I posted on May 3 about G. A. Cohen’s use of a camping analogy to make the case for socialism.
Here’s another quote from Cohen’s Why Not Socialism?
A nonmarket cooperator relishes cooperation itself: what I want, as a non-marketeer, is that we serve each other; and when I serve, instead of trying to get whatever I can get, I do not regard my action as, all things considered, a sacrifice. To be sure, I serve you in the expectation that (if you are able to) you will also serve me. My commitment to socialist community does not require me to be a sucker who serves you regardless of whether (if you are able to do so) you are going to serve me, but I nevertheless find value in both parts of the conjunction–I serve you and you serve me–and in that conjunction itself: I do not regard the first part–I serve you–as simply a means to my real end, which is that you serve me. The relationship between us under communal reciprocity is not the market-instrumental one in which I give because I get, but the noninstrumental one in which I give because you need, or want, and in which I expect a comparable generosity from you. (Pp. 42-43, italics in original.)
This raises so many questions:
#1. Is this clearly distinct from a market relationship?
#2. Is it possible that people in market relationships enjoy serving others?
#3. Cohen says that he would be a sucker if he served without getting anything back. His only apparent exception is if the person is unable to give back. Does Cohen realize how close he’s coming to an insistence on a market-type relationship?
READER COMMENTS
Ken P
May 6 2021 at 5:44pm
Isn’t it the case that the market does not require you to be a sucker, but a socialist state does require that?
Point #2 is very good. I had images of specific people from my past pop into my head who probably started their business because they love serving people.
Mark Z
May 6 2021 at 10:00pm
It seems like a less honest portrayal of a market relationship. I can imagine a society where everyone pretends everything they do is charity, while actually expecting equal reciprocity for each ‘gift.’ Seems easier more honest to just acknowledge that we are transactional creatures motivated in part by selfish wants (something that is the case in every socialist society as well; I’m pretty sure even Kibbutz residents see work as work, rather than as some joyous altruistic service to the community).
David Seltzer
May 8 2021 at 7:26pm
“I’m pretty sure even Kibbutz residents see work as work, rather than as some joyous altruistic service to the community”. That was my experience when I spent some time on one. It seems altruism is still self-interest. There is a benefit to the altruist.
Phil H
May 6 2021 at 11:08pm
In linguistics there’s a big debate about the formal vs descriptive nature of linguistic theories. For example, in his early work, Chomsky was very explicit that his grammar theories were formal models only, not intended to be descriptions of how people’s brains process language.
I dunno if sometimes market theories could use the same distinction. Because I think the profit-maximizing part is what turns so many people against market theory: they think it sounds like markets claim everyone does stuff solely for the purpose of helping themselves, and they find that unrealistic and insulting. I think economists understand that homo economicus is a theory construct (not a description of people); but it often doesn’t come across that way.
robc
May 7 2021 at 6:41am
That is a good analogy.
Also, I think it is clear that Cohen isn’t passing the ideological Turning test – primarily because he doesn’t recognize the formal v descriptive distinction.
Jon Murphy
May 7 2021 at 8:31am
Cohen’s description reminds me of JR Clark and Dwight Lee’s 2017 EJW article Econ 101 Morality: The Amiable, the Mundane, and the Market
Cohen is trying to force a certain moral framework onto a market exchange that doesn’t fit, which is why the passage quoted comes off as awkward and a distinction without a difference. What he refers to as “generosity” isn’t generosity at all. If there is an expectation of reciprocity, then the action is not generous. It’s mundane (to use Clark and Lee’s term).
Philo
May 7 2021 at 10:33am
Many critics of the market economy seem to think that it leaves no room for personal relationships–for the give and take of friendship and, sometimes, of (non-contractual) commitment. The most casual observer of our society can see that, on the contrary, personal relationships thrive in capitalism. (Besides the obvious, positive examples, notice the importance of celebrity endorsements.) But friendship cannot provide the basis for widespread, far-reaching (“global”) economic exchange, which is necessary for our prosperity. We need to accommodate relatively impersonal exchange; that is just what the free market does.
Floccina
May 7 2021 at 11:30am
Great comments, I love Jason Brennan’s take on Cohen’s camping story see here.
BTW your final comment is what I think when socialists bring up Mondragon. Mondragon looks clearly capitalist to me. They do not hire all comers who would like income, the partners vote mostly with their own interests in mind not the interests of all of society. Sounds more like any organization in a free society than socailism.
David Henderson
May 7 2021 at 3:21pm
Excellent. I rarely have the patience to watch a whole 37 minute speech, but Jason Brennan kept my interest throughout. Very well done. Thanks.
Andrew M
May 7 2021 at 11:36pm
What Cohen’s lament in that book seems to boil down to is this: it would be nice if more people loved us, and if they did what we wanted or needed doing because they loved us.
It would be nice if more people loved us! But socialism doesn’t make more people love us. At best, it would force people to act as if they loved us. Nor does it give people the intimate knowledge of our wants and needs that is typically had by the (few) people who actually love us.
AMT
May 8 2021 at 12:19am
The onion said it best:
https://www.theonion.com/marxists-apartment-a-microcosm-of-why-marxism-doesnt-wo-1819566655
David Seltzer
May 8 2021 at 8:18pm
“A nonmarket cooperator relishes cooperation itself:” If cooperation means, bilaterally informed, voluntary and mutually beneficial, it seems a nonmarket cooperator has engaged in a market relationship.
Comments are closed.