Political Theory in Marx, Habermas, and Rawls

Note: this is a paper I wrote for my Political Theory class this semester. In it, I discuss three political thoerists (Karl Marx, Jurgen Habermas, and John Rawls) and their various ideas about the creation of a more just society. Enjoy!!


Marx
In contemporary political theory, few thinkers have had the impact that Karl Marx has. During his life in the 19th century, he developed ideas about the progression of capitalism and what it should evolve into that would shape geopolitics for the next century. Communism, the political system he developed, was adopted and corrupted by various nations throughout the 20th century, causing various international crises and wars due to conflict with capitalism and democracy. Marx’s theories on class conflict and wealth distribution have made a huge impact on human society since his works were published.
In the 19th century, capitalism had become the primary economic model that most major, industrialized nations followed. In capitalism, the means of commodity production are owned by the holders of private capital. Capital hires labor to turn out commodities, and pays the workers for their labor. The owners of capital then sell the commodities to earn a profit, and invest that profit in another commodity to make a larger profit. Marx understands the positive impact that capitalism has had on society. He points out that it was the natural evolution of feudalism, and that it is a much more just model than any in the past. However, Marx does not believe that capitalism is the final, most civilized version of society. This is where he begins his critique.
Marx’s main argument is that capitalism isn’t compatible with human nature. In his view, being a worker is not a fulfillment of human potential. In a capitalist society, the owners of capital try to hide this view behind the production of commodities and the payment of wages, so that they might accumulate more capital. This is the main reason that capitalism has lasted so long. In feudalism, the exploitation in labor is there for all to see, because there are no commodities or wages to hide it behind. But in capitalism, this doesn’t happen. Capitalists say that labor is a natural and good thing, because the workers are paid and the commodities are available to all. In this view, the commodities are the result of capital. Marx argues that this is incorrect. He says that commodities are the result of labor, and that the laborers should hold a higher place in society. In his view, the key commodity in the world, the one that drives all this, is the human mind and body. The value of a commodity is a reflection of the labor that went into making it. However, the laborers making the commodities are only paid the minimum amount that it is believed that they need to survive. So, when a commodity is sold for more than the amount paid to the laborer, that difference is termed the surplus labor value by Marx. This is how capitalists make a profit. Marx sees this as unfair to the laborers.
After identifying and criticizing the methods of capitalism, Marx then proceeds to present a model that he believes is a more just and fair one than capitalism. In his view, his model, which he calls Communism, is the natural evolution from capitalism, just as capitalism was the natural evolution from feudalism. In a communist society, the laboring class (the proletariat) would rise up against the owners of capital (the bourgeois) and take control of the means of production. Marx proposes the abolition of private property, so that capital cannot again accumulate with the few. All private property, and private industry, would be owned by the people as a whole, and it would be fairly distributed among everyone. Everyone would work in a job provided by the government, and the children would be able to go to free schools to receive a fair, open education. The government would also hold all credit and run the only bank. Marx sees this equalization of society as the only way to ensure a fair and equal society for all. Instead of the exploitation of labor for the enrichment of a few, all people will would benefit equally from the work that they are all doing.
In the 20th century, several nations adopted the ideas of Marx in response to the continued domination of monarchial and capitalistic societies. During World War I, the workers in Russia, led by Vladimir Lenin, deposed the czar and instituted what would become the most successful and longest lasting communist society on earth. Similar events happened in around the globe after World War II, due to the emergence of the USSR as a superpower. However, none of these nations lasted long (with a few exceptions,) as widespread corruption and authoritarianism overtook the Marxist ideals. Communism on a large scale failed. However, the ideas of Marx live on today, as communism continues to be a constant source of debate and a living economic model around the world.

Habermas
Since Karl Marx first wrote Capital and The Communist Manifesto in the mid-nineteenth century, many subsequent political philosophers have offered critiques of Marx’s ideas. One contemporary critic is Jurgen Habermas, the German philosopher. Habermas chiefly disputes Marx’s ideas about the organization of society, specifically citing the role of labor. He also has his own take on the logical progression of human civilization. Habermas is clearly one of the key political thinkers of modern times.
To understand Habermas, one must first have a basic idea of Marx’s ideas. One of the main areas to understand is the idea of superstructure and the infrastructure. Marx believed that the modes of production and the relations of production made up what he called the infrastructure of society. Labor and the relations of people performing labor is the most basic societal structure people have. Out of this infrastructure was created the superstructure, which was made up of things like religion, politics, ethics, and the media. The whole purpose of the superstructure is to ensure the promotion and continuation of the infrastructure. In effect, the infrastructure, while being imperfect, is all that matters; the superstructure is merely superfluous.
Habermas offers his own view on the structure of society. His view is centered around what he calls the “organizational principle.” This principle states that society is organized along specific lines. The reason for this is the role of communication in human society. Habermas states that we are set apart not by our ability to perform social labor (as Marx believed,) but by our ability to use communication to legitimate our roles in the system of production. He calls this communicative action. Using communication, we can make known our intentions to others, which in turn can create relations that influence the production of items. This process of communication legitimates society.
Habermas’ critique of Marx evolves out of communicative action. Marx and Habermas both agree that as each system of production evolves, it creates crises within itself; in essence, an economy is a problem-creating system. The two philosophers differ on how these crises are solved, however. Marx believed that when an economy encounters a crisis, it will evolve to the next natural model of economy. For example, when capitalism reaches a crisis of overproduction, it will evolve naturally into socialism to compensate, just as feudalism evolved to capitalism following the crisis of exploitation. Habermas disagrees. He believes that an economy won’t just evolve by itself. It needs legitimating communication of reason to correct its problems. Habermas describes two forms of reason that will serve this end: instrumental and normative. Instrumental reason is the problem-solving side of thought. It simply focuses on how to satisfy one’s desires in the easiest possible way. Normative reason is the moral side; normative reason asks, “Is what I’m doing right?” Habermas states that to solve crises, one must use not just instrumental reason to find a solution, but also normative reason to assure that the solution will actually work in the long term. This is what Habermas views as the key crisis of modern society: instrumental reason has diminished normative reason in societal communication.
Habermas, in his writings, attempts to correct what he sees as the crucial problems with the ideas of Marx. He clearly aims to restructure the ideas of labor being the main focus of human society, instead replacing it with his idea of communicative action. He also presents his own model of the progression of society as crises occur. Habermas’ ideas on society will long be studied by political scientists in their attempt to understand the development of human society.

Rawls
Justice is a concept that has been studied by philosophers for thousands of years. It has often been the central theme for the life works of many of the great thinkers in history. In ancient Greece, Plato designed his Republic with the goal of creating an perfectly just society. His teacher, Socrates, discussed justice at length in his dialogues. Theologians have always discussed justice in accordance with God’s will. And in the 19th century, Karl Marx attempted to create a just model for society with his critique of capitalism and creation of communism. Few philosophers, however, have had the impact that John Rawls has had on our perceptions and understanding of justice.
Some of the key thinking about justice occurred during the Enlightenment, when Rousseau first developed Social Contract theory. He was followed soon by Hobbes and Locke in the promotion of Social Contract, which states that society is an agreement among people to give up some liberty so that they may live in a just, safe society. Rousseau and Hobbes, while both Social Contract theorists, had widely differing views. Rousseau believed that society should be a more just model than the state of nature, which he believed was inherently peaceful and solitary. If a society was worse than this state of nature, than it should be done away with. Hobbes, on the other hand, believed that the state of nature was a dangerous and evil thing, and that people created society to protect themselves from nature. Both agreed that the social contract should make life better for all people. Rawls’ main goal in his magnum opus, The Theory of Justice, was to determine what laws and policies would best uphold the social contract while still being just for all.
The key to understanding Rawls is his “veil of ignorance.” Also known as original position, this is the view that Rawls believes one must take in order to create a perfectly just society. A person who is in original position would know certain things, and not know others. The things one would not know are things that establish one’s place in society: gender, race, wealth, language, religion, education, generation, etc. Basically, a person in original position would not know their potential place in the society they are creating. This is key to Rawls’ theory. The person (or persons) creating the societal structure must create a model in which they would benefit no matter what role they end up taking in that society. Rawls does concede that a person must know some things, however. These things are described as “whatever general facts affect the choice of the principles of justice” by Rawls. These things would include political affairs, economic theory, social organization, and human psychology. A person must know these things to create a viable society.
Next, Rawls states that two principles must be followed to create just policies. First is the Principle of Liberty, which states that the laws instituted must promote the greatest possible liberty for all. Rawls believed that people would only abide laws that restricted liberty at the minimum amount necessary to ensure stability. The second principle is the Principle of Difference. It says that a policy legitimating inequality is only acceptable if it benefits the least privileged member of society. What this means is that any law instituted must have at least some benefit for every member of society, even the lowest, for it to be acceptable. Along with these two principles, Rawls also mentions another that helps fulfill the requirements of the first two. It is called the Maximin Principle, and it states that the best way to choose a policy is to rank all possible choices by their worst potential outcome, and then select the least worst one. He calls this the “social minimum,” in that it is the minimum inequality acceptable to society.
Finally, in his determination of what would be just in a society, Rawls asks two questions: what things must be equal in society, and what things can be allowed to be unequal? He concludes first that basic liberties be open to all; these things include free speech, equal suffrage, freedom of religion or conscience, and freedom from arbitrary arrest, among others. These things must be equal and open to all members of society for that society to be just. The things that can be allowed to be unequal are things concerning economics, amount of education, or amount of authority one has. These are all merit or opportunity-based things that people must use their natural assets (talents) to achieve.
After discussing these things, Rawls identifies the specific policies and institutions that a perfectly just society would be made up of. He creates four branches of government to ensure justice and equality. First, he has the “allocation branch.” This branch enforces market regulation and efficiency, so that the market is fair to all. Next is the stabilization branch, which is essentially the anti-recessionary branch. It insures full employment, and a stable demand for products. Third is the transfer branch, which enforces the social minimums through the transfer of property and goods. Finally is the distribution branch, which is the taxation branch that insures that wealth is fairly and justly distributed to the members of society.
In his writings, Rawls coherently and succinctly identifies social justice, and then proceeds to attempt to create a model to achieve it. Rawls’ ideas have had a large impact on American political thinking, and he is considered one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century. Few philosophers have covered the amount of ground that he did in his thinking.

Conclusion
Marx, Habermas, and Rawls have all had substantial impacts on political thinking in the last two hundred years. Each attempted to define a just and fair societal structure that can be imitated in the real world. Of the three, Marx has had the greatest success in this area, due to the adoption of his ideas in Eastern Europe and various other places on Earth. All three start with the idea that modern society is malfunctioning in some way, and that something needs to be done to correct the imbalances. Marx advocates a popular uprising that will concentrate wealth in the hands of the workers. Habermas believes that human interactions can be used to correct the errors in society. And Rawls explores the idea of social justice to identify the institutions society needs to right itself. All three have had a profound impact on the development of society and politics around the world. They all also believe that members of society are able to critique their own societies in order to better than them, rather than just continue to perpetuate injustices and inequality that surround us. Although each thinker has different views on the methods of readjustment, and the roles that government will take in relation to the general population, each agree on one key thing: there is always an opportunity and a necessity to attempt to change society for the better of all people.

New Paradigms in Health Care and Immigration

The debate in the areas of both health care reform and immigration policy in this country have become so stale as to make most people apathetic to the issues. The health care debate is basically both sides fighting over small points of contention, and doing it in a very partisan way. Even someone like myself who has a huge tolerance for politics is getting a little sick of it. And immigration hasn't been seriously debated in years. The same xenophobic rhetoric has dominated the debate, while the issue has run out of control. Yet, something needs to be done, because of the reasons I will outline below.

Health Insurance Reform

First, health care. Let me preface by saying that if you are going to read this, you need an open mind. People with an ingrained hatred for health care reform of any kind do not contribute in a constructive way at all. It is a widely acknowledged fact that something needs to be done, because the system in place now is working inefficiently and not helping people. Now, I've made it no secret that I think a public option, combined with strict regulation of the insurance industry, while still encouraging a private system of doctors and hospitals, is the best solution. I still am holding out hope that this is what will happen. But my point here isn't with these solutions. I would merely like to illustrate how I think health insurance would work most efficiently. Keep in mind this is all hypothetical. I will explain why it would never happem after I lay it out.

It's fairly self-evident that the health insurance industry is broken. Between exorbitantly high premiums and tens of millions who cannot get health insurance, the numbers prove that the big insurance companies are failing to make access to health care easier for people. I don't think they are intentionally trying to be bad guys, but they aren't doing what people need them to do, namely help them shoulder the cost of hospital bills. What is the point of paying insurance if the company is going to balk on paying the bills when you need them to? With all this said, let me present what I believe, in theory, makes more sense. I call it "reverse insurance premiums." What that means is that people with lower risk would pay higher premiums than people with high risk. Now, before you write me off as some crazy socialistic wealth-distributer, hear me out. Remember, this is all theory. It would never happen, simply because opponents could repeat that phrase to just kill it. But economically, I beleive it makes more sense. I'm not saying that healthy people should pay a lot more than less-healthy people. But if they paid just a little more, the system could be initiated. People who are sick cannot afford to pay the high premiums that insurance companies impose on them, often forcing them to go without. Then, when these ill people need to go to the hospital, everyone with insurance foots the bill, because the uninsured cannot pay for whatever care they receive. But, if the healthy paid a little more than the sick, that money could be used to insure people who fall ill. This would allow them to get into the doctor and get well. At that point, their premiums would go up, because now they are healthy. This would swell the ranks of the healthy payers, meaning each person would pay a little less each time someone gets well.

Now, when I've explained this to people, one of the main criticisms is "what is the incentive to stay healthy if you have to pay more?" Well, I argue that good health is an incentive in and of itself. Who wants to be sick, even if you pay less? That is why the difference paid between the two groups would not be great enough to make people wish they were sick. Of course, there would always be free-loaders, but there are free-loaders in the current system, too. The end result of this policy would be that more and more people could afford health insurance, even if they are in poverty or severely sick. I believe we would still need a public option for those who can't afford private insurance, and we would still need strict regulation of the market. But, in theory, I think this would work. Of course, it would never happen, because all that would be perceived would be healthy people being "penalized" by paying slightly higher rates. But, I think it is still an interesting conversation to have. Hopefully, a meaningful bill will get passed in Congress, and this debate will become a moot point.

Immigration

Now to my main point: immigration reform. We have all heard the xenophobic rhetoric about how we should kick out all foreigners and close the borders, because immigrants are corrupting our culture and taking all our jobs. Thankfully, a majority of people in this country understand the various benefits of allowing immigrants to come here. However, I am calling for something more than what we have now. I beleive that we need to open up immigration even more, and at the same time, pardon any illegals who would like to start the process to become citizens.

I can hear you all calling me a left-wing liberal wacko. Bear with me, and hear me out. I think these policies are absolutely crucial to the continued American dominance of the world economic system. America has always been a leader in employment and wages, despite the periodic recessions we have experienced. However, signs are already starting to show that, in the future, America could be looking at a severe labor shortage. The reason? The baby boomer generation. The baby boomers are the largest generation in America, and they are rapidly approaching retirement age. Five years from now, these people will begin retiring at a higher rate than replacement workers can be found. This will happen because the generations after the boomers are substantially smaller, due the changing dynamics of the family (specifically, having fewer children.) As the boomers retire, the demand for workers to replace them will rise. This will create a large shortage of labor by itself. However, this will only be part of the problem. The boomers are the wealthiest generation in history, due specifically to the equity they hold (usually property) and the growth of 401(k)s. So, as they retire, they will be cashing out, and increasing the pool of consumers, and consumer credit. This by itself would also create a huge demand for labor to feed that consumption. Combine that with the fact that all these people just retired, and that they will live longer due to advances in medicine and care, and we are looking a major labor crisis by 2025. That is just fifteen short years from now. The demand for labor will increase substantially to meet the demand for consumption, but the labor force will be smaller than ever.

Now, chances are that we aren't going to revert to a society where people are having 4 or 5 kids to make a family. So there isn't going to be a second "boomer" generation to come and fill these jobs (and even if there was, it would take too long for them to enter the workforce to contribute to a solution to this problem.) So, if we can't supply the population we need ourselves, what can we do? Immigration. People from around the world are banging down the doors to get into America. And they aren't just unskilled, illiterate people from third-world countries. People from around the world routinely come to America to go to college, and become doctors and architects and lawyers. We should encourage those people to stay after graduation. We should loosen immigration laws, and start letting people in now. We need people from all walks of life, and we need these people to become tax-paying citizens. We should also pardon illegal immigrants, and begin integrating them into society. The future labor shortage is going to have dire consequences for our economy. The shortage of workers will cause wages to rise to a point that inflation will be almost unbearable, making what little money the unemployed have worthless, exacerbating the problem. But, if we start compensating now, we head off this crisis. We need to allow more immigrants in now for another reason related to this. For the last thirty years, the world population has skyrocketed, more than doubling in that time. However, we are starting to see a drop-off in population growth around the world. This is to be expected; it is inconceivable, and impossible, for the population to continue grow at the rate it has. Due to the decreased growth, other countries will begin fighting to keep their people home, and to encourage immigrants to come to them. So, if we can start bringing people here now, we will be ahead of the curve, because it is almost certain that we will have to do so in fifteen years anyways. These immigrants will fill the labor gap that the reitired boomers leave, ensuring that we don't experience a major recession (or depression.) Living space isn't a problem: America's population is 31 people per square kilometer (34 is you exclude Alaska), compared to the world average of 49. (Germany, on the other hand, has a denisty of 230.) Finally, the increase of immigrants will diversify our population, and bring countless amounts of new talent and initiative to America.

I hope these ideas have you thinking. You have to put aside your preconceived notions, and your fears of new ideas and change, and think about these things logically. If we continue having the same debates we are having about these things, then in fifteen to twenty years, America will be in deep, deep trouble. It is in our best interests to shift the paradigm on not just health reform and immigration reform, but on all the stale issues out there, so that we can continue to be the preeminent power on earth.