Marxist Critique of Rawlsian Liberalism

¶ … Marxist Critique of Rawlsian Liberalism

The very nature of Communism ensures a strong critique of liberalism, and essentially capitalism. Karl Marx believed that the upper class, or the bourgeois, benefits greatly from the suffering and despair of the lower classes, or the proletariat. The most obvious and important critiques Marxism has for Liberalism is that Capitalism itself exploits and alienates the proletariat.

John Rawls, a major proponent of a particular field of Liberalism is one who has perpetuated the idea of choice within our lives, and also the concept of inequality of pay based on level of skill. Despite obvious criticisms Rawls might have on the Marxist idea of a communal rate for all, Marx also finds Rawls' version of Liberalism especially distasteful due to the judgment of compensation based on inequality.

Marx believed that Capitalism exploited the proletariat in order for the bourgeois to stay on top and prosper from the work of the lower classes. This was his main critique on Liberalism and Capitalism. Therefore, this is also the strongest Marxist critique against a Rawlsian Liberalism as well. Basically Marx believes that compensation should not be different for different skill levels. The fact that Rawlsian Liberalism calls for inequality of compensation, although based on skill sets, makes this form of Liberalism especially vulnerable to Marxist critique. Rather than providing individuals opportunity, this inequality only leads to the alienation of different individuals with different skill sets. The surgeons are alienated from the laborers and so on. This leads to constant class and skill divisions, resulting in the further division of society as a whole. Marx believes this to also result in our alienation from our own species and family as well. According to Marx, inequality in any sense just continues the process of division and separation; which ensures that society will never return to its natural state as a whole.

However, John Rawls would think otherwise. The type of Liberalism calls for inequality as a way for individuals to want to pursue higher paying jobs and better educations, therefore making them better individuals. The second outcome of the original position is quoted as "Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity." However, Marx would believe this to be merely another ploy in order for the bourgeois to justify their own unequal rates of compensation. However, this inequality of compensation does not in any way benefit the proletariat. Instead, it keeps them in their lower position, because working at a job where you are paid less, it is very hard to gain the skill sets which you would need in order to raise on the compensation scale. Therefore, this inequality is just another method of alienating the proletariat from the opportunities provided for the bourgeois. Therefore there should be no difference between natural or gained abilities and the proletariat trait of hard work.

Another major Marxist critique of Rawlsian Liberalism is the idea of choice in each individual's life as a benefiting factor which in turn gives each member of society the potential to earn as much as he or she is capable of based on those individual choices. However, Marx sees this completely differently. Marx believes that every member of the proletariat has only two choices, to work and therefore be exploited, or to not work and essentially starve for lack of compensation. This shows how individuals of the proletariat do not actually have a real choice. If one were to choose to not be exploited, and therefore not work, that person would not be able to provide basic and essential necessities which are needed in order to survive. Naturally then, the proletariat is forced to work in order to survive, which therefore takes all the choice out of their hands.