Analyse & Kritik 01+02/2015 (© Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart) S. 281303 282 Michael W.

Howard
Michael W. Howard of Rawls's theory of justice, a form of worker-managed market socialism, with
a basic income (Howard 2000). While my model included a market economy in
Exploitation, Labor, and Basic Income consumer goods, I defended socially owned property, cooperative management of
enterprises, and the substitution of decentralized democratically controlled state
banks for private capital investment, and I argued that this model would be
considerably more egalitarian than capitalism, and less driven toward unlimited
growth of capital. While I favored competitive markets over central planning,
this feature is not determined by the framework of the theory of justice, but
by more empirical considerations of relative eciency, based on the historical
experience with planning and markets in both capitalist and socialist contexts.
Thus, I think the normative turn away from Marxism does not represent res-
Abstract: Proposals for a universal basic income have reemerged in public discourse for ignation to the inevitability of capitalism. Rather, it represents an eort to make
a variety of reasons. Marx's critique of exploitation suggests two apparently opposed explicit and systematic the normative commitments and arguments implicit in
positions on a basic income. On the one hand, a basic income funded from taxes on Marx's critique of capitalism. The outcome of this eort may have exposed cer-
labor would appear to be exploitative of workers. On the other hand, a basic income
liberates everyone from the vulnerable condition in which one is forced to sell one's tain weak points in the case for socialism, which, together with transformations
labor in order to survive, and so seems to be one way of abolishing exploitation at its of capitalism itself (the rise of the welfare state, globalization, etc.), may have
root. This paper will develop a conception of exploitation that resolves the conict in resulted in a turn by some theorists from socialism to some sort of reformed
favor of basic income. The conception of exploitation is grounded in a liberal egalitarian capitalism (Van Parijs 1995). But other theorists have used the new vocabulary
conception of justice rather than in Marx's labor theory of value or an exclusive focus and conceptual tools to reformulate normative arguments for varieties of social-
on the worker-capitalist relation. This position is not premised on an acceptance of ism suitable to our current situation (Howard 2000; Schweickart 1994; Roemer
the basic institutions of capitalism, but rather is a standpoint from which to evaluate 1994).
them. It is not necessary to downsize our ideas of freedom and equality. But it is less The defense of a substantial unconditional basic income might be thought
obvious than it appeared in classic Marxist formulations that socialism is necessary for to be a retreat from the aspirations of Marxism. In Van Parijs's pivotal work,
social justice. To quote the title of a famous article, there could be a `capitalist road Real Freedom for All (1995; hereafter RFA), basic income capitalism is, in the
to communism', if a substantial basic income is feasible in a capitalist society. nal analysis, defended as superior to socialism. However, even in Van Parijs's
argument, capitalism is not taken for granted. The subtitle of his book is `what, if
anything, can justify capitalism?' The standard against which economic systems
are judged is that of real freedom, enabling each person to achieve the maximum
of resources for whatever she might want to do. This is not the formal liberty
Labour is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the of classical liberalism, which always has existed side by side with economic and
source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth social inequality. Rather, it is a demanding egalitarian standard. Inequality
consists!) as labour [. . . ]. Karl Marx (1875, Critique of the Gotha of real freedom is permissible only if it enhances the real freedom of the least
Program ) advantaged. The question remains open whether real freedom is best attained
by capitalism or socialism.
Van Parijs argues that capitalism might make real freedom for all more eco-
nomically feasible, if it is more ecient than the most ecient available socialism,
1. Introduction so that the resources made available to the least advantaged by capitalism ex-
ceeded those made available by socialism. On the other hand, socialism might
Before turning to the main argument of this paper, I will say a few words about
make real freedom more politically feasible than it could be under capitalism,
the theme of this issue, the normative turn away from Marxism. There has been
by reducing the political inequality that has generally accompanied capitalist
a shift from `scientic' analysis of capitalism to normative evaluation, reframed
ownership of the means of production. RFA is thus not decisively a defense of
in terms of liberal theories of justice such as those of Rawls (1971) and Dworkin
capitalism. But the case for socialism would have to be made in terms that them-
(2000). However, this shift does not exclude from consideration the constitutive
selves leave open the possibility that basic income capitalism might be preferable
elements of capitalism: private property, wage labor, competitive markets in la-
to any feasible kind of socialism that we can now envision. Indeed, some have
bor, land, and capital, and, some might add, unrestricted accumulation of capital
argued that the basic income goal will require `something like socialism' (Wright
and growing inequalities. In earlier work, I have defended, within the framework
1986; 2006; cf. Carens 1986). Basic income can tip the balance of class conict
Unauthenticated
Exploitation, Labor, and Basic Income 283 284 Michael W. Howard
toward workers, partially decommodify labor, and facilitate the formation of the Marxists share most of these concerns, and one might expect that they would
social economy which satises needs not subject to the discipline of prot max- welcome UBI, because, at a level sucient for basic needs, it enables workers
imization or state-technocratic rationality, all of which are recognizably part of to say no to onerous wage-labor contracts, and thus enhances their bargaining
a socialist project (Wright 2006, 89). power, perhaps to the point that they could begin to transform capitalism into
In my own work, I have accepted the desirability and inevitability of markets something else, such as a society of worker cooperatives. But some Marxists
in consumer goods, and with this comes at least a strong structural tendency to- object to UBI on the grounds that it is exploitative (e.g., Elster 1986).
ward alienation and commodity fetishism. I have argued that the corresponding The following from Rosa Luxemburg is illustrative:
psychological tendencies are not inevitable, if they can be countered by `socializ-
ing' markets and countering the market with political organization, a `Hegelian' In order that everyone in society can enjoy prosperity, everybody
rather than a Marxist solution to alienation (Howard 2000, chs. 4 and 5; 2005a; must work. Only somebody who performs some useful work for the
2005b). I will not address alienation and the Marxist aspiration to community public at large, whether by hand or by brain, can be entitled to
in this article, but will instead focus on exploitation. For more on the market receive from society the means for satisfying his needs. A life of
see Cohen (2009) and (Ollman (ed.) 1998). leisure like most of the rich exploiters currently lead must come to
an end. A general requirement to work for all who are able to do
so, from which small children, the aged and sick are exempted, is
2. UBI Back on the Agenda a matter of course in a socialist economy. (quoted in White 2003,
155-6)
Universal basic income (UBI) is back on the agenda. The idea had currency
earlier in the twentieth century, across the political spectrum. Bertrand Russell If a Marxist conception of justice requires incomes, apart from the noted excep-
(1918) proposed a basic income. A `demogrant' was featured in the US presi- tions, to be conditional on a contribution, UBI violates the principle by transfer-
dential campaign of George McGovern in 1972, and the closely related minimum ring earned income from workers to able-bodied non-workers, who simply refuse
income policy, a negative income tax, was defended by libertarian economist employment. And the objection, as the Luxemburg quote suggests, is akin to
Milton Friedman (1962). Negative income tax pilot projects were launched in the objection to capitalist exploitation. As we shall see, without abandoning
Canada and the United States in the 1970s (Forget 2011; Levine et al. 2005). Marx's radical critique, there are good reasons not to require incomes to be pro-
The concept has been endorsed by other Nobel laureates in economics, includ- portional to work, and consequently to reject the charge that a UBI would be
ing James Meade, James Tobin, Herbert Simon, Friedrich Hayek, Jan Tinbergen, unjust because exploitative.
and Robert Solow (Yap 2014). After a hiatus, interest in UBI reemerged, rst
with the founding of the Basic Income European Network in 1986 (`European' 3. Marx on Justice
has since been replaced with `Earth', to reect the widening interest), then
through serious political debates in South Africa, Namibia (where an important
Evaluating basic income in the context of Marx's critical theory is complicated
pilot project was launched, Haarman 2012), Canada, Brazil (where the state is
by the fact that Marx never explicitly articulated a conception of justice. In some
committed to the eventual implementation of UBI), Switzerland (where citizens
places he is contemptuous of the concept of justice ( Critique of the Gotha Pro-
will vote on UBI in a referendum in 2015, Widerquist 2013b), and India (site
of another pilot project, Davala et al. 2014), to name a few places. BIEN now
gram , 1875), yet in others he is clearly employing normative conceptsnotably
exploitationthat seem to imply a conception of justice. Even in the latter case,
has aliates in 20 countries on every inhabited continent. Quite a few political
he appears to use dierent conceptions of justice in dierent contexts, with ref-
parties, mostly Greens, have adopted UBI in their platforms (Upton 2014).
erence to capitalist society, for example, or dierent models of socialism (Lukes
Interest in UBI is based on a variety of concerns. Some, such as Bertrand
1985). I will not attempt here to summarize the complex debate on Marx and
Russell, and more recently Philippe Van Parijs (1995), see basic income as cru-
justice. Instead, I will somewhat arbitrarily refer to a few of the most inuential
cial to human freedom. Others emphasize UBI as a better way to eliminate
texts, particularly the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts , theCritique of
poverty. Georgists and left libertarians see UBI as a means of sharing commonly
owned wealth (Steiner 1996). Others emphasize the problem of technological
the Gotha Program Capital
and a passage from Volume III of , as reference points
for both criticism and support of UBI from within the Marxist tradition.
unemployment, and see UBI as a way to partially de-couple income from work,
The most obvious support for a UBI is to be found in the principle that Marx
as it becomes increasingly dicult to guarantee everyone a full-time regular job.
says will characterize the higher phase of communism (Marx 1875): from each
Greens often are drawn to UBI as part of an eort to reorient our economies away
according to ability, to each according to need (the `ability-needs principle').
from environmentally destructive growth (Fitzpatrick 2013; Van Parijs 2013).
Whether one takes this as a principle of justice or a description of a society
`beyond justice', this clearly de-couples income distribution from contribution to
Unauthenticated
Exploitation, Labor, and Basic Income 285 286 Michael W. Howard
production. While it need not take the form of a UBIbasic needs such as health men to labour. Society is then conceived of as an abstract capitalist
care, education, transportation, housing, and food could all be provided free in [. . . ]. An enforced increase of wages [. . . ] would only mean a better
kind for allthe complexity of modern society would favor the distribution of payment of slaves and would not give this human meaning and worth
cash for at least some of these needs, and for anything beyond basic needs where either to the worker or to his labour. (Marx 1844, 85)
people's needs and preferences diverge.
The decoupling of income from work is entailed in Marx's sketch of the `realm Marx says about communism understood as the universalization of private prop-
of freedom' in Volume III of Capital. erty:

The actual wealth of society, and the possibility of constantly ex- The community merely means a community of work and equality
panding its reproduction process, therefore, do not depend upon the of wages that the communal capital, the community as general cap-
duration of surplus labour, but upon its productivity and the more or italist, pays out. Both sides of the relationship are raised to a sham
less copious conditions of production under which it is performed. In universality, labour being the dening characteristic applied to each
fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is man, while capital is the universality and power of society [. . . ] crude
determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in communism, is thus only the form in which appears the ignominy of
the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material private property that wishes to establish itself as the positive essence
production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy of the community. (Marx 1844, 88)
his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilized man, and
he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes
And again, in Gotha :
of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity It was made clear that the wage worker has permission to work for
expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of his own subsistencethat is, to live
, only insofar as he works for a
production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this certain time gratis for the capitalist (and hence also for the latter's
eld can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, ra- co-consumers of surplus value); that the whole capitalist system of
tionally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under production turns on the increase of this gratis labor by extending the
their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind working day, or by developing the productivitythat is, increasing
forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of en- the intensity of labor power, etc.; that, consequently, the system
ergy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their of wage labor is a system of slavery, and indeed of a slavery which
human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. becomes more severe in proportion as the social productive forces of
Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end labor develop, whether the worker receives better or worse payment.
in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom (Marx 1875)
forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening
of the working-day is its basic prerequisite. (Marx 1894, 4967) Thus, from the standpoint of the higher phase of communism, the goal is the
abolition of the necessity to work for a wage, whether for a capitalist, or for
It is clear in this passage that the long-term goal in Marx's emancipatory theory the `community as universal capitalist.' One obvious problem with citing the
is not just freedom from the domination of other peoplemaster, landlord, or ability-needs principle in support of a UBI is that, for Marx, it clearly applies
serfbut also emancipation from the necessity to labor. Once the working only to a remote society of the future. In Gotha
, he identies the conditions that
day has been suciently reduced, people will spend their time in freely chosen must be met before that principle can come into play:
activity. Their income and consumption will not be constrained by the necessity
to perform necessary labor, or such labor will be so reduced as to be a small In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordi-
part of daily activity, which can be expected as a social duty, and enforced by nation of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also
peer pressure and conscience. the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; af-
People often cite the egalitarianism of Marx, but ignore this liberatory ele- ter labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want;
ment, which is present in his thinking from beginning to end. Marx, in the 1844 after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around
manuscripts, is contemptuous of those who aspire only to higher or more equal development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative
incomes: wealth ow more abundantlyonly then can the narrow horizon of
bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its
The equality of wages that Proudhon demands only changes the banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his
relationship of the contemporary worker to his labour into that of all needs! (Marx 1875)
Unauthenticated
Exploitation, Labor, and Basic Income 287 288 Michael W. Howard
If the overcoming of material scarcity, the transformation of work, or the social- tion), and some of our needs are met unconditionally. We are already doing this
ization of individuals have not been accomplished, then more stringent principles in most capitalist societies with in-kind goods such as education and health care.
of justice still must prevail. In particular, the `lower phase' of communism, now Some aspects of income distribution are also unconditional. Pensions for seniors
more often called `socialism', operates on the principle of to each according to in some countries are not conditional on having contributed through work. And
work. Marx envisions a society without capitalists, so instead of capitalists ap- child benets are not conditional on work or, in some countries, on a means
propriating a surplus, the value created by labor is returned to labor in the test. A UBI is only an extension of this principle, to each according to need,
form of certicates corresponding to the labor time expended. It is important to everyone, with respect to basic income security. It can be seen, in relation
to note that Marx repudiates, both for socialism, and as a demand of workers to Marx's long-term goal, as an anticipation of the emancipation from coerced
under capitalism, the Lasallean idea of returning to workers the full value of labor, to the extent that this is institutionally feasible, even within capitalist
their product. Any society must set aside part of the value of production to society.
cover depreciation of capital, insurance, support for the elderly and disabled, One can also make an `historical materialist' argument for this phasing in of
and for public goods such as education. But what remains, Marx posits, should UBI. In Gotha , Marx claims that every distribution principle is determined by
be distributed according to work. the mode of production.

He receives a certicate from society that he has furnished such-and- Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a
such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production them-
funds); and with this certicate, he draws from the social stock of selves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of
means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example,
(Marx 1875) rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in
the hands of non-workers in the form of property in capital and land,
(Because work is an abstract standard that focuses only on one dimension of a while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of produc-
person, neglecting dierent abilities and needs, he characterizes this principle as tion, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed,
another version of `bourgeois right'. And he suggests that what I have called the then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption re-
`ability-needs principle' is not a principle of justice at all, but rather a description sults automatically. If the material conditions of production are the
of a society that has gone beyond justice, beyond bourgeois right.) co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise
This principle would seem to rule out a UBI, since a UBI would require a tax results a distribution of the means of consumption dierent from the
on the certicates otherwise going to workers. present one. (Marx 1875)
In any society emerging from capitalism, people will be acculturated to expect
material rewards for their labor. The hours of labor will still be long enough, and One may challenge Marx's claim, because it does not leave room for fairly wide
the character of much labor unattractive enough, that people cannot reasonably normative variability within a given mode of production. Capitalism is compat-
be expected to perform it freely without reward. Freedom with reference to ible with libertarian, welfare-state, or `predistributive' schemes, and a range of
work in such a society can only be the freedom to participate democratically tax policies that allow or constrain income and wealth inequality. But setting
in determining the conditions of work. But this participatory freedom, Marx this aside, we may note that contemporary `globalized' capitalism has created
acknowledges, is not yet the realm of freedom that becomes possible once the distinctive conditions in the mode of production, that vitiate principles of justice
working day has been shortened enough that people can do as they wish. that made more sense 50 years ago. In particular, it is becoming increasingly
But note how inconclusive all this is with respect to contemporary UBI pro- dicult to guarantee full employment, in full-time, regular, jobs. Employment is
posals. There is no contemporary proposal completely to decouple all income increasingly part-time, and temporary. In the United States almost 30 percent
from labor. Even Van Parijs's proposal for a maximum sustainable UBI leaves of workers are in `non-standard' employment (McFate 2001, 99; Reich 2015).
ample room for income proportional to labor, on top of the UBI. This is com- For many people, life-time careers have given way to periodic career changes.
patible with the socialist principle of income according to work, at least on a Increasing numbers of workers belong not to the proletariat but to what Guy
loose interpretation. Those who work more will receive more income, enough to Standing (2011, 10) calls the precariat, characterized by the lack of security in
induce them to perform the necessary social labor, until such time as the reduc- several dimensions.
tion of working hours, the transformation of work into interesting activity, and In this mode of production a UBI is a way of sharing the risk of unemployment
the socialization of people makes it possible to dispense with material incentives. and income insecurity, establishing a decent oor below which no one falls. On
As Van Parijs and van der Veen (1986) have shown, it is possible to anticipate top of this oor, people can earn income through work, and most will seek more
the ability-needs principle within capitalism, as parts of our social contribution than the minimum, but no one will be required to pass a means test, nor will
are made without clear reward (through voluntary care work and civic participa- it be necessary to impose a work requirement that is increasingly dicult to
Unauthenticated Unauthenticated
Exploitation, Labor, and Basic Income 289 290 Michael W. Howard
formalize and enforce in a socially useful and respectful manner. By the time 3. The labourer receives less value than he creates.
the norms are codied, the economy often has changed. Make-work schemes 4. The capitalist receives some of the value the labourer creates.
make a fetish out of employment without being socially useful. Wage subsidies Therefore:
(as advocated by Phelps 2001) empower employers to control workers for low
wages. And work requirements compel people into kinds of employment out of 5. The labourer is exploited by the capitalist. (Kymlicka 2002,
synch with their training and career goals, and block eorts to re-tool through 178)
re-education. UBI in this context is a pragmatic alternative to a welfare state
One problem with this formulation is that premise 1 is contradicted by the labour
that fails to achieve its own objectives with respect to employment and poverty
theory of value, according to which the value of an object is determined by the
reduction.
The challenge to this happy synthesis of the socialist principle and the ability-
amount of labour currentlyrequired to produce it, not how much labour was
actually involved in producing it.
needs principle is the charge that, in a society where much work is still onerous
and inducements are needed to get it done, a UBI will be unfair to those who What matters, morally speaking, is not that the workers create
work. The exploitation objection is that those who are able to work but refuse, value, but that `they create what has value [. . . ]. What raises the
and live o the UBI are exploiting those who work. Before examining this charge of exploitation is [. . . ] that [the capitalist] appropriates some
charge, it is necessary to review Marx's theory of capitalist exploitation. If, of the value of what the worker produces.' (Cohen 1988, 2267).
as G.A. Cohen has argued, Marx's account is inadequate, and better replaced (Kymlicka 2002, 179)
by a liberal egalitarian conception of justice, then the same might apply to the
Marxist critique of basic income. The whole issue of whether UBI is exploitative So the above argument needs to be modied thusly:
would need to be worked out on the terrain of the liberal egalitarian theory,
where, as we shall see, there is a reasonable defense of UBI. 1. The labourer is the only person who creates the product, that
which has value.
4. Exploitation and Justice 2. The capitalist receives some of the value of the product. There-
fore:
In his summary of G. A. Cohen's analysis of Marx's theory of exploitation, Will (a) The labourer receives less value than the value of whathe
Kymlicka articulates the challenge that Marxists make for liberal theories of creates.
justice: (b) The capitalist receives some of the value of what
the labourer
creates. Therefore:
The paradigm of injustice for Marxists is exploitation [. . . ] liberal (c) The labourer is exploited by the capitalist. (Kymlicka 2002,
justice [. . . ] licenses the continuation of this exploitation, since it 179; my emphasis)
licenses the buying and selling of labour.
This, Kymlicka says, yields the argument that wage relationships are inherently
Whether this charge is true depends on how we understand `exploitation'. The exploitative, but, crucially, it is not clear that the exploitation involved here is
everyday understanding of exploitation is taking unfair advantage of someone an injustice (179). Labor that is volunteered would then count as `exploitative',
(Kymlicka 2002, 177). The Marxist technical denition of exploitation is: but surely is not unjust. So one modication often made is to stipulate that the
labor must be coerced, at least by force of circumstance. This would indeed
The capitalist extracting more value from the worker's labour (in the
capture the situation of most workers in capitalist societies today.
form of produced goods) than is paid back to the worker in return
However, as Kymlicka says, dening exploitation as the forced transfer of
for the labour (in the form of wages). (Kymlicka 2002, 178)
surplus value is both too weak and too strong (179). It is too weak because
The question is whether this technical denition is intended to be merely de- we would want to consider some unforced wage labor as also exploitative. A
scriptive, or normative, i.e., to claim that the extraction of value by the capitalist guaranteed minimum income would enable the worker to say no to wage labor
is taking unfair advantage. The argument for the latter is (Cohen 1988, 214): contracts and still survive. But to attain a `decent standard of living', something
above a minimum, the worker might have no choice but to work for a capitalist,
1. Labour and labour alone creates value. and if the capitalist has greater bargaining power (which is almost always the
case), the outcome of the contract might still be something we would want to
2. The capitalist receives some of the value of the product. There-
consider exploitative.
fore:
Exploitation, Labor, and Basic Income 291 292 Michael W. Howard
The standard is too strong because related to dierent modes of production (capitalist exploitation concerns exter-
nal assets, whereas socialist exploitation is about the inequality that remains
there are many legitimate instances of forced transfer of surplus because of dierences in skills), but as Kymlicka notes To say that all forms of
value, for example, apprentices who earn less than they create in injustice are forms of exploitation is not to gain an insight but to lose a word
the early phase of their careers, but over the course of a lifetime (Kymlicka 2002, 184).
get a fair share (180). To insist that it is exploitative to forcibly If the Marxist critique of exploitation is best understood as a special case of
transfer surplus value regardless of how this ts into a larger pattern injustice, which is better articulated by a liberal egalitarian theory of distributive
of distributive justice, guts the charge of exploitation of all its moral justice such as that of Rawls or Dworkin, then the possibility opens up that there
force [. . . ] [and] manifests a kind of fetishism about owning one's could be just forms of capitalism. Kymlicka indicates two `clean routes' to wage
labour [. . . ] a libertarian concern with self-ownership. (Kymlicka labour.
2002, 180; see also Howard 2003)
First [. . . ] endowing the inrm with ownership of capital can com-
An unfortunate implication of this standard is that compulsory taxation to pensate for unequal natural talents, and so bring us closer to an
support children or the inrm also counts as exploitation. endowment-insensitive distribution. Secondly, dierential ownership
As I have noted already, Marx himself in Gotha rejects a similar standard, of the means of production can arise amongst people with equal en-
advanced by the Lasalleans, that workers should receive the full value of their dowments, if they have dierent preferences concerning investment
product. Marx points out that it is necessary in any society (and just?) that or risk. (185)
part of what workers produce should be appropriated for depreciation, insurance,
new investment, for public goods, and for the support of those unable to work. This is not to say that contemporary capitalism is fair, far from it. Capital is
The theory is not salvaged by shifting from transfer of value to need. On this not put at the disposal of the inrm. Citizens do not receive equal endowments,
emendation (181),  `the capitalist exploits the worker because his need is not and their inequalities are compounded over generations through inheritance.
the basis on which he receives part of the value of what the worker produces.'  Dierent preferences and choices account for only a fraction of the inequalities
But then it is the needy who are unjustly treated, and these may include others of wealth and income. But the solution is not necessarily socialization of the
besides, or instead of, the worker. And workers are exploiters, if they appropriate means of production. This too could be exploitative, if a majority consistently
more than they need at the expense of a needy child. And capitalists, if they need favors income over leisure, and a minority the reverse. The latter will be taken
the surplus, are not exploiting. A plausible example of this might be endowing advantage of by the former,
the inrm with capital from which they can derive a steady stream of nancial if the minority are not allowed to convert their socialist right of equal
support (181). Crucially, it all depends on how the particular transaction ts access to the social resources into a liberal entitlement of equal indi-
into a larger pattern of distributive justice. vidual resources (e.g., by selling their share of the rm) (Kymlicka
The theory of exploitation also is too narrowly focused on the exploitation of 2002, 186).
wage labor. Household labor, typically performed by women, is not included in
the concept. The problem is not that women are subjected to forced extraction Socialism might still be on the agenda, but it would be so not because capitalism
of surplus value, but that they have been forced not to sell their labour (181). is inherently unjust, but rather for more contingent empirical reasons such as that
The same can be said of the involuntarily unemployed (182). (some forms of) social ownership are more ecient than capitalist alternatives,
The upshot of this critique is that there is a deeper injustice underlying ex- or because there are public goods that social ownership can make possible that
ploitationnamely, unequal access to the means of production. Disenfranchised private ownership cannot, or because social ownership facilitates a more durable
women, the unemployed, and wage-workers in our society all suer from this and sustainable egalitarian distribution of wealth, income and power, not only
injustice, while capitalists benet from it. (182) The exploitation of labor is in the economic sphere, but in politics (Roemer 1994).
just a special, even if the principal, case of unequal access to resources. If capitalism is not inherently unjust, then the analogous argument against
John Roemer's theory of exploitation (Roemer 1982; discussed in Kymlicka basic income also fails. If the case against capitalism is that it involves a forced
2002) is designed to address this deeper injustice, shifting the focus from transfer transfer of the surplus of labor from those who work to those who do not, dis-
of surplus to unequal access to the means of production. The worker is capital- advantaging the former, and advantaging the latter, then it would appear that
istically exploited on Roemer's view if she would be better o withdrawing from a UBI is exploitative, since it transfers part of the surplus from workers to able
society with her per capita share of external resources and the capitalist would be individuals who refuse to work. (Recall that, in Marx's view, the relevant part
worse o (182). This theory overcomes many of the diculties mentioned. But of the surplus for distribution is not the whole product, but rather that part that
it still neglects inequalities related to internal assets, i.e., dierences in talents. remains after discounting for depreciation, insurance, support for the disabled,
Roemer tries to include these by distinguishing dierent kinds of exploitation, etc.).
Unauthenticated
Exploitation, Labor, and Basic Income 293 294 Michael W. Howard
However, if the critique of capitalism is better framed as a critique of inequal- empowers the worker in bargaining situations, whereas a wage subsidy empowers
ity of resources, then there can be no principled objection to endowing everyone the employer. Work can be a source of community, but also a site of domina-
with a basic income, as part of an institutional scheme that is endowment insen- tion, and there are forms of community available outside work that can sustain
sitive and choice sensitive. There is no reason to establish as a prior principle one's self-respect better than low-skill employment, that an unconditional in-
that all the proceeds of labor (after the necessary deductions) should go to the come might better facilitate.
workers. Rather, one can make a good contractual argument for a principle of Two further considerations may tip the argument in favor of UBI.
priority for the least well o, and this might well favor a basic income. But the (a)Outmoded model of careers : Rawls's way of identifying the least well o,
case is not straightforward, as we shall see. for purposes of distribution, is with reference to representative social positions
and the expectations of a typical occupant of that position over the course of a
lifetime, the lowest being that of the unskilled worker. However, this model no
5. Rawls's Dierence Principle longer ts the global economy, with ever more rapid downsizing, labor market
exibility, increasingly precarious employment, chronic high unemployment and
Rawls's dierence principle stipulates that inequalities of income, wealth, and underemployment, lots of movement from one position to the other, etc. Some
power must maximize the minimum of those primary goods for the least advan- still hope to bring about full employment, but that goal is hard to sustain without
taged. When it was pointed out that this would appear to entitle people (like a high cost in eciency. If we characterize the least advantaged not in terms of
Malibu surfers) to a minimum income without any work requirement, Rawls's re- a place in an imagined stable structure of full-time jobs and careers, but rather
sponse was to add leisure to the list of primary goods, dening leisure as twenty in terms of expected resources available over a lifetime, then a UBI is a more
four hours less a standard working day. Those opting not to work would then dependable way to maximize the minimum.
be taking the minimum to which the dierence principle entitled them in the (b)Limited conception of work : Rawls assumes that activity can be neatly
form of extra leisure, and would not be entitled to public funds (Rawls 1999, dichotomized as paid employment and leisure. This suggests that when one is
253). not engaged in paid employment one is enjoying free time. But this neglects
Does it follow that maximizing the minimum requires some conditional form the necessary but unpaid work that roughly half the adult population, usually
of income supplement, such as wage subsidies, rather than an unconditional women, do when they take care of children or the elderly, or maintain a house-
income such as a negative income tax (NIT) or UBI? Not at all. Precisely hold. Political engagement is another form of work that is often initiated not as
because leisure is included on the list of primary goods, a pleasant leisurely pursuit but as a necessary response to injustices. UBI is a
way of supporting people engaged in these pursuits, without subjecting them to
the strong presumption in favour of employment subsidies collapses supervision and monitoring, inconsistent with the principle of love in the family,
[. . . ]. For whereas the expected income of the representative incum- and freedom of association.
bent of the worst social position can safely be expected to be higher
under the most suitable form of employment subsidies [because of
the increased production from the incentives to work], her expected 6. Equality of Resources and Basic Income
leisure can equally safely be expected to be more extensive under the
most suitable form of guaranteed income. (Van Parijs 2003a, 219) The most developed argument for a UBI on the basis of equality of resources
is Van Parijs's Real Freedom for All (1995). I will not attempt to summarize
Whether the dierence principle favors a conditional or unconditional minimum the argument here, but only note a few key points relevant to the exploitation
will depend on objection. Going back to Rawls's response to the surfer challenge, Van Parijs
maintains that, in his eort to address a bias toward the Malibu surfer, or `Lazy',
the dierential impact of the two sorts of schemes on overall pro- he `swings all the way and introduces the opposite bias' toward the preferences
ductivity and hence on the lifetime level of income-leisure bundles of the hardworking `Crazy' (90).
and wealth to be sustainably expected by the worst o(Van Parijs
2003a, 219).
What the proposal (and beyond it the whole idea of adding leisure
This indeterminate outcome cannot be easily resolved by factoring in the other to the list of primary goods) amounts to is a prescription to share
primary goods, power and prerogatives and the bases of self-respect, because out among the sole workers, and as a function of their working time
these can support either scheme in dierent ways (Van Parijs 2003a, 2202). (somehow measured), the whole of the production surplusthat is,
Work can be a source of self-respect and power, but this is less the case with of whatever is left of the product after taking away what is needed to
low-skilled work, stigmatized by social subsidy. And an unconditional income feed and motivate the workerswhatever the source of the surplus.
Unauthenticated Unauthenticated
Exploitation, Labor, and Basic Income 295 296 Michael W. Howard
The increased surplus might result, for example, from an unexpected discovery and then concerns about reciprocity and choice sensitivity can be addressed on
of a valuable natural resource. top of that.
No such proposal could possibly be justied by a non-discriminatory The modest income aorded to the voluntary unemployed by the
concern with the real freedom of the least-advantaged. From a pro- taxation of employment rents is therefore no more [. . . ] stolen income
Lazy bias, we have swung all the way to a pro-Crazy bias, that could than that derived from natural rents. What justies either is not
be vindicated only on perfectionist premises. (98) solidarity but fairness. Fairness is not a substitute for solidarity.
Crazy wants a higher income and is therefore prepared to work more. But it must shape the `basic structure' against the background of
If for this purpose she uses no more than an equal share of society's which cooperative ventures governed by reciprocity and solidarity
scarce resourcessay, landshe should not be taxed one penny to can meaningfully operate. (Van Parijs 2003b, 208)
help feed Lazy. But she may also want to use more than her share.
In that case, those who get less than their share will be entitled to
the competitive value of what they give up. If you accept this [. . . ] 7. Challenge to Equality of Resources
you will realize that you have accepted the justice of a basic income
at the level of the per capita value of society's external endowments.
Gijs van Donselaar (2009) revives the exploitation objection by rejecting Van
(90)
Parijs's assumption of equality of resources. He claims that a UBI would be
The relevant endowments include not only land, but also natural resources, in- exploitative because it would, in Locke's phrase, allow some to benet from
herited wealth, and socially inherited assets such as technology that no one living others' pains. To illustrate his argument, he asks us to imagine the familiar
produced. Some think that these assets can yield a fairly substantial basic in- gures of Crazy and Lazy on their island. Crazy has a strong preference for
come, at least in some states (Widerquist 2012b; Flomenhaft 2012). But Van work and the wealth that it brings, whereas Lazy prefers to work less or not at
Parijs is skeptical that these sources alone could yield a basic income even at all, and is content with less wealth. Suppose that the island is divided into 4
subsistence, once due consideration is given to the behavioral eects of taxation parcels of equally valuable land, and Lazy can survive on one. Crazy would like
and inheritance. Thus he calls our attention to another external endowment to make use of 3 parcels. If the land is divided equally, as suggested by Van
often overlooked, jobs as assets. The key idea is that as long as jobs are scarce, Parijs, guided by Dworkin's principle of equality of resources, then Crazy will
those who hold them appropriate a rent which can legitimately be taxed away owe Lazy rent for the 3rd parcel. Van Donselaar's critique is much in the spirit
so as substantially to boost the legitimate level of basic income (Van Parijs of Locke's statement that although God gave the earth to people in common,
1995, 90). While one could try to eliminate job scarcity through wage sub- He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational (and labour was to be his
sidies (Phelps 2001) or job guarantees (Harvey 2005; cf. Howard 2005c), such title to it); not to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious
approaches amount to using scarce resources in a discriminatory way, with a (Locke 1690, Ch. 5, para 33). One has a title to a share of the land, but only if
bias toward those with a stronger preference for being employed (Van Parijs one has an interest in working on it.
1995, 91). If Lazy actually wanted the third parcel, even in the absence of Crazy, then
Once jobs have been recognized as scarce assets, basic income can be funded the deal struck between them would be just, since each is free not to deal, and
through income tax. (Many left libertarians consider income taxes to be illegit- both benet from the bargain. But according to van Donselaar, because Lazy
imate violations of self-ownership, e.g., Steiner 1996). Van Parijs argues that if has no independent interest in the third parcel, and only demands a rent because
the income tax rates are set to maximize the tax yield, this will not capture all he can extract it from Crazy, his behavior is parasitic. He benets from the labor
of the job rents, but it will not catch more than the rents (Van Parijs 1995, 91). of Crazy, and at a cost to Crazy since Crazy would use the parcel even in Lazy's
The intuitive idea is that people in scarce jobs receive wages or salaries in excess absence.
of the market-clearing wage (for a variety of possible reasons). They would still The reply to van Donselaar challenges the idea that Lazy has no independent
take the job at a lower wage, so the dierence between their actual wage and interest in the land that Crazy wants. Karl Widerquist (2006) shows that there
the wage at which they would cease to have an incentive to take the job is a are interests other than working with the resource that van Donselaar ignores.
measure of the rent, and if this rent is taxed there will be no loss of eciency, He asks us to imagine Hippie, who shares Lazy's aversion to work, but has in
the tax yield will be maximized, and the situation of the less advantaged will be addition an interest in wilderness. He wants as much of the island undeveloped
improved, by means of the UBI. There is no advantage to means testing if the as possible. Thus it is a cost to him that Crazy uses more than one plot of
UBI of upper income recipients is clawed back in taxes. land. And if the cost is great enough, Crazy is actually exploiting Hippie in
However the debate over jobs as assets is resolved, the main point is that van Donselaar's sense of the word: The extra leisure that Crazy aords Hippie
equality of resources should rst be addressed, to assure endowment insensitivity, (when Crazy works all the land and pays Lazy a rent) is less valuable to Hippie
Unauthenticated Unauthenticated
Exploitation, Labor, and Basic Income 297 298 Michael W. Howard
than would be the extra wilderness. So Hippie is worse o, even after the trade, control over production, preferences themselves would presumably change and
than he would be if Crazy were not there (Widerquist 2006, 457). favor socialism over capitalism.
More generally, van Donselaar fails to recognize passive contributions to the Such a line of defense, however, must explain why such hypothetical prefer-
system of social cooperation: ences in the future should trump the actual preferences that people have now,
acknowledging that they are adaptive preferences. And the perfectionism implied
The loss of access to the non-commercial use of assets is a passive by such criticism must be defended against the evident plurality of conceptions of
contribution. That is, it is a sacrice that benets the system of the good life that are likely to persist in any complex society, whether capitalist
social cooperation that requires no action on the part of the con- or socialist.1
tributor. Passive contributions also include acceptance of law, of a Van Parijs interprets liberal neutrality to include the proposition that there
smaller share of social wealth and of lost opportunity to work outside should not be a bias toward those who have a strong preference for work, accu-
of the prevailing social and economic structure. (Widerquist 2006, mulation, and consumption, nor should there be a bias toward those who have a
445) preference for leisure. Neutrality is not satised by Rawls's proposal for adding
leisure to the list of primary goods, and then denying anyone a basic income
The Crazy-Lazy example has limited applicability, even if one accepts that it
unless they are willing to work, as we have seen. In addition to the arguments
exemplies exploitation. The assumption that Lazy
already considered above, Van Parijs adds that Rawls's solution is inecient,
has access to all the external assets he wants [. . . ] does not hold for and raises conceptual problems about how to measure work (1995, 978). But
most of the net recipients of UBI that Lazy is supposed to represent. most importantly, as we have seen, such a principle neglects the contribution to
A model in which the poor have all the resources they want and use wealth that comes from nature and other external assets, and by allotting all of
government transfers to get more has extremely limited applicabil- these assets to the workers it reects a bias toward those with a preference for
ity to a society in which people own nothing until they satisfy an employment.
obligation to work for others. (Widerquist 2006, 451) Neutrality could be satised by giving each equal plots of land, but if these
are not tradable, the allocation will be suboptimal for each. Allowing trade, each
Once we recognize this, UBI appears more as a protection against exploitation will benet, and Lazy will be entitled to a non-arbitrary and generally positive
than a means of exploitation: legitimate level of basic income that is determined by the per capita value of
society's external assets (99). 2
UBI partially compensates people for the passive contributions they Another challenge arises from those who would reject neutrality, or perhaps
have made to the existing system of social cooperation, and it creates say that in this case, it is trumped by a norm of reciprocity. Stuart White
at least some opportunity for people to pursue their own views of the (2003) argues that a minimum income must be conditional on a willingness to
good life that may dier from the particular employment opportu- work, although he understands `work' broadly to include personal care work,
nities oered by the dominant group. In that sense, UBI is a limit volunteerism and other activity that could be approved as a contribution to
to society's ability to exploit individuals, for the majority to exploit society. If we were to accept the conclusion that a UBI is exploitative in the sense
minorities and for the strong to exploit the weak. (460) that it violates reciprocity, then a `participation income' (PI) is one alternative.
However a PI is either hopelessly bureaucratic and arbitrary (who will judge
Thus, even if we abandon equality of resources, it does not follow that UBI is
which artist is making a valuable contribution, and which is untalented and
exploitative.
self-indulgent?), or the criteria will be so lax that the idea of participation will
become a bitter joke and lead to the discrediting of the PI (Howard 2005a; 2005b;
8. Challenge to Liberal Neutrality: Participation Income? cf. Barry 2001; DeWispelaere/Stirton 2007). It would be better to promote a

1 See, for example Kymlicka's critique of a bias toward work by appeal to the theory of
Van Parijs's case for basic income rests on liberal neutrality, the idea that in
the distribution of resources there should not be a bias toward one particular alienation, as perfectionist, Kymlicka 2002, 1905.
2 Here Van Donselaar may have a stronger case against jobs as assets than in the original
conception of the good life. Liberal neutrality is a principle shared by Rawls, Crazy-Lazy case involving land. What possible interest could Lazy have in a job, other than
Dworkin, Kymlicka, and most other liberal theorists (an important exception to work in it? Then his only claim on the asset is the parasitic one of wanting it solely in
is Arneson 2003). One could argue that these theories take for granted the order to extract a benet, that in the absence of Crazy, Lazy would have no interest in. But
preferences that people have, as formed by capitalist society itself, which incline just as Hippy can have an interest in land, without wanting to work on it, so he might want
a position in order not to have the work done. He would prefer the space on the island to be
many people to prefer private consumption, and to be resigned to domination in undeveloped. And he would prefer that no one be digging, pounding, and drilling. Putting up
the workplace. In a society with social ownership, greater equality, and worker with work is a cost, and Hippie deserves compensation.
Unauthenticated
Exploitation, Labor, and Basic Income 299 300 Michael W. Howard
UBI, and accept that there will be a few `parasites,' than to try to eliminate 10. The Appearance of Exploitation
them in this way. If, as most advocates of UBI believe, there will be relatively
few people who receive a UBI but do nothing useful with their lives, then the Even if my defense of UBI against the charge of exploitation is sound, it may be
cost of preventing their sloth is not worth the benets lost from a UBI, which dicult politically to overcome the appearance of exploitation. This is partly due
include putting an end to poverty, empowering workers to say no to onerous to what Nagel and Murphy call `everyday libertarianism', the tendency to regard
labor contracts, and so on (Barry 2001). And a better way to deal with a slacker the pre-tax distribution of income resulting from market exchanges as natural
is through shaming and moral persuasion. But if we are going to be hard on the and just, and consequently any taxation beyond that necessary for a minimal
slackers, we need to be even-handed. state as a kind of theft (Nagel/Murphy 2002, 15). Everyday libertarians oppose
The principle that no one who has not contributed should receive an income not only basic income but also many other normal expenditures of the modern
entails a consequence that at least some proponents might not welcome, at least welfare state.
in the context of capitalist society. It is not only the recipients of a UBI who Apart from unreective libertarians, some advocates of a reciprocity principle
would be violating this norm of reciprocity. Every capitalist who does not labor are unlikely to be persuaded that passive contributions are signicant enough
but lives entirely from prots on investments, every landlord who does not work to count as contributing to society's wealth on a par with employment or the
but lives entirely from rent, everyone with enough nancial assets that she can more obvious kinds of social participation (Birnbaum 2012, 1067). Imagine the
live entirely on the interest is receiving income without working, and so are worker whose hard-earned labor income is being taxed to support his neighbor's
violating the norm of reciprocity (Noguera 2007; Widerquist 2014). Unless we UBI, and who thinks the neighbor is a parasite, being asked to accept that the
are to put an end to all these forms of rent-taking, it is imposing a double neighbor deserves compensation just for obeying the law; or imagine the worker
standard to object to a modest unconditional income for the least advantaged, being told that the voluntarily idle neighbor is doing him a favor because the
while allowing it for the propertied. If we are going to allow income from rent, neighbor's absence from the labor market decreases the supply of labor and
then all the rents should be acknowledged, and the income shared equitably, therefore probably increases the worker's wage (McKinnon 2014, 11920). And
through a system of taxation and transfer, or through a distribution of the assets even if they can be persuaded, these forms of contribution will always remain
promising a fair share of incomes. For further discussion of the exploitation appearance
relatively invisible, so that the of a lack of reciprocity will remain for
objection, see Birnbaum (2012). the wider public.
That is an obstacle to the political implementation of a UBI, that should lead
UBI supporters to give serious consideration to `back door' strategies (Vander-
9. Abolition of Rents? borght 2005), a less than full UBI, a UBI that is funded solely through dividends
on publicly shared assets (Widerquist/Howard 2012a; 2012b), more targeted
This brings us full circle to Marx, who would not be ummoxed by the impli- steps toward a UBI such as universal child benets, or policies such as participa-
cations of the previous paragraph. For as the passage from Luxemburg that I tion income that have softer conditionalities and a more universal reach (White
quoted earlier suggests, the aim of socialism is to get rid of all rent-taking, not to 2003). It is also a reason to try to package UBI, even when not limited to exter-
share the rents. But is that a desirable aim? The classic theory of exploitation, nal resources, in the form of property rights, as is done in Widerquist's Citizens'
as we have seen, focuses too narrowly on injustice at the point of production, Capital Accounts, which might be set up with a wealth tax independently jus-
ignoring other forms of injustice that are grounded, as is work exploitation, in tiable in response to burgeoning inequality (Widerquist 2012a; Piketty 2014;
unequal access to resources. Once we recognize this, then the starting point Howard 2012; Anderson 2001).
should be equality of resources, and payments for work should be on top of a
basis of resource equality. One might invoke a perfectionist ideal of a society
in which everyone achieves fulllment through paid employment, but we have 11. Conclusion
already seen how scathingly Marx himself rejected that ideal as a long-range
objective. Should we not then in the near term do our best to respect a greater From the standpoint of a suitably comprehensive theory of justice, a UBI is not
plurality of conceptions of the good life, and nd a place for payment according exploitative. It is a reform that can be introduced, by degrees, into capitalist
to work in a larger context of equality of resources, in kind and also in cash? societies, and could also be an abiding feature of a socialist society and facilitate
steps toward socialism. For those inspired by Marx's utopian vision of the higher
phase of communism, a UBI is a policy that can begin to move in that direction,
by partially decoupling income from paid employment. Whether a UBI is a
reform that will take us beyond capitalism is less important than whether it will
Exploitation, Labor, and Basic Income 301 302 Michael W. Howard
move us closer to realizing the equality and freedom from servitude that were at  (2012), A Jubilee Tax for Citizens' Capital Accounts, in: Widerquist, K./M. W.
the core of Marx's emancipatory vision. Howard (eds.), Exporting the Alaska Model, New York, 205208
 (2013), Why Marxists and Socialists Should Favor Basic Income, in: Widerquist,
Bibliography K./J. A. Noguera/Y. Vanderborght/J. De Wispelaere (eds.), Basic Income: An
Anthology of Contemporary Research, Oxford, 5561
Anderson, E. (2001), Optional Freedoms, in: Cohen, J./J. Rogers (eds.), What's Wrong Kymlicka, W. (2002), Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction (Second
with a Free Lunch? Boston, 7074 Edition), Oxford
Arneson, R. (2003), Should Surfers Be Fed? In: Reeve, A./A. Williams (eds.), Real Levine , R. A./H. Watts/R. Hollister/W. Williams/A. O'Connor/K. Widerquist (2005),
Libertarianism Assessed: Political Theory after Van Parijs, New York, 95-110 A Retrospective on the Negative Income Tax Experiments: Looking Back at the
Barry, B. (2001), UBI and the Work Ethic, in: Cohen, J./J. Rogers (eds.), What's Most Innovative Field Studies in Social Policy, in: Widerquist, K./M. A. Lewis/S.
Wrong with a Free Lunch? Boston, 6069 Pressman (eds.), The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee, Hamp-
Birnbaum, S. (2012), Basic Income Reconsidered: Social Justice, Liberalism, and the shire, 95106
Demands of Justice, New York Locke, J. (1690/1952), Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, Chicago
Carens, J. (1986), The Virtues of Socialism, in: Theory and Society 15, 679687 Lukes, S. (1985), Marxism and Morality, Oxford
Cohen, G. A. (1988), History, Labour, and Freedom: Themes from Marx, Oxford Marx, K. (1977[1894]), Capital, Vol 3, Ch. 48, in: McLellan, D. (ed.), Karl Marx:
 (2009), Why Not Socialism? Princeton Selected Writings, Oxford, 492506
Davala, S./R. Jhabvala/S. K. Mehta/G. Standing (2014), Basic Income: A Transfor-  (1970[1875]), Critique of the Gotha Program, in: Marx/Engels Selected Works,
mative Policy for India, New Delhi Volume Three, Moscow, 1330, online at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx
De Wispelaere, J./L. Stirton (2007), The Public Adminstration Case Against Partic- /works/1875/gotha/
ipation Income, in: Social Service Review 81, 523549  (1977[1844]), Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, in: McLellan, D. (ed.), Karl
Dworkin, R. (2000), Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality, Cam- Marx: Selected Writings, Oxford, 75112
bridge/MA McFate, K. (2001), A Debate We Need, in: Cohen, J./J. Rogers (eds.), What's Wrong
Elster, J. (1986), Comment on Van der Veen and Van Parijs, in: Theory and Society with a Free Lunch? Boston, 98101
15, 709721 McKinnon, C. (2013), Basic Income, Self-Respect, and Reciprocity, in: Widerquist,
Fitzpatrick, T. (2013), Ecologism and Basic Income, in: Widerquist, K./J. A. Noguera K./J. A. Noguera/Y. Vanderborght/J. De Wispelaere (eds.), Basic Income: An
/Y. Vanderborght/J. De Wispelaere (eds.), Basic Income: An Anthology of Con- Anthology of Contemporary Research, Chichester, 114122
temporary Research, Oxford, 263268 McLellan, D. (1977), Karl Marx: Selected Writings, Oxford
Flomenhaft, G. (2012), Applying the Alaska Model in a Resource-Poor State: The Ex- Nagel, T./L. Murphy (2002), The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice, Oxford
ample of Vermont, in: Widerquist, K./M. W. Howard (eds.), Exporting the Alaska Noguera, J. A. (2007), Why Left Reciprocity Theories Are Inconsistent, in: Basic
Model, New York, 85107 Income Studies 2, Article 5
Forget, E. L. (2011), The Town with No Poverty, URL: http://public.econ.duke.edu/ Ollman, B. (1998) (ed.), Market Socialism: The Debate Among Socialists, New York
erw/197/forget-cea.pdf Phelps, E. (2001), Subsidize Wages, in: Cohen, J./J. Rogers (eds.), What's Wrong
Friedman, M. (1962), Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago with a Free Lunch? Boston, 5159
Haarmann, C./D. Haarmann (2012), Piloting Basic Income in Namibia: Critical Re- Piketty, T. (2014), Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge/MA
ections on the Process and Possible Lessons, URL: http://bignam.org/Publica- Rawls, J. (1999[1971]), A Theory of Justice (Revised Edition), Cambridge/MA
tions/BIEN_2012_Haarmann - BIG Namibia - Critical reections on the process  (1999), Collected Papers, Cambridge/MA
and lessons learnt.pdf Reeve, A./A. Williams (2003) (eds.), Real Libertarianism Assessed: Political Theory
Harvey, P. (2005), The Right to Work and Basic Income Guarantees: Competing or after Van Parijs, New York
Complementary Goals? In: Rutgers Journal of Law and Urban Policy 2, 859 Reich, R. (2015), Back to the Nineteenth Century, February 19, URL: http://
Howard, M. W. (2000), Self-management and the Crisis of Socialism, Lanham robertreich.org/post/110555525570 [May 2015]
 (2003), Libertarianism, Worker Ownership, and Wage Slavery: A Critique of Eller- Roemer, J. (1994), A Future for Socialism, Cambridge/MA
man's Labor Theory of Property, in: The Journal of Social Philosophy 34, 169187  (1982), A General Theory of Exploitation and Class, Cambridge/MA
 (2005a), Basic Income, Liberal Neutrality, Socialism, and Work, in: Widerquist, Russell, B. (1918), Proposed Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism and Syndical-
K./M. A. Lewis/S. Pressman (eds.), The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income ism, Cornwall
Guarantee, Hampshire, 122137 Schweickart, D. (1994), Against Capitalism, Cambridge
 (2005b), Liberal and Marxist Justications for a Basic Income, in: Standing, G. Standing, G. (2011), The Precariat, New York
(ed.), Promoting Income Security as a Right: Europe and North America, London, Steiner, H. (1996), Three Just Taxes, in: Van Parijs, P. (ed.), Arguing for Basic In-
115129 come, London, 8192
 (2005c), Basic Income and Job Guarantees: Alternatives or Complements? In: Upton, L. (2014), Basic Income Makes Unprecedented Political Progress Around the
Rutgers Journal of Law and Urban Policy 2, 186195Unauthenticated World, in: USBIG Newsash, December
Exploitation, Labor, and Basic Income 303

Van Donselaar, G. (2009), The Right to Exploit, Oxford

Van Parijs, P. (1995), Real Freedom for All: What (If Anything) Could Justify Capi-
talism, Oxford
 (2003a), Dierence Principles, in: Freeman, S. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion
to Rawls, 200240
 (2003b), Hybrid Justice, Patriotism and Democracy: A Selective Reply, in: Reeve,
A./A. Williams (eds.), Real Libertarianism Assessed: Political Theory after Van
Parijs, New York, 201216
 (2013), A Green Case for Basic Income? In: Widerquist, K./J. A. Noguera/Y. Van-
derborght/J. De Wispelaere (eds.), Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary
Research, Oxford, 269274
/R. van der Veen (1986), A Capitalist Road to Communism, in: Theory and Society
15, 635655
Vanderborght, Y. (2005), The Basic Income Guarantee in Europe: The Belgian and
Dutch Back Door Strategies, in: Widerquist, K./M. A. Lewis/S. Pressman (eds.),
The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee, Hampshire, 257281
White, S. (2003), Fair Reciprocity and Basic Income, in: Reeve, A./A. Williams (eds.),
Real Libertarianism Assessed: Political Theory after Van Parijs, New York, 136
160
Widerquist, K. (2005), Does She Exploit or Doesn't She? In: Widerquist, K./M. A.
Lewis/S. Pressman (eds.), The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guar-
antee, Hampshire, 138149
 (2006), Who Exploits Who? In: Political Studies 54, 444464
 (2012a), Citizens' Capital Accounts: A Proposal, in: Widerquist, K./M. W. Howard
(eds.), Exporting the Alaska Model, New York, 183203
 (2012b), Exporting the Alaska Model to Alaska: How Big Could the Permanent
Fund Be if the State Really Tried? And Can a Larger Fund Insulate an Oil Exporter
from the End of the Boom? In: Widerquist, K./M. W. Howard (eds.), Exporting
the Alaska Model, New York, 169180
 (2013a), Reciprocity and the Guaranteed Income, in: Widerquist, K./J. A. Noguera
/Y. Vanderborght/J. De Wispelaere (eds.), Basic Income: An Anthology of Con-
temporary Research, Chichester, 121133
 (2013b), Switzerland: National Referendium Will Be Held on Basic Income, in: BI
News, October 5
/M. W. Howard (2012a) (eds.), Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend, New York
/ (2012b) (eds.), Exporting the Alaska Model, New York
Wright, E. O. (1986), Why Something Like Socialism Is Necessary for the Transition
to Something Like Communism, in: Theory and Society 15, 657672
 (2006), Basic Income as a Socialist Project, in: Basic Income Studies 1, article 12,
110
Yap, S. (2014), Replace CPF with Basic Income? In: The Independent (Singapore),
URL: http://theindependent.sg/blog/2014/10/08/replace-cpf-with-basic-income/