Abstract Karl Marx rejected the ideal of equality as bourgeois. And yet the most significant attempt in recent years to distinguish socialist theory from liberal egalitarian theory, G. A. Cohen’s critique of John Rawls, relies almost entirely on an egalitarian principle. Although Cohen’s critique often seems to have a great deal of intuitive force, a number of Rawls’s defenders have argued, quite convincingly, that Cohen’s critique is unsuccessful. For those of us attracted to broadly socialist ideals, there does seem to be something importantly right about Cohen’s criticisms of Rawls, and more substantively, something deeply problematic in the kinds of market-based leveraging of productive abilities that would be permitted in a fully just Rawlsian society. My diagnosis is that Cohen has the right target, but the wrong fundamental value. I develop an alternative to these liberal egalitarian approaches in contemporary socialist ethics, building on the famous slogan, ‘From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs’. This alternative ideal, of Caring Solidarity, draws on rich socialist, Christian and feminist traditions, and emphasizes the importance of care, recognition and solidarity in political and economic organization. This alternative leaves a certain amount of inequality legitimately in place, whilst providing a moral framework for a radical reorganization of production.
Barry Maguire (Fri,) studied this question.