Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Labour republicanism’ harnesses the ideal of freedom as nondomination to explain and challenge the injustices marring current workplace relations. Central to its challenge is a call for institutionalizing worker voice, with some also calling for workplace democratization and reorganizing capitalist enterprises along cooperative lines. Labour republicanism, in turn, has been criticized, most notably by the ‘commercial republican’ Robert S. Taylor. Taylor contends that contrary to its intentions, labour republicanism, or, more particularly, ‘radical labour republicanism’, would perpetuate domination by undermining freedom of occupational choice; enabling tyrannical workplace majority rule; concentrating too much power in state agents; and encouraging revolutionary violence and violent reaction from capitalist interests. To counter workplace domination, we should not institutionalize worker voice, but instead augment workers’ exit options through instituting a market-friendly property-owning democracy. This paper argues that Taylor errs in his claims against radical labour republicanism on account of distorting its implications for occupational choice and obscuring how freedom-as-nondomination preserving principles are built into its conception of democratic workplaces and the cooperative economy. He also errs in thinking property-owning democracy would not itself be vulnerable to violent reaction from capitalist interests.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".