Papers:
Note: Feel free to e-mail me if you'd like to access any of the drafts linked on this page!
Forthcoming:
"Was Marx a Republican?"* Forthcoming in NOMOS: Capitalism and Socialism. [Draft]
Recipient of the 2025 NOMOS (the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy) Guest Student Scholar award
Abstract: A recent, influential reading of Marx argues that we should consider him to be a member of the republican tradition. Proponents of this reading claim that Marx subscribed to the republican ideal of freedom as non-domination. The first aim of this paper is to argue against this widespread view, particularly by showing that it obscures core features of Marx’s thought about freedom. Rather than focusing on the domination of some human beings by others, as republican accounts do, Marx’s discussions of freedom often concern the question of how freedom is possible for living beings, who must struggle with their natural environment in order to survive. Marx argues that freedom requires that human beings gain collective control over our environment, so that we that we can develop valuable human capacities after meeting our basic needs. In light of this fact, the second aim of this paper is to argue that Marx’s conception of freedom raises a significant challenge for the republican tradition. Some republicans claim that socialists ought to accept the republican ideal of freedom because it provides the most comprehensive account of capitalism’s threat to economic liberties. However, Marx’s conception of freedom appears well-positioned to capture social ills for which the republican tradition may fail to account.
Under review:
"Freedom and Politics in Marx's Vision of Socialism" [Draft]
Abstract: Some argue that Marx possesses a republican conception of freedom, according to which freedom is the absence of domination. Yet, as others have pointed out, there are many passages in which Marx characterizes freedom in markedly non-republican terms. In response to this concern, some republican interpreters have claimed that Marx has multiple conceptions of freedom, but that the republican conception is the only one that plays a significant role in his political theory. In this paper, I argue that this response on behalf of the republican interpretation is unsuccessful. For one, it is much more plausible that Marx has one conception of freedom, rather than multiple. As opposed to characterizing different kinds of freedom, his discussions of this topic largely describe the different degrees of freedom human beings experience. In particular, Marx suggests that the degree of freedom we experience increases as does the finality of the ends for which we act. Further, while Marx’s political theory and practical interventions do aim to create a society free from domination, this is not their only aim. Marx also aims to create a society in which production occurs for the sake of the development and realization of human capacities, which he associates with full human freedom. Therefore, Marx offers a vision of the form of freedom characteristic of socialist society, and of the political measures socialists must take in service of such freedom, that differs from that imputed to him by republicans. While some may have concerns about this vision’s perfectionism, I argue it is nonetheless compelling.
In preparation for submission:
"Exploitation, Free Time, and Positive Freedom in Marx’s Critique of Capitalism" [Draft]
Abstract: In this paper, I provide a novel account of Marx’s reasons for objecting to exploitation. In the literature, many have argued that Marx deems exploitation distributively unfair. More recently, others have claimed that Marx instead criticizes exploitation due to its role in furthering capitalists’ dominating power over workers. However, in this paper, my primary aim will be to argue that Marx does not merely object to exploitation because of its relationship to capitalists’ dominating power. In fact, he also describes exploitation as limiting workers’ positive freedom, or their freedom to develop their distinctively human powers and potentials. In his view, the fact that exploited workers spend time in surplus labor for the benefit of capitalists restricts their free time. In turn, this restricts their freedom to develop their capacities just for the sake of it, and to become fuller, richer individuals in the process. According to Marx’s account, I argue, positive freedom would not be limited to this extent in a non-exploitative socialist society, making exploitation’s impact on workers’ positive freedom a worthy object of critique.
Early stages:
"In Defense of Marx's 'Realm of Freedom'"
"Forced Reproductive Labor"
"Collective Temporal Autonomy"
"Free Time and Worker Control"
Dissertation:
Freedom Beyond Domination: Marx, Freedom, and Socialist Political Thought
Supervision: Profs. Daniel Brudney (chair), Anton Ford, Brian Leiter, Martha C. Nussbaum
Abstract: Historically, one of the central reasons socialists and other critics of the market have condemned capitalism is that they believe it makes us unfree. But why should capitalism be a source of unfreedom? Drawing from Marx, an increasingly popular perspective in the literature argues that capitalism makes us unfree because it causes us to be dominated, or subjected to the unjust, arbitrary power of others. However, in my dissertation, I argue that the popular perspective is far too simple. In fact, Marx’s work provides compelling support for the idea that capitalism does not render us unfree merely because it subjects us to dominating power. Throughout his texts, Marx maintains that an important human freedom consists in what he calls “spontaneous activity” (Selbsttätigkeit). When we experience this “spontaneous” form of freedom, we produce, create, and socialize with one another simply for the sake of it, more fully developing ourselves in the process. While the expansion of such spontaneous freedom would be a defining characteristic of socialism, Marx argues that it is inherently limited for workers under capitalism. This is due in part to the nature of capitalist exploitation. According to Marx’s account, exploited workers do not only labor to meet their own basic needs in capitalism, but also spend their potential free time laboring to produce profits for their employers. This sharply restricts the free time they possess, which in turn restricts their opportunities to produce, create, and socialize just for the sake of it. If Marx is right about this, then the exclusive focus on domination evinced by many contemporary critics of capitalism is misguided. Contemporary critics should aim to determine whether capitalism’s effects on our free time might also pose a threat to our freedom.