: Oh, BS barry. It's clear to me, VERY clear, that to say "Any inequality must be to the benefit of the poorest individuals" is essentially equivalent to saying 'no inequality, or almsot none.'
It's that 'almost none' that worries me...
: How can you be against whatever policy benefits the most destitute and needy in society?
As a communist, I'm very interested in the most destitute and needy! But I insist that the present social relations (i.e. capitalism) must be removed in order to truly decommodify labor. To simply 'reform' the existing system is to protect it---and that IS the task of the liberal.
Tax the rich?
ABOLISH the rich!
: I hope you'll consider the points I've raised and why I consider Rawls to eb a far thing indeed from being a liberal. I bewlieve in the rawlsian goal, which I believe would necessitates social ownership of probably 80-90% of the means of production (just hazarding a guess). Maybe private ownership of some scientific labs, small farms, a few other things.
Again, I insist that you CANNOT simply leave a few small proprietors kicking around a socialist society without starting the capital cancer afresh.
: If Rawls himself does not support a socialist economy, then that hsi his own judgemnt...
Since you admit Rawls is not a socialist YET maintain he's not a liberal---what shall we call him? A mish-mash (in the Engels' sense), perhaps?
His book was savvy---but I don't trust ANYONE willing to defend 'some' level of INEQUALITY. Ever.