Cohen, in this book, examines the tenets of socialism and the required structure in the society that is necessary to make it feasible. He attempts to scrutinize the feasibility of this structure and also ponders if it is desirable? Using an example of a camping trip, Cohen examines the possibility of extrapolating or replicating the dynamics of a camping trip in a nationwide scale. He uses this example to emphasize two crucial principles of socialism — egalitarian principle and principle of community. He goes on to argue that the market structure of the economy is not conducive to realizing these two principles.
He refers to the egalitarian principle as “equality to opportunity.” Equality of opportunity intends to remove any hurdles which prevent people to pursue their desire. The objective of promoting equality of opportunity is not only to equalize access but also redistributing those opportunities. The three kinds of equality of opportunity Cohen elaborates on are — bourgeois, left-liberal, and socialist. The bourgeois equality of opportunity intends to nuetralize socially constructed status restrictions such as race, feudal nobility, and other prejudicial perceptions. The left-liberal kind intends to nuetralise the inequalities rising from social circumstances of birth and upbringing which lead to substantial disadvantages in pursuing their desires. The socialist equality of opportunity tries to nuetralise not only the social circumstances and social perceptions, but also any inborn disadvantages. It intends to correct all the unchosen disadvantages, i.e., the disadvantages which the person is not responsible for attaining. The socialist kind principally tries to remove the inequality due to what Cohen calls “option luck.”
Yet, inequalities exist as individuals chose to participate in the market, for which the rewards depend on their contribution and ability. For example, if a person chooses to work for more hours, she will earn more than the person working less. We can therefore say that the egalitarian principle has simply tried to neutralize the entry barriers to the market but not the outcomes of the market. Because of the disproportionate rewards, the class hierarchy is going to remain in the society. This is consistent with Marx’s theorization of socialistic distributive principle —
“For each, according to his ability, to each according to his contribution.”
Marx considers the socialist phase as the lower phase of a fully communist society. The highest phase of communist society would employ the following distributive principle —
“For each, according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Marx says that socialism helps attain equality of opportunity, yet hierarchies remain. According to Marx, the socialist principle of justice still treats human beings one-sidedly as workers and rewards them for their labor. The inequality is diminished, yet the person is trapped in the identity of a “labor.” Communism, on the other hand, emphasizes “labor power.” Communism treats people as individuals and enables them to attain self-realization because their needs are taken care of by society.
In a higher communist phase, the society is rendered classless, and people value their work as the ends and not as means of life. They work not for the wages, but for the pleasure of it. Marx emphasizes that a communist society cannot be achieved out of the blue, and the lower communist phase (socialist), is a crucial step.
Interestingly, Cohen, throughout his book, has not delved upon individual liberty and freedom. He gives the readers a sense that “individual” behavior should be frowned upon. The proxies used for this are “selfish” and “greed.” He views people as belonging to a community and not as an individual. On the other hand, Marx glorifies the idea of individuality, even though, in a higher communist phase, the means of production is owned by the community.
The principle of community, Cohen elaborates, is the principle of caring for one another. He refers to it as “communal caring.” In the context of the camping trip, he refers it to as the reciprocity that individuals exhibit in a camping trip. He goes onto say that inequalities caused by the markets are enormous rendering an individual from experiencing the feeling of “community.” He uses another context to elaborate this — a well off person riding a taxi. Cohen conveys that there would be nothing common between that person and the taxi driver. He goes onto argue — “Communal reciprocity is the antimarket principle according to which I serve you not because of what I can get in return by doing so, but because you need or want my service, and you, for the same reason serve me.”
Whereas, the reciprocity observed in the market has different connotations to it. According to him, fear and greed drive the market economy, not reciprocity. Elaborating further, he says that the idea of belonging in a community is to relish co-operation for the sake of generosity. Furthermore, fear and greed can be harnessed to form the basis of the market economy, but harness generosity cannot. Moreover, he contemplates the idea of the necessary machinery required to achieve it. One example he refers to is by Joseph Carens, where he elucidates the need for “moral incentive” to drive the market economy. It talks about progressive taxes and redistribution. A Marxist would argue that this is still under the framework of capitalism, and any substitute to this will still be apologetic to capitalistic ideals because there is a sense of exchange.
Cohen proposes ways to plug in elements of community and equality into the economic system. Market socialism is one such example. In this system, capitalists owning capital are absent, since workers themselves own the whole capital of firms. It is essentially a co-operative society aimed at neutralizing the core capitalist ideal — private property. Economic inequality is, therefore, substantially diminished because the proceeds of the producer surplus are divided among the workers themselves. This distribution is done after the necessary deductions are made. The deductions for :
a) the replacement of means of production that were used up
b) the expansion of future production to meet the demands of an increased population
c) reserves or for an insurance fund against emergencies and natural disasters
d) satisfaction for social needs (health, education)
e) welfare funds for those unable to work( old and infirm)
These deductions render the total surplus negligible, decreasing the economic inequality. Marx hails this, as he believes this is a necessary step to make the transition from capitalism to socialism. Yet, it is not the “utopia” that Marx wishes for, i.e., the needs-based communistic society. In a socialistic society, economic inequalities, although diminished, still exist. A design example of this market socialism that Cohen elucidates in the book is a very diluted version of the one that Marx espouses socialism to be. Cohen refers to the design by John Roemer in his book ‘A future for Socialism.’ This design has elements of a free market economy — stock market, vouchers, dividends, treasury. Moreover, in this scheme of things, the labor market is not changed, so inequalities remain. This is a far cry away from what Marx considers a favorable necessary step to move away from capitalism.
Throughout this book, the market is thoroughly derided. However, the essence of the market loiters around in the rhetoric of the arguments. To take a cue from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, one can describe Cohen’s deliberations as “To market or not to market.” Marx offers an explaination to this dilemma that Cohen is facing. He implies that the superstructures of society itself have undertones of capitalism. He argues that our legal system and governance structures are derived from the core ideals of capitalism. Indeed, the residue of these ideals can be sensed in the book. Cohen seems to have partially recognized the idea of this superstructure. He goes onto say that it is challenging to inculcate a socialist, egalitarian, community-based society owing to the human nature shaped by decades of capitalism. However, he does not offer a solution to tackle this nature. He is only engaged with the machinery/technology that is needed to harness generosity. Most of the solutions he proposes are in the realm of the market structure, despite emphasizing its ills. This juxtaposition is difficult to digest or ignore. Cohen too, offers the reader an explanation to this impasse. Once people’s needs are fullfilled, they choose to engage with their wishes and desires which are expressed by optional commodities. Cohen describes this stage as having relatively more economic progress. At this stage, it becomes difficult to produce those commoditites without market signals. Cohen, in a way, admits that the market is a tool for economic progress and emphasizes the need for market signals. He bats for the market’s efficiency, but not for its incentive and reward structure. (The aforementioned John Roemer’s designs attempts to capture this). He believes that the ideas of “moral incentive” and “market socialism” could address this. Marx on the other hand says that the idea of incentive and reward would become irrelevant in a higher communist phase because their needs are taken care of by the society/community.
Marx proposes a solution to tackle the human nature which is shaped by capitalism. He argues that one way to get rid of this last ounce of bourgeois capitalistic ideal is a proletariat imposed dictatorship . He refuses to call it a “dictatorship” because it is by the proletariat in the interest of attaining self-realization and not subordination. This would lead to a new culture of governance and new ideas because the mode of production has changed. The needs-based society, even if achieved, could not be measured. Marx does not propose a method to measure the needs of individuals, either. This could be interpreted as a dictatorship in perpetuity. On a theory of distributive justice, Marx does not explicitly mention any. However, some interpretations suggest that reaching this “utopia” where people’s needs are catered to — is in itself enough to attain justice.
Cohen, by no means, provides any such radical ideas such as a dictatorship and appears to remain in the framework of a free state, consistent with ideals proposed by the Lassalleans (a socialist). Marx calls the idea of a free state as “loose talk” and emphasizes the struggle against class inequality to be prioritized over the free state.
In the end, Cohen admits that the ideas he has engaged with, i.e., market socialism and moral incentive, do not fully satisfy socialistic standards of distributive justice, but he finds merit in it, over market capitalism. This book ends on an optimistic note, giving a sense to the reader that ideals and struggle for socialism are still valid and necessary, but the required machinery/technology to make it feasible is not developed, for now.
