Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why Not Community? An Exploration of the Value of Community in Cohen's Socialism

  • Published:
Res Publica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The work of prominent analytical Marxist G. A. Cohen provides a vision of socialism which has distributive justice and community at its core. While Cohen's view of distributive justice has been hugely influential, much less has been said about community. This article argues that community plays three distinct roles in Cohen's socialism. One is as an independent value, the second is as a necessary adjacent counterpart to justice, which serves both to restrict and facilitate distributive equality, and the third is as a critique of the liberal contractualist view of humanity. We argue that each of these are distinct and valuable elements in Cohen's thought, each of which must be recognized to understand the range and implications of Cohen's socialism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For other relevant discussions of Marxism and community, see (Holm 2020; Spafford 2019; Verma 2000).

  2. For Cohen’s own personal reflections over Marxism see especially (Cohen 2013b; 2001).

  3. Miller has argued that Cohen should not be considered a luck egalitarian (D. Miller 2014a), but this is a minority position (Albertsen 2017; Lippert-Rasmussen 2016).

  4. For some recent discussions, see, however, (Albertsen 2019; Choo 2014; Frye 2017; H. Frye Forthcoming; Gilabert 2012; Noonan 2012; King 2018; Roemer 2017; Spafford 2019; Vrousalis 2015; 2010; 2012).

  5. See also the imagined conversation in (Cohen 2009, pp. 7–9).

  6. The three components listed here follow (Albertsen 2019). Not everyone agrees with this depiction. Roemer considers altruistic behavior to be part of Cohen’s community (Roemer 2017, p. 306). Some leave out an equal challenges component (Miller 2010, p. 250; Van Schoelandt 2014). Some include a shared body of experiences component (R. W. Miller 2010, p. 250; Van Schoelandt 2014), while Archer does not include either of these (Archer 2016). Lippert-Rasmussen discusses three components similar to those presented here, but not in a way where they all need to obtain for community to obtain (Lippert-Rasmussen 2016, pp. 222–226).

  7. According to Vrousalis, this critique is aimed at ‘not an innocuous forum for exchange of goods and services, but what Marxists call generalized commodity production’ (Vrousalis 2010).

  8. See (Cohen 1991; 1995; 2009).

  9. This is illustrated in Cohen’s book If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich? On its final pages, Cohen shares the story of his father, who is laid off, then brought back to work only to be fired once more. This illustrates how the market encourages us to treat people in accordance with a market norm ‘that promotes “efficiency” but corrupts humanity’ (Cohen 2001, p. 181).

  10. The formulation there is adapted from (Cohen 1991).

  11. For important and recent discussions of Cohen’s ethos, see (Albertsen 2019; Carens 2014; Casal 2013; Furendal 2018; 2019; 2020; Johannsen 2017; Titelbaum 2008; Holt 2011; McTernan 2013; Voigt 2019; Pérez Muñoz 2016).

  12. See also (Miller 1989; 2014b).

  13. Especially in (Cohen 2008).

  14. See also the discussion regarding the relationship between them in (Lindblom 2021).

  15. To a similar effect, we could also have accidental justice. Cohen mentions this possibility (Cohen 2001, p. 132).

  16. The idea that they are compatible is defended by (Albertsen 2019) and by (Parr and Williams Forthcoming).

  17. See also (Johannsen 2013a, b; 2016).

  18. There is an interesting parallel to Segall’s recent work (Segall 2016).

  19. See (Cohen 2008, pp. 45; Rawls 1980, pp. 515–572).

  20. The trilemma is also found in Carens’ work and further discussed by several authors (Olson 2017; Vandenbroucke 2001; Wilkinson 1999).

  21. For a very interesting argument in that regard, see (Stanczyk 2012). For a critique of the reasons Cohen offers for not forcing people to work in a specific line of work see (Otsuka 2009).

  22. See (Wilkinson 1999) for illustrative quotes in that regard.

  23. Furendal recently criticized the ethos solution for relying too much on the market (Furendal 2019). We believe this to be less of a problem once we take into account how the ethos is also informed by community.

  24. For a note on Cohen’s value pluralism see Cohen 2008, pp. 4–5). For thorough discussion of this see (B. King 2015; Johannsen 2020; Vrousalis 2015, pp. 108–110).

  25. By needed we do not mean necessary in the sense that community is a necessary condition for justice, but rather in the more everyday sense of the word as something that is likely to facilitate something else.

  26. Cohen explicitly writes that ‘It would, of course, be a considerable pity if we had to conclude that community and justice were potentially incompatible moral ideals’ (Cohen 2009, p. 37).

References

  • Albertsen, Andreas. 2017. The luck egalitarianism of G. A. Cohen: A reply to David Miller. SATS 18 (1): 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1515/sats-2017-0008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albertsen, Andreas. 2019. Markets, distributive justice and community: The egalitarian ethos of G. A. Cohen. Political Research Quarterly 72 (2): 376–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918791567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, Alfred. 2016. Community, pluralism, and individualistic pursuits: A defense of Why Not Socialism? Social Theory and Practice 42: 57–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arneson, Richard J. 1989. Equality and equal opportunity for welfare. Philosophical Studies 56 (1): 77–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arneson, Richard J. 1999. Equality of opportunity for welfare defended and recanted. Journal of Political Philosophy 7 (4): 488–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carens, Joseph H. 1981. Equality, moral incentives, and the market: An essay in utopian politico-economic theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carens, Joseph H. 1986. Rights and duties in an egalitarian society. Political Theory 14 (1): 31–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carens, J. 2014. The egalitarian ethos as a social mechanism. In Distributive justice and access to advantage: G. A. Cohen’s egalitarianism, ed. Alexander Kaufman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casal, Paula. 2013. Occupational choice and egalitarian ethos. Economics and Philosophy 29 (01): 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267113000059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choo, Dong-Ryul. 2014. Equality, community, and the scope of distributive justice: A partial defense of Cohen’s vision. Socialist Studies/Études Socialistes 10 (1): 152–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. A. 1978. Karl Marx’s theory of history: A defence. Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. A. 1988. History, labour, and freedom: Themes from Marx. Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. A. 1989. On the currency of egalitarian justice. Ethics 99 (4): 906–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. A. 1991. The future of disillusion. Faculty of Law, University of Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. A. 1994. Back to socialist basics. New Left Review 201: 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. A. 1995. Self-ownership, freedom, and equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. A. 2001. If you’re an egalitarian, how come you’re so rich? Harvard, MA: University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. A. 2006. Luck and equality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 72 (2): 439–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. A. 2008. Rescuing justice and equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. A. 2009. Why not socialism? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. A. 2011. On the currency of egalitarian justice, and other essays in political philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. A. 2013a. Finding oneself in the other. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. A. 2004. Expensive tastes ride again. In Dworkin and his critics : With replies by Dworkin, ed. Justine Burley, 3–29. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. A. 1993. Equality of what? On welfare, goods and capabilities. In The quality of life, ed. Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen, 9–29. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. A. 2013b. Isaiah’s Marx, and mine. In Finding oneself in the other, ed. Michael Otsuka, 1–16. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, Ronald. 2000. Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frye, Harrison P. 2017. Incentives, offers, and community. Economics & Philosophy 33 (3): 367–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frye, Harrison. Forthcoming. Incentives, inequality, and community revisited. In: Sobel, David (ed.), Oxford studies in political philosophy, volume 8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Furendal, Markus. 2018. Rescuing justice from indifference: Equality, Pareto, and Cohen’s ethos. Social Theory and Practice 44 (4): 485–505. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract201891345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furendal, Markus. 2019. Defining the duty to contribute: Against the market solution. European Journal of Political Theory 18 (4): 469–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885117693401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furendal, Markus. 2020. Do your bit, claim your share: Justice, ethos, and the individual duty to contribute. Sweden: Department of Political Science, Stockholm University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, David. 1986. Morals by agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilabert, Pablo. 2012. Cohen on socialism, equality and community. Socialist Studies/études Socialistes. https://doi.org/10.18740/S4W019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm, Andreas Beck. 2021. Toward a Marxist concept of community. SATS 21 (1): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, Justin P. 2011. The limits of an egalitarian ethos: G. A. Cohen’s critique of Rawlsian liberalism. Science & Society 75 (2): 236–261. https://doi.org/10.1521/siso.2011.75.2.236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johannsen, Kyle. 2013a. Cohen on Rawls: Personal choice and the ideal of justice. Social Philosophy Today 29: 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johannsen, Kyle. 2013b. Luck egalitarianism. Philosophy Compass 8 (10): 924–934. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johannsen, Kyle. 2016. Cohen’s equivocal attack on Rawls’s basic structure restriction. Ethical Perspectives 23 (3): 499–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johannsen, Kyle. 2017. A conceptual investigation of justice. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johannsen, Kyle. 2020. Species of pluralism in political philosophy. The Journal of Value Inquiry 1–16, online first published. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-020-09750-5.

  • King, Ben. 2015. 'G. A. Cohen and what type of society we ought to seek'. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Warwick.

  • King, Benjamin D. 2018. Beyond sufficiency: G. A. Cohen’s community constraint on luck egalitarianism. Kritike 12 (1): 215-232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, Carl. 2009. Luck egalitarianism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, Lars. 2021. Justice and exploitation in Cohen’s account of socialism. The Journal of Value Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-021-09833-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper. 2001. Egalitarianism, option luck, and responsibility. Ethics 111 (3): 548–579. https://doi.org/10.1086/233526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper. 2016. Luck egalitarianism Bloomsbury ethics. London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2002. The communist manifesto. Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Karl. 1982. Economic and philosophical manuscripts. In: Giddens, Anthony & Held, Dacid (eds.), Classes, power and conflict: Classical and contemporary debates. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McTernan, Emily. 2013. The inegalitarian ethos: Incentives, respect, and self-respect. Politics, Philosophy & Economics 12 (1): 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X12447777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, David. 1989. Market, state, and community theoretical foundations of market socialism. Oxford, England, New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, David. 2014b. Our unfinished debate about market socialism. Politics, Philosophy & Economics 13 (2): 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X14528648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, David. 2014a. The incoherence of luck egalitarianism. In: Kaufman, Alexander (ed.), Distributive justice and access to advantage: G. A. Cohen’s egalitarianism, pp. 131–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Richard W. 2010. Relationships of equality: A camping trip revisited. The Journal of Ethics 14 (3–4): 231–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noonan, Jeff. 2012. G. A. Cohen and the ethical core of socialism: Equality or life-sufficiency?. Socialist Studies/Études Socialistes 8 (1): 122–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, Martha. 2000. Women and human development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, Martha. 2004. Beyond the social contract: Capabilities and global justice. An Oluf Palme lecture, delivered in Oxford on 19 June 2003. Oxford Development Studies 32 (1): 3–18.

  • Olson, Kristi A. 2017. Solving which trilemma? The many interpretations of equality, Pareto, and freedom of occupational choice. Politics, Philosophy & Economics 16 (3): 282–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X17704401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otsuka, Michael. 2009. Freedom of occupational choice. In: Feltman, Brian, Justice, equality and constructivism: Essays on G. A. Cohen’s rescuing justice and equality, pp. 74–87. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parr, Tom, Andrew Williams. Forthcoming. Fair insurance: Defended, amended, and extended. In: Sobel, David, Oxford studies in political philosophy, volume 8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Pérez Muñoz, Cristian. 2016. The problem of stability and the ethos-based solution. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 19 (2): 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2014.949602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rakowski, Eric. 1993. Equal justice. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 1958. Justice as fairness. The Philosophical Review 67 (2): 164–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 1980. Kantian constructivism in moral theory. The Journal of Philosophy 77 (9): 515. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 1996. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roemer, John E. 2017. Socialism revised: Socialism revised. Philosophy & Public Affairs 45 (3): 261–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.12089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Schoelandt, Chad. 2014. Markets, community, and pluralism. The Philosophical Quarterly 64 (254): 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqt021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segall, Shlomi. 2016. Why inequality matters: Luck egalitarianism, its meaning and value. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spafford, Jesse. 2019. Community as socialist value. Public Affairs Quarterly 33 (3): 215–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanczyk, Lucas. 2012. Productive justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs 40 (2): 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2012.01212.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, H. 2014. Greed and fear. Politics, Philosophy & Economics 13 (2): 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X14528649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Titelbaum, Michael G. 2008. What would a Rawlsian ethos of justice look like? Philosophy & Public Affairs 36 (3): 289–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2008.00140.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenbroucke, Frank. 2001. Social justice and individual ethics in an open society equality, responsibility, and incentives. Berlin, New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Verma, Vidhu. 2000. Justice, equality, and community: An essay in Marxist political theory. New Delhi: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voigt, Kristin. 2019. Justice, pluralism, and the egalitarian ethos. Dialogue Canadian Philosophical Review/revue Canadienne De Philosophie 58 (4): 721–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrousalis, Nicholas. 2010. G. A. Cohen’s vision of socialism. The Journal of Ethics 14 (3–4): 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-010-9084-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrousalis, Nicholas. 2012. Jazz bands, camping trips and decommodification: G. A. Cohen on community. Socialist Studies/études Socialistes. https://doi.org/10.18740/S4MG6J.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrousalis, Nicholas. 2015. The political philosophy of G. A. Cohen: Back to socialist basics. Bloomsbury research in political philosophy. London, New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, T. M. 1999. Freedom, efficiency, and equality. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Lasse Nielsen

  2. Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Andreas Albertsen

Authors
  1. Lasse Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Albertsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Albertsen.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nielsen, L., Albertsen, A. Why Not Community? An Exploration of the Value of Community in Cohen's Socialism. Res Publica 28, 303–322 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-021-09525-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-021-09525-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation