Gordon makes excellent points about the concept of “solidarity.”
His opponent Piketty defines it as being “part of a joint enterprise.” It’s true that there are numerous enterprises under capitalism rather than a single giant state socialist firm.
But if we define the enterprise most generally as the building of a great society or civilization, I do not see why the people engaged in it cannot feel solidarity in that.
The issue then is, given this end, what’s the best means of attaining it? Socialism or capitalism? If libertarians are right, and capitalism moves this enterprise forward and socialism destroys it, then solidarity is not only compatible with but requires capitalism.
It’s true that capitalism features both cooperation and competition, but the competition need not ruin solidarity. It can be made gentlemanly by the virtue of sportsmanship; as one athlete put it, “I love my competitors, but I’d hate to let them win.”
This anticapitalist propaganda is a systematic scheme for the substitution of tedium for the joy of labor. … The worker rejoices in his place in society and his active cooperation in its productive effort. If one disparages this ideology and replaces it by another which represents the wage earner as the distressed victim of ruthless exploiters, one turn the joy of labor into a feeling of disgust and tedium. (HA: 590-1)
Piketty has attacked the genuine solidarity of capitalism in just this vein without offering any alternative, since socialist solidarity, no less than socialist calculation, is impossible.