While Cohen’s view of socialism certainly has more material equality, it may not be possible to achieve in a large globalized society. He mentions that humans are not inherently self-interested and conceited; they possess some form of selflessness and camaraderie that is essential to the community Cohen describes. He defends this view by mentioning the existence of caring profession like doctors or nurses, as they “do not, or do not comprehensively, gauge what they do in their jobs according to the amount of money they’re likely to get as a result, in the way that capitalist and workers in non caring occupations do” (Cohen 59). Adam Smith, on the other hand, believes that “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their …show more content…
His concept of the community, while admirable, seems largely unrealistic in a large society. Although he believes society only lacks the institutions to foster this community, Friedman and Smith refute this view by showing the inherent self-interest individuals possess. Still, people do have some sense of selflessness and community, but capitalism, a proven structure, has allowed channeled self-interest to lead to a more prosperous and opulent society. Believing in the equality of opportunity, Cohen presents a valid criteria for any economic system. Milton Friedman’s view of capitalism can in fact lead to a lack of opportunity due to racial and socioeconomic differences. Smith, however, shows an alternative vision of capitalism by including some governmental involvement; specifically, he mentions the establishment of public schooling. With Smith’s view, he combines the efficiency of capitalism while minimizing some of its social costs; consequently, society as a whole should strive to emulate Smith’s