Socialist Principles of Appropriative Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the last quarter of the twentieth century, many analytical Marxists contributed to the revival of the debate concerning the relationship between Marxism and morality. One such attempt made by Ziyad Husami (1978) was to derive a ‘socialist principle of justice’ from Marx’s “Critique of the Gotha Programme”. For Husami this ‘socialist principle of justice’ takes the form of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution”. From this principle Husami derives the conclusion that capitalist exploitation is unjust because the workers do not appropriate the surplus value they create during the production process. In this paper I will argue that what really makes capitalist exploitation unjust is not that workers do not appropriate the surplus product but rather that they do not appropriate the total product of their labor. Following Ellerman and Burczak, I develop this insight further to conclude that socializing the means of production and abolishing private property are not necessary eliminate capitalist exploitation. Furthermore, I want to argue that this notion of appropriative justice can be grounded in a Kantian framework but ultimately that a Hegelian framework should be preferred as it is more faithful to Marx’s philosophical worldview.
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 | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".