Analytical Marxism – an ex-paradigm? The odyssey of G.A. Cohen Marcus Roberts In 1978 G.A. Cohen published Karl Marxʼs Theory the outset. So, too, had Marxʼs ʻmultiply confusedʼ 2 of History: A Defence. That this landmark work set anatomy of the capitalist mode of production. As for out to defend (something like) the orthodox historical ʻMarxʼs theory of historyʼ in its technological deter- materialism of the Second International was surprising minist incarnation, Cohen has long since confessed enough; that its author situated himself within the ʻana- to doubts as to its defensibility; few Marxists – even lyticalʼ tradition – and therefore engaged, and sought amongst his co-workers – now share the slightest 3 to defeat, Acton, Plamenatz, Popper et al. on their doubts about its indefensibility; and, anyway, Cohen own methodological terrain – was surprising indeed. himself no longer considers it to have any purchase It is testimony to Cohenʼs analytical acuity that, from upon the crucial problems confronting socialists at such unpropitious materials, he fashioned not a mere the close of the twentieth century. He argues that the curio, but arguably the most accomplished defence of pre-history of the historical materialist programme has ʻtechnological determinismʼ ever produced, and one nothing very interesting to tell us regarding either the of the most important works of Marxist philosophy constituency, agency and strategy of any prospective to have emerged from the Anglo-American academy. transition to socialism, or the motivational and insti- In fact, its publication heralded the emergence of a tutional structures of a feasible socialism. Thus, in the sui generis Marxism designated by its progenitors introduction to Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality – prominent amongst whom, alongside Cohen, were (1995), Cohen concedes that Jon Elster, John Roemer, Adam Przeworski and Erik to the extent that Marxism [i.e. Analytical Marxism Olin Wright – as ʻAnalyticalʼ or ʻRational Choiceʼ – MR] is still alive, as … one may say that it (sort Marxism. The architects of this new ʻparadigmʼ of) is in the work of scholars like John Roemer and insisted that a necessary condition of Marxismʼs salva- Philippe Van Parijs [note the conspicuous absence tion was its importation into the tradition of analytical of Elster – MR], it presents itself as a set of values philosophical method, ʻpositivistʼ social science, and and a set of designs for realising those values … Its shell is cracked and crumbling, its soft underbelly is – or, at least, so argued Elster, Roemer and Przeworski exposed.4 – that version of rational choice theory originating in the Marginalist revolution of the 1870s and providing However, while conceding the demise of Analytical neo-classical economics with its definitive axioms. As Marxism, Cohen, in an article originally published in one commentator observed, ʻCohen and his co-thinkers 1990, announces the advent of another new paradigm: … casually crossed the supposedly impassable border ʻAnalytical Semi-Marxismʼ.5 between Marxism and the academic mainstream in If it is true that the moment anyone started to talk to philosophy and social theory.ʼ1 Marx about morality he would laugh, then Analytical After nearly two decades, few Marxist ʻinsightsʼ Semi-Marxism would have had him in stitches. At the have survived the attempt to ʻreconstructʼ it. Most end of a century providing socialists with few occa- of the Marxist heritage – Marxism-Leninism, Trot- sions for merriment, Cohen declares it high time for skyism, Western Marxism and Structuralist Marxism a straight-faced engagement with, and development of, – had been consigned to the Humean flames from the ʻethicalʼ or ʻutopianʼ socialism decried by Marx- Radical Philosophy 82 (March/April 1997) 17 ismʼs founders.6 Marxists could excuse themselves labour. Remarkably, Cohen is forced finally to conclude from serious application to normative political phil- not only that Marxists should be exercised by Nozick osophy only so long as they had anticipated both the but also that ʻthe Marxist doctrine of exploitation is emergence of a working-class movement impelled into flagrantly incongruent with even the minimal principle class struggle by its material interests, and the advent of the welfare stateʼ.11 of an era of material abundance placing humankind, Those Marxists who argue that capitalist exploi- at long last, beyond the ʻcircumstances of justiceʼ tation is unjust claim that, despite formal freedom of and, therefore, the need for theories of justice. The contract, workers are forced to sell their labour power latest news from the Anglophone academy is that to some capitalist; and that, on entering the sphere of the working class has a good deal more to lose than production, they spend a portion of the working day its chains (and, it appears, a good deal less to win producing surplus value appropriated by the capitalist than a world), and that ʻ[w]e can no longer sustain without return. Exploitation is unjust because capital- Marxʼs extravagant, pre-Green, materialist optimismʼ.7 ists ʻstealʼ a portion of the workerʼs product. What The ʻplanet earth rebelsʼ against the final elimination general principle underlies this critique? The very of material scarcity.8 The Marxist explanatory pro- principle, or so Cohen claims, to be found at the heart gramme in ruins, and – relatedly – socialism relegated of Nozickian libertarianism: the self-ownership prin- from the destiny of humankind to one social blueprint ciple. Exploitation is morally objectionable because amongst others, ʻMarxists, or what were Marxists, are workers are coerced into exercising their powers for impelled into normative political philosophyʼ.9 the benefit of non-workers (i.e. capitalists). This is In view of Marxʼs notoriously inconsistent and frag- objectionable because it violates self-ownership: ʻI do mentary remarks concerning our morals and theirs, it not (fully) own myself if I am required to give others might be anticipated that, if Marxismʼs ʻhard factual (part of) what I earn [or produce – MR] by applying carapaceʼ has disintegrated, then its ʻsoft underbellyʼ my powers.ʼ12 The problem is that taxing workers in will prove very soft indeed. So concluded Elster and order to finance welfare programmes for non-workers Roemer, who, bereft of carapaces, set about appro- violates self-ownership for precisely the same reasons priating and developing left-liberal normative phil- as capitalist exploitation does: it takes from workers osophy in defence of versions of market socialism. and gives to non-workers (i.e. welfare claimants).13 Against this current, Cohen, resisting the stampede to Marxists appear to be compelled, on pain of inconsist- market socialism, has launched a last-ditch defence of ency, either to drop their egalitarian commitments a more resolutely Marxian normative position. Contra or to abandon the moralized critique of capitalist Roemer, he argues that, unlike egalitarian liberals, exploitation; that is, unless there is some subtle way Marxists have traditionally been, and should continue of reconciling self-ownership with egalitarianism (and, to be, interested in, and unreconciled to, capitalist therefore, Marxian anti-capitalism with socialism). exploitation.10 Unfortunately, in so far as this Cohenite Some obvious moves are either unsatisfactory or brand of Semi-Marxism distinguishes itself from left- unavailable. For example, it is unsatisfactory to argue liberalism, it finds itself in bad company. Specifically, from the unjust origins of capitalism to its moral or so Cohen argues, it is forced to take the rabid indefensibility. Of course, capitalismʼs origins leave neo-liberalism of Robert Nozickʼs Anarchy, State and something to be desired; the problem is that a con- Utopia extremely seriously. sistent, and historically literate, libertarian (admittedly a rare enough beast) must concede the injustice of Taking Nozick seriously historical capitalism, in view of its origins in, and Cohen argues that a Semi-Marxism insistent upon the development via, multiple violations of those inviolable injustice of capitalist exploitation confronts a serious rights eulogized by the libertarian Right. However, it challenge from a neo-liberal ʻentitlementʼ theory of does not follow from capitalismʼs bloody history that justice which abandons the unemployed, sick, disabled, the form of exploitation characteristic of the capitalist and old – or at least those so ʻirresponsibleʼ as to mode of production is, in and of itself, unjust. A ʻcleanʼ have failed to make adequate private provision – to capitalism – that is, one with unimpeachable origins the tender mercies of private charity; refusing to tax – is, at least, conceivable. For example, we might the Trumps, Rockefellers, Gettys, Bransons, and of imagine everyone beginning at the beginning with an course the less spectacularly endowed, in order to equal share of worldly resources. If some people are finance welfare provisions, on the grounds that this hard-working and frugal then they may work them- is morally equivalent to condemning them to forced selves into a position to exploit the ʻlazy rascalsʼ who, 18 Radical Philosophy 82 (March/April 1997) abandoning themselves to whatever ʻriotous livingʼ ceded). Self-ownership alone will not generate an is afforded in a state of nature, have allowed their unequal distribution of worldly resources. If we go plots to go to seed. Moreover, the ʻexploitedʼ in such back far enough, we eventually arrive at a point in circumstances