Notes on Ball & Dagger reader
Michael Walzer (1978)
Selections from "Town Meetings and Workers' Control"

Michael Walzer (1935-)

Michael Walzer is an internationally recognized and respected authority on ethics and the use of military force. His Just and Unjust Wars, now in its third edition, is perhaps the most widely used and cited text in the field; it has been translated into Hebrew, Spanish, Italian, German, and French. Professor Walzer's interests range well beyond those of war and peace. He has published 20 books on a wide variety of topics in political theory and moral philosophy, including political obligation, nationalism and ethnicity, and economic justice and the welfare state. He has been a Permanent Faculty Member at the Institute for Advanced Study since 1980. Earlier in his career, he taught at Princeton University and Harvard University. A graduate of Brandeis University, he had a Fulbright Fellowship at Cambridge University, and he holds a Ph.D. from Harvard.

[Source:  United States Naval Academy web site <http://www.usna.edu/Ethics/Programs/Lectureseries/Walzer.htm>, updated Oct 21, 2003 (but of a lecture delivered November 18, 2002), downloaded November 5, 2003]

Walzer's thesis

The question raised by Walzer's essay is a simple one:  is the control of large business enterprises different from the control of the citizens over a political community?  His parable of "J-town" is intended to show that the two are not fundamentally different — that because large enterprises affect many people, they should be controlled by those whose lives it touches, starting with its workers.

LECTURE NOTES

Walzer is a socialist in that he does not accept a sphere of autonomous individual action, at least where that action affects others in the community.

What is the question Walzer is trying to answer?  [Is the control of large business enterprises different from the control of the citizens over a political community, at least so different that it's o.k. to have business enterprises controlled dictatorially?]

What is Walzer's conclusion?  [No.]

What is his primary reason for saying so?  [He goes back to what he considers the basic democratic principle that "what touches all should be decided by all".]

Walzer lists five supposed differences between the economic and political spheres.  What are those differences, and how does he argue that they are not relevant?

1. Economic enterprises are different "because of the entrepreneurial vision, energy, inventiveness, and so on, that go into the making of the company" (58B).  [Response:  Founders of communities have that same vision, energy, etc., and though they may be honored, they are not thereby accepted as dictators.]  [HOWEVER:  "original intent" is sometimes given as a reason we should do things (e.g., constitutional interpretation) a certain way.  Is this a legitimate reason to sustain the way economic enterprises are governed?]
2. Economic enterprises are different "because of the economic investment of capital" (59A).  [Response:  Investment may command a monetary return, but it does not command obedience.  Walzer uses the analogous case of municipal bonds:  the only promise of the municipality is a return on investment, not on the governance of the municipality.]
3. Economic enterprises are different "because men and women join a company voluntarily, with full knowledge of the structure of authority" ( 59A).  [Response:  If the governance is unjust in some fundamental way, then my settling somewhere does not imply my agreement to the system.  (This is an "inalienable rights" argument.  Even if I say I'm giving away a right, I can't really be held to that— I can take it back whenever I want.)  Also, this "love it or leave it" argument seems wrong.  Everyone has to live somewhere.
4. Economic enterprises are different because the maxim, "What touches all should be decided by all", only applies to residential communities (59B).  [Response:  Why?  This is not a real argument, because all it says is, "It's different" without explaining why the difference is a significant one.  Nevertheless, Walzer takes it seriously on its own terms by turning it around and asking what it would mean for citizens to bargain collectively with the owners of their community, concluding that this system seems pretty bizarre.]
5. In political communities the people are self-governing, that is, their governance affects primarily only themselves, while an economic enterprise affects not just the workers — the "citizens" of the enterprise — but also a large number of others.  [Response:  Perhaps so, but this only means that we may have to regulate enterprises in a different way from political communities to take account of these differences;  the differences do not in themselves justify a dictatorship of the owner(s).  Walzer goes on to note that there are a variety of mechanisms to be tried;  he isn't advocating for one specific form of worker control.]

Does this mean that Walzer does not appreciate the people who start great enterprises?  No;  he is simply distinguishing between their role as founders and that of owners.

Question:  Are there other justifications Walzer should consider?  How might Walzer reply to them in "J-town" (or other) terms?

Question:  Do you believe any of the justifications that Walzer argues against?  Explain why, despite his reply, you continue to believe it.  (In other words, explain why you believe his rebuttal is wrong.)

Question:  What control do owners of businesses have a right to have over their employees?  Can they forbid them to smoke or drink, even if it does not directly affect their work performance?  Can they place limits on their weight?

Quiz question:  What is Walzer trying to prove in his essay, overall?  Answer:  The control of large business enterprises is not fundamentally different from the control of a political community.

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.
Copyright © 2003-5 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.