Gerald Cohen

G. A. Cohen

Full name	G. A. Cohen
Born	14 April 1941(1941-04-14) Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Died	5 August 2009(2009-08-05) (aged 68) Oxford, UK
Era	20th-century philosophy
Region	Western Philosophy
School	Marxism, Analytic Philosophy, Egalitarianism
Main interests	Political philosophy, Ethics, Philosophy of history, Social theory
Notable ideas	Strict Difference Principle, Egalitarian Ethos
Influenced by Karl Marx, John Locke, John Rawls
Influenced Jon Elster, John Roemer, Will Kymlicka, Michael Otsuka, Leslie Jacobs, Alan Patten, Jonathan Wolff

Gerald Allan "Jerry" Cohen (14 April 1941 – 5 August 2009) was a Marxist political philosopher, formerly Visiting 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, Cohen was educated at McGill University, Canada (BA, philosophy and political science) and the University of Oxford (BPhil, philosophy) where he studied under Isaiah Berlin and Gilbert Ryle.

Cohen was formerly 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. It was at University College, London that Cohen became the founder of Analytical Marxism. Several of his former students, such as Alan Carter, Will Kymlicka, John McMurtry, David Leopold, Michael Otsuka, and Jonathan Wolff have gone on to be important political philosophers in their own right.

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 Marx's historical materialism often referred to as 'economic determinism' or '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.

Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence

from Princeton University Press

Cohen's 1978 work is considered a groundbreaking reinterpretation of the Marxist doctrine of historical materialism. It has introduced historical materialism as a reliable theory to English language social texts. He uses the techniques of modern analytic philosophy to construct Marx’s theory of history in a language familiar to liberal and “bourgeois” social theory. The book is sometimes considered to be the first in a school of thought that explores and attempts to reconstruct Marxism using the tools of Anglo-American analytical philosophy and social science, which later came to be known as "Analytical Marxism".

Cohen’s theory was very orthodox in conclusions but its language, premises and method were not traditionally employed by Marxists. It was congenial to the rigorous tools used in 1970's social science, as well as the logical and linguistic analysis used in contemporary philosophy.

Analytical Marxism is sometimes called "Rational Choice Marxism", although not all of its proponents affirm, or need affirm, a form of rational choice. According to some, RCM means that all economical and political action and theories should be explained by the action of not just any individuals but by the actions of a certain individual capable of choice and rational agency. Although some believe it is impossible to reconstruct Marxism in this way, many Marxists today accept that Cohen's work presents a landmark in the (re)interpretation of Marx's philosophy.

In reality, the approach used by the group of scholars who are known as Analytical Marxists draws only in part on neoclassical models. What truly distinguishes Analytical Marxism from many past 'Marxisms' is its rejection of the holistic methodology. That is, 'Analytical Marxists' do not believe that classes or any other entities should be seen as acting in a way that is not the result of the actions of the individuals that make up that entity. Analytical Marxists, generally speaking, do not agree with the rational man/homo economicus premise of neo-classical economics (although they sometimes use this premise as a tool, not a description of a reality) but do otherwise tend to agree with mainstream methodology.

AM and RCM challenge bourgeois theory on its own terms. Human rationality is potentially a very good starting point for criticizing capitalism, but not the only one. Like many 'analytical Marxists', Cohen has turned his attention towards the concepts of justice, equality and exploitation in his more recent works.

If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich?

Cohen asked, in his book of the same name, If you're an egalitarian how come you're so rich? The role of morality in traditional Marxism is debatable. However, using the tools of contemporary analysis above led Cohen (and other Analytical Marxists) towards liberal egalitarianism. In this book, Cohen argued that while liberal egalitarianism might express the correct principles of justice, it arbitrarily and inconsistently limits the scope of those principles. Not only do those principles apply to the rules that define the structure of society (i.e. laws), they also apply to personal behavior. Put differently, liberals such as Rawls have traditionally implicitly or explicitly accepted that inequality-generating incentives (i.e. those not required to compensate for extra burdens e.g. extra stress) are just if they are necessary to benefit those who are less fortunate. Cohen argues that these kinds of inequalities would not be necessary if people were truly committed to the principles of egalitarianism. The 'talented' should be willing to exercise their talents without extra and unequal rewards. People have to make moral choices in their daily lives. He gives an example of how, in the 1970s, in an interview with a very rich Labour Party member, the interviewer asked why he would not just give the Labour Party enough money to wipe out its debts? The question was not even taken seriously.

Cohen argued in other sections of this book that it is, and has been, unwise for Marxists to avoid normative political philosophy. Socialists are no longer justified in believing that socialism is inevitable, and should focus on trying to argue that it is desirable and/or required by justice.

In "History, Labour, and Freedom", Cohen studied the problem of freedom in a capitalist society. He came to the conclusion that although the proletarian is individually free to leave the working class, they are not so collectively. “I want to rise with my class, not above my class!”, is his slogan for the working class. In a different but related argument against the common equation of capitalism with unrestricted freedom, Cohen demonstrates that the 'free' market restrains the liberty of some in order to create liberties for others. The reason for this is that private ownership of a commodity presupposes non-ownership of that thing by everyone else. If I own something I am free to use that thing, while others are deprived of the freedom to use that thing. If 'my' yard was owned in common in some way (e.g. it was a park) then you could use it as a place to rest or gather. But as things stand right now if you tried to rest on my private property, you would be breaking the law, and I could call the police and have you removed. Cohen also asserts that, "Jesus would have been right to spurn" Rawls' difference principle.

History, Labour, Freedom

One of the themes that Cohen covers in this book is about the possibility of socialist revolution. One argument often raised as to why this will be difficult to achieve is the free-rider problem: each revolutionary will be tempted not to take part, as he or she will value his or her own safety over and above the contribution that he or she could make to the speed and chances of success of a revolution. Further, if, as Marx claims, socialist revolution is inevitable, and each revolutionary knows this, what is the point in any individual taking part? Cohen just points out that if revolutionaries care about each other, they have an incentive a) not to free-ride and b) possibly to take part in the revolution, to make it easier for their comrades.

Another theme in this book is understanding exploitation and value in marxism, and their role leading to revolution in Marxist theory.

Critique of luck egalitarianism and, in particular, Ronald Dworkin's Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality

Dworkin's book outlined a theory of the most desirable form of equality that a society could pursue. The theory was that of 'equality of resources', where the resources would be measured as equal in the following ways: they would aggregated across the whole of an individual's lifetime (so someone could be worse off at some points and better off than others at other points, but as long as the aggregation across their whole lifetime was equal to the aggregations others had across their lifetimes, this would be considered equal) the allocation of resources would satisfy something Dworkin called 'the envy test', in which no individual would rather have the resources that any other individual had individuals could become worse off, again measured across their whole lifetimes, could become worse off if they chose to gamble with their resources; under Dworkin's schema, the best form of equality would permit this.

Cohen criticised the form of equality that Dworkin proposed in essays including 'On the currency of egalitarian justice' and a chapter in the book Dworkin and his critics, with replies by Dworkin on several counts. First of all, he criticised the solution that Dworkin proposed to 'the envy test'. In order to clarify the envy test, Dworkin says that the allocation of resources that would satisfy the envy test would also be the allocation that would result from a hypothetical auction, in which all of society's resources were auction off to individuals. Everyone in society would participate and have equal bidding power and the auction would be repeated again and again until everyone was satisfied with the allocation they got out of it (i.e. thinking that they could do no better with their bidding strategy given the way that others were bidding). However, this could be seen as implying that people who want resources that are scarce or sought-after in the auction (or rather, scarce relative to how sought-after they are) would have to use up more of their buying power to get hold of these resources than people who were fortunate enough to like resources that were not very popular and/or abundant (or rather, resources that were abundant relative to how sought-after they were). Cohen also argues that the most desirable of equality in a society is 'equality of advantage', rather than 'equality of resources', though he declines to give a more precise description of what this means and how it would be applied, like Dworkin does. In the early chapters of a later book by Cohen, Rescuing justice and equality, Cohen says that he doesn't think it necessary to have a precise theory or schema of the best form of equality, but that we can make judgements on how to organise society using several different intuitions, which can conflict with one another, using our judgement in particular cases to resolve those conflicts. That said, Cohen credits Dworkin with what he says is a considerable achievement: integrating personal responsibility in to a theory of the best form of equality. He says that this is all the more remarkable because personal responsibility has often been a core value in right-wing politics.

Elizabeth Anderson also criticises Dworkin and luck egalitarianism, but from a different standpoint, with her paper 'What is the point of equality?' (Ethics 109). Amongst other points, she argues that Dworkin's schema is too hard on people who gamble and lose (e.g. people who lead unhealthy lifestyles and end up with health problems) and also that it fails to look after dependent care-takers. She also argues that the 'best form of equality' would also include joint production by members of society. In his chapter in Dworkin and his critics, with replies by Dworkin Cohen calls the critique 'spirited', but does not otherwise affirm the arguments in it.

Rescuing justice and equality

In this book, Cohen makes a nubmer of points on justice and equality. One of the main themes in the book is criticism of John Rawls' Theory of Justice. Cohen expresses personal admiration for Rawls early on in the book, but nonetheless criticism of Rawls's theory is a central concern. Points include: the idea that we do not need a 'theory of justice' that gives us a precise description of how society should look, but can can rely on intuitions that can sometimes conflict with one another the idea that Rawls's theory of justice, and theories of justice in which some people act selfishly, are weakened because those people shouldn't be acting selfishly; in particular, the idea that we may need to allow large inequalities in wealth to incentivise work is not a compelling theory of justice because the beneficiaries of those inequalities are being selfish (because they won't work as hard without the incentives) and others.

Works

• Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence (1978, 2000)
• History, Labour, and Freedom (1988)
• Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (1995)
• If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich? (2000)
• Chapter in Dworkin and his Critics, with replies by Dworkin (2004)
• Rescuing Justice and Equality (2008)
• Why Not Socialism? (2009) [Trad. esp.: ¿Por qué no el socialismo?, Buenos Aires/Madrid, Katz editores, 2011, ISBN 9788492946136]
• On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice, and Other Essays in Political Philosophy (2011)

See also

• Analytical Marxism
• List of people from Montreal
• Luck egalitarianism

Further reading

• The Egalitarian Conscience: Essays in Honour of G. A. Cohen (2006); edited by Christine Sypnowich

External links

• Imprints interview
• Cohen's Tanner Lectures: "Incentives, Inequality, and Community"
• Cohen interview at Philosophy Bites (mp3 audio)
• Obituary to Gerald Cohen at The Third Estate
• Obituary in The Monthly Review
• Obituary in The Times
• Obituary in The Guardian
• Obituary in The Independent
• Remembering Jerry Cohen: A Tribute in Socialist Worker
• Review of Why Not Socialism? in The Oxonian Review
• Journal of Ethics volume for Jerry Cohen
• Cohen Against Capitalism on Channel 4