DOCSLIB.ORG

Interrogating Socialism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Interrogating Socialism INTERROGATING SOCIALISM: A STUDY OF THE NORMATIVE FOUNDATION OF CONTEMPORARY SOCIALIST PROGRAMS (Word count: 68552) By Man Kong LI Submitted to Central European University Doctoral School of Political Science, Public Policy and International Relations In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science Supervisor: Professor Janos Kis CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2019 COPYRIGHT NOTICE This dissertation contains no material accepted for any other degree(s) at any other institution(s). This dissertation contains no material written and/or published by any other person, except where appropriate acknowledgement has been made in the form of bibliographical reference. Man Kong LI September 22nd, 2019 CEU eTD Collection ii ABSTRACT This study explores the normative foundation of socialism. It attempts to find out whether there is a coherent and compelling normative foundation for socialism, and, if there is one, what are its limits to the justification of socialist institutions. I argue that socialism should have its political principles grounded in the ideal of self-realization in productive work. This socialist ideal argues that an important source of people's well-being is freely opting for work for realizing their ability. The socialist ideal thus demands that the production process be structured in a way that workers can properly regard themselves as participating freely in a cooperative enterprise to produce valuable things or services. One major point this study wishes to establish is that self-realization in productive work is central to people's well-being, and it is the insight to human life that the socialist intellectual tradition captures. This study also attempts to show that this normative political theory of socialism is superior to many contemporary socialist theories and proposals. A crucial shortfall of these socialist proposals is that, I argue, they lack a distinctive and coherent socialist ideal as the normative foundations of their proposals. These proposals explicitly or implicitly appeal to a wide range of normative political principles or values, but they fail to clearly explain why these principles or values are qualified to be called socialist. It is because these proposals, and the principles that justify them, are not supported by a systematic account of human interests they aim to address. This is what I mean to be not having an adequate account of the normative foundation of socialism. This study contributes to improve this shortfall in socialist theories and proposals by exploring what can be a proper normative foundation of socialism. This is a strategy of CEU eTD Collection normative justification very different from those adopted by most contemporary socialist proposals and theories. One crucial problem for their lack of an adequate account of normative foundation is that, these socialist proposals fail to distinguish themselves from contemporary liberalism. I argue iii that there is a problematic aspect that lies at the normative core of liberalism. This is the liberal idea of individual responsibility. It allows people's differential level of advantages to be determined solely by the consequences of individuals' choices, given a fair condition to everyone. I argue that this makes liberalism fails to keep track of, or obscures the reasons for, providing citizens with the satisfaction of justified genuine needs. The socialist ideal of self- realization in productive work, I argue, fares better in this regard. Therefore, I contend, contemporary socialist proposals and theories are misguided in their failure to distinguish their own normative foundation from that of liberalism. Yet, I also argue that the socialist ideal is defective, because it commits to principles that can at times conflict with each other but contains no theoretical resources to resolve the conflict. I then explore the institutional implications of the socialist ideal, and argue that its defects can be mitigated, but not resolved, by institutional design. CEU eTD Collection iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation takes much longer than I expected to complete. It is also much shorter than I expected. Although I stick more or less to the same project for the past six years, I would never have expected it takes its present shape. In this long intellectual journey that has many twists and turns, I have many people to thank for guiding me along, accompanying me, and leading me into many interesting diversions. First and most importantly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Janos Kis. I learned many things from Janos, not only for this dissertation, but also for things more fundamental, like how to think and write about complex normative problems. It also turns out that, in retrospect, he was the one who knew from the start where the destination this project is heading to. Thank you, Janos, for all your teaching and guidance throughout this journey. I would also like to thank Andres Moles and Nenad Dimitrijevic, my panel members, for their valuable comments to my various drafts of the chapters. Nenad is always resourceful in suggesting me what kind of socialist and Marxist literature I should look for. Andres supplied our discussions (during panel meetings and over many sandwich lunches) with witty but insightful remarks. I learned from them much more than what contained in this dissertation. Comrades are important for struggle, even for an intellectual one. I would like to thank many friends I made in CEU, who made valuable comments to my project and, more importantly, accompanied me through the ups and downs these years. They are Zlata Božac, Ardi Priks, Gorana Misic, Daniela Craciun, Margaryta Rymarenko, Jelena Belic, Miklós Zala, Georgiana Turculet, Tamara Kolaric, Yuliya Kanygina, Kei Takahashi, Daniel Dzah, Elettra CEU eTD Collection Repetto, Dragan Kuljanin, Stanisław Richard, Felix Bender, Marko Konjović and Zsolt Kapelner. Special thank is due to Viktor Ivanković, my classmate for four years, my flatmate for two year, and a loving and helpful friend for life. He taught me many things, from philosophical arguments to how to write and speak better English. The dissertation would look v much worse if I did not know him. I would also like to thank Angelo Leung, who helped me to make sense of many philosophical arguments since we knew each other. I would also like acknowledge here my debts to Po-chung Chow, who introduced to me the beauty of political philosophy, and whose Ploughing Classics Reading Group cultivated my first understanding of what rigorous academic philosophy looks like. Special thank is owed to Yat-tung Chan, who mentored me in my formative years of undergraduate study. He patiently taught me the importance of writing and thinking carefully and clearly. I would also like to thank Hon-kit Chao, Chi Kwok, Baldwin Wong, Siufu Tang, Sui-ming Tsang and Tsz-chun Choy, who made valuable comments on various predecessors of this project. An early draft of chapter 2 was presented in the HKU Graduate Conference in Political Theory 2016. An early version of chapter 3 was presented in the Annual Doctoral Conference 2017, and later, in a slightly different form, in The Legacy of Georg Lukács: An International Conference 2017. I would like to thank the many valuable comments from the audience and commentators then. Finally, I would like to thank my parents and my brother, for the support and the tolerance to me pursing a doctoral study far away from home for many years. My deepest gratitude is to my wife, Lok-kam Ho, who tolerated me for not being nearby with her for many years, and supported me relentlessly all along. Without her love, kindness and help, I probably would not have the resolution to finish this project. Hong Kong, my home town, is now in a turbulent time. My sense of justice and social concern was largely cultivated by the friends I made in the Student Union of The Chinese CEU eTD Collection University of Hong Kong, many of whom are now freedom fighters on the streets and in many of their respective positions. I dedicate this dissertation, with gratitude, to them, and all who stand up to fight for autonomy and democracy in Hong Kong. vi This does not mean that socialism is a dead option. I do not think so. But I do think that this option was emptied not only by the experience of socialist states; it was emptied by the silly self-complacency and self-confidence of its adherents, by their inability to face both the limits of our efforts to change society and the incompatibility of demands and values which made up their creed; briefly, that the meaning of this option has to be revised entirely, from the very roots. Leszek Kolakowski, 'My Correct View on Everything', Socialist Register, (11), 1974, 19-20 CEU eTD Collection vii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ___________________________________________________ 1 I. Outline of the Project _____________________________________________________________ 1 II. The Problem with Contemporary Socialist Proposals ___________________________________ 6 III. The Challenge of Liberalism _____________________________________________________ 14 IV. The Concept of a Socialist Normative Foundation ____________________________________ 18 V. In Defense of the Socialist State and Rule of Law _____________________________________ 25 VI. The Organization of this Study ___________________________________________________ 29 CHAPTER 2 LIBERALISM AND THE LIMITS OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY ___________ 34 I. Introduction ___________________________________________________________________
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Distributive Egalitarianism, the Complete-Life View, and Age Discrimination
    Thirteen SOCIAL INJUSTICE: DISTRIBUTIVE EGALITARIANISM, THE COMPLETE-LIFE VIEW, AND AGE DISCRIMINATION Richard Wagland There are “two different kinds of valuable equality” that might be distin- guished within contemporary political thought.1 The first kind is distributive in nature and specifies that justice requires benefits of a certain kind to be distributed equally. Equality of the second kind does not directly specify any particular distribution of benefits, but instead identifies a “social ideal” of “a society in which people regard and treat each other as equals.”2 These two forms of equality can be labeled “distributive equality” and “social equality.” It is equality of the first kind that has been the focus of much contemporary liberal political philosophy over the last three decades since the publication of John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice,3 and it is that form of equality that is the focus of this chapter. It might be argued that egalitarians should pursue both conceptions of equality simultaneously, perhaps because one is just an alternative expression of the other. Nevertheless, one of the main claims of this chapter is that these conceptions do in fact conflict, at least when it comes to the treatment of older persons. The reason they conflict is that for a distributive egalitarian theory to be plausible it must ensure that benefits are distributed diachronically between the separate complete lives of individuals, rather than at temporally synchron- ic moments within their lives. As we shall see, this in turn justifies age- discriminatory policies that are not compatible with the ideal of social equali- ty.
    [Show full text]
  • Election Address: There Is a Socialist Alternative
    Socialist Studies Election Address Socialist Studies No 95, Spring 2015 Oil, War and Capitalism Socialist Ideas and Understanding Marxism and Democracy Election Address: There Is A Philip Webb: Architecture and Socialism Socialist Alternative What we Said and When A Great Idea for the 21st Century The forthcoming May General Election will see a myriad of The Philosophy of Anarchism political parties asking the working class majority to vote for them Syriza and the Troika: A Modern Greek and their policies. Each political party will take capitalism for Tragedy granted, the class system as given and the private ownership of the means of production and distribution as natural, unquestionable and inviolable. Workers will be expected to vote for leaders who will claim they have a vision for a “better future” and the necessary skill to change and shape of society for the benefit of everyone. The propaganda of the capitalist political parties is that there is a fundamental difference between them and the other political parties who will be contesting the General Election. Labour will promise to “save the NHS from Tory privatisation” and to ease austerity measures. The Tories will say a vote for them is a vote for economic probity and lower taxation. The Liberal Democrats will try to tell workers that they “humanised” the Tories when in power and did a lot for the poor. The Greens will say they, and only they, can “save the planet” while UKIP will blame all societies’ problems on the European Union and the unrestrained movement of migrant labour into Britain. For the working class, that is, those who live on wages and salaries, to be taken in by this propaganda, is a big mistake.
    [Show full text]
  • Stuart Hall: an Exemplary Socialist Public Intellectual?
    Wilfrid Laurier University Scholars Commons @ Laurier Communication Studies Faculty Publications Communication Studies Summer 2014 Stuart Hall: An Exemplary Socialist Public Intellectual? Herbert Pimlott Wilfrid Laurier University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.wlu.ca/coms_faculty Part of the Journalism Studies Commons, Other Communication Commons, Other Film and Media Studies Commons, and the Social Influence and oliticalP Communication Commons Recommended Citation Pimlott, Herbert. 2014. "Stuart Hall: An Exemplary Socialist Public Intellectual?" Socialist Studies / Études socialistes 10 (1): 191-99. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Communication Studies at Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication Studies Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Socialist Studies / Études socialistes 10 (1) Summer 2014 Copyright © 2014 The Author(s) Feature Contribution STUART HALL: AN EXEMPLARY SOCIALIST PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL? Herbert Pimlott,1 Department of Communication Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University Abstract Most assessments of the influence of scholars and public intellectuals focus on their ideas, which are based upon an implicit assumption that their widespread circulation are a result of the veracity and strength of the ideas themselves, rather than the processes of production and distribution, including the intellectual’s own contribution to the ideas’ popularity by attending conferences and public rallies, writing for periodicals, and so on. This concise article offers an assessment of the late Stuart Hall’s role as a socialist public intellectual by connecting the person, scholar and public intellectual to the organisations, institutions and publications through which his contributions to both cultural studies and left politics were produced and distributed.
    [Show full text]
  • Rule Over None II: Social Equality and the Justification of Democracy
    NIKO KOLODNY Rule Over None II: Social Equality and the Justification of Democracy What is to be said for democracy? Not that it gives people what they want. Not that it realizes a kind of autonomy or self-government. Not that it provides people with the opportunity for valuable activities of civic engagement. Not, at least not in the first instance, that it avoids insulting them. Or so I argued in the companion to this article.1 At the end of that article, I suggested that the justification of democ- racy rests instead on the fact that democracy is a particularly important constituent of a society in which people are related to one another as social equals, as opposed to social inferiors or superiors. The concern for democracy is rooted in a concern not to have anyone else above—or, for I am grateful for written comments on this article and its companion (as well as on their distant ancestors) from Arthur Ripstein, Japa Pallikkathayil, Samuel Scheffler, Jay Wallace, Fabienne Peter, Adam Hill, Dylan Murray, Joseph Raz (and his seminar), Jerry Vildostegui, Amanda Greene, Alan Patten, Liz Harman, Peter Graham, Samuel Freeman, Joseph Moore, Mike Arsenault, Mike Diaz, Dan Khokhar, Dustin Neuman, Ben Chen, Nick French, Daniel Viehoff, and two anonymous referees for Philosophy & Public Affairs. I am also grateful for responses from participants at BAFFLE at Berkeley in fall 2010; Ronald Dworkin and Thomas Nagel’s Colloquium in Legal, Political, and Social Philosophy at NYU in fall 2010; my graduate seminars at Berkeley in spring 2011 and 2014; Joseph Raz’s seminar at Colum- bia Law School in fall 2011; a Political Philosophy Colloquium at Princeton in fall 2011;a colloquium at the Ohio State University in 2011; the Darrell K.
    [Show full text]
  • An Anarchist Anthology. Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press, 2004, 406 Pp, $29.95
    105 BOOK REVIEW ALLAN ANTLIFF (Editor), Only a Beginning: An Anarchist Anthology. Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press, 2004, 406 pp, $29.95. Reviewed by Richard J.F. Day, Queen’s University Only A Beginning looks like an ‘art book’, and in a certain sense that’s what it is. But it’s an a n a r c h i s t art book, or more precisely, an anarchist art h i s t o r y book, and that makes all the difference in the world. By focusing on events and issues relevant to the Canadian anarchist scene from 1976 to 2004, it provides an entrance into a world, or a world of worlds, that is almost completely absent from both the mass media and academic journals. The History section, which kicks off the collection, is in essence a retrospective of selected anarchist publications, with an emphasis on anti-civilizationist journals written in English and produced in Toronto, Va n c o u v e r, and Montreal during the 1980s. T h e r e is a bilingual entry for Montreal’s D é m a n a r c h i e and, overall, enough diversity of time and place to give the reader a strong sense of what Canadian anarchist publishers have been up to. Leafing through stacks of old newspapers is always intriguing, and with the help of excellent design and production values, Only A Beginning definitely gives one the sense of discovering a hidden archive. But what really made the first section a highlight of the book, for me, was hearing the voices of the people who were involved in the production process itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Burn It Down! Anarchism, Activism, and the Vancouver Five, 1967–1985
    Burn it Down! Anarchism, Activism, and the Vancouver Five, 1967–1985 by Eryk Martin M.A., University of Victoria, 2008 B.A. (Hons.), University of Victoria, 2006 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences © Eryk Martin 2016 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Spring 2016 Approval Name: Eryk Martin Degree: Doctor of Philosophy (History) Title: Burn it Down! Anarchism, Activism, and the Vancouver Five, 1967–1985 Examining Committee: Chair: Dimitris Krallis Associate Professor Mark Leier Senior Supervisor Professor Karen Ferguson Supervisor Professor Roxanne Panchasi Supervisor Associate Professor Lara Campbell Internal Examiner Professor Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies Joan Sangster External Examiner Professor Gender and Women’s Studies Trent University Date Defended/Approved: January 15, 2016 ii Ethics Statement iii Abstract This dissertation investigates the experiences of five Canadian anarchists commonly knoWn as the Vancouver Five, Who came together in the early 1980s to destroy a BC Hydro power station in Qualicum Beach, bomb a Toronto factory that Was building parts for American cruise missiles, and assist in the firebombing of pornography stores in Vancouver. It uses these events in order to analyze the development and transformation of anarchist activism between 1967 and 1985. Focusing closely on anarchist ideas, tactics, and political projects, it explores the resurgence of anarchism as a vibrant form of leftWing activism in the late tWentieth century. In addressing the ideological basis and contested cultural meanings of armed struggle, it uncovers Why and how the Vancouver Five transformed themselves into an underground, clandestine force.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism Mathias Risse
    John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Faculty Research Working Papers Series Can There be “Libertarianism without Inequality”? Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism Mathias Risse Nov 2003 RWP03-044 The views expressed in the KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or Harvard University. All works posted here are owned and copyrighted by the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. Can There be “Libertarianism without Inequality”? Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism1 Mathias Risse John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University October 25, 2003 1. Left-libertarianism is not a new star on the sky of political philosophy, but it was through the recent publication of Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner’s anthologies that it became clearly visible as a contemporary movement with distinct historical roots. “Left- libertarian theories of justice,” says Vallentyne, “hold that agents are full self-owners and that natural resources are owned in some egalitarian manner. Unlike most versions of egalitarianism, left-libertarianism endorses full self-ownership, and thus places specific limits on what others may do to one’s person without one’s permission. Unlike right- libertarianism, it holds that natural resources may be privately appropriated only with the permission of, or with a significant payment to, the members of society. Like right- libertarianism, left-libertarianism holds that the basic rights of individuals are ownership rights. Left-libertarianism is promising because it coherently underwrites both some demands of material equality and some limits on the permissible means of promoting this equality” (Vallentyne and Steiner (2000a), p 1; emphasis added).
    [Show full text]
  • Inheritance, Gifts, and Equal Opportunity
    1 Inheritance, Gifts, and Equal Opportunity Dick Arneson For Duke University conference 12001 “It has become a commonplace to say we’re living in a second Gilded Age,” writes Paul Krugman, attributing the shift in common opinion to the recent work of the economist Thomas Piketty. More strikingly, according to Krugman, this recent scholarship suggests that we are “on a path back to ‘patrimonial capitalism,’ in which the commanding heights of the economy are controlled not by talented individuals but by family dynasties.”1 In the light of such worries, we might wonder about how inheritance and large gifts to individuals would be assessed in the lens of egalitarian political philosophies. This essay explores a part of this large topic. I look at the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill along with Rawlsian fair equality of opportunity, luck egalitarian doctrines, and the burgeoning relational egalitarianism tradition. In the course of this survey, I tack back and forth between considering what the doctrine under review implies with respect to inheritance and gift-giving and considering whether the doctrine under review is sufficiently plausible so that we should care about its implications for this topic or any other. 1. Limits on Individual gains from gift and bequest. A permissive state policy on gifts and inheritance would allow that anyone who legitimately possesses property is free to pass along any portion of it to anyone she chooses, provided the would-be recipient accepts the bequest, and provided the intent of the giver is not to induce the recipient to violate a genuine duty, as occurs in bribery.
    [Show full text]
  • Quong-Left-Libertarianism.Pdf
    The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 19, Number 1, 2011, pp. 64–89 Symposium: Ownership and Self-ownership Left-Libertarianism: Rawlsian Not Luck Egalitarian Jonathan Quong Politics, University of Manchester HAT should a theory of justice look like? Any successful answer to this Wquestion must find a way of incorporating and reconciling two moral ideas. The first is a particular conception of individual freedom: because we are agents with plans and projects, we should be accorded a sphere of liberty to protect us from being used as mere means for others’ ends. The second moral idea is that of equality: we are moral equals and as such justice requires either that we receive equal shares of something—of whatever it is that should be used as the metric of distributive justice—or else requires that unequal distributions can be justified in a manner that is consistent with the moral equality of persons. These twin ideas—liberty and equality—are things which no sound conception of justice can properly ignore. Thus, like most political philosophers, I take it as given that the correct conception of justice will be some form of liberal egalitarianism. A deep and difficult challenge for all liberal egalitarians is to determine how the twin values of freedom and equality can be reconciled within a single theory of distributive justice. Of the many attempts to achieve this reconciliation, left-libertarianism is one of the most attractive and compelling. By combining the libertarian commitment to full (or nearly full) self-ownership with an egalitarian principle for the ownership of natural resources, left- libertarians offer an account of justice that appears firmly committed both to individual liberty, and to an egalitarian view of how opportunities or advantages must be distributed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of Equality and Well-Being in Marx
    47 ESSAY The Concept of Equality and Well-being in Marx Potyara A. P. Pereira University of Brasília (UnB) Translate by Jeffrey Hoff The Concept of Equality and Well-being in Marx Abstract: This article presents Marx’s conceptualization about substantive equality and well-being, which have an organic relation with human needs, labor and true liberty. Because this conceptualization is anchored in premises and criteria that are incompatible with the capitalist understanding of these concepts, the paper uses it as a legitimate reference for the criticism of bourgeois social policy. This is based on the understanding that although Marx did not emphasize the theme of social protection, his vast work includes a type of sociology of well-being that must be unveiled. Keywords: Substantive equality. Human emancipation. Anti-capitalist well-being. Received Aug. 30, 2012. Approved Sept. 12, 2012. R. Katál., Florianópolis, v. 16, n. 1, p. 47-56, jan./jun. 2013 48 Potyara A. P. Pereira Introduction What will be discussed here are the few but not unimportant efforts to detect in Marx1 a type of sociology2 of social well-being, which authorizes adopting it as a legitimate reference for critical analyses of capitalist social policy. This understanding will certainly not be exempt from controversy, given the complex particularity of Marx’s theoretical work and the multiplicity of existing Marxisms – each one considering itself to be the true and only interpretation, if not the pioneer. This is not to mention the unproductive uses of Marx’s work, such as those that reduce it to a type of Oracle of Delphi3 that could provide answers to any question addressed to it.
    [Show full text]
  • Orwell George
    The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume II: My Country Right or Left 1940-1943 by George Orwell Edited by Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus a.b.e-book v3.0 / Notes at EOF Back Cover: "He was a man, like Lawrence, whose personality shines out in everything he said or wrote." -- Cyril Connolly George Orwell requested in his will that no biography of him should be written. This collection of essays, reviews, articles, and letters which he wrote between the ages of seventeen and forty-six (when he died) is arranged in chronological order. The four volumes provide at once a wonderfully intimate impression of, and a "splendid monument" to, one of the most honest and individual writers of this century -- a man who forged a unique literary manner from the process of thinking aloud, who possessed an unerring gift for going straight to the point, and who elevated political writing to an art. The second volume principally covers the two years when George Orwell worked as a Talks Assistant (and later Producer) in the Indian section of the B.B.C. At the same time he was writing for Horizon, New Statesman and other periodicals. His war-time diaries are included here. Penguin Books Ltd, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England Penguin Books Australia Ltd, Ringwood, Victoria, Australia First published in England by Seeker & Warburg 1968 Published in Penguin Books 1970 Reprinted 1971 Copyright © Sonia Brownell Orwell, 1968 Made and printed in Great Britain by Hazell Watson & Viney Ltd, Aylesbury, Bucks Set in Linotype Times This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser Contents Acknowledgements A Note on the Editing 1940 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Why Not Capitalism? Richard J. Arneson [This Is the Not-Quite-Final Version of an Essay Published in Distributive Justice
    1 Why Not Capitalism? Richard J. Arneson [This is the not-quite-final version of an essay published in Distributive Justice and Access to Advantage, Alexander Kaufman, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), pp., 207-234.] Should egalitarians oppose the idea of a capitalist market economy? This is an extremely vague and ambiguous question, but also an extremely important one. If left- wing ideas are to have a justified popularity, left-wingers should be clear as to what they are for and what they are against. If there is an egalitarian radicalism that offers a distinctive and plausible alternative to the philosophical liberal egalitarianisms of theorists such as John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, Amartya Sen, and Thomas Nagel, egalitarian radicals need to articulate their rival vision. Anyone wrestling with these issues today owes an enormous intellectual debt to the late G. A. Cohen. For many years he worked with great success to determine what is living and what is dead in the thinking of Karl Marx, what exactly is wrong with the Lockean libertarianism of Robert Nozick, and why the grand social justice theory of John Rawls should be rejected despite its grandeur. Toward the end of his life he reworked an essay originally published in 2001 into a very short book, Why Not Socialism? The book directly addresses the vague and ambiguous question stated just above. Cohen suggests that when we reflect on the idea of an ideal camping trip among friends and consider (1) how it should be organized and (2) what is the content of the moral principles that the imagined camping trip satisfies, we get a conditional argument for a certain socialist organization of society.
    [Show full text]