A Defense Of Cohen’s Socialism: Community Principles
This paper will strive to defend Cohen’s socialism by refuting what I find to be the most compelling objections. In essence, Cohen’s socialism strives to eliminate all forms of societal inequality through an egalitarian principle and a community principle (4). I expand further on the egalitarian principle, known as the socialist equal opportunity principle, in the next paragraph. The community principle Cohen describes is called communal reciprocity, in which social and economic operation would be guided by a “serve and be served” mindset where agents would be motivated to serve their fellow’s needs for their own sake and trust that their needs will be served by others (Bird). Both of these principles establish the foundation of Cohen’s socialism.
After thorough analysis, I have developed three primary objections: the talent objection, the success objection, and the feasibility objection. My first objection to Cohen’s socialism involves his proposed elimination of all brute-luck. I have decided to refer to it as the Talent objection. Cohen suggests that the most just egalitarian principle is the socialist equal opportunity principle (EOP) which seeks to correct for “all unchosen disadvantages…whether they be disadvantages that reflect social misfortune or disadvantages that reflect natural misfortune” (18). Through this principle, one neither benefits nor is harmed from natural talent or lack thereof. While the socialist EOP may superficially seem to be a great equalizer, that does not make it just or even necessary for the achievement of societal equality. In fact, the basis for Cohen’s socialism stems from his belief that everyone should have equal access to a good life. Yet, the reality that people have differing levels and types of talents does not inherently discourage equal access to a good life. If each person is presented with the same opportunities to hone and develop their talents as they wish, then equality of opportunity is achieved.
For example, take this scenario: Thomas may choose to be a doctor. Unlike his classmate who also wishes to attend medical school, he does not possess photographic memory and, thus, has less natural talent towards biology. If Thomas is provided the opportunity to hone his talent through studying, he has the equal opportunity to become a doctor, even if his classmate has a lower study burden. In this situation, Thomas’s choices determine how successful he will be, not his unchosen disadvantage. One could also view this from another perspective, noting that people often have different talents. It is reasonable to say that equality can also be achieved through opportunity to succeed in whichever profession for which one posses a talent. While Thomas does not possess a natural talent for biology, perhaps he is a great orator and has an inclination to be a lawyer. By choosing a profession accentuated by his natural talents, Thomas has an equal opportunity for success as much as his classmate. Consequently, Cohen’s socialist EOP unnecessarily removes all unchosen advantages, ignoring the equal probability of access to a good life. My second objection follows from the Talent objection. Cohen’s socialist EOP concludes that different outcomes should reflect:
- different needs and preferences,
- different levels of hard work, and
- genuinely voluntary assumption of greater and fewer levels of risk.
This proposed socialist society is a meritocracy, in which work directly reaps rewards. However, this is a naive proposal, and thereby follows my second objection, entitled the Success objection. Should one’s success not be taken into account when determining income, salary, or rewards? While a meritocracy may seem outwardly appealing, it does not account for the actual value of someone’s work. For example, if James and George each work for 40 hours a week at a hat manufacturing plant, but James produces 10 hats per hour and George produces 7. James produces 30% more than George, but exerts the same level of work. Is it just that they should receive equal outcomes? One could suggest that each be rewarded by number of hats produced rather than total hours worked, but that would violate Cohen’s EOP because James has an unearned advantage of being naturally talented at hat production. Moreover, it seems absurd to ignore the success of each worker as success matters in the market and should be reflected by the economic system. Simple economics point out that maximizing production is key to economic growth, but what reason would James have to continue producing 10 hats per hour when he could produce 7 hats per hour like George and receive the same outcome for his level of hard work.
Ergo, the failure of the socialist EOP to account for individual success would cripple the economy of a society as well as prove unjust to workers. My third objection focuses on the lack of feasibility of Cohen’s socialism. This is often referred to as the Institutional Design Problem (Bird). While it is easy to imagine Cohen’s socialist ideals within a small camping trip, it is much more difficult to conceptualize the organization of socialist political and economic institutions across a whole economy. Furthermore, the collapse of the command economies in the 20th century diminish confidence in the probability for success. In a study of the collapse of the Soviet economy, Harrison noted that “command economies are not intrinsically unstable. ” He argues that coercion can provide a stable framework for the economy coercion, defining coercion as the “unregulated power of a dictator to command producers. ”
However, if it possible to establish a command economy through the use of economic coercion, is it just? The intense level of regulation required to establish and control this socialist society would inherently violate Cohen’s socialist EOP by increasing “brute luck. ” It would be predetermined how many people need to work at each job, and, thus, it would be compulsory to mandate the careers of at least some of the society to ensure the production plan would be fulfilled. Hence, even if a socialist society was feasible, it would fundamentally violate the socialist equal opportunity principle. Now that I have stated my primary objections, I will proceed to defend Cohen’s socialism. My first objection was the Talent objection, which argues that the elimination of unearned disadvantage through the socialist EOP is unnecessary for equality. This point can be refuted by demonstrating that while Thomas may have an opportunity like his classmate to become a doctor, he has a greater burden of work to ensure this “equal opportunity” than his talented classmate. It is necessarily not an equal opportunity if he is required to do more work than others to achieve this opportunity.
For this reason, it is clear that unchosen advantages and disadvantages pose a barrier which only the socialist EOP can remove. My second objection, entitled the Success objection, can be countered by a moral argument, once the EOP is accepted (as it was in the prior paragraph). While it is true that market productivity is key to economic growth and that it is just to reward workers for their production, outcomes based on natural skill or talent provide distinct advantages to those who did not earn them. This raises several questions about the value of human life. Is it fair for someone to live a life of poverty because they lack talent? To what extent should the value of a person be placed into their ability to manufacture goods? Possible answers to these questions point in the direction of Cohen’s communal reciprocity principle (41). This principle essentially states that social and economic operation would be guided by a “serve and be served” mindset in which agents would be motivated to serve their fellow’s needs for their own sake and trust that their needs will be served by others (Bird). In a community lead by generosity, it is plausible to assume that James would find it perfectly acceptable to have the same outcome as George despite their production differences because they each exerted the same level of work. If an economic structure guided by the EOP is what the society prefers, then it is just because each person feels as if they are given what they deserve. My third objection was the Institutional Design Problem, which focused on the lack of feasibility of Cohen’s socialism. I have several points to repudiate this.
First of all, it is not difficult to think of policies that would push in the right direction. The Swedish Nordic model follows practices of wealth redistribution in a socialist-like fashion. While a command economy is one possibility of a socialist society, Cohen’s principles also allow for a socialist market economy, similar to the Nordic model. It is also equally important to note the difference between socialism as a means (characteristic policies, institutional practices, modes of organization) and socialism as an end (distinctive ideals and their interpretation e. g. justice, equality, freedom) (Bird). Cohen’s argument is fundamentally about socialism as an end rather than as a means, placing it above objections about institutional feasibility. Lastly, one can make the same feasibility criticism about capitalism. There are many destitute capitalist countries in which the economic structure is not successful. Yet, proponents of capitalism often ignore those failures while pointing to the failure of command economies as reasoning enough to assume socialism is not practical. This is a logical fallacy and not enough to reasonably prove that socialism is unachievable.
To conclude, three arguments have objected to Cohen’s socialism (Talent, Success, and Feasibility) and each have been refuted. Despite the refutation, I still disagree with Cohen’s views. Specifically, I do not accept the socialist equal opportunity principle because I agree with Nozick’s deliberate treatment argument. To me, justice does not require correction for unchosen disadvantages unless they were the result of an intentional act by a culpable party. While being born with a lack of natural talent is unfortunate, I do not believe it is unjust. On the whole, I think socialism frequently claims the moral high ground over any form of capitalism, but I strongly prefer the left-liberal equal opportunity principle to Cohen’s socialist equal opportunity principle.
