Miller - Blog Post "Fresh 14"

     In Chapter 2 of Private Government, Elizabeth Anderson delves into egalitarianism before and after the Industrial Revolution, especially in relation to the Leveller movement. Anderson describes how the Levellers were committed to egalitarian social movements, but were also proponents of private property and free trade. Today, those two things may seem diametrically opposed, but Anderson explains that the Levellers believed that “support for free trade formed an essential part of a larger program of liberating individuals from interlocking hierarchies of domination and subordination” (8). The egalitarian Levellers opposed monopolies, and believed that free trade would liberate “small artisans from arbitrary private government” and expand opportunities for self-employment (15). Relatedly, Adam Smith believed that “in a fully free market, the commercial and manufacturing sectors would similarly be dominated by small-scale enterprises, run by independent artisans and merchants, with at most a few employees (21).” 

Unfortunately, neither Smith nor the Levellers foresaw the impact of the Industrial Revolution. As Anderson argues, “the Industrial Revolution shattered the egalitarian ideal of universal self-government in the realm of production” because “economies of scale overwhelmed the economy of small proprietors” and widened the gulf between owners and workers (33). Workers became profoundly subordinated to their employers. This calls into question the vision of Smith and the Levellers in a post-Industrial Revolution world, a vision in which freeing up markets would expand self-employment and egalitarianism.

Anderson furthers this analysis by arguing that most modern workplaces have become forms of private governments. She explains that “government is private ...if it can issue orders, backed by sanctions, to that subject in some domain of that subject’s life, and that subject has no say in how that government operates and no standing to demand that their interests be taken into account” (45). With this definition of private government in view, I want to question whether Anderson neglects another prominent form of private government in her analysis: technology companies. Such companies such as Facebook have unparalleled power in today's society, which raise the question of private governance. Such companies can issue orders, such as restrictions on speech, backed up by sanctions, such as suspending one’s account, and users have no say. 

Just as the Industrial Revolution gave rise to new forms of private government (the modern workplace), the Technological Revolution has led to a new form of private government. Technology companies such as Amazon and Facebook are edging nearer to monopoly, and controlling greater aspects of our lives. Amazon is threatening small businesses as it competitively prices them out of the market, a practice that is fundamentally at odds with the vision of free trade and egalitarianism set forth by Smith and the Levellers. And yet, Amazon thrives in the country most lauded for its “free trade” and “capitalism.” 

If we consider tech companies forms of private government, even those who are self-employed are subject to private governments. Just as Anderson explains how employers govern employee Facebook conduct (52), Facebook itself governs what is posted on its site. Anderson also argues that the ability of employees to end their employment at-will does not diminish the fact that the modern workplace is an authoritarian private government. Similarly, the ability of persons to just “get off the internet” does not diminish the private government of tech companies. Anderson’s argument about employers as private governments in the wake of the Industrial Revolution appears valid; nevertheless, I believe that the Technological Revolution had led to a new form of private government which threatens egalitarian visions.