The Right to Strike argument for why workers ought to enjoy a right to ties in who is forced to work and who exercises con- strike and,at least implicitly,an argument for what trol over the workplace.The primary social democratic that right to strike would look like in an adequately claim.instead.is that the central distributive injustice to social democratic society.But,on the best versions of which labor rights respond lies in the unequal bargain- the social democratic view,that is a moral argument ing position of workers when it comes to hours.ben- for why workers should have a legal right to strike and efits,and wages.That leaves aspects of both structural what that legal right would look like.It is not an ar- and interpersonal oppression in the workplace either gument that workers under conditions of oppression insufficiently modified or undertheorized as sources would have the same right to strike.Instead,the afore- of complaint.As a consequence,the scope of strikes mentioned version of the social democratic argument is implicitly limited because those forms oppression for labor rights is part of an overall theory of when aren't taken as objects against which strikes might legit- to count a socioeconomic order as oppressive.In that imately be directed.It looks like the main point of un- sense,the social democratic argument is compatible lawful and coercive strikes is to try to claim labor rights. with a version of the radical right to strike.When work- like the right to strike,as a legal right.The central polit- ers lack (social democratic)labor rights and/or when ical purpose of strikes will be constrained.The private their bargaining conditions are unfair,then they are monopolization of wealth,the unequal distribution of justified in using a range of strike tactics,potentially in- coercive work obligations,and the hierarchical organi- cluding some that would not be permissible in an ideal zation of the workplace are all consistent with the so social democratic regime,to resist that oppression. cial democratic view.This will lead the social democrat Notably,some figures historically associated with so- to argue that certain kinds of strikes,say industry-wide cial democracy have made versions of that argument strikes or political strikes against certain distribution Social democrats in the United States have claimed policies or strikes over workplace control are outside Samuel Gompers,John Lewis,even Eugene Debs for the legitimate scope of permitted strikes-a view re- their tradition,while in Europe social democrats will flected in the labor law of some actual social democ- 4r元 draw on a long line of thinking originating with fig- racies.31 On the radical view,however,the sources of ures like Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky.30 In their oppression are more extensive and inter-related in a time,those figures defended enormously disruptive,co- class society,which is why the right to strike has a wider & ercive,and illegal strikes as a response to the actual scope.This substantive difference about what counts as injustices of their times,while arguing that workers class oppression explains the fundamental division be- should enjoy robust labor rights including a legally pro- tween social democrats and radicals:the radicals prop- tected right to strike.Whether each of these individ- erly identify the full scope of what is oppressive in actu- uals is properly understood as a 'social democrat'as ally existing.class-divided societies.This will inevitably opposed to,say,a 'socialist,'is less relevant than the lead to differences in political judgment about the ac- basic point.The best version of the social democratic ceptable range of strike tactics and situations in which argument for a right to strike is two-pronged.Primarily, it is appropriate to exercise the right to strike. it is a moral argument for why workers ought to en- joy a legal right to strike as part of the fundamental economic liberties of the ideal constitution.But,sec- The Radical View:The Right to Resist ondarily,the social democratic argument is compatible Oppression with the radical right to strike because it recognizes the The radical view has a number of advantages over the strike as a permissible way of claiming rights and re- 8 liberal and social democratic accounts.First and fore- sisting economic injustice.To the degree workers are most,it is a more adequate response to the facts of op- denied their rights and face economic injustice,a social pression in actually existing liberal economies.Where democrat could say,they enjoy a right to strike whose the liberal view recognizes no particular injustice,and shape would not be determined by the shape of the the social democratic view focuses primarily on in- right to strike they should ideally enjoy but,instead,by equalities of bargaining power,the radical view is based the fact that they have a right to resist oppression. on the social analysis sketched in the second section of As far as it goes,then,there is a family resemblance this article.That social analysis identifies the full range between the social democratic and the radical right of oppressions,and their interlocking character,that to strike.The two versions will overlap when social are typical of actually existing class-divided liberal so- democrats,in virtue of their conception of economic cieties.That is why I call this view radical:not for the justice,have reason to argue that workers enjoy a right sectarian frisson sometimes associated with that word to strike that is best understood as a right to resist but because radical means going to the root of a prob- oppression.However,the views come apart with re- lem. spect to the nature and scope of the relevant oppres- Second.the radical view goes to the root not just sion.After all,on the social democratic view,one can because it properly identifies all of the relevant facts. secure distributive justice without correcting the ba- but because it thereby more accurately identifies the sic class structure of actual societies and,in particu- kind of interest that the right to strike is supposed to lar,without fundamentally challenging the inequali- There is no room here to go into the details,but one example is 30 I thank a reviewer for insisting that I address this point. Sweden (Malmberg and Johannson 2014,525-536). 913The Right to Strike argument for why workers ought to enjoy a right to strike and, at least implicitly, an argument for what that right to strike would look like in an adequately social democratic society. But, on the best versions of the social democratic view, that is a moral argument for why workers should have a legal right to strike and what that legal right would look like. It is not an ar￾gument that workers under conditions of oppression would have the same right to strike. Instead, the afore￾mentioned version of the social democratic argument for labor rights is part of an overall theory of when to count a socioeconomic order as oppressive. In that sense, the social democratic argument is compatible with a version of the radical right to strike.When work￾ers lack (social democratic) labor rights and/or when their bargaining conditions are unfair, then they are justified in using a range of strike tactics, potentially in￾cluding some that would not be permissible in an ideal social democratic regime, to resist that oppression. Notably, some figures historically associated with so￾cial democracy have made versions of that argument. Social democrats in the United States have claimed Samuel Gompers, John Lewis, even Eugene Debs for their tradition, while in Europe social democrats will draw on a long line of thinking originating with fig￾ures like Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky.30 In their time, those figures defended enormously disruptive, co￾ercive, and illegal strikes as a response to the actual injustices of their times, while arguing that workers should enjoy robust labor rights including a legally pro￾tected right to strike. Whether each of these individ￾uals is properly understood as a ‘social democrat’ as opposed to, say, a ‘socialist,’ is less relevant than the basic point. The best version of the social democratic argument for a right to strike is two-pronged. Primarily, it is a moral argument for why workers ought to en￾joy a legal right to strike as part of the fundamental economic liberties of the ideal constitution. But, sec￾ondarily, the social democratic argument is compatible with the radical right to strike because it recognizes the strike as a permissible way of claiming rights and re￾sisting economic injustice. To the degree workers are denied their rights and face economic injustice, a social democrat could say, they enjoy a right to strike whose shape would not be determined by the shape of the right to strike they should ideally enjoy but, instead, by the fact that they have a right to resist oppression. As far as it goes, then, there is a family resemblance between the social democratic and the radical right to strike. The two versions will overlap when social democrats, in virtue of their conception of economic justice, have reason to argue that workers enjoy a right to strike that is best understood as a right to resist oppression. However, the views come apart with re￾spect to the nature and scope of the relevant oppres￾sion. After all, on the social democratic view, one can secure distributive justice without correcting the ba￾sic class structure of actual societies and, in particu￾lar, without fundamentally challenging the inequali- 30 I thank a reviewer for insisting that I address this point. ties in who is forced to work and who exercises con￾trol over the workplace. The primary social democratic claim,instead,is that the central distributive injustice to which labor rights respond lies in the unequal bargain￾ing position of workers when it comes to hours, ben￾efits, and wages. That leaves aspects of both structural and interpersonal oppression in the workplace either insufficiently modified or undertheorized as sources of complaint. As a consequence, the scope of strikes is implicitly limited because those forms oppression aren’t taken as objects against which strikes might legit￾imately be directed. It looks like the main point of un￾lawful and coercive strikes is to try to claim labor rights, like the right to strike, as a legal right. The central polit￾ical purpose of strikes will be constrained. The private monopolization of wealth, the unequal distribution of coercive work obligations, and the hierarchical organi￾zation of the workplace are all consistent with the so￾cial democratic view. This will lead the social democrat to argue that certain kinds of strikes, say industry-wide strikes or political strikes against certain distribution policies or strikes over workplace control are outside the legitimate scope of permitted strikes—a view re￾flected in the labor law of some actual social democ￾racies.31 On the radical view, however, the sources of oppression are more extensive and inter-related in a class society, which is why the right to strike has a wider scope. This substantive difference about what counts as class oppression explains the fundamental division be￾tween social democrats and radicals: the radicals prop￾erly identify the full scope of what is oppressive in actu￾ally existing, class-divided societies. This will inevitably lead to differences in political judgment about the ac￾ceptable range of strike tactics and situations in which it is appropriate to exercise the right to strike. The Radical View: The Right to Resist Oppression The radical view has a number of advantages over the liberal and social democratic accounts. First and fore￾most, it is a more adequate response to the facts of op￾pression in actually existing liberal economies. Where the liberal view recognizes no particular injustice, and the social democratic view focuses primarily on in￾equalities of bargaining power, the radical view is based on the social analysis sketched in the second section of this article. That social analysis identifies the full range of oppressions, and their interlocking character, that are typical of actually existing class-divided liberal so￾cieties. That is why I call this view radical: not for the sectarian frisson sometimes associated with that word but because radical means going to the root of a prob￾lem. Second, the radical view goes to the root not just because it properly identifies all of the relevant facts, but because it thereby more accurately identifies the kind of interest that the right to strike is supposed to 31 There is no room here to go into the details, but one example is Sweden (Malmberg and Johannson 2014, 525–536). 913 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Shanghai JiaoTong University, on 26 Oct 2018 at 03:53:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000321