Cohen’s argument that the development of the productive forces can be explained in terms of what they call adaptive preferences’. They suggest ‘rational that Cohen does not take sufficiently into account problems of collective action. Joshua Cohen made similar criticisms and adduced evidence that there have been long stretches of history in which the productive forces declined in strength (most notably on the fall of the Roman Empire). Richard Miller pointed out that the account of fettering was unclear. Did the productive forces have to stop developing, or was it enough that they developed more slowly than they would under some other economic structure? Furthermore, the use of the productive forces and their development are quite different. One could argue that capitalism greatly develops the productive forces but uses them poorly. Is this fettering or not? Each of criticisms brought forward important responses and further clarifications of the theory. In response to Elster, Cohen pursued the analogy with the Darwinian use of functional explanation in evolutionary biology, which does not pre-suppose teleology or purposes’. In response to Joshua ‘nature’s Cohen, and Levine and Wright, Cohen, together with Will Kymlicka, wrote a detailed rebuttal of their argument, and in response to Richard Miller, Cohen broadly accepted the criticism that the theory of fettering was unclear, and wrote a detailed clarification, which was first published in History Labour and Freedom and was ultimately incorporated as an additional chapter in the extended edition of KMTH.
Cohen’s argument that the development of the productive forces can be explained in terms of what they call ‘rational adaptive preferences’. They suggest that Cohen does not take sufficiently into account problems of collective action. Joshua Cohen made similar criticisms and adduced evidence that there have been long stretches of history in which the productive forces declined in strength (most notably on the fall of the Roman Empire). Richard Miller pointed out that the account of fettering was unclear. Did the productive forces have to stop developing, or was it enough that they developed more slowly than they would under some other economic structure? Furthermore, the use of the productive forces and their development are quite different. One could argue that capitalism greatly develops the productive forces but uses them poorly. Is this fettering or not? Each of criticisms brought forward important responses and further clarifications of the theory. In response to Elster, Cohen pursued the analogy with the Darwinian use of functional explanation in evolutionary biology, which does not pre-suppose teleology or ‘nature’s purposes’. In response to Joshua Cohen, and Levine and Wright, Cohen, together with Will Kymlicka, wrote a detailed rebuttal of their argument, and in response to Richard Miller, Cohen broadly accepted the criticism that the theory of fettering was unclear, and wrote a detailed clarification, which was first published in History Labour and Freedom and was ultimately incorporated as an additional chapter in the extended edition of KMTH.
CPBA.docx