平等既是人类永恒追求的理想，也是政治哲学研究的重要主题，其关乎着公平正义，而柯亨正是在这一问题上做出重要贡献的理论学者。柯亨曾被誉为“英语世界中最受尊重的马克思主义者”和“平等主义的良心”，在其超过三分之二的学术生涯中，他不仅力图从规范性维度为马克思主义的平等理论辩护，还直面自由意志主义者对社会主义平等公正性的质疑，批判了以往持有平等理论的学者在“平等物”上的局限。因此，本文旨在结合马克思主义哲学与政治哲学的基础上具体剖析柯亨的社会主义平等思想，澄明其是针对谁实现平等、实现什么的平等、如何实现平等等问题。

第一章通过对柯亨社会主义平等思想产生背景的探究明确了柯亨的问题意识。本章不仅关注到柯亨所处的时代环境对社会主义平等的冲击，还分析了自由平等主义与自由意志主义以正义为轴线、以平等和自由为分支的争端实质，发现其都是在为资本主义辩护，并允许了极大范围内的不平等的存在，因此就有了柯亨探寻社会主义平等的必要性。

第二章主要探讨了柯亨对“自我所有权”的批判。自我所有权是自由意志主义的基石，正是以此为核心的诺齐克的“张伯伦论证”才让柯亨“从教条社会主义的麻木中苏醒过来”。故本章首先聚焦于柯亨对诺齐克自我所有权的批驳，通过分析诺齐克持有正义的不合理性、自我所有权与不同分配方式结合的结果，揭露出诺齐克在自由问题上的矛盾以及自我所有权内蕴的不平等趋势，从而得出结论即追求社会主义平等就要限制自我所有权。而柯亨并不只是要驳倒诺齐克，更关键的是他认为马克思主义也存在囿于自我所有权的危机。因此，本章还呈现了柯亨从自我所有权视角对马克思主义的剥削理论和共产主义理想的质疑。

第三章重点阐述了柯亨对“平等物”即“什么的平等”问题的分析。一方面，考察了柯亨对罗尔斯的“基本善”、德沃金的“资源平等”、阿马蒂亚·森的“可行能力平等”的批判，指明他们的平等理论存在缺陷，即未能消灭原生运气的影响，对非生产者、残障者等群体没有表达应有的关心。另一方面，明确了柯亨的平等物的内涵。本文认为“equal access to advantage”更为恰当的译法是“获取优势的方法平等”，指向的是囊括了包含福利、基本善、资源等在内的所有对人有益的对象，旨在消除“非自愿的劣势”、体现人的选择和责任的平等。

第四章是直接从正面建构的视角出发论证了柯亨的社会主义平等思想。在阐明“获取优势的方法平等”几年后，柯亨又提出了社会主义机会平等和共同体原则。因此，本章不只论述了它们的内涵，还探究了三者之间的关系。社会主义机会平等与获取优势的方法平等虽在内涵上无本质差异，但前者明确了柯亨“社会主义”的立场及其平等实现的基地，并具体限定了所允许的不平等范围。而相较于这两者，共同体原则还体现了视野的转变，即在个体平等之外关注到了人与人之间的关系。此外，本章还讨论了柯亨社会主义平等的实现问题及与自由的相容性，柯亨对前者存在不可知倾向，对后者的回答是肯定的。

       第五章主要从马克思主义的论域评价了柯亨的社会主义平等思想。柯亨的规范性论证凸显了马克思主义平等观的道德价值，其平等分配方式为社会主义到共产主义之间的漫长阶段提供了一种可能的分配选项，但不可忽视的是其对马克思主义的批判存在误解，且在平等的落实上过于依赖人性慷慨的不可知论又不可避免地带有空想色彩，所以对其理论我们就需要辩证地看待。

Equality is not only the eternal ideal of human beings, but also an important subject of political philosophy, which is related to fairness and justice. Cohen is a theoretical scholar who has made significant contributions to this issue. Cohen, hailed as "the most respected Marxist in the English-speaking world" and "egalitarian conscience", spent more than two-thirds of his academic career defending for Marxist equality theory from a normative dimension, and confronting libertarians' doubts about the fairness of socialist equality, and criticizing the limitations of scholars who held equality theories in the "equalisandum". Therefore, the aim of this paper is to analyze Cohen's socialist equality thought on the basis of Marxist philosophy and political philosophy, and to clarify for whom, what and how it achieves equality.

The first chapter identifies Cohen's problem consciousness by exploring the background of Cohen's socialist equality thought. This chapter not only pays attention to the impact of circumstances of Cohen's time on socialist equality, but also analyzes the essence of the dispute between liberal egalitarianism and libertarianism on the axis of justice and branching out into equality and freedom, finding that they both defend for capitalism and allow the existence of inequality in a large range. Hence, there is necessary for Cohen to explore socialist equality.

The second chapter mainly discusses Cohen's criticism of "self-ownership". Self-ownership is the cornerstone of libertarism, and it is Nozick's Chamberlain argument at the core that roused Cohen from dogmatic socialist slumber. So this chapter first focuses on Cohen's refutation of Nozick's self-ownership. By analyzing the irrationality of Nozick's holding justice, the results of the combination of self-ownership and different distribution methods, the chapter reveals Nozick's contradiction on the issue of freedom and the inequality trend of self-ownership, and concludes that pursuing socialist equality must limit self-ownership. However, Cohen didn’t just want to refute Nozick, more importantly, he argued that Marxism is also in crisis of being caught up in self-ownership. Thus, this chapter also presents Cohen's questioning of Marxist exploitation theory and communist ideal from the perspective of self-ownership.

The third chapter focuses on Cohen's analysis of "equalisandum", that is "Equality of What?". On the one hand, this chapter examines Cohen's criticism of Rawls's "primary goods", Dworkin's "equality of resources", and Amartya Sen's "capability equality", and points out that their equality theories are flawed. They fail to extinguish the influence of brute luck and don’t express due concern to groups such as non-producers and the disabled. On the other hand, this chapter defines the meaning of Cohen's equalisandum. The paper analyzes the translation and connotation of "equal access to advantage", which refers to all objects beneficial to people including welfare, primary goods, resources, etc, aiming to eliminate "involuntary disadvantage" and to reflect the equality of human choices and responsibilities.

The fourth chapter demonstrates Cohen's socialist equality thought directly from the perspective of positive construction. After a few years of clarifying equal access to advantage, Cohen put forward socialist equality of opportunity and the principle of community. Therefore, this chapter not only discusses their connotations, but also explores the relationship among them. While there is no essential difference between socialist equality of opportunity and equal access to advantage, the former identifies Cohen's position on socialism and the base of achieving equality, and specifically limits the scope of inequality. Compared with these two, the principle of community also represents a shift in perspective, which is that it pays attention to the relationship between people beyond individual equality. In addition, this chapter discusses the realization of Cohen's socialist equality and its compatibility with freedom, Cohen being agnostic about the former and answering affirmatively about the latter. 

The fifth chapter evaluates Cohen's socialist equality thought from the viewpoint of Marxism. Cohen's normative argument highlights the moral value of the Marxist equality view, and its equal distribution method provides a possible distribution option for the long stage between socialism and communism. However, it cannot be ignored that Cohen’s critique of Marxism is misunderstood and the implementation of equality that relies on human generosity and agnosticism is inevitably fanciful. So we need to take a dialectical view of Cohen’s socialist equality thought.