Why Not Socialism?

This book is an excellent view into the mind of a socialist. The basic principles are laid out, and examples are used to demostrate them. One of them is the "camping trip" in which socialist values of sharing and equality are obviously preferable to capitalist values. Cohen then wonders why an entire society can't be organized along these lines. He fairly presents arguments against Socialism and then disposes of some of them quickly, others not so much.The problem I have with Cohen's exposition is that it is extreme, and it pits itself against an extreme view of its opposite, Capitalism.Cohen seems to like little set-piece parables, like the camping trip. Well, here's another one, called "The plywood and the hurricane" After a hurricane, "price gougers" buy plywood, drive hundreds of miles to the disaster and sell it for a huge markup - to those that can afford it. The socialist argument is that the poor cannot afford it, and that such gouging should be forbidden. (In Cohen's terms, the hurricane is the result of a "lottery" that nobody can be allowed to win.) Above all, everyone should suffer equally. But that's not an entirely valid argument, the poor would still be without plywood if the gougers had not shown up. The real socialist argument is that such preferential advantage being afforded the rich is disruptive of "community", it causes resentment and envy among those who cannot afford the high-priced plywood, and fear for their own welfare and that of their families. By accepting this, isn't Socialism then encouraging or at least accepting the base emotions of envy and fear? Should we teach gougers that they should be generous and not make a profit? Simply bring the plywood in and charge only their costs? That their reward is a warm feeling? Or should we teach those who were unable to afford plywood, that they are no worse off than if the gougers were thrown in jail? The socialists would say that the government should supply the plywood, perhaps for free, using taxpayer money. Sure, fine. If the government were able to do this quickly and efficiently, there would be no need to punish gougers, because there would be no gougers because there would be no profit to be had by gouging. But the government bureaucracy, trained to follow a myriad of cookie-cutter rules at all costs, and never to take independent action, cannot respond as quickly as some guy 200 miles away with a truckload of plywood, and dreams of a cash windfall. Socialist would rather see everyone, rich and poor, suffer, than to allow an entrepreneur and his wealthy customer to benefit, while the poor are no worse off than they would be otherwise. Except for a nagging sense of envy and resentment, which can be "programmed out" of human behavior about as easily as the greed motive can be disposed of. Cohen is wrong to believe people are that malleable. But look at national supply companies like Home Depot. They hardly raise prices at all in a disaster, because they have a brand, and if they were to gouge people, those people would remember it when the crisis had past and boycott them in revenge. What? Is Capitalism encouraging social responsibility? Sure, Home Depot is operating with an eagle eye on the bottom line, and can be accused of not really caring about the customers they are not gouging. But how is it that the "greed and fear" of a large corporation has been harnessed for what even a socialist would call "the common good"? And what happens when Socialism comes face to face with the theory of evolution? Socialists love the theory of evolution because it flies in the face of the religious right, but they hate their own misinterpretation of evolution. They see the theory of evolution as being essentially the same as Capitalism, a dog-eat-dog rush to the bottom. Yes, evolution is about survival of the fittest. Not just the fittest individual, but the fittest family, the fittest tribe, the fittest society, the fittest planet. And evolution is NOT about endless competition, it is about the endless balancing act between competition and cooperation. Compete when you should cooperate, you lose. Cooperate when you should compete, you lose. This creates a tension that some people cannot stand. Cohen cannot stand it. The bottom line is that the goal of a decent society should never be about abolishing one or the other, it should be about accepting the tension and managing that balancing act, and to the extent socialists want to end it in favor of cooperation, they are destructive of a decent society. Same for Capitalism - those wanting to end the balancing act in favor of raw individual competition are also destructive of a decent society. Cohen states that capitalists are motivated by greed and fear, and that Capitalism celebrates greed. This is no more or less true than the idea that socialists are motivated by envy and fear, and that Socialism celebrates envy.Socialism is susceptible to being co-opted and subverted by despots. Was there ever a despot who did not preach Socialism, whether the national (racist) Socialism of Hitler or the international ("classist") Socialism of Lenin and Stalin and Mao? Socialism starts out with this beautiful vision of utopia, and socialists gain power in a dysfunctional society because of it. When their attempt to mold the people into true believers fails, they are frustrated and angered by those who can't or won't go along with it. These people are shunned, their reputations abused, and when that doesn't work, they are jailed, and when that doesn't work, socialist-preaching despots in their righteous anger and hatred of these people start murdering them, by the millions if necessary. But it's ok, it's for a good cause. This is not an indictment of the truly generous and caring impulse of socialists celebrated by Cohen, it is an indictment of their susceptibility to tyranny when frustrated. A similar indictment of Capitalism can be made because, while the oligarchy of the rich and powerful produced by raw Capitalism does not actively murder the poor, they kill them nevertheless through neglect. That is not an indictment of healthy competition, which encourages the social skills of being able to win and lose constructively, which socialists like Cohen seem to have no interest in, being terrified of "losing" in any way at all.

Why Not Socialism? If you are considering buying this book be sure to read the "Product Description" so that you know the size of what you are getting for your money: it is not just "concise," it is tiny, no more than about 10,000 words. As an alternative, you may want to check your library for an earlier version, which appeared in Democratic Equality: What Went Wrong?, edited by Edward Broadbent (2001).If you are not already familiar with Cohen (or even if you are) you may want to view the obituary that appeared in the Guardian (August 10, 2009), which provides an excellent overview of his life and thought: [...]In this little essay Cohen pursues a helpful allegory, that of a group on a camping trip, to probe reciprocity and exchange motivations and principles. He illustrates how three forms of the principle of equality plus the principle of community might apply to the campers' behavior. He advocates "communal reciprocity," a principle that involves giving or sharing not because of what one can get in return, but because the recipient needs what is given. Think of it as a counter-balance to the role of selfishness in the classic allegorical work on economic motivations, Mandeville's The Fable of the Bees.Further details of Cohen's argument are ably summarized in the Gintis review, so I will not repeat them. I will say, though, that Gintis seems too harsh on Cohen on a couple of points. First, Cohen is more accepting of markets than Gintis suggests -- Cohen allows that markets perform a valuable information function and he rejects central planning for that reason (it is perhaps unfortunate that he uses the term "predation" to characterize market motivations). Second, Cohen likely would have agreed with most of what Gintis says about the heterogeneity of human motivations. Cohen was not one-sided: "Both selfish and generous propensities reside, after all, in (almost?) everyone," he wrote.As Gintis stresses, one of the major problems Cohen is up against is that it is not clear how the conditions of a camping trip, where the participants generally are expected to follow his equality and community principles, can realistically be brought to scale for an entire society. Cohen himself recognizes that it may not be feasible. It is worth pointing out, however, that there are obviously already many societal mechanisms that tap people's communal motivations (charities, volunteer work, underpaid service corps, and so on) and that as Cohen infers, many of us (probably the majority) do not think they are such a bad thing.The other major problem Cohen faces is that we expect our economy to be as productive (efficient) as possible, and while many may be willing to trade-off a bit of efficiency to gain equality or community, there are limits. Cohen was a political philosopher, not an economist, so he offers little to directly address that problem here (other than to reference John Roemer).Short as it is, maybe even largely because it is so brief (no problem to finish it), Why Not Socialism? is worth reading. But if you buy it perhaps you will want to share it with others, thus applying both the community principle (if you expect nothing in return) and the principle of economic efficiency (reducing the cost per reader).

This is a manifesto as to the desirability and feasibility of a socialist ethic of equality and community, and is rather successful and clear-minded in these terms: through argument from intuition - of what we might value in a camping trip - it captures the ecumenical aspirations of socialists, and while convinced of the desirability of the instantiation of these ethical precepts in our society, Cohen is lucid of the serious obstacles as to the feasibility of any such instantiation. There exist feasible accounts of market socialism among Cohen's fellow so-called analytic Marxists, but such is a half-way house imperfectly rendering equality and community; a social design and technology capable of fully capturing those precepts is presently (and only presently) withstanding. One must admire this candid but lingeringly optimistic concession.The crisp force of Cohen's exposition is, without doubt, a marvel in its own right, and embodies the best virtues of analytic philosophy. It endows what is effectively a pocket manifesto with disarming weight and, for this brevity and elegance, makes accessible a commonly rarefied discussion. This book exceeds the shoes and warrants the historical stature of the work to which its title alludes: Albert Einstein's 1949 Monthly Review essay `Why Socialism?' It should be celebrated.

A short book that captures the basic principles and foundations of socialism from which it is open to interpretation and free to grow. After reading this its easy to see ideas that current political parties or even Governments use that are perhaps socialist inspired ideas. It is not the more set in stone variant of socialist idea found in say, Marxist theory under communism, which is why this book is an excellent starting point and continued reference point for anyone interested in politics and socialism. An absolute neccessity for socialism in the 21st century. Especially democratic socialism.

I read this little book on the way to work this morning, just an hour or so, but such a stimulating and interesting exploration of what socialism means, what it can do, and where it's limits might lie. Perfect both for a first foray into socialist ideas, and also a more penetrating exploration of these questions.

I bought this book for my politics module in Education Studies. This is a well presented book, and is actually really interesting.

Given as a present so unable to comment on the content itself.