







































Advances in Politics and Economics 
ISSN 2576-1382 (Print) ISSN 2576-1390 (Online) 

Vol. 6, No. 4, 2023 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape 

36 
 

Original Paper 

Research on Cohen’s Marxist View of Equality 
Ze Yuan1* 

1 College of Marxism, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, China 
* Ze Yuan, E-mail: zsdmyyz@163.com, Corresponding author 

 

Received: August 22, 2023     Accepted: October 03, 2023     Online Published: October 25, 2023 

doi:10.22158/ape.v6n4p36       URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/ape.v6n4p36 

 

Abstract 

Cohen’s Marxist view of equality is formed on the basis of criticizing liberals and classical Marxism. 

On the one hand, he opposes the equality thought of Rawls and Nozick, and on the other hand, he tries 

to establish a realistic and standardized Marxist view of equality. In addition, Cohen, while criticizing 

the arguments of the liberals, also constantly rethinks the classical Marxism on the concept of equality, 

and reconstructs the Marxist concept of equality to a certain extent. Dialectically speaking, although 

Cohen’s view of equality differs from the Marxist view of equality, it still plays a vital role in the 

construction of an equal society and the development of equality thought. 

Keywords 

Cohen, Marxist, View of equality 

 

1. Introduce 

The concept of equality is an important category in the field of western political philosophy, and the 

interpretation of the concept of equality is also different. At the end of the 20th century, when the 

liberal capitalist movement was developing generally and the international communist movement 

suffered a major setback, with the liberals represented by Rawls defending capitalist inequality, many 

Marxists also began to reflect on the Marxist concept of equality, among which G.A., as an analysis of 

the founder of Marxism. Cohen is a typical example. Cohen creatively combined Marxism with 

analytical philosophy, viewed the traditional Marxist concept of equality from the perspective of 

realistic analysis, criticized the unequal nature of liberal capitalism with sharp theoretical weapons, 

criticized the irrationality of self-ownership principles, and proposed the internal relationship between 

freedom and equality. For more than 30 years, Cohen’s research on equality has become a valuable 

stage for our dialogue with liberal capitalism, a theoretical trend that reflects the search for an ideal 

society of equality in the future, whose “fundamental goal is to criticize and replace the liberal theory 

of justice. (Will, 2004). How to view and understand the concept of “equality” is a realistic problem 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape            Advances in Politics and Economics                Vol. 6, No. 4, 2023 

37 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

that we must pay attention to at present when the debate on equality is still severe. Analyzing and 

understanding Cohen’s Marxist view of equality has certain theoretical guiding significance for us to 

build an equal society and realize common prosperity. 

 

2. Uphold the Marxist Concept of Equality in Criticism 

Equality is the product of history, but in the course of history, the conflict between freedom and 

equality is always a real social problem. The same is true of capitalist society. In order to pursue the 

so-called “freedom”, capitalism has to sacrifice “equality” at the cost, and with the continuous 

development of capitalist society, the gap between the rich and the poor becomes wider and wider. In 

this context, liberals have to defend “inequality”, the representative figures of which are Rawls and 

Nozick. Cohen’s Marxist view of equality was gradually formed in the process of rebutting the liberals 

represented by Rawls and Nozick, which made a strong defense for the maintenance of Marxist view of 

equality. 

2.1 Oppose Rawls’ Difference Principle 

Cohen’s criticism of Rawls is mainly reflected in Saving Justice and Equality, and If You are an 

egalitarian, why are You So Rich? In these works, the main problem is the equal liberalism based on 

the principle of difference proposed by Rawls. In the 1970s, Rawls published his book A Theory of 

Justice, in which Rawls extensively studied various theories of fairness and justice and designed a just 

economic system related to distributive justice. The core of this system is the principle of difference, 

that is, “social and economic inequalities should be arranged in such a way that they are consistent with 

the storage principle of justice”. Appropriate to the best interests of the fewest beneficiaries; And 

subject to the opening of positions and offices to all under conditions of fair and equal opportunity 

(John, 2009). It can be seen that Rawls starts from the interests of the inferior, and when he considers 

from the perspective of the inferior in all aspects, inequality can reasonably exist. For the difference 

principle that only applies to the basic social structure but not to individual choice and individual 

behavior, people can choose freely within this structure, and the final score is bound to be fair and 

equal, because the interests of the inferior will be improved to the greatest extent. The principle of 

difference allows such unequal distribution “to the greatest benefit of the least benefitted,” and is 

therefore also an incentive policy, an effort to make all members of society equal through redistribution 

(Zhao, 2013). 

Cohen believes that Rawls’ principle of justice is ostensibly to safeguard equality, but it is actually a 

secret defense of inequality under the surface of seeming equality. “A society that is equal according to 

the principle of difference requires mandatory rules, as well as a sense of justice that permeates 

individual choice (Cohen, 2009).” When the majority of people in a society agree with the principle of 

difference, they will not ask for higher remuneration due to higher productivity, because this selfish 

motive of pursuing the maximization of interests is not in line with the principle of difference and is 

unfair. If the majority rejects the principle of difference, then it is unfair to insist that they will not 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape            Advances in Politics and Economics                Vol. 6, No. 4, 2023 

38 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

create greater productivity without higher pay, which leads directly to the death of the minimum 

requirements of a decent life for the disadvantaged. In short, whether a society is fair or not depends on 

the degree of fairness among the members of the whole society, not on the independence of each other. 

Rawls’s equal liberalism is essentially a defense of inequality, and his principle of justice is only a 

regulatory principle for social management. It cannot be a fundamental principle for evaluating social 

justice, nor can it guide us to build an equal society. Therefore, Cohen proposed the socialist principle 

of equality of opportunity, the equality of available benefits, in an attempt to correct the inequality 

caused by social reasons, and at the same time to eliminate the inequality caused by differences in 

talent, and eliminate all non-selective disadvantages, so that beyond Rawls’ principle of justice, he only 

corrected the limitations of social disadvantages. 

2.2 Opposition to Nozick’s Principle of Self-Ownership 

The concept of “self-ownership” first appeared in Locke’s Treatise on Government, where Locke 

argued that “every man has a right of ownership over his own person, and no one else has such a right 

(John, 2004). The labor of his body and the work of his hands are, we may say, rightfully his.” On this 

basis, Nozick put forward the principle of self-ownership, arguing that each person should have 

ownership of himself and his abilities, and that each person owns his own property, without a contract, 

and is not obligated to provide any services or goods to others. It can be seen that the principle of 

self-ownership is a defense of the rationality of private property and the rationality of inequality 

brought about by the existence of private property. 

Cohen’s criticism of Nozick’s self-ownership principle is mainly reflected in his book Self-ownership, 

Freedom and Equality. In the book, he takes the self-ownership principle as the premise, refutes 

Nozick’s defense of private ownership inequality with the self-ownership principle through three stages 

of demonstration, and reveals the internal relationship between freedom and equality. In the first stage, 

Cohen argues that the self-ownership principle does not necessarily lead to the legalization of private 

property and inequality. In this phase, Cohen primarily targeted Nozick’s “Chamberlain argument” that 

“whatever emerges from a just state by a just step is itself just.” Cohen believes that liberals only focus 

on the autonomy of individual rights, but ignore the uneven distribution of resources other than 

people’s own, under this condition, the argument that the principle of self-ownership leads to inequality 

is obviously untenable. In the second and second stage, Cohen put forward the external world view of 

“everyone can get”, and demonstrated the possibility of equality and all principles of self coexist. In 

Cohen’s view, a world “accessible to all” means that “the outside world belongs to all, and everyone 

has a veto over the future use of the outside world (Cohen, 2008).” In other words, the principle of 

self-ownership also has the right to all material and natural resources other than human beings on the 

premise of protecting individuals’ ownership of their own rights, which is everyone’s equal possession 

of external natural resources. In this way, a balanced relationship can be established between the 

principles of equality and self-ownership. Finally, in the third stage, Cohen sharply questioned the 

rationality of all the principles of the self. In the conclusion of the second stage, Cohen found that in a 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape            Advances in Politics and Economics                Vol. 6, No. 4, 2023 

39 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

world “accessible to all,” the principle of self-ownership loses its existential value and has only a 

formal meaning, “the communality of the external world makes the self-ownership of its inhabitants a 

mere form.” They cannot use their self-ownership to exercise any substantial control over their lives, 

because whatever they want to do will be subject to the veto power of others.” In view of this 

contradiction, Cohen believes that the denial of self-ownership does not mean the approval of slavery, 

nor does it mean the denial of human autonomy, nor does it mean the denial of Kant’s ethical 

proposition that man is an end rather than a means. On the contrary, affirming self-ownership 

endangers people’s autonomy and does not fundamentally prevent the utilitarian use of others’ behavior. 

Thus, Cohen strongly countered the rational defense of inequality by Nozick and other liberals, and 

played a great role in promoting the development of socialist equality. 

 

3. Reconstruct the Marxist Equality View in the Criticism 

Cohen criticizes the arguments of the liberals, and at the same time, he constantly reflects on the 

classical Marxist view of equality. In his view, the reason why Marxism cannot withstand the attack of 

libertarianism represented by Nozick is that classical Marxism, in attacking liberal capitalism, affirms 

the principle of self-ownership to a certain extent, and therefore this attack is incomplete. In the process 

of analyzing the Marxist view of equality, Cohen not only formed his own view, but also reconstructed 

the Marxist view of equality to some extent. 

3.1 The Realization of Equal Conditions 

In Cohen’s opinion, the classical Marxist view of equality, which establishes equality in the perfect 

state of socialism and communism, is too idealized to be realized, so he proposes to seek practical 

equality. Marx’s equality is divided into two stages, one is the socialist “from each according to his 

ability, according to his work” and the other is the communist “from each according to his ability, 

according to his need.” Cohen believes that the equality of the former society is obviously only formal 

equality, and the actual result is de facto inequality, because the talents, abilities and natural conditions 

of the workers are ignored. Regarding the latter equality, Cohen argues that “it is precisely because 

Marx was unnecessarily pessimistic about the social consequences of failing to achieve infinite 

affluence that he was so optimistic about the possibilities of affluence.” Pessimism about social 

possibilities breeds optimism about material possibilities.” In other words, Marx’s ideal of an extremely 

rich material communist society is now extremely difficult to achieve, as the successor and developer 

of Marxism, can not only indulge in the fantasy of the kingdom of freedom, and escape the reality of 

today’s material scarcity and frequent environmental crises. If the ecological crisis is not properly 

addressed but continues to worsen, material resources will not be extremely abundant in the foreseeable 

future, but on the contrary will be very scarce, while the Marxist theory of communism is based on 

material abundance, which will create a paradox and the idea of equality will be shattered. On this basis, 

Cohen began to construct his concept of equality, trying to conceive a scheme of equality under the 

condition of material scarcity. According to Cohen, there may be such a state of society that, although it 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape            Advances in Politics and Economics                Vol. 6, No. 4, 2023 

40 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

does not reach the level of communism envisaged by Marx, it can achieve the coordination of the 

interests of all parties, thus consolidating the structure of society and promoting social progress. 

Therefore, Cohen continued to explore and study this view of equality. 

3.2 Standardization of Equal Realization 

The concept of normative equality is not only about the description of social facts, but more 

importantly about the normative requirements of social development. By analyzing the Marxist concept 

of equality, Cohen believes that the equal society envisaged by Marx is very difficult to realize, and any 

real Marxist should work tirelessly for the pursuit of equality, and cannot just hold the dream of a free 

and equal society for the liberation of all mankind in the future and escape the current equality problem. 

Therefore, Cohen tried to establish the norms of a realistic egalitarian society. In his view, Marx 

criticized capitalism for using distribution rights to cover up exploitation and inequality, and 

constructed a form of equality of “each according to his ability”, but this is actually unequal for real 

workers. As mentioned above, individuals vary greatly in their gifts, talents, and resources, and equality 

of form does not necessarily create equality of outcome. Cohen’s further analysis shows that the 

Marxist view of equality also partially affirms the principle of self-ownership that liberals talk about, 

especially in terms of the allocation of primary resources. Cohen pointed out that Marx opposed to 

attributing the unfair causes of exploitation to the unequal distribution of original resources, “For Marx, 

the injustice of the original distribution comes from the injustice of the exploitative flows they 

produce.” That is to say, the inequality of the original distribution is only the generative cause of 

injustice, not the main cause. However, in this argument, Marx has actually applied the principle of 

self-ownership, although Marx’s identification with freedom is only a strategic identification, and 

attempts to refute capitalism through the conceptual tool of self-ownership, but the result is to shake its 

own theory. Later, Nozick used the so-called “clean-born capitalism” and the principle of 

self-ownership to demonstrate the justice of capitalist ownership. Thus, from the principle of 

self-ownership, it is possible to reach both equal and unequal conclusions in Cohen’s argument. Finally, 

Cohen also accepted the principle of self-ownership to some extent, attempted to transform the 

principle of self-ownership with socialist thought, and put forward his idea of “the external world is 

shared by all”. In his vision, self-ownership is dispensable in a shared world, where everyone can 

achieve a high degree of freedom and equality. 

 

4. A Dialectical Evaluation of Cohen’s Marxist View of Equality 

According to the above analysis, we can see that Cohen has some unique views on the Marxist view of 

equality. His innovative thought theory maintains and develops the Marxist view of equality to a certain 

extent, but there are some cognitive deviations, so we need to dialectically treat and evaluate his 

Marxist view of equality. 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape            Advances in Politics and Economics                Vol. 6, No. 4, 2023 

41 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4.1 Cohen Misunderstands the Marxist View of Equality 

When Cohen refuted the liberal capitalists and reflected on the Marxist view of equality, although he 

stood on the Marxist stand, his thought was deviated from Marx’s idea of equality, or Cohen’s 

misunderstanding of Marx’s view of equality. First, on the question of self-ownership, as mentioned 

above, Cohen believes that Marx, on the one hand, criticizes liberal capitalism, and on the other, 

applies the liberal capitalist concept of self-ownership, so such criticism is vague and incomplete. In 

fact, Marx clearly pointed out “two breaks”, namely, “the communist revolution is the most complete 

break with traditional property relations, and not surprisingly, it is the most complete break with 

traditional ideas in the course of its development.” In other words, Marx has emphasized the separation 

of values from capitalism. Moreover, Marx’s recognition of ownership as the common possession of 

“united individuals” with the aim of the free development of each individual is clearly different from 

Nozick’s “self-ownership.” Therefore, Cohen’s misunderstanding of Marx on this point also reflects his 

misunderstanding of communism. Secondly, Cohen misreads Marx’s two empirical assertions about the 

prospect of equality. The first is that the rise of the organized working class will eventually wipe out the 

unequal society; Second, the development of productive forces and the enhancement of human 

capabilities will bring about a great abundance of material wealth, and inequality will also disappear. 

However, in Cohen’s analytical conditions, class organization and ecological crisis have become 

insurmountable obstacles, so they lose confidence in the future and attempt to establish the desired 

equality in modern society, which is contrary to Marx’s view. 

4.2 Cohen’s Marxist View of Equality Is of Great Significance 

Although Cohen’s Marxist view of equality differs from classical Marxism in many aspects, his 

original idea still has important theoretical value and practical significance. On the theoretical level, 

Cohen, as the founder of analytical Marxism, the equality theory he put forward has far-reaching 

significance to the development of Marxism. On the one hand, he launched a powerful counterattack 

against the anti-socialist Western political philosophy, fundamentally negating the capitalist system and 

maintaining the order of Marxist political philosophy. His active defense of socialist egalitarianism has 

profoundly clarified the legitimacy and rationality of socialism, and powerfully countered the western 

liberalism’s attack on socialist freedom and democracy. At the same time, Cohen turned from the early 

defense of Marx’s historical materialism to the study of equality, expanded the new horizon of Marxist 

analysis, opened up a new field of Marxist equality thought, and deepened the study of Western Marxist 

equality theory. On the practical level, Cohen’s Marxist view of equality has certain reference 

significance for understanding and solving the equality problem in China. Cohen constructed an ideal 

blueprint of socialist equality to realize social equality, and conceived a social community under which 

all members of society have a certain sense of justice, everyone can choose voluntarily, and members 

of society have a certain sense of caring for each other. Many of the practical dilemmas he put forward 

also reveal that the construction of socialism is not accomplished overnight, it requires not only the 

continuous improvement of the fair distribution system by the state, but also the active participation 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape            Advances in Politics and Economics                Vol. 6, No. 4, 2023 

42 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

and role of the broad masses of the people in the construction of socialist equality. 

 

References 

G. A. Cohen. (2008). Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (Li, Z. H. (Trans.)). Beijing: Oriental Press. 

G. A. Cohen. (2009). Rescuing Justice and Equality. Harvard University. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674029651 

John, B. R. (2009). A Theory of Justice (He, H. H. (Trans.)). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. 

John, L. (2004). Two Treatises of Civil Government. (Zhao, B. Y. (Trans.)). Xi ‘an: Shaanxi People’s Publishing 

House. 

Will, K. (2004). Contemporary Political Philosophy an Introduction (Liu, X. (Trans.)) Shanghai: Shanghai Sanlian 

Bookstore. 

Zhao, J. J. (2013). On Cohen’s Analysis of Marxist View of Equality. Shandong Normal University. 

 

 


