Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 17:31:44 -0400 Subject: M-TH: Re: G.A. Cohen Interview in Philosophers' Web Magazine From: farmelantj-AT-juno.com (James Farmelant) Concerning G.A. Cohen's interview in the Philosophers' Web Magazine I would say it clearly reflects the trajectory that has characterized the evolution other major Analytical Marxists in recent years--from "rational class struggle to ethical socialism"--as Marcus Roberts describes it in his book *Analytical Marxism: A Critique* (London: Verso, 1996). Cohen like Roemer, Elster, and Van Parjis has moved from focusing on historical materialism--which was the subject of his first book *Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence* to a concern with the ethical justification of socialism which is the focus of his most recent book *Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). In that latter book Cohen discusses the ethical justification of socialism over capitalism within the context of liberal analytical political philosophy as represented by the work of John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, and Robert Nozick. In fact Cohen in that book goes to great pains to rebut the arguments that Nozick laid down on behalf of laissez-faire capitalism in his *Anarchy, State and Utopia* and to defend a concept of social justice as 'equality of opportunity of welfare' that is derived from an 'immanent critique' of Dworkin. In the Philosophers' Web Magazine interview it is evident that Cohen's critique of capitalism focuses mainly on issues of income distribution. While this puts Cohen well within the mainstream of left-liberal political philosophy (ie. Rawls and Dworkin) it also places him far from Classical Marxism. Marx in his *Critique of the Gotha Program* criticized socialist critiques of capitalism that focused too much on distributional issues. As Marx put it: Quite apart from the analysis so far given, it was in general a mistake to make a fuss about so-called distribution and put the principle stress on it. Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of non-workers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democracy) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again? Marx and Engels' critiques of capitalism as expounded in works ranging from the *1844 Manuscripts* to *Capital* placed the focus of critique on the nature of production under capitalism rather than on distribution as such. They criticized the dehumanizing nature of the division of labor as it exists under capitalism and they looked forward to its eventual abolition under communism. However, it is precisely these issues that seem to get short shrift in the literature of liberal justice. To the extant that writers like Cohen or Roemer base their critiques of capitalism on this literature this deficiency carries over into their work as well. James F. --------- End forwarded message ---------- --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005