I found it very interesting that in his first chapter, Sen brings up Marx to support markets as means to achieve freedom. Based on our reading of Marx, it seems to me that Sen deliberately stopped short of explaining Marx's full theory, which would argue for the abolition of capitalism overall. Sen begins his discussion of markets and freedoms by distinguishing between two types of questions. First, Sen claims that "a denial of opportunities of transaction, through arbitrary controls, can be a source of unfreedom in itself." (25) This point concerns the intrinsic value of the value of exchange and transaction. The second argument is a consequentialist one, that markets are justifiable based on the favorable consequences they produce. Sen asks the reader to envision two societies, one with free markets, and one with a centrally controlled economies, that produce the exact same economic result. Sen claims that we still should value the free market more because the very exercise of freedom of choice is important in and of itself. To illustrate the importance of economic freedom intrinsically, Sen rings up the example of slavery. In many cases, 'commodity baskets of consumption' of slaves were similar to he incomes of free-laborers. (28) Additionally, the slaves had similar life expectancies as well, even longer than many urbanized and industrialized free workers. Yet, it can hardly be argued that slavery served the interests of those enslaved simply because their 'income' and life expectancies were similar to free workers. This, in his opinion, demonstrates the importance of freedom in markets distinct from the consequences that markets produce. Sen then mentions that Marx lauded the American Civil War for bringing about market-based freedom. Marx stated, "the freedom of workers to change employers makes him free in a way not found in earlier modes of production."(29) However, wouldn't Marx also argue that the capitalist worker is not truly free either?
It seems that Sen stops a step short in Marx's analysis, avoiding his critique of the alienation of the worker that is inevitable in a system that sets up an inherently oppressive division of labor like a capitalist one. Did anyone else see this as an issue with Sen's argument for markets? I think even though Marx admits that capitalist workers are more free than slaves, but are still far from what he would consider real freedom. Would Sen need to abandon markets entirely to try to achieve the type of real freedom that Marx discusses? I think that in his reliance on the intrinsic value of markets, Sen's argument is very practical but still morally limited in many ways.
It seems that Sen stops a step short in Marx's analysis, avoiding his critique of the alienation of the worker that is inevitable in a system that sets up an inherently oppressive division of labor like a capitalist one. Did anyone else see this as an issue with Sen's argument for markets? I think even though Marx admits that capitalist workers are more free than slaves, but are still far from what he would consider real freedom. Would Sen need to abandon markets entirely to try to achieve the type of real freedom that Marx discusses? I think that in his reliance on the intrinsic value of markets, Sen's argument is very practical but still morally limited in many ways.
Hey Devon! I agree with you that Sen cherry-picks from Marx without adequately expounding on the context, yet I disagree that it is an issue for Sen's argument in favor of markets. As you mention, Marx's conception of true human emancipation includes far more than just the ability to participate in markets. Emancipation, in Marx's view, involves a level of freedom unachievable with the presence of religion or capitalist divisions of labor. Sen appears not to subscribe to Marx's conception of absolute freedom, perhaps because such idealized goals aren't feasible or, more critically, because his proposals don't necessitate such a conception. In Sen's eyes, as long as our end is to further human freedoms, we are on the right track. If it turns out that capitalism and regulated markets are not the path to maximized freedom—an assertion Sen would likely refute—then we ought to pursue an alternative.
ReplyDeleteWe would necessitate a complex cost-benefit analysis to realistically speculate on whether alienation within the capitalist system limits freedom more than the next best alternative. The fact that Sen proposes a non-idealistic, incremental approach to development is a strength in my eyes. Where Marx's long-term predictions appear far-fetched, Sen pushes for substantive reform without worrying about some final, utopian stage of development.