Macquarie University: PHL357 Comparative Analysis of Rawls and Marxism

This essay provides a critical comparison of John Rawls' theory of justice and the views of Analytical Marxism, focusing on their differing perspectives on justice, distribution, exploitation, and alienation within a liberal society. The essay begins by outlining Rawls' theory, which utilizes a social contr...Read More

1
Name:
Course
Professor’s name
University name
City, State
Date of submission

2
Critically contrast and compare Rawls’ view of a just distribution with Analytical
Marxist’s views about exploitation and alienation in a liberal society.
According to John Rawls in his theory of Justice in his book political philosophy and
justice, he addresses the problem of justice distribution and the socially just goods in the society.
John Rawls theory utilizes the updated variant form of conventional social contract theory and
the Kantian philosophy. The Rawls theory of justice is a political theory that opposes other forms
of justice discussed in other contexts and disciplines. A significant appraisal of the theory was
published by John Rawls in 1985 in justice as fairness in social justice. He argues that the society
should be structured to give maximum liberty to the members of the society (Aronowitz, 2016).
Secondly, the inequalities by members, either economic or social should only be allowed if there
will be equal distribution. If there will be such beneficial inequality, it should make it harder for
the people who have no resources to occupy power positions for example in public office.
John Rawls unlike analytical Marxists theorists belong to the social contract tradition. He
holds a different opinion from that of the previous thinkers. He develops a principle of justice
with the use of an artificial device called original position. In this principle, everyone decide the
course of justice behind a veil of ignorance. The veil blinds people to ignore facts about
themselves so that they cannot make principles that work to their advantage. Ralws argues that
no one knows his position and place in the society (Dworkin, 2017). No one knows his social
status, class position nor does anyone know his position in the distribution of his abilities, natural
resources, strength, intelligence and many more (Cottrell., 2019). He assumes that parties do not
know their special psychological propensities and conceptions of the good. The veil hides the

3
people in choosing the principles of social justice. Ignorance to the principles will lead to
fairness to all. A person does not know how he will end up in a society but is going to privilege
on class of people by developing a system of justice that is not fair and treat some members
unfairly.
According to the analytical Marxists views, at the time when a lot of social practices are
attacked based on their views of justice that are ethically empty and unethical. The Marxists
moral concern on justice is questionable. One commentator says that Karl Marx had little or no
consideration on justice matters especially equality. The fundamental passion of the Marxism
principles founders were not passionate on justice and had an aversion of justice. The original
position on the thin theory of the good explains the principles of original position rationale
(Garfinkel, and Rawls, 2015). Each member in the society has equal right to distribution of
goods. The original position parties involved have the rights to regulate the distribution of goods
for economic and social advantages for the society. The principle states that each member of the
society has equal right to the society goods. Before other considerations, the basic rights of an
individual should not be affected by the natural attributes. John Rawls argues that inequality is
good and acceptable to the society only when and if it works to advantage the worst off in the
society.
Most of the challenges facing the anayltical marxism in leberalism is socialism in both its
democratic and revolutionary incarnations. Hower, the left wing philosophers in marxism have
moved in two major ways in the recent years. The philosophers in marxism theory have come to
challenge liberalism from a radically relativist and moral position or accept the main tennets.

4
While meaningful studies shows that socialism has collapsed due to liberalism that has come to
occupy the space left by socialsts (James, 2017.
The contrast seems to argue on whether analytical marxism philosophers of socialism can
provide resources for a meaningful critique of the liberalism. The contrast is whether Is
liberalism the high variant of social justice (Laibman, 2016) . No one knows his social status,
class position nor does anyone know his position in the distribution of his abilities, natural
resources, strength, intelligence and many more. He assumes that parties do not know their
special psychological propensities and conceptions of the good.
Conclusion
The Rawlsian theory argues that the society which is just has some aspects of the socialist
characters. The Rawls principles states that the distribution of goods in a just society a person
being better off than others is justified as long as this simultaneously improves the people who
are worse off in the society. The Marxist theorists on the other hand view social practices are
attacked based on their views of justice that are ethically empty and unethical.

5
References
Aronowitz, S., 2016. The crisis in historical materialism: Class, politics and culture in Marxist
theory. Springer.
Cottrell, A., 2019. Social classes in Marxist theory. Routledge.
Dworkin, R., 2017. Rawls and the Law. In Rawls and Law (pp. 35-53). Routledge.
Garfinkel, H. and Rawls, A., 2015. Toward a sociological theory of information. Routledge.
James, A., 2017. Constructing justice for existing practice: Rawls and the status quo. In John
Rawls (pp. 69-104). Routledge.
Laibman, D., 2016. Value, Technical Change and Crisis: Explorations in Marxist Economic
Theory: Explorations in Marxist Economic Theory. Routledge.