Why not socialism? (G A Cohen, Princeton University Press)
reviewed by Mike Cowley
If the public duty and professional role of the intellectual is one of service to the goal of human progress, what can we say of our contemporary intelligentsia? Who might we call an ‘intellectual’ anyway, and how many of them does it take to change a light bulb? What is ‘progress,’ and is there really a distinct national cohort of thinkers whose deliberations form the basis of how we conceive of such terms?
Noam Chomsky has been vocal in his despair at the easy accommodation many scientists, writers, musicians, poets and journalists have arrived at with the neo liberal consensus. As the social fabric frayed, these furrowed brows could be found hawking the fruits of their labour to the advertisers and City kids. Where are the thinkers steeped in the traditions of public service? Has such a group actually existed throughout history, constituted as a social class?
Wondering on whose side of the barricades the poets are expected is naval gazing, at best (so sorry for the naval gazing). More importantly, how does the recent record of the Socialist Left hold up in such company?
Why Not Socialism?’ is written by G A Cohen, who passed away late last year. It is a short book so long on insight you immediately want to pass it on to others. It is reflective and practical, avoids gallery-rousing kidology and exudes a sober-minded affection for humanity, warts and all.
Cohen sets himself the onerous task of demonstrating the utility of Socialism. At the same time he presents a moral case for its aspirations to equality and community. The latter argument Cohen recognises, is one the Left finds easier to make. He suggests the analogy of the camping trip to illustrate both the ‘desirability’ and ‘feasibility’ of collective endeavour.
Consider the social relations that underpin the norms of behaviour on such excursions; all goods – tents, cooking stoves, football – are used in common, irrespective of their ‘formal’ ownership.
Skills are committed to the common good. It would be nonsense (and would be perceived as such) to demand that either property or aptitude should be mobilised only once a financial transaction for personal profit has taken place. In such circumstances we do not look at the needs of those around us as a means to striking a profit. In fact, our happiness is contingent on theirs. But what of the possibility of Socialism? Cohen tackles the thorny issue of human nature head on. The Left’s biggest challenge he says is to identify a way of harnessing the co-operative spirit of the campsite, and to apply it to the more complex realities of society as a whole.
Capitalism is a system perfectly suited to that part of the human psyche susceptible to greed and fear (yet who, if given the choice, ‘would propose running a society on such motives?’). In contrast, Socialism must imagine economic structures that reflect our gravitational attraction to co-operation and reciprocity. These values are simply a means to commercial ends for the marketeers. For Socialists, they are the end.
Cohen goes so far as to suggest ‘market mechanisms’ can best identify the diverse impulses of human desire. They can be harnessed for the social good. On the other hand he locates a selfish gene in such motives; individualism may well be a ‘natural’ component of human nature, but it is a destructive one, as well as malleable. It may also have to be constrained in the name of community.
The ideology of the marketplace dazzles us with the illusions of choice and equality. Cohen dismantles these facades with grace and a gentle wit. His thoughts assume the best in us, in radical contrast to the cynicism and platitudes of official politics.
The post Book Review: Why not socialism? appeared first on The Citizen.
