About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


47 Am. J. Pol. Sci. 1 (2003)

handle is hein.journals/amjorpolisci47 and id is 1 raw text is: Thomas Jefferson's Liberal Anticapitalism Claudio J. KatZ Loyola University Chicago This article reassesses Thomas Jefferson's political economy in light of debates about the influence of liberal and republican ideas on his thought. I argue thatJefferson embraced liberal premises, but used them to reach anticapitalist conclusions. He opposed neither commerce nor theprosperity itpromised; he opposed workingfor a wage, and he did so on liberalgrounds. Thefirstsection ofthis articleshows thatJohn Locke's theory ofproperty turns on thejustification ofcapitalist labor relations. The second section establishes, first, that Locke's argumentplayed a decisive role in the development ofJefferson's own and, second, that Jefferson redefined its terms to fashion a forceful critique of wage labor. An examination ofJefferson's writings elucidates a neglected variant of the liberal tradition, prevalent in the United States until the Populist agitation. Its core is the stigma attached to workingfor hire as a diminishedform of liberty, tantamount to wage slavery. nderlying recent debates about the lineage of Thomas Jefferson'spoliticaltheoryisthepremise that liberalism is uniquely associated with cap- italism. Republican interpretations stress that only a civic humanist or communitarian inheritance can ex- plain Jefferson's aversion, widely shared by his contem- poraries, toward uninhibited private gain (Gibson 2000, 274, 293-97; Yarbrough 1998, 1-26, 55-152; Sheldon 1991, 57-58, 146; Banning 1986, 12-17; Matthews 1984, 119-26; McCoy 1980, 67-85, 120-135, 152-78, 236-52; Wood 1969, 413-29). Challenging this reading, students of Jefferson's work cite his repeated endorsements of a dynamic, prosperous economy as evidence of the lib- eral provenance of his thought (Dienstag 1996a, 1996b; Zuckert 1996, 79-81, 212-19; Appleby 1992, 253-76, 291- 319; Appleby 1984). For the founders' generation, con- tends Appleby (1984, 22-23, 104), capitalism represented an emancipatory promise, providing ordinary household- ers with the material resources to gain real control over their lives. Jefferson was unaware of capitalism's charac- teristic vices, the unrestrained acquisitiveness and class inequalities that became apparent over the course of the nineteenth century (Appleby 1992, 337-38; Kloppenberg 1987, 28-29). In reinstating the predominance of his lib- eralvision, however, scholars have ignored the evidence of Jefferson's profound hostility to capitalist accumulation.1 Can Jefferson's liberal sympathies be reconciled with his antipathy to unlimited appropriation? In this article, I argue that Jefferson reinterpreted Locke's theory of property to reach anticapitalist con- clusions. Locating Jefferson's thought in its Lockean ma- trix reveals a central dimension of his reservations about capitalist development. Accounts of his profound debt to Locke overlook the fact that it does not encompass Locke's defense of the wage relationship (see, e.g., Dienstag 1996a, 1996b; Zuckert 1996). On the contrary, Jefferson's con- ception of property precludes capitalist labor arrange- ments. One of his principal aims is to protect self-directed work. Accordingly, he amends the property right to pro- scribe economic relations that require some individuals to work under the direction of others. Jefferson's op- position to hired labor is equally important in explain- ing his approach to markets. Producing goods for profit is morally defensible: proprietors secured a comfortable Claudio J. Katz is Professor of Political Science, Loyola University Chicago, 6525 North Sheridan Road, Chicago, IL 60626-5385 (ckatz@luc.edu). I wish to thank the reviewers of the AJPS for helping to sharpen my argument. 1See, e.g., Jefferson's strictures upon the barren and useless investments in paper speculation (TJ to George Washington [May23, 1792] 1984, 986); the manufacturers of the great cities in the old countries.... with whom the want of food and clothing necessary to sustain life, has begotten a depravity of morals, a dependence and corruption, which renders them an undesirable accession to a country whose morals are sound (TJ to Mr. Lithson [Jan. 4, 1805] 1903, 11: 55); the happiness of scientific England, where economic growth rests on the pauperism of the lowest class, the abject oppression of the laboring, and the luxury, the riot, the domination and the vicious happiness of the aristocracy (TJ to Dr. Thomas Cooper [Sept. 10, 1814] 1999, 137-8); the wars for commerce to abet the avidity and commercial speculations of a a few millinary merchants (TJ to William Crawford [June 20, 1816] 1903, 15: 29). This evidence belies attempts to present Jefferson as an advocate of capitalist development (see Pangle 1988, 98-100, 299-300, n. 8). American Journal ofPolitical Science, Vol. 47, No. 1, January 2003, Pp. 1-17 02003 by the Midwest Political Science Association ISSN 0092-5853 1