Elizabeth Anderson – Private Government: Book Review & Audio Summary

Book Info

• Book name: Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don’t Talk About It)
• Author: Elizabeth Anderson
• Genre: Social Sciences & Humanities (Philosophy, Sociology), Business & Economics
• Published Year: 2017
• Publisher: Princeton University Press
• Language: English

Audio Summary

Synopsis

In this provocative work, philosopher Elizabeth Anderson challenges our rosy assumptions about free market capitalism by revealing an uncomfortable truth: most of us spend our working hours under authoritarian rule. Drawing on political philosophy and labor history, Anderson argues that modern employers wield dictatorial powers over workers’ lives—surveilling, commanding, and controlling them in ways we’d find unacceptable in government. Yet we rarely discuss this “private government” or question why we’ve surrendered so much freedom at the workplace door. This eye-opening book forces us to reckon with the gap between capitalism’s promises of freedom and the reality of workplace tyranny.

Key Takeaways

• Modern workplaces function as authoritarian governments where workers have minimal democratic rights or freedoms
• Employers exercise extensive control over employees through surveillance, commands, and the threat of termination
• The “free market” narrative obscures the deeply unequal power dynamics between employers and workers
• We need to expand our political vocabulary to recognize and address workplace authoritarianism
• The historical shift from independent work to employment has fundamentally altered our relationship with freedom

My Summary

The Uncomfortable Truth About Your Workplace

I’ll be honest—when I first picked up Elizabeth Anderson’s Private Government, I expected another dry academic critique of capitalism. What I got instead was something far more unsettling: a mirror held up to my own work experiences that made me question assumptions I’d held for decades.

Anderson, a distinguished philosopher at the University of Michigan, starts with a thought experiment that’s brilliantly simple. Imagine a government where an unelected dictator sits at the top of a pyramid, issuing commands through a hierarchy of superiors to masses of inferiors who must obey without question. Sounds like totalitarianism, right? Now replace “dictator” with “CEO,” “superiors” with “managers,” and “inferiors” with “employees.” Suddenly, you’re describing the average American workplace.

This comparison isn’t just provocative—it’s uncomfortably accurate. And it raises a question that kept me up at night: How did we come to accept as normal in our economic lives what we’d find absolutely unacceptable in our political lives?

From Independence to Dependence: The Historical Shift

Anderson begins by reminding us that employment as we know it is a relatively recent phenomenon. For most of human history, people supported themselves through small-scale farming, artisan crafts, or family businesses. You might have been poor, but you were your own boss.

The rise of capitalism in the 17th century changed everything. As traditional ways of making a living disappeared, more and more people found themselves with only one option: get a job. This wasn’t just an economic shift—it was a fundamental transformation in human freedom and autonomy.

What strikes me most about Anderson’s historical analysis is how it challenges the narrative I grew up with. We’re taught that capitalism liberated people from feudalism and monarchy, ushering in an era of unprecedented freedom. And in many ways, that’s true. But Anderson forces us to ask: freedom to do what, exactly? For most people, the answer is “freedom to choose which boss will govern our daily lives.”

This historical context matters because it reveals how our current employment system isn’t some natural or inevitable arrangement. It’s a specific set of power relations that emerged under particular historical conditions—and that means it can be questioned and potentially changed.

The Communist Dictatorship in Your Office

Here’s where Anderson really goes for the jugular. She argues that the typical corporation operates as a communist dictatorship. Before you dismiss this as hyperbole, hear her out.

In a communist system, the government owns the means of production and engages in central planning, telling workers what to produce and how to produce it. Sound familiar? In a modern corporation, the company owns all the tools and resources you need to do your job. Management makes detailed plans about what you’ll produce, how you’ll produce it, when you’ll do it, and often even what you’ll wear while doing it.

The parallel gets even more striking when you consider surveillance and control. Anderson catalogs the extensive monitoring powers employers exercise: reading emails, recording phone calls, tracking internet usage, monitoring social media, searching personal belongings, requiring drug tests, and even in some cases, tracking your location.

I remember working at a company where they installed software that took random screenshots of our computers throughout the day. At the time, I grumbled but accepted it as normal. Reading Anderson made me realize: if the government did this to citizens, we’d call it Orwellian. Why do we accept it from employers?

The answer, Anderson suggests, is that we’ve been sold a story about “free markets” and “voluntary contracts” that obscures the reality of workplace power dynamics.

The Myth of the Free Contract

Defenders of the current system argue that employment is fundamentally different from political governance because it’s based on voluntary contracts between equal parties. Don’t like your job? Quit and find another one. Problem solved.

Anderson systematically dismantles this argument, and this is where her philosophical training really shines. She distinguishes between formal freedom and substantive freedom. Yes, you’re formally free to quit your job. But if quitting means losing your health insurance, defaulting on your mortgage, and being unable to feed your kids, how free are you really?

The “just quit” argument assumes a level playing field that simply doesn’t exist. Employers can typically weather the loss of an employee far more easily than employees can weather the loss of a job. This asymmetry in bargaining power means that employment contracts aren’t really negotiations between equals—they’re more like terms of surrender.

I think about my own career and how many workplace indignities I’ve swallowed because I needed the paycheck. The mandatory “fun” team-building exercises. The dress code that served no functional purpose. The uncompensated overtime that was “optional” in name only. The performance reviews that felt like exercises in arbitrary power. At each point, I could have quit. But that’s not really freedom—it’s just choosing which form of subordination you’ll accept.

The Scope of Employer Control

One of Anderson’s most valuable contributions is cataloging just how far employer authority extends into workers’ lives. It’s not just about what you do from nine to five—it’s about who you are, period.

Employers can fire you for your political opinions, your off-duty behavior, your social media posts, who you date, and even your weight or appearance. In most U.S. states, employment is “at will,” meaning you can be fired for any reason that isn’t explicitly illegal. And the list of illegal reasons is surprisingly short: basically race, gender, religion, national origin, age, and disability. Everything else is fair game.

Anderson shares examples that sound almost unbelievable. Employers who fire workers for smoking in their own homes. Companies that terminate employees for Facebook posts criticizing the company. Businesses that require workers to participate in political or religious activities as a condition of employment.

The more I read, the more I realized how much I’d internalized this control as normal. I’ve self-censored social media posts because I worried about employer reactions. I’ve hidden aspects of my personal life to maintain a “professional” image. I’ve pretended to agree with managers’ opinions to avoid being labeled “difficult.” These aren’t isolated incidents—they’re the everyday reality of employment for millions of people.

Why We Don’t Talk About It

The subtitle of Anderson’s book asks why we don’t talk about workplace authoritarianism, and this might be her most important question. We have extensive political vocabularies for discussing government power—democracy, tyranny, freedom, rights, justice. But when it comes to the workplace, we fall silent or resort to euphemisms about “corporate culture” and “leadership.”

Anderson identifies several reasons for this silence. First, the free market ideology is so dominant that it’s hard to even see workplace power relations as a form of government. We’ve been taught to think of government and markets as separate spheres, with government being the realm of coercion and markets being the realm of freedom.

Second, there’s a persistent belief that what happens in private businesses is nobody else’s business. This public-private distinction makes it seem inappropriate to apply political standards to workplace relations.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, there’s been a systematic effort to delegitimize worker collective action. Unions, which once provided a counterweight to employer power, have been weakened through both legal restrictions and cultural stigmatization. Without collective organization, individual workers are left to face employer power alone—and silence becomes a survival strategy.

Applying These Ideas to Daily Life

So what do we do with Anderson’s insights? Here are some practical applications I’ve been thinking about:

Recognize and Name Workplace Authoritarianism

The first step is simply seeing it. When your employer monitors your emails or requires you to attend mandatory meetings on your own time, recognize these as exercises of power, not just normal business practices. Having the language to describe what’s happening is itself a form of resistance.

Question the “Just Quit” Response

When friends complain about workplace mistreatment, we often default to “Have you thought about finding another job?” Anderson helps us see how this response actually reinforces employer power by treating structural problems as individual choices. Instead, we might ask: “Should employers have this kind of power in the first place?”

Support Collective Action

Anderson’s analysis suggests that individual solutions are inadequate for structural problems. This means supporting unions, worker cooperatives, and other forms of collective organization that can balance employer power. Even if you’re not in a position to organize your own workplace, you can support others’ efforts.

Advocate for Legal Protections

Many of the employer powers Anderson describes exist because U.S. labor law permits them. Recognizing this can shift our political priorities. Should employers be able to fire workers for off-duty conduct? Should workplace surveillance be unlimited? These are questions for democratic deliberation, not just market outcomes.

Rethink “Professionalism”

Much of what passes for professional behavior is actually submission to employer authority. Anderson’s framework helps us distinguish between genuine job requirements and arbitrary exercises of control. Do you really need to wear business casual to write code? Does your employer have a legitimate interest in your weekend activities?

What Anderson Gets Right (And Where She Could Go Further)

Anderson’s greatest strength is making visible something that’s been hiding in plain sight. By applying political philosophy to workplace relations, she gives us tools to think critically about employment that we’ve been lacking. Her historical analysis is illuminating, and her examples are well-chosen and often shocking.

The book is also remarkably accessible for an academic work. Anderson writes clearly and builds her argument systematically. You don’t need a philosophy degree to follow her reasoning, though some background in political theory helps.

However, there are some limitations worth noting. Anderson is stronger on diagnosis than prescription. She convincingly demonstrates that workplace authoritarianism is a problem, but she’s less specific about solutions. She gestures toward greater worker voice and democratic accountability in the workplace, but doesn’t provide detailed blueprints for achieving these goals.

Additionally, while Anderson acknowledges differences between workplaces, her analysis sometimes treats “the workplace” as a monolithic category. The experience of a warehouse worker subject to algorithmic management is quite different from that of a tenured professor, even if both technically involve employment relationships. More attention to these variations would strengthen the analysis.

Some readers might also find Anderson’s communist dictatorship comparison more provocative than helpful. While I think the parallel illuminates important similarities, it can also distract from her core argument by inviting debates about communism rather than focusing on workplace power relations.

How This Book Compares to Other Labor Critiques

Anderson’s work fits into a broader tradition of labor criticism but brings a distinctive philosophical lens. Unlike economic analyses that focus on wages and material conditions, Anderson centers on freedom and authority. This puts her in conversation with political theorists more than labor economists.

If you’ve read David Graeber’s Bullshit Jobs, you’ll find some complementary insights here. Where Graeber focuses on meaningless work, Anderson examines arbitrary power. Together, they paint a picture of modern employment as both pointless and authoritarian—a depressing combination.

For readers familiar with Marxist labor theory, Anderson offers a somewhat different angle. Rather than focusing primarily on exploitation and surplus value, she emphasizes domination and subordination. This makes her work accessible to readers who might be turned off by explicitly Marxist frameworks while still delivering a radical critique of capitalism.

Compared to more recent works like James Suzman’s Work: A Deep History or Sarah Jaffe’s Work Won’t Love You Back, Anderson is more narrowly focused on the political dimensions of employment rather than cultural or anthropological perspectives. But all these books share a common project: questioning assumptions about work that we’ve taken for granted.

Questions Worth Pondering

Anderson’s book raises more questions than it answers, and that’s part of its value. Here are some I’ve been wrestling with:

If we took seriously the idea that workplaces should be democratic, what would that actually look like? Would employees elect managers? Would major business decisions require worker approval? How would we balance efficiency with democracy?

And here’s a harder one: Are we willing to accept the trade-offs that might come with workplace democracy? If limiting employer authority means some businesses become less profitable or competitive, is that a price worth paying for freedom?

Why This Book Matters Now

I finished Private Government thinking about how the pandemic exposed and intensified many of the dynamics Anderson describes. Essential workers were ordered to risk their health while being denied basic protections. Remote workers faced intensified surveillance through monitoring software. Employers made unilateral decisions about safety protocols that literally determined whether workers lived or died.

At the same time, we’ve seen glimpses of possibility. Workers have organized and struck for better conditions. There’s growing public support for unions. Terms like “essential worker” and “hero pay” have entered our vocabulary, implicitly acknowledging that employment involves more than just voluntary contracts.

Anderson’s framework helps us make sense of this moment. The pandemic revealed that employers govern our lives in ways that matter profoundly for our health, safety, and dignity. The question is whether we’ll use this revelation to demand change or let it fade as we return to “normal.”

Join the Conversation

Reading Private Government fundamentally changed how I think about work, freedom, and power. It’s one of those books that you can’t unread—once you see workplace authoritarianism, you see it everywhere.

Whether you’re a worker frustrated with your boss, a manager trying to lead ethically, or just someone interested in how power operates in modern society, Anderson’s book offers valuable insights. It’s challenging, sometimes uncomfortable, but ultimately necessary reading for anyone who wants to understand the world we’ve built and imagine alternatives.

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Have you experienced the kind of workplace authoritarianism Anderson describes? Do you think her analysis is accurate, or does it go too far? What would genuinely free work look like? Drop a comment below and let’s discuss—because if Anderson is right, this conversation is long overdue.