Γιατί όχι σοσιαλισμός;

by G.A. Cohen, Νικόλας Βρούσαλης (Translator)

"Ένας κεντρικός σοσιαλιστικός στόχος είναι η επέκταση της αλληλεγγύης και της δικαιοσύνης σε όλη την οικονομική ζωή των ανθρώπων. Κάποιοι πιστεύουν ότι αυτή τη στιγμή γνωρίζουμε ότι κάτι τέτοιο είναι αδύνατο. Μολαταύτα οι κατακτήσεις της κοινοτικής αλληλεγγύης σε κάποιους τομείς, όπως η υγεία και η παιδεία, έχουν καλλιεργήσει βιώσιμες μορφές παραγωγής και διανομής. Είναι σήμερα απόλυτη ανάγκη να υπερασπιστούμε την κοινοτική αλληλεγγύη καθώς δέχεται καταιγισμό επιθέσεων από την αρχή της αγοράς. Η φυσική τάση των αγορών είναι να εξαπλώνονται σε όλο και μεγαλύτερο κοινωνικό φάσμα, επειδή οι επιχειρηματίες βλέπουν ευκαιρίες να μετατρέψουν σε εμπόρευμα αγαθά και υπηρεσίες που δεν εμφορούνται από την εμπορευματική αρχή. Αν αφεθεί μόνη της, η δυναμική του καπιταλισμού είναι αυτοτροφοδοτούμενη, και οι σοσιαλιστές χρειάζονται οργανωμένη πολιτική δύναμη για να αντιταχθούν σε αυτή τη δυναμική. Οι καπιταλιστές αντίπαλοί τους, οι οποίοι κινούνται προσδεμένοι στο σύστημα, δεν χρειάζονται τόσο αυτή τη δύναμη (χωρίς αυτό να σημαίνει ότι δεν την έχουν!).

Συμφωνώ με τον Albert Einstein ότι ο σοσιαλισμός είναι η προσπάθεια της ανθρωπότητας "να υπερβεί το αρπακτικό [predatory] στάδιο της ανθρώπινης ανάπτυξης". Κάθε αγορά, ακόμα και μια σοσιαλιστική αγορά, αποτελεί αρπακτικό σύστημα. Η προσπάθειά μας να προχωρήσουμε πέρα από το αρπακτικό στάδιο έχει, μέχρι σήμερα αποτύχει. Δεν πιστεύω ότι το σωστό συμπέρασμα είναι να εγκαταλείψουμε την προσπάθεια."
Τζ. Α. Κοέν

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Economics, Essays, Theory, Sociology

112 pages, Paperback

First published August 24, 2009

About the author

Gerald Allan Cohen FBA, known as G. A. Cohen or Jerry Cohen, was a Canadian Marxist political philosopher who held the positions of Quain Professor of Jurisprudence, University College London and Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory, All Souls College, Oxford.

Born into a communist Jewish family in Montreal, Quebec, on 14 April 1941, Cohen was educated at McGill University (BA, philosophy and political science) in his home town and the University of Oxford (BPhil, philosophy) where he studied under Isaiah Berlin and Gilbert Ryle.

Cohen was assistant lecturer (1963–1964), lecturer (1964–1979) then reader (1979–1984) in the Department of Philosophy at University College London, before being appointed to the Chichele chair at Oxford in 1985. Several of his students, such as Christopher Bertram, Simon Caney, Alan Carter, Cécile Fabre, Will Kymlicka, John McMurtry, David Leopold, Michael Otsuka, Seana Shiffrin, and Jonathan Wolff have gone on to be important moral and political philosophers in their own right, while another, Ricky Gervais, has pursued a successful career in comedy.

Known as a proponent of analytical Marxism and a founding member of the September Group, Cohen's 1978 work Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence defends an interpretation of Karl Marx's historical materialism often referred to as technological determinism by its critics. In Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality, Cohen offers an extensive moral argument in favour of socialism, contrasting his views with those of John Rawls and Robert Nozick, by articulating an extensive critique of the Lockean principle of self-ownership as well as the use of that principle to defend right as well as left libertarianism. In If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich? (which covers the topic of his Gifford Lectures), Cohen addresses the question of what egalitarian political principles imply for the personal behaviour of those who subscribe to them.

Cohen was close friends with Marxist political philosopher Marshall Berman.

Cohen died on 5 August 2009.

Reviews

[Micah · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm a socialist and I gave this book to my Republican friend and it convinced him to become a socialist too, which just shows how STUPID republicans are, because this was a TERRIBLE book that NO reasonable person would ever be convinced by

2 stars

[Simon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very short, but very nice. Cohen identifies socialism with two principles, the Socialist Equality of Opportunity Principle and the Principle of Community. The first is equality of opportunity that eliminates not just legal disadvantage (serfdom, racist laws), not just the effects of social disadvantage generally (poverty, lack of schools), but all kinds of disadvantage for which people are not responsible themselves (i.e. both of the above, but also differences in endowments of strength, intelligence, etc.). Community is the principle that people should act for mutual benefit not out of greed but out of a desire to serve others and be served by them. The Socialist Equality of Opportunity Principle will be consistent with large differences in people's resources, namely those generated by choices that have turned out badly for reasons that are no fault of the agents of them. But too much discrepancy in benefit will be inconsistent with the Principle of Community since it will create certain kinds of divisions.

Cohen argues that most people will agree that a society governed by these principles, if it is possible, is highly desirable. The question remains as to whether such a society is possible. Abstracting from the difficulties of how, given the many entrenched interests that would be opposed to it, we might get there from here, Cohen identifies two potential sources of unfeasibility: human nature and poor social technology. The objection from human nature is that people are simply too selfish to act as they would have to in such a socialist society, and Cohen gives fairly short shrift to this objection by noting that, as things are, people act from both generous and selfish motives and we should not assume that selfish ones predominate.

The more interesting problem, he thinks, is whether we can develop social technologies to harness these motivations towards moderately efficient material production, as capitalism has shown us how to do with selfish motivations. Central state planning has not worked well. Cohen thinks that we simply don't know of a good alternative social technology, but that there are some interesting ideas out there that might come close to the ideal if they can work (market socialism and Carens's very interesting ideas in Equality, Moral Incentives, And The Market: An Essay In Utopian Politico Economic Theory). In the meantime, we should not give up on looking for ways to implement a highly desirable ideal.

[Jon Nakapalau · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very good book that dissects Socialism to expose the muscle (practice) around the skeleton (theory) - the 'camping' example is excellent and is one of the best examinations I have ever read on this much discussed (but little understood) form of government. A very concise look that will serve as a foundation to further studies.

[Kowsar Bagheri · Rating 4 out of 5]

جرالد آلن کوهن جزو مارکسیست‌های تحلیلیه که این شاخه از مارکسیسم همواره برام جذاب بوده و هست. نوشتار شفاف و طرح مسائل پیچیده با بیان ساده به‌نظرم یه توانایی و قابلیت جدی و بزرگه که کوهن اینو داره. البته که در کل مختصر و مفید نوشتن یه مزیت محسوب می‌شه ولی بعضی جاها به کم‌گویی پهلو می‌زنه که باعث می‌شه مبحث برای مخاطب خوب جا نیوفته و استدلال‌ها قانع‌کننده به نظر نیان. به‌نظرم اگر فصل «آیا ایده‌آل امری مطلوب است؟» و «آیا ایده‌آل امری ممکن است؟» بیش‌تر شکافته و پرداخته می‌شد به‌مراتب بهتر و مفیدتر بود. نکته‌ی جذاب دیگه‌ای هم داشت این بود که مؤلف تردیدها و شبهه‌های خودشو با مخاطب در میان می‌ذاره و این به‌نظرم مفیده. قبلاً اینو در نوشته‌های نوزیک هم دیده بودم.

[KamRun · Rating 4 out of 5]

سوسیالیسم عبارت است از کوشش بشر برای غلبه کردن بر این مرحله تعرض آمیز تحول انسانی و فراتر رفتن از آن
آلبرت انیشتین

برای آن دسته از دوستانی که با آثار و تفکرات کوهن آشنا نیستند باید گفت که عنوان کتاب،یک سوال استفهامی ست و نه انکاری.آنگونه که کوهن اشاره کرده است،این سوالی نیست که در این کتاب جواب داده شده باشد.نویسنده در این کتاب نسبتا کوتاه استدلالی را در دفاع از سوسیالیسم بیان می کند و سپس در فصل های بعدی کتاب،جوانب گوناگون،نقاط قوت و ضعف استدلالش را می سنجد تا آنچه در مقدمه کتاب نیز گفته محقق شود: "سعی می‌کنیم ببینیم این استدلال مقدماتی تا چه اندازه در پرتو تأمل بیشتر تاب می‌آورد" .در فصل سه و چهار کتاب به این موضوع پرداخته می شود که آیا سوسیالیسم مطلوب است یا خیر و اگر مطلوب است،آیا ایده آلی ممکن است یا ناممکن؟دو اصل اجتماع و عدالت اساس استدلال کوهن را تشکیل می دهد.در این استدلال دو فاکتور انسانی ترس و طمع نیز لحاظ شده است

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Why Not Socialism? by Gerald A. Cohen, is an essay discussing Socialism in a basic and conceptual form. Cohen begins by describing a camping trip, and juxtaposing two different scenarios: one in which a group of campers share food and supplies on the trip, and gather resources equitably (ie. in a socialistic fashion) and one in which each camper tries to benefit through predatory market-style exchanges (market capitalism fashion). Which one would be a better trip?

This is a simplistic argument to be sure (Cohen admits it personally) and is certainly not a comprehensive look at the benefits of a socialist society over a market-driven capitalist society. However, it does lead nicely into a more generalized look at socialism as a system. Cohen examines the differences between a bourgeois capitalist society which promotes inherited wealth although discounts the importance of class as a marker of progression, a liberal capitalist system which promotes wealth distribution while also upholding differences in equality as an externality of the market capitalist system, and a market socialist system, which works harder to reduce the role of capital in the system, while maintaining inequalities based on personal choice. Let's unpack that Market Socialism point. Cohen points out that market socialism is not true socialism, as it does still uphold a market-capital system in some form. However, it reduces the importance of capital as a wealth generating function, instead prioritizing wealth redistribution through systems of progressive taxation, penalties for inheritance and so on. There is a Utopian side to this system as well; Cohen cites other authors who talk about eliminating capital in some sense by giving each citizen in a country a portfolio of shares from private firms that cannot be sold for cash, but instead can be traded and built on throughout ones life (this system, while sounding very interesting, is not elaborated on in much depth in this book).

Cohen also examines the differences in the moral and ethical side of a market capitalist system versus a socialist system. Cohen argues the first is based off of greed (gaining as much return from others while paying the smallest amount one can) and fear (the need to personally provide for oneself, and ones family in a hostile and competitive market environment). The second system is based off of communal sharing, close connectivity between members of a community (hence the camping trip analogy earlier). It is a system where people provide for each other not because they are seeking a return or profit, but just because it is the right thing to do in the circumstance. These sorts of communities certainly exist at a local level in most places, but are often discounted on a macro-scale. This is because a more socialist system is probably not as efficient as a market-capitalist system, although Cohen argues, so what? Why would a community sacrifice its very core values of helping those in need, looking after ones neighbours, and so on just to tweak the efficiency scale up a notch or two?

All in all, this was a short and compelling read, though obviously a bit shallow. This is a small treatise that posits the big picture of socialism as a system of governance. It does not get bogged down too much in detail, although it certainly examines some economic and social factors in some depth. This book seemed to me a tad wide-eyed (my taste preferences only), but certainly provides an interesting narrative on Socialism. I could easily and especially recommend this book to newcomers on the topic, or those interested in a lighter read on political theory. It is also not a terrible book for those interested in the topic in more depth, as this book, although big picture in nature, is grounded in terms of its discourse. There are no theoretical market calculations or obtuse social theories here, but a simple analogy and an interesting explanation. Certainly worth a read for those interested in the topic.

[C · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was not aware when I ordered this book, that it was in fact not a book. Sure it has a hardback cover, but it's really a journal article or essay, with book binding. It can be read in one sitting. This has an upside and a downside.

The upside is, in few words, and clear writing, Cohen gives a stellar defense of socialist values over capitalist values and practice. He does this by opening with an example of a camping trip. In general campers experience a sense of community and equality, and work towards the success of the trip on the old Marxian notion of "from each according to her ability to each according to her need." If one were to say "since I built the fire, I deserve the largest marshmallow" or "because I stumbled across these berries by happenstance I get half," the campers would probably rebuke that person and/or not invite them along next time. At the very least none of us would tolerate one camper privatizing all the gear and equipment, letting us borrow it for work, and hoarding the surplus for himself. But how comes once we leave the camping trip those socialist values of equality and community are seen as nasty, ideological, and not worth consideration? Why do capitalist values flourish when we go back to work? This leads Cohen to defend the values developed on the camping trip in the face of capitalist values, and then wrestle with the questions of: is socialism still desirable (yes), and is it feasible. To the later question he claims to be an agnostic. It's clear that state socialism according to the old USSR and China models were a nightmare. It's not clear that that's the only form socialism can take. And unfortunately the primary socialist models being developed are really just strong welfare state versions of capitalism that still rely upon private interest (anti socialist), and heavy taxation.

And this is where the book's size is a serious problem. Much of what Cohen explores and leaves out is degrading to his overall argument. For instance, all forms of socialism that he considers retain money as the universal equivalent of exchange. Why? If socialism was actually enacted, how is money still functioning? What good is money on a camping trip or in a campers society, and how does it function when socially necessary labor time no longer exist (a deeper Marxian question outside the scope of the essay)? And what about the other models for socialist society he either doesn't know about, or doesn't reflect upon (I'm think specifically Richard Wolff's model - Cohen was dead before this came out - but other models exist that Cohen could/should have read about e.g., anarcho-syndicalism). Finally, although he says the human nature critique of socialism needs to be addressed, he doesn't actually address it. And it can be addressed and has been, so to neglect this primary criticism of socialism is certainly devastating for his argument. And the fact the human nature critique can be refuted ought to be included in his book, to make socialist feasibility more fortified.

Overall this is a great book. Cohen is clear, logical, humorous, and honest. Socialist cannot go around handing out The Communist Manifesto anymore, expecting people to take it seriously and read it in earnest (not because there's anything wrong with the book, but only because ideologically people have been brought up to consider it to be pure evil). They can however hand out Cohen's book, and probably expect a more sympathetic response. After reading this, I look forward to reading more works by Cohen.

[Dan · Rating 1 out of 5]

If there is economic inequality how do you fix it?
Force. At gunpoint.
By what method do privately owned business become community owned (public) business?
Force. At gunpoint.

Socialism relies on forceful coercion and this is not mentioned and it is even presented as an ideal prospect. Although socialism, camping trip analogy can be useful as an introduction it skirts the issue of personal freedom.

Cohen states that people should be in a community because that serves their fellow man (and in necessity of reciprocation).

The most troubling aspect presented is the forceful coercion to say or think specific ideas. If Socialism so vastly superior why has it failed, USSR or in danger of bankruptcy when implemented (Canadian healthcare, British NHS, Medicade). Socialism is depended on people reciprocating yet breeds laziness due to a lack of responsibility. What is the incentive to do the best job possible or be really good at my job? To help my comrade? Helping my comrade likely feels great until I'm starving (looking at you USSR).

Furthermore this idea of privilege is probably the worst part of the entire book. Who will be better equipped to handle challenges and setbacks, a poor person determined to escape poverty or a rich person that has every whim met? Who will have a better life someone that never had to work to achieve anything or someone that achieved through struggling.

Finally, the hinged of his argument surrounds Justice. The world is unjust. You sound like grade school feeling angry and cheated because people take advantage of each there and we are not nice people sometimes, you can't force people to be nice people, because then your the villain.

I do want to thank the author for writing this horror, to challenge the thinking myself. And fight to protect his freedom to continue to say what he wants about socialism.

[Marco · Rating 5 out of 5]

Starting from a thought experiment, Cohen makes a tentative definition of the core of Socialism as the principles of radical equality of opportunities -- not only neutralizing social sources of inequality, but also natural ones -- and community. He then tries to make a case for the desirability of applying such ideals to society as a whole, before addressing some of the obstacles that might affect such an implementation. After this exploration, the author concludes that, even if the feasibility of socialism isn't fully established, it is still a desirable ideal, and that even proposals that fail his test of respecting both principles -- as he claims that is the case of Market Socialist models --, they can still be worthwhile endeavors if they do a better job of satisfying the socialist ideals of distributive justice.

Given the book's title, some omissions in Cohen's argument somewhat weaken it. Even if we accept what he calls "socialist equality of opportunity" and a sense of community with every person we interact it as valid principles, it doesn't follow that one should be coerced to follow them. Such coercion is a strong argument against Socialism that isn't fully addressed by the book; however, the author concedes that the instrumental view of markets proposed by Market Socialist authors (and that finds its origins in Smith and Mandeville) offers a way of "recruit[ing] low-grade motives to...desirable ends", even if some of the other consequences of markets go against the core of his thesis.

Cohen's criticism of greed and fear as immediate motives on the market is valid, but it downplays the role that other factors play in economic decisions even in a market economy. Despite the role attributed to Homo economicus in a significant part of economic theory, many authors and currents have pointed out the role played by subjective, non-utility-maximizing factors in the choices of market actors. In fact, left-libertarian theories usually share Cohen's concerns, but defend that "freed markets" are a better way to reach the goal of a egalitarian, communal society. If so, that presents another case against what would be unnecessary coercion required by Socialism.

Despite those shortcomings and the book's short length, "Why Not Socialism?" combines interesting insights about morality and the market processes with a honest and emotionally powerful account of the Socialist ideal and why it has such a widespread appeal.

[Janet Bufton · Rating 2 out of 5]

I almost want to give this ambitious little book an extra star for pluck for all it tries to do in so few pages. Alas, it does not accomplish what it sets out to do.

Cohen's biggest problem in this book strawmans his opponents--he simply doesn't seem to understand them well enough to make what I can imagine being a persuasive case rather than simply talking past them. This undercuts his argument for socialism as an ideal. If, when he says, "We oughtn't rely on fear and greed to run our society", proponents of capitalism respond, "No, of course not. And our society isn't run that way," or "There is more to life than the market," proponents of capitalism say, "Yes, of course there is, and capitalism allows us to pursue it!" then he hasn't advanced the conversation. One gets the feeling that he believes his interlocutors to be ignorant or evil, rather than in possession of valid and considered arguments.

His understanding of the problems with comprehensive economic planning is refreshing, but he doesn't seem to have invested the time to understand how arguments against comprehensive planning apply also to market socialism and its derivatives, and his case for alternatives falls short.

Neither does he address the best arguments by critics of socialism of trying to apply the norms of intimate society, like the camping trip, to the great society in the way necessary for his proposals to extend community to replace self-interest.

Of course, he doesn't have time to seriously argue practical concerns in a book so short, and Cohen's real project isn't to say that socialism is possible, but that it's desirable. That he brings up these practical considerations makes the book feel as though it bites off more than it can chew, though. It's a neat project, but in the end it falls short of what I think Cohen must have imagined he was creating. Still, its brevity means that it doesn't hurt to give his attempt a read, especially as it's referenced by so many people.

[James Foster II · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clearly a short synoptic on whether or not socialism is desirable or feasible, in which Mr. Cohen concisely and decisively argues that while a form of socialism is desirable to us, it's unsure if it's feasible, especially at this point in our socio-cultural development. It is not meant to be an exhaustive discussion, but it does establish well that socialism is desirable. In the fourth chapter he briefly introduces some forms of socialism and touches on reasons why they fail to fully realize the socialist ideal.

**********spoiler**********

Though he does not insist that the desirable form of socialism, which would satisfy the requirements of both "socialist equality of opportunity," and "the communal principle," is currently feasible, instead agnostically withholding assent, he ends the book as follows:

"I agree with Albert Einstein that socialism is humanity's attempt 'to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development.' Every market, even a socialist market, is a system of predation. Our attempt to get beyond predation has thus far failed. I do no think the right conclusion is to give up."

[Justin Evans · Rating 4 out of 5]

How many analytic philosophical journal articles deserve to be sold on their own as a book? None, not even this one. On the other hand, it's a beautiful little object, and Cohen was such a wonderful human being, and so smart, that I'm happy to have contributed something to whoever he decided to leave his copy rights to. This won't convince anyone that socialism is plausible, or even that it's preferable, at least in the short term. But perhaps some college kid somewhere will read it, and it will slowly worm its way into his brain, and he'll become a slightly better person. Maybe.

[Felicity · Rating 4 out of 5]

A compelling moral case for socialism and the last thing Cohen published before his death in 2009.

This is a very short book - about the length of a journal article. Cohen begins with a parable about a group of friends who go camping together. All resources and equipment are held in common for the duration of the trip, food and chores are distributed equally, and everyone cooperates with one other without expectation of personal gain. Most people, Cohen argues, would agree that this is the most just and most efficient way to organise a camping trip. The remainder of the book asks whether the socialist principles that underpin the camping trip - justice and community - should and could be applied to large-scale societies.

Justice, Cohen argues, requires the correction of all unchosen disadvantages - including differences in our 'natural'/'inborn' capacities as well as socially constructed status restrictions (e.g. racial prejudice) and disadvantages linked to socio-economic deprivation. Equality of opportunity, even in this demanding sense, is compatible with quite extensive inequalities of outcome. This is where the principle of community becomes important. Although certain inequalities of outcome should not be prohibited in the name of justice, Cohen argues that they should be prohibited in the name of community, by which he means the requirement 'that people care about, and, where necessary and possible, care for, one another, and, too, care that they care about one another' (pp. 34-5). Community in this sense is incompatible with significant inequalities between rich and poor.

This bit of the argument ties in well with empirical evidence about social inequality and social ties, e.g. in Wilkinson and Pickett's The Spirit Level. Cohen emphasises the corrosive effects of capitalism on human relationships: the market encourages us to instrumentalise other human beings for our own gain; it's both degrading and predatory. Reciprocity does happen in the market, but it's invariably motivated by greed, or fear, or both. 'Communal reciprocity', by contrast, is motivated by the simple desire to serve and be served by one's fellow human beings, not for the sake of cash reward but purely 'because you need or want my service, and you, for the same reason, serve me' (p. 40). This kind of cooperation is essential to what makes us human. It's not just that socialism is fairer than capitalism; it's that capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with human happiness and flourishing.

The main obstacle to realising socialism, Cohen thinks, is not human nature itself, but the fact that we lack the social technology needed to harness human generosity in the way that the market currently harnesses human selfishness. Although this sounds rather optimistic, Cohen is in fact far from certain that this 'design problem' can be solved. He notes (pp. 56-57) that socialism may be 'feasible' and yet not 'accessible': perhaps capitalism is simply too entrenched to be defeated. Even if socialism is attainable, moreover, will it prove compatible with human nature as it has been shaped by capitalism? It's hard, though, to argue with Cohen's conclusion: 'Every market, even a socialist market, is a system of predation. Our attempt to get beyond predation has thus far failed. I do not think the right conclusion is to give up.'

[Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent little book, short enough to be read in a single sitting. It's almost a manifesto really, on how socialist values are really humanist values---egalitarian values---and how socialism is not easy to do, but is still worth trying.

It emphasizes that capitalism is founded upon our two most base emotions: Greed, and fear. (Gordon Gekko even said: "Greed is good." Milton Friedman agreed with him.) While acknowledging that these emotions are not going to disappear any time soon, Cohen focuses on other emotions, like devotion and compassion, which can lead us to a different kind of economic system, one which doesn't privilege a few at the expense of many.

The books one shortcoming is its short length, which prevents really in-depth discussion about the more complicated issues involved in equality of opportunity and freedom of choice. But at the same time, this short length has many advantages, and makes the book accessible to almost anyone.

Buy this book and give it to a libertarian near you.

[Nativeabuse · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cool little booklet about socialism, he demonstrates his ideas with an analogy to a camping trip that works really well. I'll probably find myself repeating the argument he puts forth here to people that I know because it is just so good.

In summary he takes a camping trip ran on the principles of capitalism and contrasts it with a camping trip ran on the principles of socialism. Then argues that clearly socialism is the nature way of life, and this analogy proves that the idea that free market capitalism is in any way the 'natural state of things' is not correct.

[Shane Wagoner · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-written, systematic analysis of Cohen's socialist vision and its ethical justifications. Remarkably modest in its approach and clearly requesting a thoughtful reply, "Why Not Socialism?" does not scream its convictions from the hills, but rather asks, "Why not?"

[Anthony J. Toumazatos · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read most of Cohen’s work in one of my courses, and I read the rest this break. This is one of the wittiest defenses of Socialism that I have read, and it initially had left me stumped. It felt wrong, yet it was hard to exactly pinpoint why. Only after reading Miriam Ronzoni’s response was I finally able to elucidate my thoughts: principles of Justice may actually be quite context-dependent.

In the context of a camping trip, which everyone has a singular goal and is for a short time-frame, these principles seem intuitive.

This short book was a useful intellectual exercise for me and I’m glad I read it. I think it would be a short yet lively read for anyone regardless of their political leanings. I didn’t happen to agree with Cohen, but it was fun to read nonetheless.

[eesha · Rating 3 out of 5]

i told shifa i’m gonna start adding my school readings onto here LMAO

[Lucas · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very quick read - it tooks me under an hour to read cover-to-cover. The book itself is more pop philosophy than academic, although it still has its academic merits. Cohen briefly sketches the desirability of socialism on a small scale and asks why we shouldn't prefer it on a large scale. Much of the first three chapters is to first, explain why socialism is desirable on a small scale, second, to explain what these socialist principles are, and finally, to give a brief argument why it should be desirable on a large scale.

The part that matters most in this book, for me at least, is chapter four which focuses on the feasibility of a socialist arrangement. Acknowledging that recent attempts have been deficient (notably centrally-planned economies), he briefly talks about two recent attempts to defend the feasibility of socialism by Joseph Carens and John Roemer. Carens' idea is of a market economy in which equality is preserved by taxing people and then re-distributing back to equality. This preserves the two instrumental functions of the market - information and motivation (or so he thinks) - but also preserves equality. The obvious objection here is that people may not work as hard as they would in a more leniently taxes economy because they have nothing to gain personally from working more, the arrangement relies on non-self-interested choice to a rather large scale.

The second arrangement is suggested by Roemer which is a sort of market socialism in which the means of production are owned communally but the exchange system is still market-based. This allows for some inequality (based on the use of one's talents and luck in the market economy) but eliminates inequality as a result of capital ownership is eliminated as shares cannot be bought nor exchanged for money. Thus, the largest contributor to current inequality is eliminated. This is obviously unsatisfactory for the hard-line socialist who wants to try and eliminate any non-choice based inequality, but it is a step in the right direction.

Cohen notes he is unsure if either of these arrangements are possible but also states we aren't in an epistemic position to know whether they are possible. If we think socialism desirable, Cohen has at least given us a prima facie reason to try and see if it is feasible. We may even lean on something like Axel Honneth's historical experimentalism to guide us as piece-by-piece, we evaluate which parts of the capitalist machine are necessary, what isn't, and what our alternatives are.

[Ryan (Glay)]

Not very convincing but the author does highlight the problem socialists have of trying to create the appropriate 'social technology' to realize their ideals.

I think Socialism does work on a small scale, i.e. - Family, Hunter/gatherers, Amish, Kibbutz, or the example the author uses in opening his book a 'camping trip' etc ... Basically socialism can work in a small-scale society with very limited specialization. The problem for socialism has always been HOW you can extend this to a vast industrial hyper-specialized modern society.

Socialists want their new society to be both as efficient and dynamic as Capitalism but also to be an equal land of plenty (this is where Capitalism very obviously falls short) where people are Free ... the Socialist idealist WANTS IT ALL basically ... The problem always seems to become that to achieve this Equality there is either some trade off to efficiency/dynamism or to individual Freedom and I remain unconvinced after reading this that the author provides a new 'social technology' that will make up for these tradeoffs and present an economic/political system better than the Welfare State/Capitalist systems that currently predominate across the West.

[Matej · Rating 3 out of 5]

We need more of this type of book. A simple read for at most a couple of hours, focusing on key principles and laying them out in an accessible fashion. A strong point of the book is that it pries away objections that are often run together, so that they can be met individually. Another good point is that Cohen recognizes that we do not have an answer to the problem of large-scale resource distribution in a socialist society at the moment (though he points to some attempts). The weakest point is section III, supposedly arguing for the desirability of the socialist ideal - it contains no argument at all, even though this point is far from obvious to anyone who is not a socialist already. The book then ironically fails to answer the question in the title.

[Andrew]

The methodical techniques of analytical philosophy applied to the principles of socialism. It's about as honest a text as you can find, and its thought experiments are more bluff and straightforward than provocative and daring. For someone like me who pretty much considers himself a straight-up socialist, it's not going to change my mind, it's just going to give me a little more debate ammo. But for a sort of American progressive type that is intrigued by socialist ideas if not totally won over, I can imagine this being a transformative text.

[Bookshark · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid introductory, analytic defense of socialism - although not really groundbreaking if you are already in the Marxist camp. I'm looking forward to discussing this book with my students.

[Colette · Rating 2 out of 5]

Love the smallness of this book and the large and easy to read text. Part 1 enticed me, but the rest of the book fell off my interest scale. Overall 2/5 stars; read for a school conference.

[Mohamadreza imani · Rating 4 out of 5]

آلتوسر در مصاحبه‌ای گفته بود که کمونیسم لزوما یک مرحله خاصی از تاریخ نیست بلکه نوعی از فرماسیون اجتماعی است که در آن طبقه، فرد یا نیرویی مورد بهره‌کشی قرار نگیرد. مثالی که برای روشن شدن بحث آورد زمین فوتبال بود، البته اگر روابط احتمالی خارج از زمین را در نظر نگیریم.

حالا کوهن نیز در این کتاب چیزی شبیه به این را می‌گوید. سوسیالیسم چیز آنقدر گنده‌ای نیست که به نظر می‌رسد. شما در سفرهای دوستانه و یا خانوادگی هم «سوسیالیستی» عمل می‌کنید و خود به ان آگاه نیستید. اثبات ایده سوسیالیسم اخلاقی نیاز به سیر طولانی استدلال‌های سیاسی و اخلاقی ندارد، بلکه با «انصاف» و کلاه خود را قاضی کردن هم می‌توان به آن رسید. کوهن اسم این نوع از استدلال را نوعی شهود میگذارد.

یک نکته‌ای هم درباره ترجمه عنوان به نظرم می‌رسد. با اینکه مترجم دقیقا عنوان انگلیسی را به فارسی برگردانده، به نظر رساننده منظور مولف نیست. شاید ترجمه «سوسیالیسم، چرا که نه!» ترجمه بهتری می‌توانست باشد.

[Betule Sairafi]

My dad always bought us 3 of each toy, so I never had to share anything and now I’m so possessive over my shit that that first paragraph made me sick. I’m not saying I'm a capitalist; I don’t know enough about life except to assume that there’s no way to make it fair or good.

0 stars because it’s short and simple, mostly easy to understand for dummies like me, but I’m not sure what I got out of it except that socialism seems like a nightmare for introverts. Why is this high school essay available in hardback? It addresses nothing and I've learned nothing, even though I was practically a blank slate going in.

[Sophie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Bro high key used a camping trip to justify socialism. I do not agree with Cohen because human nature feeds off of greed and fear. We cannot evolve into a communal society because it will inevitably be about competition.

[Evan Milner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding!

Cohen starts off with the simple example of a camping trip, demonstrating that socialist principles generally hold in such a situation. He then spends the remainder of the text exploring the possibility of extending those principles to a larger scenario, often by employing other simple yet effective analogies (my favourite is the example of the "comfortable car"). Along the way he dismantles a lot of the usual anti-socialist talking points.

One of Cohen's key insights is the notion that a socialist way of life requires two principles to be realized: 1) some form of equality of outcome, and 2) community:

"Community" can mean many things, but the requirement of community that is central here is that people care about, and, where necessary and possible, care for one another, and, too, care that they care about one another.

It the latter component, people's caring that they care, that really touched a nerve with me. The breakdown of this kind of reflexive caring has been all too clear during the Covid era, leading otherwise decent people to adopt alarmingly brutal attitudes towards to those outside their immediate circle of concern. We should not be surprised, though, since Cohen argues that such community is incompatible with inequality of the type which exists when a society strays too far from the camping trip model.

Cohen isn't a utopian, however. He freely admits that the possibility of socialism is an open question, or rather a series of unanswered questions. For instance, "whether socialism is consistent not only with the springs of human nature but also with human nature as it has been shaped by capitalism". Ultimately, however, he believes the main barrier to socialism to be the lack of "organizational technology". Humans have developed organizational technologies from motives other than equality and community:

The technology for using base motives to productive economic effect is reasonably well understood. Indeed, the history of the twentieth century encourages the thought that the easiest way to generate productivity in a modern society is by nourishing the motives ... of greed and fear. But we should never forget that greed and fear are repugnant motives.

Cohen points to a couple of examples by other philosophers who have attempted to develop an alternative organizational technology, typically some form of market socialism. He acknowledges the possible shortcomings of these solutions, both in socialist and capitalist terms: for socialists such solutions leave a great many inequalities in place. For capitalists, these solutions suggest a lower degree of efficiency. But this latter objection, Cohen insists, should not be decisive:

Suppose [a socialist or semi-socialist scheme] is somewhat less efficient than standard capitalism. The right inference from that need not be that we should keep capitalism: efficiency is, after all, only one value, and it would show a lack of balance to insist that even small deficits in that value should be eliminated at whatever cost to the values of equality and community.

Hard to argue with that.

[Janez VonRenesse · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interessantes Gedankenspiel. Dass es so nicht einfach auf die gesellschaftliche Wirtschafts-und Lebensweise übertragen werden kann ist auch Cohen klar. Es geht darum Produktionsweisen neu zu denken und das gelingt Cohen gut.
Hätte mir nur gewünscht, dass es in einigen Aspekten etwas weiter ausgearbeitet wird.

[Christopher Hudson Jr. · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. G.A. Cohen concedes practical limitations of most incarnations of socialism (e.g. calculation & knowledge problems), but argues the feasibility of socialism isn’t relevant whether socialism is morally desirable. If there are human limitations to socialism, that says more about humans than socialism. Cohen appeals to basic moral institutions about justice to argue that a moral society would clearly be socialist (socialist equality & socialist community) instead of capitalist. Although Cohen’s arguments are compelling, there are a few weaknesses. Most glaringly, Cohen sets up his moral case for socialism by comparing the appeal of socialism with morality perfect actors with capitalism with real world & immoral actors. Next, he makes several empirical claims about socialism & capitalism that anyone familiar with the social science will immediately find problematic. Lastly, Cohen uses somewhat inconsistent or vacuous definitions to the extent that he at some points seems to define socialism as “niceness” & capitalism as “selfishness”. Moral values, although relevant, can’t be equated with economics systems. Despite these weakness, Cohen remains one of the best socialist political philosophers. Readers, whatever their politics, should seriously grapple with Cohen’s arguments for moral necessity of equality & community. Why Not Socialism? is an excellent brief argument for socialism.