the best metric for equal real freedom. This is challenged. Market prices admittedly are the best instrument for distributive purposes at hand. They are, however, a means of transport for supply and demand contingencies. Hence market prices are to be considered as an insufficient metric for equal freedom. (2) Van Parijs claims that 'Real Freedom for All' is all there is to social justice. This claim is rejected. Despite its demanding egalitarian ambition, 'Real Freedom for All' fails to protect a flourishing human life. Basic human rights like the right to social recognition and, in part, the right to health care are violated. Curiously even the right to autonomy is in want of full protection. These lacks are caused by the monetarism and the straightforward market optimism of 'Real Freedom for All'.

Zur Ausgabe →

Titel: Basic Income in Complex Worlds. Individual Freedom and Social Interdependencies
Autor: Richard Sturn / Rudi Dujmovits
Seite: 198-222

Abstract: This paper is about difficulties in the normative justification of an unconditional basic income - difficulties which are related to the scope of egalitarian justice as well as the dimension(s) of the equalisandum. More specifically, it is contended that Philippe Van Parijs's justification derived from the principle of Maximin real freedom runs into problems in environments in which scarcity does not offer a conceptual basis for a satisfactory account of social interdependencies. We discuss the following cases: (i) Scarcity is seen as a general equilibrium phenomenon in a dynamic environment. (ii) Social forces of production (particularly non-rival and only partially excludable inputs) play a role in creating wealth. (iii) Informal exclusion mechanisms and patterns of ,local justice, matter. (iv) Certain forms of heterogeneity play a role.

Zur Ausgabe →

Titel: Ambition-Sensitivity and an Unconditional Basic Income
Autor: Søren Flinch Midtgaard
Seite: 223-236

Abstract: This paper concerns Philippe Van Parijs's case for an unconditional basic income. It argues that given central egalitarian commitments - to wit, (i) equal concern and respect; (ii) endowment-insensitivity (which can be seen to include Van Parijs's project of maximizing or leximinning real freedom); (iii) ambition-sensitivity; and (iv) neutrality - endorsed by Van Parijs, a basic income does not appear to be a requirement of justice. The core claim defended is that there is a serious tension between (iii) and the idea of an unconditional basic income.

Zur Ausgabe →

Titel: Sharing Job Resources. Ethical Reflections on the Justification of Basic Income
Autor: Jurgen De Wispelaere
Seite: 237-256

Abstract: Philippe Van Parijs's ethical justification of basic income is based on the argument that job resources must be shared equally. Underlying this idea are two important claims: (1) all individuals in society hold an ex ante entitlement in job resources and (2) job resources are tradable. First, I present the real-libertarian argument for sharing job resources. Next, I identify and critically review three different objections against this view: the liability objection, the cooperation objection and the parasitism objection. I believe the parasitism objection poses a serious challenge to basic income, and argue that Van Parijs's most plausible response - based on the idea that job resources are socially owned - is flawed. I provide the outline of an alternative normative basis for grounding a person's ex ante entitlement to job resources using an institutionalist approach.

Zur Ausgabe →

Titel: Reply to Four Critics
Autor: Gerald A. Cohen
Seite: 195-222

Abstract: This article is a response to criticisms of my book on Karl Marx's Theory of History which were made by four authors in last Decembers number of ANALYSE & KRITIK. After clarifying (section 2) an ambiguity in an argument for historical materialism which is presented in the book, I contend (3-5), against objections raised by Philippe Van Parijs, that historical materialism is consistent only if it explains production relations functionally, by reference to their propensity to develop the productive forces. Next (6-8) I address and rebut the views of Wal Suchting and Milton Fisk, who both think that the role of class struggle in historical materialism is larger than the one I assign to it. Finally (9-12) I try to vindicate the doctrine of base and superstructure proposed in my book against the skepticism of Steven Lukes.

Zur Ausgabe →

Titel: The Shifting Primacy Puzzle. A Rejoinder
Autor: Philippe Van Parijs
Seite: 223-230

Abstract: One important claim of G. A. Cohen's Karl Marx's Theory of History is that only its functional interpretation of historical materialism can solve the "primacy puzzle", i. e. can reconcile the primacy of the productive forces with the controlling role of the production relations. Cohen's recent "Reply to Four Critics" (in this journal) does not salvage this claim against my earlier critique that it is either false or trivial. He only avoids falsehood by substantially redefining the terms of the puzzle. And with the redefined puzzle, the claim becomes trivial in the sense that one of the two terms which the primacy puzzle consists in reconciling requires a functional interpretation on its own. The "Veblenian scenario" which I put forward in my earlier text and whose full force Cohen has been prevented from appreciating by two misunderstandings, illustrates what I claim to be the general solution to the only genuine primacy puzzle.

Zur Ausgabe →

Titel: Das grundlegende Puzzle des historischen Materialismus
Autor: Philippe Van Parijs
Seite: 197-210

Abstract: How is it possible, at the same time, to claim that there is a causal primacy of the productive forces over the relations of production and to recognize that the development of the productive forces causally depends on the nature of the relations of production? This irritating puzzle, which threatens the very core of historical materialism, had never received a satisfactory solution until G. A. Cohen's Karl Marx's Theory of History. The latter asserts that only a functional interpretation of historical materialism can effect the required reconciliation. On one reading of the "primacy puzzle", however, this claim turns out to be trivial, while on the only other plausible reading it turns out to be false. Having delineated this dilemma, the article sketches an alternative solution.

Zur Ausgabe →