I taught at the University of Missouri--St. Louis (as a young man), was a postal worker for six years, then taught at Chicago State University for twenty-nine years as an adjunct and eventually Professor of Philosophy. I retired from CSU in 2014 and am currently living in California and doing research and writing at the University of California at Davis. My book Anti-Racism as Communism was published by Bloomsbury.
The Politics and Ethics of Contemporary Work, 2022
Both John Rawls and market socialists believe that workplace democracy is possible within constra... more Both John Rawls and market socialists believe that workplace democracy is possible within constraints imposed by a market economy, but the discipline imposed by markets severely limits the scope of choices; alleged democracy is largely meaningless, and workers soon become passive, leaving profit maximization to the experts. More important, being subject to market discipline tends to reorient our ways of thinking: it can make egalitarianism seem illogical or immoral. Hence it is worth exploring planned economies and the possibilities for workers’ democratic power. I explore Soviet experience offering not a balanced view of it but the most promising precedents for workers democracy; still, the Marxist compromise of socialism instead of communism undermined workers’ power. I conclude by offering tentative suggestions about what proletarian democracy entails.
In The Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels wrote that workers have no country. This chapter defen... more In The Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels wrote that workers have no country. This chapter defends that tendency in Marxist thought. Patriotism is identification with and loyalty to a nation-state. States arise in human pre-history to consolidate and extend exploitation and oppression of laboring classes by a ruling class. Philosophers often write of a “national community,” but class societies in general and capitalist societies in particular are so brutal in their oppression of workers that the language of “community” is nonsense. In capitalist society the state suppresses those who are exploited and oppressed by capitalists and advances capitalists’ aims beyond national borders. So for the working class patriotism is loyalty to the state of those who oppress them, and it makes no sense to be loyal to one’s oppressors.
Both Marx and Engels and Marxists who followed them were ambivalent about national and patriotic loyalties. Lenin argued that workers have an internationalist duty to recognize the right of national self-determination because otherwise they side with oppressing ruling classes against oppressed nationalities. Lenin neglected the possibility of opposing national (and racial) oppression without recognizing a right of national self-determination. This neglect was due to the belief, inherited from Marx and Engels, that nationalist movements could be progressive and help the development toward communist society. However, the history of the twentieth century shows that this is wrong. Nationalism and patriotism undermine the struggle for classless society.
RESEARCH ARTICLES
J. Angelo Corlett, Are Women Beach Volleyballers ‘Too Sexy for Their Shorts?’
A... more RESEARCH ARTICLES J. Angelo Corlett, Are Women Beach Volleyballers ‘Too Sexy for Their Shorts?’ Arnold Cusmariu, The Prometheus Challenge Paul Gomberg, Workers without Rights Erick Jose Ramirez, A Conditional Defense of Shame and Shame Punishment Bianca-Alexandra Savu, Grounds and Structural Realism: A Possible Metaphysical Framework Mark David Webster, Questioning Technological Determinism through Empirical Research DISCUSSION NOTES/DEBATE Fred Adams and Charlotte Shreve, Reply to Gennaro
In the United States the Civil Rights Movement emerging after World War II ended Jim Crow racism,... more In the United States the Civil Rights Movement emerging after World War II ended Jim Crow racism, with its legal segregation and stigmatization of black people. Yet black people, both in chattel slavery and under Jim Crow, had provided abundant labor subject to racist terror; they were workers who could be recruited for work others were unwilling to do. What was to replace this labor, which had been the source of so much wealth and power? Three federal initiatives helped to create new workers without rights: the welfare reform law of 1996 and the changes in immigration and crime law and policy both starting in the mid-1960s. These changes recreated vulnerable labor, disproportionately marked and stigmatized as black or Mexican. These workers create a central strength of U.S. imperialism: cheap food. Because workers without rights have an important function in a capitalist economy, a society where all workers can flourish is not capitalist but communist.
Distributive justice in a narrow sense--justice in the distribution of income and wealth--is impo... more Distributive justice in a narrow sense--justice in the distribution of income and wealth--is impossible. Either these are distributed unequally or equally. If unequally, then unjust harms ensue for those with less. Equal distribution is impossible because it undermines the instrumental value of money as a means to good things. The criticism of distributive justice in this sense is also implicitly a criticism of Marx's defense of socialism (what he called "the first phase of communist society" retaining money, wages, and inequality) as a transition to full communism. I argue that there is no logical basis why this transition should occur; hence it never has occurred and never will. Contributive justice is a moneyless communist society organized so that each has opportunity and social encouragement to develop her abilities and contribute these back to society, thus earning esteem from herself and others.
" John Rawls assumes that the class position of one’s birth profoundly affects one’s life prospec... more " John Rawls assumes that the class position of one’s birth profoundly affects one’s life prospects. Surprisingly, this assumption is consistent with Rawls’s repeated statements that fair equality of opportunity insures to each roughly equal chances of education and culture for those similarly endowed and motivated regardless of one’s class of origin; they are consistent because Rawls believes that one’s class of origin affects motivation to develop one’s native endowments.
Rawlsian equal opportunity assumes that we are importantly different in our native endowments, that a tolerably efficient society must organize social positions into those requiring greater and lesser native endowments, and perhaps that native potential is distributed in ways that approximate this division of social positions. These three assumptions I call “the meritocrat’s dream,” but there is little reason to think the meritocrat’s dream is true. In addition, Rawls believes that class of origin affects motivation and that those with scarce talents require an extra incentive to contribute them. These assumptions are also very questionable.
Many may believe that, with truly equal opportunity, class of origin would not affect a person’s prospects. I investigate a more egalitarian conception of opportunity within a broadly Rawlsian framework and argue that stronger equality of opportunity seems to threaten both the first principle of justice and the difference principle. I suggest that we need to rethink justice, moving toward a contributive conception of justice.
"
Peter Singer, Peter Unger, and others believe that the drowning child example or other cases of r... more Peter Singer, Peter Unger, and others believe that the drowning child example or other cases of rescue imply a duty to aid the victims of absolute poverty. I argue, to the contrary, that duties of rescue are non-utilitarian. Global poverty and hunger raise different issues, ones of causation and effective remedy that are absent in duties of rescue. The assimilation of our response to absolute poverty to duties of rescue is the fallacy of philanthropy, implying that we should aid victims of poverty as we would aid someone in need of rescue. Thus the fallacy of philanthropy leads us to ignore the social institutions that cause poverty, letting capitalism, markets, and capitalist states off the hook. Rejecting the fallacy of philanthropy opens the door to arguing for revolutionary remedies to poverty and hunger.
Universalism is usually defended, if it is defended at all, by arguing that ethical egoism, the n... more Universalism is usually defended, if it is defended at all, by arguing that ethical egoism, the narrowest scope of moral concern, is untenable. People usually ignore parochial moralities, whose scope of concern is a limited community, perhaps an ethnic group or nation, but not all of humanity. Parochial moralities are a more plausible alternative to universalism than is egoism. Universalism arose in modern Europe with optimism about the prospects of a human moral community or with reasonable hope for just relations between states and world peace. Contemporary universalism has abandoned these optimistic or hopeful view of history and tried to defend universalism by way of abstract philosophical argument. However, these arguments don't work. If universalism is to be defended is must be grounded in a conception of human history.
Early consequentialists such as Jeremy Bentham were optimistic about the workings of capitalism a... more Early consequentialists such as Jeremy Bentham were optimistic about the workings of capitalism and hence did not see a major problem of reconciling consequentialism with pursuit of the agent's good (pursuing one's own good benefited the community through the workings of markets, as Adam Smith argued). The problem of there being a conflict between pursuit of the agent's good and consequentialist concern with the good of all arises as optimism about the beneficent working of capitalism markets fades in the philosophy of Henry Sidgwick. Consequentialism seems most tenable when conjoined with optimistic views of history and of what the agent can contribute to a better future through her own efforts.
The Politics and Ethics of Contemporary Work, 2022
Both John Rawls and market socialists believe that workplace democracy is possible within constra... more Both John Rawls and market socialists believe that workplace democracy is possible within constraints imposed by a market economy, but the discipline imposed by markets severely limits the scope of choices; alleged democracy is largely meaningless, and workers soon become passive, leaving profit maximization to the experts. More important, being subject to market discipline tends to reorient our ways of thinking: it can make egalitarianism seem illogical or immoral. Hence it is worth exploring planned economies and the possibilities for workers’ democratic power. I explore Soviet experience offering not a balanced view of it but the most promising precedents for workers democracy; still, the Marxist compromise of socialism instead of communism undermined workers’ power. I conclude by offering tentative suggestions about what proletarian democracy entails.
In The Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels wrote that workers have no country. This chapter defen... more In The Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels wrote that workers have no country. This chapter defends that tendency in Marxist thought. Patriotism is identification with and loyalty to a nation-state. States arise in human pre-history to consolidate and extend exploitation and oppression of laboring classes by a ruling class. Philosophers often write of a “national community,” but class societies in general and capitalist societies in particular are so brutal in their oppression of workers that the language of “community” is nonsense. In capitalist society the state suppresses those who are exploited and oppressed by capitalists and advances capitalists’ aims beyond national borders. So for the working class patriotism is loyalty to the state of those who oppress them, and it makes no sense to be loyal to one’s oppressors.
Both Marx and Engels and Marxists who followed them were ambivalent about national and patriotic loyalties. Lenin argued that workers have an internationalist duty to recognize the right of national self-determination because otherwise they side with oppressing ruling classes against oppressed nationalities. Lenin neglected the possibility of opposing national (and racial) oppression without recognizing a right of national self-determination. This neglect was due to the belief, inherited from Marx and Engels, that nationalist movements could be progressive and help the development toward communist society. However, the history of the twentieth century shows that this is wrong. Nationalism and patriotism undermine the struggle for classless society.
RESEARCH ARTICLES
J. Angelo Corlett, Are Women Beach Volleyballers ‘Too Sexy for Their Shorts?’
A... more RESEARCH ARTICLES J. Angelo Corlett, Are Women Beach Volleyballers ‘Too Sexy for Their Shorts?’ Arnold Cusmariu, The Prometheus Challenge Paul Gomberg, Workers without Rights Erick Jose Ramirez, A Conditional Defense of Shame and Shame Punishment Bianca-Alexandra Savu, Grounds and Structural Realism: A Possible Metaphysical Framework Mark David Webster, Questioning Technological Determinism through Empirical Research DISCUSSION NOTES/DEBATE Fred Adams and Charlotte Shreve, Reply to Gennaro
In the United States the Civil Rights Movement emerging after World War II ended Jim Crow racism,... more In the United States the Civil Rights Movement emerging after World War II ended Jim Crow racism, with its legal segregation and stigmatization of black people. Yet black people, both in chattel slavery and under Jim Crow, had provided abundant labor subject to racist terror; they were workers who could be recruited for work others were unwilling to do. What was to replace this labor, which had been the source of so much wealth and power? Three federal initiatives helped to create new workers without rights: the welfare reform law of 1996 and the changes in immigration and crime law and policy both starting in the mid-1960s. These changes recreated vulnerable labor, disproportionately marked and stigmatized as black or Mexican. These workers create a central strength of U.S. imperialism: cheap food. Because workers without rights have an important function in a capitalist economy, a society where all workers can flourish is not capitalist but communist.
Distributive justice in a narrow sense--justice in the distribution of income and wealth--is impo... more Distributive justice in a narrow sense--justice in the distribution of income and wealth--is impossible. Either these are distributed unequally or equally. If unequally, then unjust harms ensue for those with less. Equal distribution is impossible because it undermines the instrumental value of money as a means to good things. The criticism of distributive justice in this sense is also implicitly a criticism of Marx's defense of socialism (what he called "the first phase of communist society" retaining money, wages, and inequality) as a transition to full communism. I argue that there is no logical basis why this transition should occur; hence it never has occurred and never will. Contributive justice is a moneyless communist society organized so that each has opportunity and social encouragement to develop her abilities and contribute these back to society, thus earning esteem from herself and others.
" John Rawls assumes that the class position of one’s birth profoundly affects one’s life prospec... more " John Rawls assumes that the class position of one’s birth profoundly affects one’s life prospects. Surprisingly, this assumption is consistent with Rawls’s repeated statements that fair equality of opportunity insures to each roughly equal chances of education and culture for those similarly endowed and motivated regardless of one’s class of origin; they are consistent because Rawls believes that one’s class of origin affects motivation to develop one’s native endowments.
Rawlsian equal opportunity assumes that we are importantly different in our native endowments, that a tolerably efficient society must organize social positions into those requiring greater and lesser native endowments, and perhaps that native potential is distributed in ways that approximate this division of social positions. These three assumptions I call “the meritocrat’s dream,” but there is little reason to think the meritocrat’s dream is true. In addition, Rawls believes that class of origin affects motivation and that those with scarce talents require an extra incentive to contribute them. These assumptions are also very questionable.
Many may believe that, with truly equal opportunity, class of origin would not affect a person’s prospects. I investigate a more egalitarian conception of opportunity within a broadly Rawlsian framework and argue that stronger equality of opportunity seems to threaten both the first principle of justice and the difference principle. I suggest that we need to rethink justice, moving toward a contributive conception of justice.
"
Peter Singer, Peter Unger, and others believe that the drowning child example or other cases of r... more Peter Singer, Peter Unger, and others believe that the drowning child example or other cases of rescue imply a duty to aid the victims of absolute poverty. I argue, to the contrary, that duties of rescue are non-utilitarian. Global poverty and hunger raise different issues, ones of causation and effective remedy that are absent in duties of rescue. The assimilation of our response to absolute poverty to duties of rescue is the fallacy of philanthropy, implying that we should aid victims of poverty as we would aid someone in need of rescue. Thus the fallacy of philanthropy leads us to ignore the social institutions that cause poverty, letting capitalism, markets, and capitalist states off the hook. Rejecting the fallacy of philanthropy opens the door to arguing for revolutionary remedies to poverty and hunger.
Universalism is usually defended, if it is defended at all, by arguing that ethical egoism, the n... more Universalism is usually defended, if it is defended at all, by arguing that ethical egoism, the narrowest scope of moral concern, is untenable. People usually ignore parochial moralities, whose scope of concern is a limited community, perhaps an ethnic group or nation, but not all of humanity. Parochial moralities are a more plausible alternative to universalism than is egoism. Universalism arose in modern Europe with optimism about the prospects of a human moral community or with reasonable hope for just relations between states and world peace. Contemporary universalism has abandoned these optimistic or hopeful view of history and tried to defend universalism by way of abstract philosophical argument. However, these arguments don't work. If universalism is to be defended is must be grounded in a conception of human history.
Early consequentialists such as Jeremy Bentham were optimistic about the workings of capitalism a... more Early consequentialists such as Jeremy Bentham were optimistic about the workings of capitalism and hence did not see a major problem of reconciling consequentialism with pursuit of the agent's good (pursuing one's own good benefited the community through the workings of markets, as Adam Smith argued). The problem of there being a conflict between pursuit of the agent's good and consequentialist concern with the good of all arises as optimism about the beneficent working of capitalism markets fades in the philosophy of Henry Sidgwick. Consequentialism seems most tenable when conjoined with optimistic views of history and of what the agent can contribute to a better future through her own efforts.
Most of us tend to think of racial injustice as an interracial phenomenon, as an injustice to som... more Most of us tend to think of racial injustice as an interracial phenomenon, as an injustice to someone of one race by someone of another race. Alternatively, we could conceive of racial injustice as an injustice to someone caused (in part) by how that person is perceived racially. I argue for the second view against Elizabeth Anderson, Charles Mills, Joe Feagin, and others.
This is not work in progress but a paper last worked on about 1996. It argues that group identiti... more This is not work in progress but a paper last worked on about 1996. It argues that group identities implicate norms of conduct for group members. Therefore, members of different groups will often adhere to conflicting norms, and adherence to these norms can be central to the interest of the socially constructed self. Gregory Kavka's reconciliation project tries to show that morality and self-interest can be reconciled. However, because self-interest can require members of different groups to adhere to conflicting norms, the project cannot succeed. The solution is to dissolve the relevant group identities.
Racial identities can contribute to racial subordination of black people. The paper considers an... more Racial identities can contribute to racial subordination of black people. The paper considers an incident where a black man was victimized by a racist beating. However, the person who beat him, part of campus security, and the university administration that sought to protect the beater were also racially identified as black. It seems that acceptance of racial identities made it harder to recognize the beating as racist and muted protest of the beating. The paper's argument is then broadened to consider how embrace of racial identities affected the development of the Civil Rights Movement, particularly the Congress on Racial Equality.
Uploads
Papers by Paul Gomberg
Both Marx and Engels and Marxists who followed them were ambivalent about national and patriotic loyalties. Lenin argued that workers have an internationalist duty to recognize the right of national self-determination because otherwise they side with oppressing ruling classes against oppressed nationalities. Lenin neglected the possibility of opposing national (and racial) oppression without recognizing a right of national self-determination. This neglect was due to the belief, inherited from Marx and Engels, that nationalist movements could be progressive and help the development toward communist society. However, the history of the twentieth century shows that this is wrong. Nationalism and patriotism undermine the struggle for classless society.
J. Angelo Corlett, Are Women Beach Volleyballers ‘Too Sexy for Their Shorts?’
Arnold Cusmariu, The Prometheus Challenge
Paul Gomberg, Workers without Rights
Erick Jose Ramirez, A Conditional Defense of Shame and Shame Punishment
Bianca-Alexandra Savu, Grounds and Structural Realism: A Possible Metaphysical Framework
Mark David Webster, Questioning Technological Determinism through Empirical Research
DISCUSSION NOTES/DEBATE
Fred Adams and Charlotte Shreve, Reply to Gennaro
Rawlsian equal opportunity assumes that we are importantly different in our native endowments, that a tolerably efficient society must organize social positions into those requiring greater and lesser native endowments, and perhaps that native potential is distributed in ways that approximate this division of social positions. These three assumptions I call “the meritocrat’s dream,” but there is little reason to think the meritocrat’s dream is true. In addition, Rawls believes that class of origin affects motivation and that those with scarce talents require an extra incentive to contribute them. These assumptions are also very questionable.
Many may believe that, with truly equal opportunity, class of origin would not affect a person’s prospects. I investigate a more egalitarian conception of opportunity within a broadly Rawlsian framework and argue that stronger equality of opportunity seems to threaten both the first principle of justice and the difference principle. I suggest that we need to rethink justice, moving toward a contributive conception of justice.
"
Both Marx and Engels and Marxists who followed them were ambivalent about national and patriotic loyalties. Lenin argued that workers have an internationalist duty to recognize the right of national self-determination because otherwise they side with oppressing ruling classes against oppressed nationalities. Lenin neglected the possibility of opposing national (and racial) oppression without recognizing a right of national self-determination. This neglect was due to the belief, inherited from Marx and Engels, that nationalist movements could be progressive and help the development toward communist society. However, the history of the twentieth century shows that this is wrong. Nationalism and patriotism undermine the struggle for classless society.
J. Angelo Corlett, Are Women Beach Volleyballers ‘Too Sexy for Their Shorts?’
Arnold Cusmariu, The Prometheus Challenge
Paul Gomberg, Workers without Rights
Erick Jose Ramirez, A Conditional Defense of Shame and Shame Punishment
Bianca-Alexandra Savu, Grounds and Structural Realism: A Possible Metaphysical Framework
Mark David Webster, Questioning Technological Determinism through Empirical Research
DISCUSSION NOTES/DEBATE
Fred Adams and Charlotte Shreve, Reply to Gennaro
Rawlsian equal opportunity assumes that we are importantly different in our native endowments, that a tolerably efficient society must organize social positions into those requiring greater and lesser native endowments, and perhaps that native potential is distributed in ways that approximate this division of social positions. These three assumptions I call “the meritocrat’s dream,” but there is little reason to think the meritocrat’s dream is true. In addition, Rawls believes that class of origin affects motivation and that those with scarce talents require an extra incentive to contribute them. These assumptions are also very questionable.
Many may believe that, with truly equal opportunity, class of origin would not affect a person’s prospects. I investigate a more egalitarian conception of opportunity within a broadly Rawlsian framework and argue that stronger equality of opportunity seems to threaten both the first principle of justice and the difference principle. I suggest that we need to rethink justice, moving toward a contributive conception of justice.
"