Is Etienne Lantier right when he cries out in Émile Zola’s Germinal, “We are not slaves! We starve, we die, they still want more!”?

1. From an Ethical Perspective: Justice and Exploitation

Lantier’s cry is a direct call to the concept of justice. Justice has been one of the cornerstones of philosophical thought from Plato to Rawls. In the Republic, Plato defines justice as each individual receiving what they deserve and the social order functioning in harmony. However, in Lantier’s world, the miners are far from receiving the reward of their sweat. Low wages, dangerous working conditions, and the lack of basic needs undermine the human dignity of the workers. This situation also contradicts Kant’s ethical philosophy. In the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morality, Kant argues that each individual is an end in themselves and should never be used as a means. However, the bosses see the workers only as a means to maximize profit, which disregards the autonomy and dignity of the workers.

Lantier’s statement “we are not slaves” directly targets this ethical violation. Slavery is the transformation of one person into a tool for another; The workers’ situation is a modern form of slavery under the guise of wage labor. Karl Marx’s theory of surplus value in Capital explains the mechanism of this exploitation: the worker’s labor is usurped for the employer’s profit, while the worker is paid a minimum wage only to survive. Lantier’s rightness lies in revealing that this system commits an ethical crime by usurping the worker’s labor and humanity.

2. Political Philosophy: Class Struggle and Freedom

Lantier’s rebellion is also related to political philosophy’s concepts of class struggle and freedom. In Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, the master-slave dialectic shows that freedom is possible only through mutual recognition. However, in Lantier’s world, the employers do not recognize the workers; they see them only as a factor of production. This takes away the workers’ freedom and their right to self-realization. Lantier’s statement “we starve, we die” goes beyond biological existence and, as Arendt emphasized in The Human Condition, expresses the need for human beings to be recognized as political beings. Workers struggle not only to survive, but also to be recognized as human beings and to contribute to society.

As Marx and Engels stated in the Communist Manifesto, class struggle is the engine of historical change. Lantier’s call for a strike is a turning point in this struggle. However, this struggle is not only economic, it is also existential. The workers’ demands show that the social contract defended by Rousseau in The Social Contract has been violated: if society does not guarantee the well-being and freedom of individuals, this contract is no longer valid. Lantier’s rebellion is an attempt to renegotiate this contract.

3. Existential Dimension: Human Dignity and the Search for Meaning

Lantier’s words also resonate in an existential dimension. As Camus emphasizes in The Myth of Sisyphus, man searches for meaning in an absurd world. The situation of workers is a concrete manifestation of this absurdity: working with sweat is not enough to sustain life; bosses demand more, disregarding the labor and life of workers. Lantier’s statement that “they still want more” criticizes the insatiable nature of the capitalist system. This is a revolt against the concept of the “last man” mentioned by Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra; workers refuse to be reduced to the cycle of consumption and survival.

Lantier’s rebellion is an existential stance for the protection of human dignity. As Sartre argues in Being and Nothingness, man defines his freedom through his actions. By organizing strikes and opposing exploitation, Lantier enables workers to move from the role of passive victims to become free subjects. This is also an attempt by workers to create their own meaning: they choose to write their own stories, not just to be part of the employers’ profit machine.

4. The Limits of Lantier’s Justification

A philosophical analysis must also consider the limits of Lantier’s actions when questioning his justification. Étienne is an idealistic leader, but as Zola’s Germinal shows, the strike movement leads to chaos and violence. This brings to mind Hobbes’ argument for social order in Leviathan: social stability may require the renunciation of individual freedoms. Might Lantier’s justified demands in practice lead to greater destruction of society? Furthermore, as Adorno and Horkheimer argue in Dialectic of Enlightenment, revolutionary movements can turn into a new form of domination. Does Lantier’s leadership run this risk?

Yet these limits do not overshadow Lantier’s fundamental justification. His cry is a universal demand of humanity: freedom, justice and dignity. This demand is addressed not only to the miners of 19th century France, but to all the oppressed of all time.