Hijacked: How Neoliberalism Turned the Work Ethic against Workers and How Workers Can Take It Back

by Elizabeth Anderson

What is the work ethic? Does it justify policies that promote the wealth and power of the One Percent at workers' expense? Or does it advance policies that promote workers' dignity and standing? Hijacked explores how the history of political economy has been a contest between these two ideas about whom the work ethic is supposed to serve. Today's neoliberal ideology deploys the work ethic on behalf of the One Percent. However, workers and their advocates have long used the work ethic on behalf of ordinary people. By exposing the ideological roots of contemporary neoliberalism as a perversion of the seventeenth-century Protestant work ethic, Elizabeth Anderson shows how we can reclaim the original goals of the work ethic, and uplift ourselves again. Hijacked persuasively and powerfully demonstrates how ideas inspired by the work ethic informed debates among leading political economists of the past, and how these ideas can help us today.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Economics, History, Audiobook, Labor

388 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 21, 2023

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

Reviews

[Reid Belew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Albeit a bit dense and belabored for a plebeian like me, this is a very impressive book. Anderson knows her shit, that cannot be disputed. She traces the intellectual history of the concept of a “work ethic” all way back to Martin Luther, up through the Puritans and John Locke, Adam Smith, Marx, social democrats and then today. She convincingly shows how this idea of a “work ethic” has been weaponized to cattle prod working class people into making the rich richer.

It’s a good book for us normals, it’s likely a great book for history, philosophy, and economics nerds.

[John C. Duff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Top shelf!

[Grace Brooks · Rating 3 out of 5]

Anderson argues that in the late eighteenth century, classical political economic thinking on the Protestant work ethic was “split” between a progressive version that eventually nurtured social democracy (all work is dignified, and all workers deserve a decent life) and a conservative version that eventually fostered neoliberalism (poor relief is a luxury and not a right, and workers deserve to toil in misery for a primarily idle rentier class). In this respect, neoliberalism amounts to a 21st century version of the Poor Laws. This argument isn’t entirely new, as a similar observation was made by Melinda Cooper in her book Family Values several years ago. However, as someone who is culturally Protestant, I appreciate the attempt to resurrect the pro-labour elements of the Protestant work ethic for the contemporary left.

At times, some of the writing was a little dry, especially the literature review of classical political economy. Perhaps that’s not entirely the author’s own fault, as those Anglo economists were very stodgy. The book came more alive in the second half, particularly the sections on Virginia school neoliberalism.

[J Earl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hijacked: How Neoliberalism Turned the Work Ethic against Workers and How Workers Can Take It Back, by Elizabeth Anderson, is an extremely well-researched and argued look at how what had once (to some) been a positive has been turned into a weapon and thus a negative. Unless, of course, you're either one of the super-rich or one of those brainwashed by them.

I think what makes this such an engrossing read is that a lot of what Anderson highlights isn't so much unknown to us, but we have been raised, for generations now, to view things a certain way, even if it makes little or no sense once we stop and really think about it. I enjoy when a book brings things together in a way that makes them make sense and disrupts the things we have ended up taking at face value from those benefitting from the misunderstanding and misappropriation.

Reading this at the same time as I was reading Taming the Street helped give even more depth to that book, which focused on FDR trying to reign in Wall Street and the capitalism that was destroying the country and most of the citizens. I suspect that being armed with this new perspective will help me, and most other readers, connect the dots between many movements and coalitions that seem to not only work against most citizens but works against even those championing the cause. Once we accepted that there is such a thing as a "work ethic" we then had to figure out for whose benefit it was directed and, along similar lines, how broadly the benefits would be distributed. Unfortunately, a small percentage have diverted whatever good was in the ideal and made themselves the sole beneficiaries of everyone else's hard work, while making us feel guilty or worthless if we aren't putting enough profit into their pockets.

Highly recommended for anyone interested in how we ended up working ourselves to death so a select few can not do any work at all yet reap the benefits. This is also a call to action and, if need be, perhaps a call to consider further action if we can't make society more equitable within these parameters. Whatever means necessary.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.

[Amy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whom and what is the “work ethic” meant to serve? In Hijacked, philosopher Elizabeth Anderson examines how neoliberalism has morally and politically transformed the work ethic, turning what was once a foundation for democratic equality into an ideology that legitimizes inequality and worker subjugation. Anderson traces the historical evolution of the “Protestant work ethic,” which originally emphasized dignity, self-reliance, and civic virtue among workers. Over time, she argues, this ethic was appropriated by capitalist and neoliberal forces that redefined work as a personal moral duty rather than a collective source of empowerment. Neoliberalism, in her view, moralizes economic success and failure—praising the wealthy as virtuous while blaming workers for their precarity. Through a blend of moral philosophy, historical analysis, and political theory, Anderson reveals how this inversion erodes solidarity, weakens labor institutions, and deepens economic inequality. She concludes by proposing a renewal of the democratic work ethic, grounded in worker voice, union power, and economic democracy. Reclaiming the moral meaning of work, Anderson contends, is essential to restoring justice and dignity in contemporary economic structures.

[Mattschratz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a kind of book I am always happy to read: it took an idea that is not necessarily revolutionary (there's something employable to leftist ends in the work ethic), and then really thoroughly historicizes it. Anderson clearly and comprehensively works through a lot of people you (or I, anyway) kind of know--Smith, Malthus, Bentham, Mill, Babeuf, Bernstein--and teases out productively the fine points of their disagreements and intellectual traditions. Good stuff!

[Cipher K. · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent read, though very verbose in terms of vocabulary and density. My real rating would be 4.5 stars, as this is all excellent information for theory, but lacks praxis (or practical application in how exactly workers can take it back). It is an essential read for anyone who cares about workers rights, and ultimately well argued and thought out.

[Sophie · Rating 2 out of 5]

disappointing but not surprising. social democracy, like john locke, is boring. liz loves to work and wants everyone else to love to work, too--she probably does not know any poor people, and it shows.

[Brett · Rating 2 out of 5]

Lots of words. Not much practical advice other than pointing out what happened

[Mr T · Rating 4 out of 5]

V good history, but sometimes the sentences are just direct quotes from the sources sort of spliced together.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

First three chapters are slow. The ending chapters are great.

[Joseph Kreydt · Rating 3 out of 5]

If I could, I'd give this book two ratings: a one star and a five star. The last quarter of it was particularly interesting, when the author calls out much of the exploitation and hypocrisy that is going on in our nation. The first half-ish part of the book was terribly boring, in my opinion, and was too assumptive.

I'm not sure I like the author's solutions, which are largely theoretical and experimental (she even suggests governing in an experimental way), but I think her examples of present injustices need to be heard.

Overall, I'd recommend it to anybody interested in economics or politics or work life.