J Soc Philos. 2021;00:1–17. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/josp | 1 © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC Received: 17 July 2020 | Accepted: 30 July 2021 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12439 ORIGINAL ARTICLE G.A. Cohen, the neglect of democratic self-management, and the future of democratic socialism Igor Shoikhedbrod Department of Political Science & Law, Justice and Society, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Correspondence Igor Shoikhedbrod, Department of Political Science & Law, Justice and Society, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada. Email: ig944511@dal.ca This article examines G.A. Cohen's legacy as the twenty-first century's pre-eminent socialist philosopher in the Anglo-American analytical tradition. More specifically, the article tracks the evolution of Cohen's rigorous defense of socialist egalitarian norms and the influence that it continues to exert on contemporary political philosophers. Of particular importance to my dis- cussion will be Cohen's neglected essay, “The Future of a Disillusion.” There Cohen considers the future of socialism by reassessing classical socialist arguments against capitalism while de- fending socialist commitments to equality and community. Cohen also criticizes leading propos- als for market socialism because they exhibited, in his view, instances of “Adaptive Preference Formation” (APF) and undermined key socialist norms. I will show that Cohen's dissatisfaction with classical socialist arguments against capitalist markets led him to neglect democratic self- management (DSM)—an important institutional principle that can further freedom, equality, and community. Furthermore, I identify the extent to which the political philosophers most in- fluenced by Cohen's defense of socialist equality continue to share his disregard for DSM. I argue that such disregard for DSM cannot be sustained without undermining values that remain cen- tral to the socialist project. More concretely, disregard for DSM represents a failure to extend the purview of justice to the workplace, which has a profound bearing on people's daily lives. If the purview of justice ought to extend to individual choices in the market, then neglecting the nor- mative relevance of people's conditions of work, which are usually organized undemocratically and often yield profoundly unequal outcomes, will violate socialist commitments to freedom, equality, and community. Socialism, I maintain, cannot be defended consistently without honor- ing the institutional principle of DSM. My argument will proceed in four steps. First, I situate Cohen's neglected 1991 essay in the broader context of his work and show how it led him to neglect DSM. I then take up the only proposal for market-based socialism that Cohen considered, which he took to be a pioneering model. This was the model theorized by Joseph Carens, which combines the coordinating func- tion of the market with the use of moral incentives to generate an egalitarian distribution. After providing a brief overview, I subject the Carensian model to critique on two fronts. First, the