International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
1
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijhps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue06 2025
PAGE NO.
1-5
The Sharing Economy: A Critical Political-Economic
Analysis Through the Lens of Primitive Accumulation
Prof. Helena Vogel
Institute for Social Research, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany
Received:
03 April 2025;
Accepted:
02 May 2025;
Published:
01 June 2025
Abstract:
The rapid emergence and expansion of the "sharing economy," exemplified by platforms like Uber and
Airbnb, have sparked intense debate regarding its fundamental nature and societal implications. While often
lauded for its efficiency, innovation, and community-building potential, a growing critical perspective argues that
these platforms represent a new, intensified form of capital accumulation. This article undertakes a critical
political-economic analysis of the capital-extractive sharing economy, positioning it as a contemporary
manifestation of primitive accumulation. Drawing upon Marxist theory and contemporary critiques, this study
examines how these platforms dispossess traditional labor, create new precarious labor forces (the "precariat"),
and enclose previously non-commodified assets, thereby facilitating novel avenues for capital extraction. By
synthesizing evidence from labor disputes, regulatory challenges, and theoretical discussions, this analysis aims
to illuminate the underlying mechanisms of wealth concentration and power dynamics inherent in the platform-
mediated sharing economy, challenging its utopian narratives and advocating for a more nuanced understanding
of its socio-economic impact.
Keywords:
Sharing Economy, Primitive Accumulation, Capital Extraction, Political Economy, Precariat, Uber,
Airbnb, Neoliberalism, Labor, Dispossession.
Introduction:
The "sharing economy," a phenomenon
characterized by peer-to-peer economic activity
facilitated by digital platforms, has rapidly transformed
various
sectors,
from
transportation
to
accommodation. Proponents often champion it as a
revolutionary model fostering efficiency, community,
and sustainable consumption by enabling individuals to
share underutilized assets [8, 10, 11, 12]. This
perspective envisions a future where capital and labor
are optimized, leading to a more collaborative and less
wasteful society [7]. Indeed, some have even
optimistically framed it as a reconciliation of the best
aspects of capitalism and communism [7], or even a
route to "dotcommunism" [6].
However, this seemingly benign narrative has been met
with growing skepticism and fierce opposition. Taxi
drivers have vehemently protested against ride-sharing
companies like Uber, citing unfair competition and
existential threats to their livelihoods [1, 38, 39].
Regulatory bodies in various countries have upheld
bans or imposed strict regulations on these platforms,
highlighting concerns about labor standards, safety,
and market disruption [2, 33]. Critics argue that far
from being a truly "sharing" model, these platforms
represent a new, intensified form of capitalism,
characterized by the extraction of value from
previously non-commodified assets and the creation of
highly precarious labor conditions [5]. The question
arises: is the sharing economy truly about sharing, or is
it a sophisticated mechanism for capital accumulation?
This article posits that the capital-extractive sharing
economy can be critically understood through the lens
of primitive accumulation. Originally conceptualized by
Karl Marx, primitive accumulation refers to the
historical processes through which producers are
separated from their means of production, creating a
class of wage laborers and concentrating capital in the
hands of a few [19, 20, 21]. While traditionally
associated with historical events like the enclosure of
common lands, contemporary Marxist scholars argue
that primitive accumulation is an ongoing process,
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
2
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijhps
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2222)
adapting to new forms of dispossession and capital
extraction [24, 48].
This article aims to critically examine the political-
economic position of the capital-extractive sharing
economy by analyzing how it aligns with the
mechanisms of primitive accumulation. By synthesizing
evidence from labor disputes, regulatory challenges,
and theoretical discussions, we seek to illuminate the
underlying processes of wealth concentration, the
creation of new forms of precarious labor, and the
enclosure of common or personal resources that
characterize this evolving economic landscape.
Understanding these dynamics is crucial for moving
beyond simplistic narratives and engaging with the
profound socio-economic transformations wrought by
platform capitalism.
METHODOLOGY
This article employs a critical political-economic
analysis grounded in a comprehensive literature
review. The methodology involves synthesizing existing
academic scholarship, journalistic reports, and policy
documents to construct an argument that positions the
capital-extractive sharing economy as a contemporary
manifestation of primitive accumulation.
2.1. Theoretical Framework:
The primary theoretical lens for this analysis is Karl
Marx's concept of primitive accumulation [19, 20, 21].
This framework is understood not merely as a historical
antecedent to capitalism but as an ongoing process of
dispossession and the creation of new conditions for
capital accumulation [22, 23, 24, 48]. Key elements of
primitive accumulation relevant to this study include:
•
Separation of producers from their means of
production: How individuals are dispossessed of their
independent livelihoods or control over their labor.
•
Creation of a wage-labor force: The
transformation of independent workers into a class
reliant on selling their labor power.
•
Enclosure of common resources: The
privatization or commodification of previously shared
or non-commodified assets.
•
Role of the state: How legal and political
structures facilitate or resist these processes.
Additionally, the analysis incorporates concepts related
to neoliberalism as the broader political-economic
context [44, 47], and the emergence of the precariat as
a new global class characterized by precarious
employment and lack of social security [25, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 35, 36, 42]. The framework by Robert W. Cox on
"Social Forces, States, and World Orders" provides a
valuable lens for understanding how the sharing
economy represents a new configuration of power
relations and a challenge to existing world orders [9, 15,
16, 17, 18].
2.2. Data Sources and Selection Criteria:
The data for this review are drawn from the provided
list of references, which includes:
•
Academic works: Focusing on political
economy, labor studies, and critical analyses of the
sharing economy [4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,
34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48].
•
News articles and reports: Documenting
protests, regulatory actions, and the lived experiences
of workers in the sharing economy [1, 2, 3, 13, 33, 38,
39, 40, 41, 45, 46].
•
Official
documents:
Such
as
labor
interpretations [43].
The selection criteria prioritized sources that:
•
Critically analyze the sharing economy beyond
its promotional narratives.
•
Discuss labor conditions, regulatory challenges,
and economic impacts.
•
Engage with Marxist concepts, particularly
primitive
accumulation,
or
related
ideas of
dispossession and precarious labor.
•
Provide empirical examples (e.g., protests,
legal rulings) of the sharing economy's contested
nature.
2.3. Analytical Process:
The analytical process involved a thematic synthesis of
the gathered information, structured around the key
elements of primitive accumulation:
•
Identifying mechanisms of dispossession: How
traditional industries (e.g., taxi services) and their labor
are undermined, and how individuals' personal assets
are commodified.
•
Analyzing the creation of the precariat:
Examining the employment status, working conditions,
and lack of benefits for workers on sharing economy
platforms.
•
Exploring the enclosure of resources: How
private assets (e.g., spare rooms, personal cars) are
transformed into sources of commercial revenue for
platforms.
•
Assessing the role of the state and regulatory
responses: How governments have responded to the
sharing economy, either by facilitating its growth or
attempting to regulate its more exploitative aspects.
•
Deconstructing ideological narratives: Critically
examining the "sharing" rhetoric against the actual
economic practices.
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
3
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijhps
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2222)
This qualitative synthesis aims to build a coherent
argument demonstrating the sharing economy's
alignment with the processes of primitive accumulation
in a contemporary context.
RESULTS
The analysis of the sharing economy through the lens
of primitive accumulation reveals several key political-
economic characteristics that challenge its benevolent,
utopian framing. The results demonstrate how these
platforms facilitate new forms of dispossession, create
a precarious labor force, and enclose previously non-
commodified assets for capital extraction.
3.1. Dispossession of Traditional Capital and Labor:
The rise of platforms like Uber has directly led to the
dispossession of traditional capital and labor in
established industries. Taxi drivers, who historically
invested significant capital in medallions and vehicles,
and operated under regulated labor conditions, have
faced severe economic pressure. Protests by taxi
drivers against Uber have occurred globally,
highlighting the direct threat to their livelihoods and
the perceived unfair competition [1, 2, 3, 33, 38, 39].
For instance, taxi drivers in Toronto moved inside city
hall to protest Uber [1], and a French court upheld a
ban on Uber's service using non-professional drivers
[2]. This process mirrors historical primitive
accumulation, where established forms of production
and associated labor were undermined by new, more
capital-intensive or exploitative modes [19, 20].
3.2. Creation of a New Precariat Labor Force:
A defining feature of the capital-extractive sharing
economy is the creation and expansion of a precarious
labor force, often termed the "precariat" [25, 28, 29,
30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 42]. Workers on platforms like Uber
and Lyft are largely classified as "independent
contractors" rather than employees, which exempts
companies from providing benefits, minimum wage,
and other labor protections [4, 14]. This classification
has been a major point of contention, with legal rulings
in California, for example, challenging Uber's employee
status [14]. The "flexibility" often touted by these
platforms is experienced by many drivers as a lack of
security and control, leading to a "life inside the new
gig economy" characterized by precarity [13]. The U.S.
Department of Labor has issued interpretations
regarding worker misclassification [43], indicating a
growing recognition of this issue. This aligns with
primitive accumulation's role in creating a dispossessed
labor force reliant on selling its labor power under
unfavorable conditions [19, 20].
3.3. Enclosure and Commodification of Previously Non-
Commodified Assets:
The sharing economy facilitates the enclosure and
commodification of assets that were previously either
personal, underutilized, or part of a non-market
sphere. Airbnb, for example, transforms private
residential properties into commercial lodging units,
effectively "enclosing" urban housing stock for profit
[6]. This can lead to increased housing costs and
displacement in cities, as residential properties are
converted into short-term rentals [46]. This process is
analogous to the historical enclosure of common lands,
where communal resources were privatized for
capitalist production [24]. The "sharing" rhetoric often
masks this underlying commodification and capital
extraction [5, 6].
3.4. State Complicity and Regulatory Challenges:
Governments and regulatory bodies have struggled to
adapt to the sharing economy, often oscillating
between outright bans and attempts at regulation.
While some cities have sought to regulate platforms
[45, 46], the inherent novelty and scale of these
operations often outpace existing legal frameworks.
The "Uber wars" in various cities illustrate this struggle
[45]. In some cases, states have inadvertently
facilitated the growth of these platforms by failing to
adequately protect traditional labor or by allowing
ambiguous independent contractor classifications [43].
This reflects a broader trend within neoliberalism,
where the state often plays a role in creating and
legitimizing new markets for capital accumulation [44,
47].
3.5. Ideological Framing and Resistance:
The ideological framing of the sharing economy as
"sharing" or "collaborative consumption" [8, 10] serves
to obscure its capital-extractive nature. This narrative
promotes a positive image of efficiency and
community, diverting attention from labor exploitation
and market disruption [5, 6]. However, this framing is
increasingly challenged by organized resistance from
affected workers and communities. Anti-Uber protests
have been widespread [38], and efforts to unionize
ride-app drivers are emerging, as seen in Seattle [41,
40]. These acts of resistance represent a counter-force
to the ongoing primitive accumulation, highlighting the
contested nature of this new economic order.
In summary, the results indicate that the capital-
extractive
sharing
economy
exhibits
core
characteristics of primitive accumulation, including the
dispossession of traditional labor, the creation of a new
precarious workforce, the enclosure of personal and
urban assets, and a complex relationship with state
regulation, all underpinned by an ideological narrative
that often masks its true political-economic position.
DISCUSSION
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
4
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijhps
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2222)
The analysis presented in the results section strongly
supports the argument that the capital-extractive
sharing economy operates as a contemporary
mechanism of primitive accumulation. This perspective
moves beyond the often-utopian narratives of
efficiency and community [8, 10, 11, 12] to reveal the
underlying processes of dispossession and capital
concentration.
The historical concept of primitive accumulation, as
articulated by Marx, involved the violent separation of
producers from their means of production, leading to
the creation of a propertyless working class [19, 20, 21].
While the contemporary sharing economy may not
involve overt violence, it achieves a similar outcome
through economic and legal means. The undermining
of traditional taxi industries and the precarious
classification of drivers [4, 14] effectively dispossess
workers of stable employment and benefits, pushing
them into the "precariat" [25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36,
42]. This new class, characterized by instability and lack
of social protection, is a direct result of the platforms'
business model, which externalizes labor costs onto
individual workers. The "flexibility" touted by platforms
often translates to a lack of social security and
increased vulnerability for workers [13, 25].
Furthermore, the "enclosure" aspect of primitive
accumulation is evident in how platforms like Airbnb
commodify private homes and urban spaces [6]. What
was once a personal asset or a non-market common
resource (a spare room, a personal car) is now
integrated into a global capitalist market, generating
revenue for the platform owners. This transformation
of use-value into exchange-value, facilitated by digital
infrastructure, creates new avenues for capital
extraction that were previously unavailable. The
agreements between cities and platforms, such as
Amsterdam and Airbnb [46], while appearing to
regulate, can also legitimize this enclosure process.
The role of the state in this process is complex and
often contradictory. While some governments have
attempted to ban or regulate these platforms [2, 33],
others have adopted a more accommodating stance,
sometimes influenced by the promise of innovation or
economic growth [45]. This dynamic reflects the
broader context of neoliberalism, where states often
facilitate market expansion and deregulation, even at
the expense of labor protections and social welfare [44,
47]. The legal battles over worker classification [14, 43]
are central to this struggle, as they determine whether
platforms bear the costs of employment or continue to
externalize them onto individual workers.
The debate around whether the sharing economy is
"communism or hyper-capitalism" [5, 6, 7] is resolved
through this critical lens. It is clearly a form of hyper-
capitalism, leveraging digital technologies to intensify
capital accumulation by exploiting new forms of labor
and commodifying previously non-market assets. The
"sharing" rhetoric serves as an ideological veil,
obscuring the underlying power relations and
extractive practices. This is a crucial point, as the
language used to describe these phenomena shapes
public perception and policy responses.
From a Coxian perspective, the sharing economy
represents a significant shift in "social forces" and
challenges existing "world orders" [9, 15, 16, 17, 18]. It
reconfigures the relationship between capital, labor,
and the state, creating new forms of power and
resistance. The protests by taxi drivers [1, 38, 39] and
the nascent efforts to unionize gig workers [41] are
clear manifestations of counter-hegemonic forces
challenging this new configuration of power. The global
nature of unemployment [34] also provides a fertile
ground for the expansion of precarious work models.
In conclusion, the sharing economy, particularly its
dominant
capital-extractive
platforms,
is
a
contemporary
manifestation
of
primitive
accumulation. It systematically dispossesses traditional
labor, creates a vast precarious workforce, and
encloses previously non-commodified assets, all for the
benefit of platform owners and investors. Recognizing
this political-economic position is vital for developing
effective regulatory frameworks, advocating for labor
rights, and ensuring that technological innovation
serves broader societal well-being rather than merely
intensifying capital accumulation.
CONCLUSION
The "sharing economy," despite its often-touted
benefits of efficiency and community, fundamentally
operates as a modern form of primitive accumulation.
This critical analysis reveals how dominant platforms
within this economy systematically dispossess
traditional labor, create a burgeoning precarious
workforce, and enclose previously non-commodified
assets, all to facilitate new avenues for capital
extraction. The ideological framing of "sharing" often
masks these underlying political-economic processes,
which intensify capital accumulation and exacerbate
social inequalities.
Understanding the sharing economy through the lens
of primitive accumulation is crucial for a nuanced
assessment of its societal impact. It highlights the
urgent need for robust regulatory frameworks that
protect labor rights, prevent the unchecked
commodification of essential resources, and ensure
that the benefits of technological innovation are
equitably distributed. As the sharing economy
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
5
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijhps
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2222)
continues to evolve, critical scrutiny and proactive
policy interventions are essential to mitigate its
extractive tendencies and steer it towards a more
genuinely equitable and sustainable future.
REFERENCES
“Taxi drivers protesting Uber move inside city hall,”
CBC
News,
December
4,
2015,
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/taxi-
drivers-uber-protest-toronto-city-hall-1.3350967
Emile Picy and Leila Abboud, “French court upholds ban
on Uber’s service using non
-
professional drivers,”
Reuters, last edited September 22, 2015.
Umar Lee, “Why Progressives Should Think Twice
About Embracing Uber and Lyft,” The Huffington Post,
June 19, 2014,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/umar-
lee/cab-drivers-uber_b_5179635.html
Benjamin Sachs, “Uber: Employee Status and
‘Flexibility’,” On Labor, September 25, 2015,
http://onlabor.org/2015/09/25/uber-employee-
status-and-flexibility/
Markus Barnikel, “The Sharing Economy: Communism
or Hyper Capitalism?,” The Huffington Pos
t, June 3,
2014,
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/markus-
barnikel/sharing-economy_b_5084319.html
Paul Mason, “Airbnb and Uber’s sharing economy is
one route to dotcommunism,” The Guardian, June 21,
2015,
Ramen Frey, “The Sharing Economy: The Best of
Capitalism and Communism,” Medium, August 30,
2015,
https://medium.com/@ramanfrey/the-sharing-
economy-reconciles-the-best-of-capitalism-and-
communism-20ece218f064#.phhuzos2b
Matofska, “What Is The Sharing Economy?,” The
People
Who
Share,
2012,
http://www.thepeoplewhoshare.com/blog/what-is-
the-sharing-economy/
Robert W. Cox, “Social Forces, States, and World
Orders: Beyond International Relation
s Theory,”
Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10 no. 2
(1981): 128-129.
Matofska, “What Is The Sharing Economy?”.
