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.