Abstract:

John Rawls (1921-2002) stands in, the exactly opposite pole with Marx, the liberalist standpoint and the social contract tradition, of which Marx has criticized immensely.  Nevertheless, conventional liberal society is also unfit to Rawls as he stands very closely with Marxism in many respects.  Viewing from his contemporary Nozick’s viewpoint, he seems to be very intimate with Marxism, and viewing form Marxist tradition, he seems to be one of the main charioteers of Capitalism.  However, if we observe Rawls objectively, he seems to be a great respondent of Marxism in order to sustain Capitalism solving its problems raised by Marxism.

Key words:

Marxism, Distribution, Inequality, Exploitation, Liberty, Justice as Fairness, Capitalism, Original Position, Veil of Ignorance

1. Marxist Problem:

Marxism is a teleological viewpoint, which tends to reach the communism through socialist revolution.  It is not a theory developed at once.  It was developed in a long period and hence there is somehow contradiction within itself too, because its developer Karl Marx and Frederick Engels lived in a crucial historical periods, being influenced differently.  Marxism was greatly influenced from 1830’s and 1848’s revolution, and 1852’s takeover by monarch -happened in France.  Somehow, Marx and Engels were influenced from 1789’s French revolution either positively or negatively.  Among three slogans – liberty, equality, and fraternity raised in 1789’s revolution, it seems that Marxism had a great faith upon equality as much as its opponent liberalist’s faith upon liberty.  Both the tradition somehow attempts to harmonize liberty and equality.  However, none has become successful to harmonize either theoretically or practically and it is still controversial in politics as to which should be prioritized if there is contradiction between liberty and equality.

It is obvious that Marxism prioritize equality.  We can see it in the light of Marx’s critiques on Natural Right.  For Marx, liberty is the secondary things that must go on without affecting equality.  If it goes on uncontrolled, then liberty becomes means of inequality because it gives property right which later yields the situation, in which few people captures large amount of property.

On the other hand, Marxism does not deny liberty, and if there is no liberty, even Marxist revolution is impossible.  In other words, Marxism tends to find place for liberty guaranteed by equality.  If there is no equality, liberty becomes means of exploitation.  Communism is that state of society, which is based upon equality.  It preserves only that amount of liberty, which cannot be means of exploitation.

However, before deciding to establish the communist society, Marx tends to find out as to what the main problem existing in contemporary society is.  As for the problem, it seems that there are two Marxism; early Marxism attempting to overcome alienation, and later Marxism attempting to overcome exploitation.

1. Early Marx’s problem: Alienation

As a Young Hegelian, Marx was highly influenced by Hegel.  Hegel had introduced the concept of Alienation.  According to Hegel, alienation is failure of subject to identify object.  Moreover, it is the failure of the will of the individual to identify with the larger will of society.  It is the disintegration process of society.  Marx changed the Hegel’s ontological explanation of alienation into socio-economic context.  According to Marx in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844), human alienation in capitalism takes mainly four forms: Man is alienated a) from the product of his work, b) from the act of his producing, c) from his own social nature, and d) from his fellow men.

            a) Worker alienate from the product because his products exist independent of him, as something alien to him.  Strangers use his products as their own private property.  Worker’s products do not belong to him.  More he produces, less he gets as wages.  Then he also becomes a cheaper commodity.

            b) Worker alienates from his own producing activity because he cannot determine his own interest or creativity.  Producing is not for his use rather for other.  Slightly worker finds himself as a mechanical machine.

            c) When one feels himself as machine, he cannot find himself fitted in human culture. He acts only to get wages to satisfy his personal physical needs.

            d) Last form of alienation is that he gets other people as competitor with him.  So he alienates from his fellow man.

For early Marx, this problem of alienation is the main problem, which  has to be overcome.

1. Mature Marx’s problem: Exploitation?

Marx was greatly influenced from the 19^th century’s development in science.  So, the Marx, after publication of Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844), indulged into the scientific explanation of society, being rigorously influenced from Darwin’s theory of Evolution and escaping out from Hegelian ontological language.  Marx tended to interpret social history as like as how Darwin interpreted biological history.

Another influence on later Marx was from Ludwig Feuerbach, who supplied the materialistic interpretation of world, according to which, matter is the ultimate stuff.  Nevertheless, Marx did not accept the Feuerbach’s rigid mechanistic materialism.  Marx’s matter is dynamic and always progressive.  This is because Marx had to show as to how man creates history, culture, society, and economy.  His basic conviction was that man is the creator of history and not a slave of circumstances.  Marx’s such view contradicts with his own philosophy not only when he criticizes Natural Rights but also in many other points.

Mature Marx holds quite opposite standpoint than Hegel, however Marx has not been escaped away from Hegelian way of explaining ‘truth as whole‘.  Marx borrows the ‘Dialectical’ Method, from Hegel, for the interpretation of development of history.  One important thing here is that Marxist Dialecticism is, somehow, opposite to Hegelian dialecticism.  In Hegel’s theory, Thesis (X) gets Antithesis (Y).  Y exists externally outside X.  Now, Antithesis (X) negates Y. Having negated Y, X is synthesized yielding another idea (Z).  Z contains the tenable parts of both X and Y and then Z negates both X and Y.  This is called Negation of Negation and this is how evolution occurs in Hegelian philosophy; while in Marx’s view, it is not necessary for X to be negated by Y.  The negative element may not be always external rather it is mostly internal.  That means, a single Marxist metaphysical matter (X) contains opposite element within itself or there are X⁺ and X^– within one X.  

This way, Marx develops a Philosophical method called ‘Dialectical Materialism’, according to which, dynamic matter is the ultimate reality, whole universe whether mental or non-mental are expression and evolution of matter, and matter evolves dialectically, even the creative human consciousness is nothing more than a byproduct of material evolution.

In the light of Dialectical Materialism, Marx develops an approach called Historical Materialism, according to which, matter is the driving force of history.  When matter evolves as a man – a conscious being, having empirical power with physical hands, it becomes a crucial departure of natural history towards human history.  Man invents labor by using hands.  Laborhood distinguishes man from animal.  For many philosophers, human is different with animal by virtue of reason.  However, Marx holds, the very different idea, that the main distinction between man and animal is laborhood.  Laborhood makes the life systematic and decrease the anxiety for food.  Developing laborhood, human being become able to gather food, which can be used in crisis or any time at future.  Men do not need to wander for food every day.  During this progress and separation of human from animal, men start settlement as well as begin agricultural farming, and animal feeding.  Subsequently, men increase the volume of labor so that life would become systematic.  While systematizing life, their needs were also increasing.  Not everyone could become able to produce whatever he or she would need.  Thus, people set out exchanging produced things and commodities in order to fulfill their needs.  Thereby, production gets the exchange value, whereas there was only use value of product before starting exchange.  The invention of exchange becomes the crucial departure of primitive society into the way of raising exploitation.  When there was only use value, men used to collect and produce the commodity solely to fulfill own immediate need.  By the invention of exchange value, men increased production so that they could collect more things in order to sustain their life.  It increased the greed; they started to capture natural means as like as their own property.  This way, almost natural means of production came in hand of strong people and those who could not capture the natural means of production became mere means of production as slaves of strong people.  Since then, two classes, owners and slaves, formed in society.  

This way, society got the economic structure, in which there is relation between human beings and nature.  Humankind have labor energy, nature provides means or raw materials to be modified and to be produced as new exchangeable things by labor.  This relation is called Force of Production.  Besides this, there is also another relation built on between human and human, either as owner and slaves or as any other form, which is called Relation of Production.  This Force of Production and Relation of Production is collectively known as Modes of Production.

Since Modes of Production includes all factors of social life, it is the foundation of society and hence regarded as Base Structure of society.

It is already mentioned that when means of production are gathered within the hands of limited strong people, two different classes, slaves and owner, form in the Base Structure of primitive society.  Owner class creates many rules and institution in order to preserve, to increase their business and property, and to continue the exploitation of slaves.  They create different cultural and moral values, laws, and state.  These are called Superstructure of society.  Now the superstructure tends to determine and control Mode of Production (or Base structure).  The class struggle and many quantitative and qualitative changes in Mode of Production also change the Superstructure.  This process occurs in dialectical form.  (Since the limitation of this paper, here I am going to close the process of class struggle and social change.)

When society (Base and Superstructure) arrive at Capitalist system by Class struggle in Feudal System, Superstructure becomes much powerful.  In the Capitalist system, workers produce the goods but productions are used and sold by others.  Workers do not have control over their own production.  Let us consider, when workers produce commodities, owner of industry sales it for 200 Rupees, provided 60 Rupees wages to workers, and another 60 rupees for the cost of raw materials, then production cost becomes 120 Rupees, and another 60 Rupees becomes profit in the hand of Capital owner of industry.  According to Marx, this 60 Rupees profit is the Surplus Value.  Workers do not have any right upon surplus value though it was his production.  The Capital owner’s property is increased by surplus value but Worker can just sustain his life by the wages.  This increases the gap of inequality, and in Marxist view, it is high level of exploitation when worker looses everything and become proletariat.  This exploitation is the main problem, of mature Marxism, as to how to distribute that surplus value and means of production equally among the base structure of society.

1. Unequal distribution: same problem for both Marx

Though there are two problems in Marxism (or there are two Marxism), both have the same cause and that is unequal distribution of means of Production.  The unequal distribution of means of production forms two classes in society: Haves and Have nots or Capitalist and Proletariat.  Means of production along with political power gathers in the hand of one upper class who suppresses the lower worker or proletariat class.  Marxism tends to end the system of that unequal distribution.

1. Therefore, Capitalist Society is Unjust

Marx was not ethicist and he has not paid much attention to ethical question.  In the history of western philosophy, Justice is mostly an ethical issue.  If we need to connect Marxist theory with ethics, it seems that justice is “getting from society according to one’s need”.  There is a famous dictum (or somehow a slogan of communism) that “One should contribute to society according to her/his ability, and s/he must get from society according to her/his need”.  This slogan emphasizes duty as well as right (of state and individual), also, gives clue about justice and injustice.  It is injustice if people do not get anything from society according to their need.  Marxism insists that, in the Capitalism, proletariat people are not getting from society according to their need though they have contributed according to their ability because what they should have to get has been gathered in the hands of very few rich bourgeois people.  This unequal distribution of means of production makes the society unjust.  In other word, there is injustice in society because worker class has been exploited from their basic right.  So, according to Marxism, capitalist society is always unjust because it exploits weakest section of society by unequal distribution of means of production and produced goods too.  

This unjust Capitalist system must be overthrown by the class struggle of proletariat.  Class struggle happens as socialist revolution.  By the success of socialist revolution, exploited sector conquer the superstructure of society, then they will distribute all means of production according to need of people.

• Rawlsian Problem

John Rawls’s problem is very much similar with mature Marxist problem.  However, his liberty principle prevented him from being Marxist.  In his writings, Rawls does not analyze much about Marxism.  Regarding the problem, he is somehow very close towards Marxism whereas regarding the solution; he seems extremely far from Marxism.  Here, I will see as to how Rawls comes towards Marxism and how he goes beyond Marxism.

• Yes indeed!  the problem is unequal distribution

For Marx, the great problem is the superstructure of society that conserves unequal distribution in base structure, which later leads to exploitation and alienation.  Rawls does not deny the Marxist claims insofar as there is unequal distribution in society that leads to inequality in every aspect of life.  For Rawls, only one thing that makes society unjust is the inequality.  It is that reality pervading in every society of the globe.  The difference between Marxism and Rawlsianism, here, is former goes beyond inequality and looks upon superstructure preserving exploitation as the main problem while later rests on inequality that leads injustice.  Hence, Rawls finds out injustice as the main problem.  Making society just by eliminating inequality is the main objective of Rawlsian theory.

• Yes indeed!  Capitalism creates the problem

As like as Marxism, the interesting thing in Rawls is he accepts the argument that Capitalism is the main source of inequality.  Rawls explicitly argues that inequality is the result of liberal capitalist system, which badly affects the weakest and poorest section of society.  Nonetheless, Rawls belongs to Capitalist tradition and he is not against it while Marxism stands quite opposite of capitalism.

Then, overcoming Inequality or unequal distribution created by Capitalism is the main objective for both philosophers, but how to overcome is the challenging question that has been answered by Marx and Rawls both in their own way.

One way of overcoming inequality will be the ending of Capitalist system that has been extremely advocated by Marxism.  According to Marxism, we need to concern on root cause rather than on outwardly appeared things.  Capitalism is the root cause of inequality and hence removal of Capitalism results the end of inequality.

However, Rawls is not Marxist, he is not against Capitalism. He has to end inequality preserving its cause (Capitalism).  How can we stop the product keeping its cause alive is the logically very difficult question that Rawls has to answer.  Hence, Rawls has more challenge than that of Marx, and somehow he has succeeded it.

• But Justice is possible even in Capitalism

To reduce the complexity, Rawls somehow modifies the problem.  His theory seems to be an answer to the question – how to make Capitalism just overcoming inequality?  Marxist philosophy seems like answer to the question- how to end inequality.  Both questions have the same meaning but yield the different ways to overcome inequality.  The question, which Rawls answers, seems like how to improve Capitalism in order to overcome inequality or in order to maintain justice and the question which Marx answers seems to be how to eliminate Capitalism in order to bring equality ending exploitation.  This way, two options emerge in order to overcome particular problem-inequality raised by particular system Capitalism.  One option is Marxist’s option and another is Rawlsian. In a simple way, Rawlsian option seems to be Improvement of Capitalism that has been explained extensively in his “Theory of Justice (1971)”, according to which it is possible to overcome inequality or to make society just even in Capitalist system, and we do not need to eradicate Capitalism.

Moreover, in order to show how possibility of achieving justice in Capitalist system, Rawls distinguishes inequality in two ways: one is negative and another is positive.  In the negative way, inequality is that which badly affects the poorest and weakest people of society.  It harms their development making tough competition and exploitation.  Nevertheless, in positive way, inequality is just if it helps poorest and weakest section of the society.  For Rawls, positive inequality is just and negative inequality is not.  Unjust inequality degrades the people, so it must be eliminated and just inequality benefits the people and it must keep up. In society, there is not merely negative impact of inequality, we can find the positive effect of inequality in many respects and hence Capitalism per se is not problematic rather the problem is how to make negative inequality just.  According to Rawls, fair distribution of all social values makes inequality beneficial.

• Distributive Justice:

Rawls thinks that in any society, there must be fair distribution of social values that is called distributive justice.  Social values such as liberty, opportunities, income and wealth (mostly, Rawls focuses on these four values) must be distributed equally. If there is no equal distribution of such social value, that situation of inequality will be unjust.  However, in practical life, sometimes it becomes impossible to distribute social values equally.  According to Rawls, if there is such value that cannot be distributed equally, that must be justified.

For Rawls, justified inequality means such inequalities which helps to poorest people of society.  That means if inequality uplifts the have nots group, then it is justifiable.  So, justified inequality, here, is nothing but a positive aspect of inequality that I have already explained.

Now, Rawls modifies theory because he is not overcoming inequality at all. What he is doing is making society just and any inequality that helps society to be just is acceptable.  This is the Rawlsian point of departure from traditional and Marxist conviction of inequality.

In other words, Rawls insists on “fair distribution” rather than on equality.  Fair distribution is nothing but the way by which we can justify unequal distribution, or the way by which we can make unequal distribution in favor of poor people.

However, for the fair distribution of social values, we need some principles and rules.  According to Rawls, peoples in original position come together with the veil of ignorance and decide the principle for the fair distribution of social values.

• Original Position and Veil of Ignorance

To be a society, just and fair principles are needed, that just and fair principle should be acceptable for all members of the society.  So, people make consensus about the basic principles which governs the society.  Moreover, to be a just and fair society, even the principles must be fair.  According to Rawls, representatives of society come together and decide such fair and just principle.

However, problems arise when people come together and debate to form just and fair principles.  Problem is that strong people want principle that favors strong section of society, similarly marginalized, weak, and poor people wants a principle that favors them.  It means people of particular status want to fulfill their own interest that may not be just for people of other status.

Rawls wants to establish society based on just and fair principles but it becomes difficult because of people’s own interest.

Then he assumes a condition on which people would not prioritize their own interest, or the principles made by people would be just and fair for all.  That condition is known as original position on which people decides the principle for their society being in veil of ignorance.  Here, original position is not a historical point rather it is a hypothetical situation. It is solely imaginary assumption or the thought experiment of Rawls. Veil of ignorance means people in original position will be unaware about their own status; they will be unknown about what would be their position in future society.  In the original position where people gather to promulgate just and fair principles in order to make society just and fair, people of rich section will not know that in which section they will belong to in the newly established society, similarly poor will not know either they belong to rich section or poor section.  Then it will be situation of bearing risk for everyone. In the newly establishing society, anyone will be either rich or poor, either strong or weak. Everyone will have fear that they might be poor and weak. Then none will make principles that benefit the certain class of society.

Viewing in Indian context, if people gathered to form a just and fair society, they must be in veil of ignorance about whether they belongs to Brahmin or Shudra, whether they belong to Hindu or Muslim, whether they belong to Sikh or Jain, whether they belong to poor or rich class.

Then in this situation, whatever the principle they promulgate, that will be fair and just for all.  

However one things Rawls emphasize is that veil of ignorance does not mean being totally ignorant of anything.  People in original position with veil of ignorance do not know merely their status, that is to say, what will be their status in the society, which section of society they will occupy.  People do not know the things related to them, they do not know their own sectarian interests.  Nevertheless, they know certain basic facts or proved condition such as science, society, economy, polity etc.  They will have knowledge of what is society, what is politics, what things people need to be in just and fair condition and so on.

Illustration:

Let us consider two people A and B.  They just got a piece of Gold while moving on the road.  A first saw the Gold and he shown it to B. B took it.  Then the controversy occurred in between them about who have the ownership on that Gold.  A claimed he had seen first, so he has right on that Gold and B also claimed he caught the gold first, so he is the owner of that gold. To get rid of such controversy, they made a consensus that B will cut the gold into two pieces, and A will choose any piece freely out of two.  Now if B cuts the gold making one piece small and another large, A will choose large piece.  Here B is in veil of ignorance as to which piece he would get though he is going to cut; also, A is in veil of ignorance as to how B would cut.  Then the only one possibility is that B will cut into equal part because if he cut making it different weight, A chooses larger one.  So in veil of ignorance, both get equal.  It means people choose that principle which will be equally justifiable and fair for all.

Comparing to the Marxism, this situation is, entirely, opposite.  Because Marxist proletariats know of their status and they will have revenge with capitalist.  Proletariats choose that principle-beneficial for them, and futile for capitalist.

• Two Principles of Justice

Rawls explicate about the principle, which people in original position will choose under veil of ignorance.  According to him, they will choose two principles as follows.

First Principle: Liberty Principle

Second Principle: a) Equal Opportunity Principle and

                                    b) Difference Principle

Such principles will be chosen regardless of anyone’s status.

First Principle: Liberty Principle

People under veil of ignorance in original position agree that everyone must have equal political liberty.  Justice is impossible in absence of political liberty. That liberty includes the freedom of thought and expression, right to acquire property, freedom of participating in political activities, and so on.  It has the two aspects; on the one hand, there will be equal liberty for all and on the other hand, whatever amount of freedom I have, other must get that.  It means I will not want more freedom than others will.

Second Principle:

In this point, Rawls is very controversial and implicit.  However, his whole theory based upon this principle.

Above in 4.3 and 4.3.1, I have mentioned that Rawls does not deny the existence of inequality.  Though his objective is to overcome inequality, he looks on equality on the frame of fairness within the capitalist system.  That means he endeavors to justify the inequality of capitalism or he looks for the way of fairness.  He argues that inequality is just if it is open to all and if it benefits all.  Inequality, that is open to all means that all will have equal opportunity, inequality benefits all means that people of difference class will be able to gain the advantages of that inequality.  These two assumptions are the ways by which Rawls justifies inequality or he shows how the society in capitalist system with inequality can have fairness and justice.  Let us see each aspect separately:

Equal Opportunity Principle:

This is the condition when inequalities become open to all.  That means people are opened to choose and utilize their opportunity.  So, this principle claims that if there is equal opportunity to all or opportunities are open to all, then that society is just and fair.

Let us consider two people X and Y. X is from Bihar and Y is from Mumbai.  Y is teacher in Mumbai University who earns 70,000 Rupees per month and X is a taxi driver who earns 20,000 Rupees per month.  Now there is income gap of 50,000 Rupees between X and Y.  According to Rawls, this situation is just and fair though it is unequal but if and only if there was equal opportunity for both X and Y.  That means if there was opportunity open to X to be teacher and if he did not choose, that is not fault of capitalist system.  Such inequalities are justifiable.

However, it is not always the case that both X and Y had same opportunity.  There might have had other source of inequality that determined such gaps.  Therefore, for Rawls, inequality is not acceptable without considering the terms and conditions or sources.

Rawls has discussed mainly three sources of inequality in the society, which are as follows:

a) Legal Inequality: In the society, there might be some already existed laws which close the door for opportunities.  For example, in India studying Vedas by female and shudras were prohibited until medieval historical age that made such people incapable of living standard life.  Still in many countries, women are prohibited to do various jobs such as military work, driving etc.  In above illustration, if X from Bihar were prohibited either to study or to choose any other opportunity that made him lower than Y, then this situation is unjust.  Rawls extremely argues that legal inequality can never be justifiable and fair; it must be relinquished from society.

b) Inequality by Birth Status: Mostly, birth status determines our capabilities. Anyone born in USA will get much opportunity than who born in India, similarly X might have had less opportunity in Bihar and Y might have had more opportunity in Mumbai, X might have had to go in such a school where the teaching quality were not good, or there might have had poverty in family which made him unable to go school, Y might have had family support for education, then Y became teacher and X could not. Such a situation creates income gap amidst people.  According to Rawls, that type of inequality must be eliminated because it makes people unable to choose opportunity.

c) Inequality by Personal talent and effort: Now, if X’s mind was dull and he had not interest in education, if Y’s talent were better, if both of them chose their opportunity without resistance of legal and birth status inequality, then according to Rawls, such a situation is just and fair.  If anyone gainsmuch by her own talent without affecting other, such inequality cannot be removed.

In this way, Rawls justifies the inequality and lead the way as to how capitalism can be fair and just.

Difference Principle:

Difference principle is another aspect of Rawls’ second principle of Justice.  According to this principle, the capitalist society is just if and only if the inequalities benefit all.  If it is not supportive to poorest and weakest people, it can never be just and fair.  The word ‘difference’ simply means income gap here.

one very important things which throws Rawls from conservative capitalism is that he insists on having such an institution which must play role to minimize the income gap between X and Y.  That institution is the government.  This is because he has already held that inequality must be supportive to poorest and weakest class in order to be a society fair and just.  Government should have tax from Y or rich and that should be invested to create the opportunity for poor class or X.  He arrived at this point because the source of inequality is not always talent and effort; rather mostly, it occurs by legal discrimination and birth status.  So, state must have objective of welfare for all.  Rawls’ such concept of welfare state has been much criticized by conservative capitalist, and his justification of inequality has been much criticized by communists.

In the context of India, provision of reservation quota comes under Rawls’ such concept because Indian Government is distributing social values or income (by tax) to the backward class so as to make poor people able to choose opportunity.

This concept is also against the Marxist concept of distribution because Marx insists upon equal distribution of all income and surplus value, which is not acceptable for Rawls. In Rawls’s view, some amount of surplus value can be distributed taking as tax by government to uplift those who are suffering from legal and birth status inequalities, but all amount of surplus value and income cannot be distributed because there is also labor and effort of rich.

• Though there is equality, Marxism is Unjust Because of absence of Liberty, which is 1^st priority to be just. Therefore, Capitalist liberalism is needed to maintain liberty:

Marx concludes that capitalism is unjust, because it exploits working class people by unequal distribution of production and means of production.  In order to get rid of such inequality, Marx arrives at the position that capitalism must be eliminated from the society.  However, Rawls has the conviction that Inequality can be justified even in capitalism by the fair distribution of social values using the principles determined by people in original position under the veil of ignorance. Rawls shows the way as to how to make inequality beneficial for least advantaged.  Reason behind why Rawls explored such indirect way to overcome inequality clarifies as to why Marxism is unjust even though it attempts to establish egalitarian society.

For Rawls, if there is conflict between these two principles of justice, he gives priority to first principle or the liberty principle.  Secondly, he prioritizes to the second aspect of second principle that is Difference Principle, and he places first aspect of second principle that is Equal opportunity principle in third priority.

Hierarchy :-

1. Liberty Principle

2. Difference Principle

3. Equal opportunity Principle

Rawls maintains, if there is no liberty, then Justice, fair distribution and equality is impossible.  Nevertheless, this is quite opposite idea for Marx.  Marx conceives that, liberty or any kind of Natural right leads to exploitation because liberty yields property right, then there will be competition in bourgeois society to capture property, in such a condition, only mighty people captures the property.  Collection of property or means of production in the hand of few mighty leads inequality.  Therefore, liberty can never be just as per Marxism.

Rawls opposes such Marxist idea claiming that society without liberty will destroy the person’s ability.  In addition, equal distribution of liberty to all gives rise to every people’s own ability and inequality occurred by talent and effort is just.  A loop hole, Rawls left here, is state can take tax for the welfare of poor though the inequality is due to mental talent.  

• Conclusion:

Viewing much similarity in the problems, which Rawls and Marx addresses, It can be supposed that Rawls might have had respect to Marxism, although he did not show up clearly.  He might have had fear with conservative capitalist world.  Or, he might have had to investigate better way to harmonize liberty and equality, which never existed harmoniously in his predecessor’s view.

His view on equality is somehow in equilibrium position within Marxist and Liberalist divided line.  He does not show up extremely at any pole.

Marx seeks to eliminate injustice by revolution against capitalism while Rawls seeks to make capitalism just improving its way of distribution. Marx is revolutionary while Rawls is improver.  For Marx, only that society is just if and only if it ensures equality, or Marxism insists on equality rather than on liberty while for Rawls only that society is just if it ensures liberty and then equality, or Rawls insists on liberty rather than on equality.  Inequality by talent and effort is just in Rawls view. Marxist justice seems solely for proletariat while Rawlsian justice is for all without class discrimination and struggle. Marxist justice will be attained by violent class struggle and thereafter proletariat dictatorship while Rawlsian justice will be accomplished by Good Governance or welfare state. At last one things must be left is that Rawls’s view on distribution of social values seems very nearer to the Marxist view of distribution of Surplus Value. Rawls’s view on compensating birth created inequality by welfare state keeps him very close with Marxist critique of property right and distribution of means of production.  Therefore, John Rawls, a philosopher of liberalism seems to be a respondent of Marxism and it also seems that he is an interpreter of Marxism in Capitalist language.

• Bibliography:
•  Collected writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao,  Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism: Fundamental Theories of Marxism, (Editor: Ramesh Sunuwar) Pragati Pustak Sadan, Kathmandu
•  Rawls, John, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, ed. Erin Kelly, Harvard University Press, 2001
•  Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, rev. ed., Harvard University Press, 1999
•  Marx, Karl, Frederic Engels, Communist Manifesto, [Nepali Edition]
•  Wenar, Leif, John Rawls, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/
•  Richardson, Henry S., John Rawls, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy          URL:  http://www.iep.utm.edu/rawls/
•  Pomerleau, Wayne P., Western Theories of Justice, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy          URL:  http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwest/
•  Lavine, T. Z., From Socrates to Sartre: Philosophic Quest, first edition (1984), Bantam Books, New York, [Page no. 260-320]