In section I of this paper I present the interpretation of exploitation as a criticism for socialists in nineteenth century. Indeed the phenomenal surface of the market mechanism, as socialists of those days thought ingenuously, may obey the law of equivalent exchange in correspondence with commutative justice, but the existence of exploitation in the essential depth of production sphere indicates that there exists unfairness in capitalism according to distributive justice concerns. There is no description, reading Capital constatively, of exploitation as social injustice, but performativly Marx's literary style leads us to normative judgment that exploitation in capitalism is against distributive justice. Section II places the modern egalitarian theories of distributive justice proposed by Dworkin, Cohen and Roemer. Dworkin distinguished between preferences and resources of individuals. He suggested that the resources should be equalized but the differences as a consequence of different preferences should not be equalized, because people should be hold responsible for their preferences but not for the resources. Cohen and Roemer are relocating Dworkins cut. They propose that the right cut is between responsibility and bad luck, not between preferences and resources. Egalitarianism insists that people exercise their responsibility and bear the consequences of such exercise, but also advocates equality over the non-responsible outcomes across the agent. Proletariat, viewed from this perspective of egalitarian ethics, should never be held responsible for being proletariat, because they became free laborer in the double sense not from their own initiative but from the stress of circumstances. More generally, we, human beings, may not hold ourselves responsible for being us, because we did not choose to be born. Therefore we can claim the right or compensation to the equal access to the advantages in economic spheres, especially property rights in the means of production from which workers were separated. In the last section this paper investigates the relation between property rights and alternative societies. To have a property is to have a bundle of rights in the sense of an enforceable claim to some use, disposal or benefit of something. One of the aims of alternative societies is the unbundling such a bundle of property rights. Two examples are enumerated in illustration of alternatives; basic income and market socialism. Firstly, basic income is universal income paid by a government, at a uniform level and at regular intervals, to each adult member of society. By increasing the capacity of workers to refuse employment, basic income generates a much more egalitarian distribution than ordinary capitalism with little choice to work for wages. This proposal is interpreted as indirect unbundling property rights of labor power. Secondly, Roemer proposes coupon socialism for distributing ownership equally which relies on a stock market. Coupons, which are given to each adult member of society, are used in only one market for shares of corporations. The ownership of shares, then, gives people the usual rights of share owning in a capitalist economy. The exclusion of direct producers from ownership of the means of production has been largely overcome through this proposal. We can, therefore, conclude the sine qua non of alternative societies is deconstruction of property rights.
抄録全体を表示