ABSTRACT
This chapter analyses how the Hegelian-Marxist historical account of freedom can reveal some important aspects of freedom that are ignored by the negative and positive conceptions of freedom. It focuses on the relationship between work, leisure and selfdevelopment. Whereas the mainstream liberal view considers work as necessarily toil, and equates the domain of freedom with leisure, Marx emphasizes the intrinsic need for work as a component of self-development. The chapter follows Sayers' argument, which establishes that both work and leisure contribute to individual freedom, in different ways. It argues that people have unequal positive freedom in capitalism because of the relations of domination in the realm of production. The chapter evaluates E. M. Wood's argument that emphasizes 'market imperatives' as opposed the liberal focus on 'market opportunities', in comparison with Marx's discussion of alienation as a form of unfreedom that applies to all, both the worker and the capitalist.
