Distributive Justice, Injustice and Beyond Justice: The Difference from Principle to Reality between Karl Marx and John Rawls

W CP 2 0 0 8 P ro c e e d in g s V o l.5 0 S o cia l a n d P o litic a l P h ilo s o p h y Distributive Justice, Injustice and Beyond Justice: The Difference from Principle to Reality between Karl Marx and John Rawls Wei Xiaopin P h ilo s o p h y In s titu te o f C h in ese, C h in a W e ix ia o p in g @ h o tm a il.c o m ABSTRACT In order to compare the distributive principle between Marx and Rawls on justice, we have to definite the concept of distributive justice, injustice and beyond justice. By Marx the theoretical concept of distributive justice is something like distribution according to contribution, that is what you earn correspondence to what you have done, principally it is also could be accepted by Rawls, but as soon as we actualities this principle from theory to reality, it is distorted, on the sense of Marx, by the actual capitalism social structure. Related to the principle of justice I regard the principle of beyond justice as distribution regardless what you have done, under the situation of capitalism, it means to adjust distribution by the way of taxation and etc, which is defended by Rawls with justice as fairness, under the situation of supposed communism, it means distribution according to one s needs. The principle of distributive injustice could be understood as economic exploitation with Marx' labor theory of value, but it first comes from Hegel's theory of labor alienation. With this understanding of the principle of distributive justice, injustice and beyond justice, we try to analysis distributive principle from theory to reality between Karl Marx and John Rawls.

8 5 8 Social and Political Philosophy I. How to compare Marx and Rawls? W e c a n b e g in b y a s k in g w h a t s e n s e it m a k e s to c o m p a re th e v ie w s o f d is tr ib u tiv e ju s tic e b e tw e e n M a rx a n d R aw ls. A fte r all, th e y liv e d in d iffe r e n t p e rio d s s e p a r a te d m a re th a n o n e c e n tu ry. Y e t th e d is ta n c e in tim e tu rn s o u t n o t to b e sig n ifica n t. C o n te m p o ra ry W e s te r n c a p ita lis m is s till ca p ita lis m. T h e tr a n s itio n to w h a t is n o w o fte n c a lle d p o s t in d u s tria l c a p ita lis m is s till ca p ita lis m, w h ic h c o n tin u e s to fo llo w th e s a m e b a s ic e c o n o m ic ru le s. In o r d e r to c o n s tr u c t a c o m p a ris o n firs tly w e n e e d to lo o k a t th e h is to r ic a l b a c k g ro u n d o f th is co m p a riso n. T h e d is c u s s io n o f d is tr ib u tiv e ju s tic e h a s b r o u g h t a b o u t m o re b y th e s e c o n d h is to r ic a l tr a n s itio n in R u ssia, E a s te r n E u ro p e, a ro u n d 1 9 8 9, an d th e h is to r ic a l tr a n s fo r m a tio n in C h in a th a t h a s b e g u n fro m 1 9 7 8, r a th e r th a n b y th e c o m p a ra tiv e ly f ir s t h is to r ic a l tr a n s itio n, o r C o m m u n ist re v o lu tio n in R u s s ia i n 1 9 1 8, in E a s te r n E u ro p e a fte r S e c o n d W o rld W a r, a n d in C h in a a fte r 1 9 4 9. A fte r th e c o m p a ra tiv e ly f ir s t h is to r ic a l tr a n s itio n in th o s e c o u n tr ie s m e n tio n e d a b o v e, p u b lic o w n e rs h ip h a s r e p la c e d p riv a te o w n e rs h ip. T h e r e fo r e o n th e s e n s e o f M arx, th e a c tu a l c o n d itio n o f e x p lo ita tio n h a s n o lo n g e r e x is te d, a n y h o w n e w p r o b le m s o n ju s tic e d is tr ib u tio n h a s c o m e o u t, b e c a u s e th e d is tr ib u tiv e p rin c ip le o f a llo c a tio n a c c o r d in g to c o n tr ib u tio n a c tu a lly h a s b e e n re p la c e d b y e g a lita ria n d is tr ib u tio n, an d th e p rin c ip le o f ju s tic e d is tr ib u tio n h a s b e e n n e g le cte d. T h is s itu a tio n h a s to b e c h a n g e d b y th e s e c o n d h is to r ic a l tr a n s itio n b e g u n fro m 1 9 7 8. T h e s e c o n d h is to r ic a l tr a n s itio n b e g in w ith e n h a n c e th e d is tr ib u tiv e p rin c ip le o f a w a rd in g b y e ffo rt, w h ic h g ra d u a lly h a s b r o u g h t b a c k s o m e k in d o f p riv a te o w n e rsh ip, c o m b in e d w ith p u b lic o w n e rsh ip, an d a lso m a r k e t c o m p e titio n in C h in a (R u s s ia a n d E a s te r n E u ro p e h a v e a d iffe r e n t tr a n s fo r m a tio n p ro c e s s io n, w h ic h h a s h a v e a ra d ic a l re fo r m b e g in fro m p o litic a l a r e a to e c o n o m ic a r e a ), w h ic h h a s b r o u g h t o u t a v e ry b ig c h a n g e s in C h ina, n o t o n ly th e h ig h s p e e d o f e c o n o m ic

Wei Xiaopin: Distributive Justice, Injustice and Beyond Justice 8 5 9 d e v e lo p m e n t b u t th e c h a n g e s in all d iffe r e n t a re a s, m e a n w h ile it h a s a lso b r o u g h t o u t th e b ig s o c ia l in c o m e d iffe re n c e. W h e n w e s e p a r a te th e c a u s a tio n o f te r r ib le c o r ru p tio n a n d all th o s e ille g a l p r o c e s s w h ic h h a s e a s ily h a p p e n e d d u rin g th e p e rio d o f h is to r ic a l tr a n s fo r m a tio n fro m o n e e c o n o m ic fo rm to a n o th e r e c o n o m ic fo rm, th e q u e s tio n o f th e p rin c ip le o f ju s tic e d is tr ib u tio n h a s ris e n, a n d s o m e p e o p le a re h e s ita te d b e tw e e n M a rx ism a n d lib e ra lis m. T h a t is th e h is to r ic a l b a c k g ro u n d fo r to d a y s s c h o la r s c o n c e r n in g a n d d is c u ss in g th e d is tr ib u tiv e ju s tic e w ith th e th e o r y o f M arx. T h e h is to r ic a l b a c k g ro u n d fo r th e ju s tic e th e o r y o f R a w ls is q u ite d iffe re n t; R a w ls liv e d in th e p e rio d o f m o d e rn ca p ita lis m, th e b a s ic e c o n o m ic ru le o f c a p ita lis m a r e g e n e r a lly a c c e p te d b y s o c ie ty, b u t th e tr e n d s o f s o c ia l d iffe re n c e a r e u n a v o id a b ly c o n tin u in g to e n la r g e u n d e r s itu a tio n o f p riv a te o w n e rsh ip fr e e m a r k e t c o m p e titio n. T h e d e b a te b e tw e e n th e n e w lib e r a lis m a n d th e c o n s e r v a tis m is m a in ly c o n c e r n in g m e th o d s o f re g u la tio n b y s ta te s, w h ic h in c lu d e s p u sh in g fo rw a rd th e w a y o f re d is tr ib u tio n to lim it, to s o m e e x te n t, th e s o c ia l d iffe r e n c e s b y tax. U n d e r th is k in d o f s itu a tio n, w h a t R a w ls c o n c e r n s is h o w to re d u c e th e s o c ia l in c o m e d iffe r e n c e s b y th e re g u la tio n p o licy, m e a n w h ile to ju s tify th e d iffe re n tia l in c o m e p rin c ip le to g u a r a n te e e c o n o m ic e ffic ie n c y, w h ile n o t ch a lle n g e c a p ita lis t s y s te m itself. C o n sid e rin g th e d iffe r e n t h is to r ic a l b a c k g ro u n d w e h a v e to u n d e r s ta n d M a rx s th e o r y o f d is tr ib u tiv e ju s tic e in a c h a n g e d situ a tio n, th e s itu a tio n b e fo r e a n d a fte r th e f ir s t a n d s e c o n d h is to r ic a l tr a n s fo r m a tio n, a n d to u n d e r s ta n d R a w ls th e o r y in a re la tiv e ly s ta b le s o c ia l situ a tio n, th e s itu a tio n o f ca p ita lism. II. The justice distrib u tive principle of Marx is expressed in his way of criticizing capitalism M a rx h a s n e v e r d is c u s s e d th e a b s t r a c t p rin c ip le o f d is tr ib u tiv e ju s tic e. Y e t M a rx o fte n c r itic iz e s th e d is tr ib u tiv e in ju s tic e o f c a p ita lis m in

8 6 0 Social and Political Philosophy pointing particularly to its relations of production. For instance, in the Paris Manuscripts of 1844, he formulates a deep philosophical critique of alienated labor. The entire discussion in the Paris Manuscripts is based on the presupposition that in so-called national economy there is a fundamental separation between capital and worker, and the national economy sees the capital as the reason for getting other s alienated labor, while Marx sees the capital at first is the result of other s alienated labor. Later in his work of Capital, Marx s contribution lies in disclosing the secret, that the workers are paid wages which are not equal to, in fact less than, the price of the force of labor expended in their work. The missing value, which is not paid for by the capitalist, is the profit of capital, that is, the value beyond the price of labor, which is known as surplus value. Marx divides general capital into invariant capital, and variable capital. Only the latter is a source of surplus value, hence of profit. Then we could ask, what are the principles on which Marx bases the labor theory of value? Marx himself never addresses this question, and it is also not normally discussed by Marxist scholars. The question is raised by the libertarian theorist, Robert Nozick, in dialogue w ith Marxists who object to his view of so-called self-ownership. According to Nozick, Marx s labor theory of value is also based on this same principle. Nozick maintains that Marx s objection to the capitalist appropriation of surplus labor is only unjust because it in fact can be said to belong to the workers. Therefore Marx s critique of capitalism rests on the same conceptual basis as Nozick s own principle of self-ownership.1 1 See G.A. Cohen: Self-Ownership Freedom and Equality, CAMBRIDGE, 1995.

Wei Xiaopin: Distributive Justice, Injustice and Beyond Justice 8 61 Perhaps Nozick is correct. Marx is not opposed to this principle. He is rather opposed to the fact that this principle is effectively violated in the normal functioning of the capitalist productive cycle. As Marx points out, it is only possible for capitalists to appropriate surplus labor since the workers do not themselves possess the means of production. It follows that since Marx is critical of the separation of the workers from capital, then he should also be concerned w ith the process that has brought out of this situation. Now we could ask, how does this historical process of dividing arise? Marx try to answer this question in different times and in different ways, in German Ideology, Marx, together w ith Engels, deal w ith this problem by analyzing the relation between the development of productive forces and the communicate relation of people, trying to find out how the social classes come out by tracking the way that how they connect w ith each other in economic activity. In Capital I what Marx says is: "In actual history it is notorious that conquests, enslavement, robbery, murder, briefly force, play the great part. In the tender annals of Political Economy, the idyllic reigns from time immemorial. Right and labor were from all time the sole means of enrichment, the present year of course always excepted. As a matter of fact, the methods of prim itive accumulation are anything but idyllic. "2 It seems Marx deals w ith this problem from two ways, one is to track the co-relation between the development of productive forces and the relations of production, which could be a universal way, and the other is the way of violence. Now the question is that if we suppose that the idyllic process plays the main part, hence whether the model of capitalist distribution could be justified. Through the historical process, a series of forms of violent forces has slowly been replaced by the idyllic or legal process. Since the various individual processes have been replaced by a universal process, 2 MEGA2, DIETZ VERLAG BERLIN, II/9, P.620.

8 6 2 Social and Political Philosophy o n e c a n a s k if th e p r o c e s s io n o f th e d iv is io n b e tw e e n in d iv id u a ls w ith th e m e a n s o f p ro d u c tio n, th a t is s o m e in d iv id u a ls h a v e it in d iv id u a ls h a v e lo s t it, is leg al, co u ld its r e s u lt o f e x p lo ita tio n b e ju s tifie d? It is n o t o n ly a q u e s tio n in th e tim e s o f M arx, th e le g a l o r id y llic p r o c e s s a c tu a lly co u ld h a p p e n e v e n u n d e r c e r ta in c ir c u m s ta n c e s to d ay. W e co u ld u s e th e p r o c e s s in R u s s ia n a s a n e x a m p le. A fte r th e h is to r ic a l tra n s itio n, th e r e w a s a m a s s iv e r e a llo c a tio n o f s ta te -o w n e d p r o p e r ty e q u a lly to e v e ry p e o p le, so a t fir s t sta g y, th e r e is n o d iv isio n b e tw e e n in d iv id u a ls a n d th e m e a n s o f p ro d u c tio n, th e p r o p e r ty is e q u a lly r e a llo c a te d a m o n g its p e o p le. A s a d ir e c t c o n s e q u e n c e, th e p r e r e q u is ite c o n d itio n s fo r e x p lo ita tio n, su ch a s th e d iv is io n a m o n g p e o p le w ith r e s p e c t to th e m e a n s o f p ro d u c tio n, n o t e x is ts. B u t it fo llo w s u n a v o id a b ly. T h e d iv isio n, o r s e p a ra tio n, b e tw e e n p e o p le w ith th e m e a n s o f p ro d u c tio n, w o u ld u n a v o id a b ly h a v e h a p p e n e d u n d e r th e a c tu a l c o n d itio n o f p riv a te o w n e rsh ip w ith m a r k e t e co n o m y. C o m p a re d w ith th e v io le n t p r o c e s s io n in h is to ry, w h a t h a s h a p p e n e d to d a y is m u ch m o re lik e le g a l o r id y llic p ro c e s s io n, a lth o u g h it in re a lity in c lu d e s th e a b u s e o f p o litic a l p o w e r. In E a s te r n E u ro p e th is p r o c e s s p e rh a p s a re little d iffe r e n t fro m t h a t o f R u ssia n. In C h in a th e p r o c e s s a re d iffe r e n t fro m R u s s ia n a n d E a s te r n E u ro p e, it is m o re lik e to r e p e a t th e p r o c e s s o f th e e a rly s ta g e o f h is to ry, th a t is to s a y it h a p p e n s, to s o m e e x te n t, n a tu ra lly w ith th e a p p e a r a n c e o f p riv a te o w n e rs h ip a n d m a r k e t e co n o m y. No m a tte r u n d e r w h ic h p r o c e s s, th e c o n d itio n s n e c e s s a r y fo r e lim in a tin g e x p lo ita tio n b y M a rx a re u n d e r w a y o f ch a n g in g. M an y p e o p le u n d e rs ta n d th is p r o c e s s io n is th a t all th e s o c ia lis m in th e s e c o u n tr ie s h a s to b e re fo r m e d b e c a u s e it h a s b e e n s e t up o n a b a s e o f p re -c a p ita lis m. I f w e c o n s id e r th e n e c e s s a r y d e v e lo p m e n t o f p ro d u c tiv e fo r c e s fo r M a rx is th e p r e c o n d itio n fo r th e re a liz in g o f d is tr ib u tiv e ju s tic e a n d th e

Wei Xiaopin: Distributive Justice, Injustice and Beyond Justice 8 6 3 g e n e r a l w a y o f u n d e rs ta n d in g w h a t d is tr ib u tiv e ju s tic e is c o n tr ib u tio n a c c o r d in g to d is tr ib u tio n, w e co u ld s e e th e r e a r e tw o d im e n s io n s in M a r x ' th e o r y, o n e is h is to r ic a l d im e n s io n, a n d th e o th e r is u n iv e rs a l d im e n sio n. H o w to lo o k a t th e r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n h is to r ic a l d im e n s io n a n d u n iv e rsa l d im e n s io n in th e th e o r y o f M arx? In G e rm a n Id eo lo g y, M arx, to g e th e r w ith E n g els, a n a ly z e s th e h is to r y o f th e d e v e lo p m e n ta l c h a n g e s o f th e r e la tio n s o f p ro d u c tio n. Still la te r, in th e fa m o u s P r e fa c e to A C ritiq u e o f P o litic a l E c o n o m y ( 1 8 5 9 ), M arx s tr e s s e s th a t th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e re la tio n s o f p ro d u c tio n is b a s e d o n th e fo r c e s o f p ro d u c tio n. A c c o rd in g to M arx, a lth o u g h th e e lim in a tio n o f su ch c o n d itio n s is th e p r e r e q u is ite fo r th e e lim in a tio n o f d is tr ib u tiv e in ju s tic e (e x p lo ita tio n ), th e e lim in a tio n o f s u c h c o n d itio n s its e lf d e p e n d s o n a c e r ta in le v e l o f p ro d u c tiv e fo rces. In th is s e n s e, a n d a lso c o n s id e r in g h is H e g e lia n b a ck g ro u n d, o b s e r v e r s u s u a lly th in k th a t th e r e a re o n ly h is to r ic a l d im e n s io n s, b u t n o u n iv e rsa l d im e n s io n in M a rx s th e o r y o f d is tr ib u tiv e ju s tic e. W h a t I w a n t to s a y is th a t th e u n iv e rsa l d im e n s io n d o e s n o t c o m e in to c o n flic t w ith th e h is to r ic a l d im e n s io n. In o th e r w o rd s, th e n e e d fo r th e e x is te n c e o f th e c a p ita lis t m o d e l in a c e r ta in h is to r ic a l p e rio d a lth o u g h co u ld ju s tify its re la tio n s o f p ro d u c tio n o n th e s e n s e o f le g a l p ro c e s s io n, b u t n o t o n th e s e n s e o f m o ra l ju s tific a tio n, ju s t a s th e e x is te n c e o f sla v e ry, o r fe u d a lis m in c e r ta in p e rio d o f h is to ry. III. Are there any principles of d istrib u tive justice in Rawls? R a w ls d o e s n 't ta lk a b o u t th e p rin c ip le o f ju s tic e d is tr ib u tiv e d ir e c tly e ith e r, in s te a d w h a t h e ta lk s is th e p rin c ip le o f ju s tic e a s fa irn e s s, a n d h e e x p r e s s e s it w ith tw o p o in ts. "F irs t: e a c h p e r s o n is to h a v e a n e q u a l r ig h t to th e m o s t e x te n s iv e b a s ic lib e r ty c o m p a tib le w ith a s im ila r lib e r ty fo r o th e r s.

8 64 Social and Political Philosophy Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all."3 Seeing the distributive justice would unavoidably result in serious distributive inequality, especially under the condition of class difference, he stresses justice as fairness, what im portant for Rawls apart from the equality of opportunity is the equality of liberty. He not only justifies the distributive inequality from the point of economic efficiency and equal opportunity, as well as equal liberty, but also amends the inequality w ith regard to redistribution. Although he knows the social class structure would definitely affect equal opportunity and equal liberty, as he says: "those starting out as members of the entrepreneurial class in property-owning democracy, say, have a better prospect than those who begin in the class of unskilled laborers."4 He never questions the relations of production and the rules of it. On this sense we could say although there is a disagreement between Rawls and Nozick related to the policy of redistribution, considering he didn t challenge the existed capitalist system, what behind Rawls s theory of justice as fairness is still basically Nozick s principle of "selfownership. Nozick sees that the capitalists get profit from the investment of capital could be justified by justifying the process of the separation of the means of production between capitalists and workers. According to Nozick, if the original process of appropriation of property (or the means of production) is legal, then its result, that is to get profit from it, should be justified, he sees it as the chain of justice. 3 John Rawls: A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1971, P.60. 4John Rawls: A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1971, P.78.

Wei Xiaopin: Distributive Justice, Injustice and Beyond Justice 8 6 5 F u r th e r m o r e N o zick u s e s th e p rin c ip le o f s e lf-o w n e rs h ip to a g a in s t g o v e r n m e n t g e ttin g p r o p e r ty fro m ric h p e o p le to e q u a liz e it to p o o r p e o p le th o u g h re d is trib u tio n. It is o n th is s e n s e th a t R a w ls d is a g re e s w ith N ozick. P e rh a p s in o r d e r to re v is e th e w e a k p o in t o f ju s tic e d is trib u tiv e, w h ic h is b a s e d o n th e p rin c ip le o f s e lf-o w n e rsh ip, R a w ls s e t u p h is p rin c ip le o f ju s tic e a s fa ir n e s s in s te a d o f ju s tic e. T h e p rin c ip le o f ju s tic e a s fa ir n e s s co u ld b e u n d e r s to o d a s to ch a lle n g e N o z ick s p rin c ip le o f s e lf-o w n e rsh ip. B u t th e d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n R a w ls p rin c ip le a n d N o z ick s p rin c ip le a re o n ly d e a lt w ith th e p o in t o f r e d is trib u tio n, b o th o f th e m a c c e p t th e b a s ic s y s te m a n d th e r u le s o f c a p ita lis m, N o zick ju s tifie s its w h o le c irc le fro m p ro d u c tio n to d is tr ib u tio n, R a w ls ju s tifie s its n a tu ra l r e s u lt fro m th e s ta n c e o f th e d is a d v a n ta g e d a n d le s s w e ll p e o p le, w ith re a d ju s tin g th e u n e q u a l d is tr ib u tio n b y re d is trib u tio n. IV. From principle to reality: the difference between Marx and Rawls In o r d e r to u n d e r s ta n d th e d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n M a rx a n d R aw ls, w e h a v e to u n d e r s ta n d th e d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n R a w ls a n d N o z ick a s w e h a v e m e n tio n e d a b o v e, o th e r w is e R a w ls p rin c ip le s o f ju s tic e a s fa ir n e s s co u ld o n ly b e r e g a rd e d a s a p rin c ip le o f m o ra l ju d g m e n t. I f w e c o m p a re R a w ls w ith N o zick w e co u ld s e e th e r e is n o d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n N o zick a n d R a w ls c o n c e r n in g th e p o in t o f re la tio n s o f p ro d u c tio n, b u t w e a lre a d y k n o w th a t N o z ick g o e s fu rth e r, h e e v e n u s e th e p rin c ip le o f s e lfo w n e rs h ip to o p p o s e re d is trib u tio n. N ow w e co u ld s u m m a rie s th e ir a g r e e m e n t a n d d is a g r e e m e n t b y s o m e p o in ts, in o r d e r to s e e m o re c le a r ly h o w is th e c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n R a w ls id e a s w ith th e d e e p e x is te n c e o f s o c ia l s tr u c tu r e w h ic h is a c c e p te d b y b o th o f th e m.

8 6 6 Social and Political Philosophy 1. Self-ownership5 (it could be extended to one s property, in the level of relations of production.) 2. The differences between the rich and the poor derive from this principle6. 3. Governmental redistribution by way of taxation cannot be justified because it would violate individual s rights (self-ownership)7. For points 1 and 2, basically, there is no disagreement between Rawls and Nozick. They only disagree on point 3. Although there are direct connection between point 1 and point 3, Rawls cannot accept point 3, and he defense distributive inequality as: 4. All social values are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of these values is to every one s advantage8. So Rawls set up point 4 to challenge point 3, but he defenses point 2 that is the unavoidable result of point 1. That is the contradiction existed in Rawls theory. Now we could compare the difference between Marx and Rawls: In comparison w ith Marx, we see that for Rawls, the problem of the differences between the rich and poor only concerns the type of distribution; there are no essential differences, although Rawls knows that the social class structure would affect the opportunity of equality. Anyhow for liberalism, this kind of difference is not so important. At least in theory, those who begin from the class of unskilled laborers can leave behind the class of wage earners in order to become a 5 Robert Nozick: "Anarchy,State,and Utopia",BLACKWELL,1974,Reprinted 1997.P.172. 6 Relate to Nozickian formula: Whatever arise from a just situation by just steps is itself just, see G.ACohen: SELF-OWNERSHIP FREEDOM and EQUALITY, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1995, P.12. 7 See Robert Nozick: "Anarchy,State,and Utopia" BLACKWELL,1974,Reprinted 1997.P.ix. 8 See John Rawls: "A Theory of Justice", Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1971, P.62.

Wei Xiaopin: Distributive Justice, Injustice and Beyond Justice 8 6 7 b u s in e s s m a n. B u t th o s e fe w w h o fro m a n in itia l p o s itio n a s a w ag e e a r n e r a re lu ck y e n o u g h to b e c o m e a b u s in e s s m a n c a n n o t ch a n g e th e p o s itio n o f w a g e e a r n e r s a s a w h o le. W e c a n u n d e rs ta n d h o w M a rx d e a ls w ith th e s o c ia l d iffe re n c e so d iffe re n tly fro m th e w a y o f R a w ls b y a n a ly z in g th e d o u b le re la tio n s. A cco rd in g to M a rx s la b o r th e o r y o f v a lu e : a, P ro d u c ts sh o u ld b e lo n g to th e ir p ro d u c e rs. b, T h o s e (c a p ita lis ts ) w h o o c c u p y th e m e a n s o f p ro d u c tio n c o u ld b e fu r th e r o c c u p y th e la b o r o f o th e r s (w o r k e r s ), w h ic h r e s u lts e x p lo ita tio n. C ould w e r e g a r d e x p lo ita tio n a s m o ra l ju s tic e? T h e a n s w e r is e a s ily no, b u t th e fa c t o f e x p lo ita tio n c o u ld b e ju s tifie d b y its le g a l p ro c e s s io n. W e a re e a s ily c o n fu s e d b y th e s e tw o p o in ts o f v ie w w h ic h lo o k a t th e th in g s in d iffe r e n t w ay s. M a rx s la b o r th e o r y o f v a lu e co u ld b e u n d e rs to o d o n ly th r o u g h th e fo llo w in g d o u b le re la tio n s : a. T h e r e la tio n b e tw e e n p e r s o n a n d p r o p e r ty (m e a n s o f p ro d u c tio n ) r e lie s o n th e re la tio n b e tw e e n p e o p le (w o r k e r s m u s t b e e m p lo y e d b y th o s e w h o o w n th e m e a n s o f p ro d u c tio n ). b. T h e e q u a l re la tio n b e tw e e n p e o p le h a s b e e n d is to r te d b y s o c ia l d iv is io n (T h o s e w h o o w n th e m e a n s o f p r o d u c tio n n o t o n ly d o m in a te th e w o r k o f o th e r s, b u t a lso d o m in a te th e s u rp lu s la b o r o f o th e r s ). H e re M a rx h a s u n c o v e re d tw o k in d s o f re la tio n s, a n d c ritic iz e d th a t if th e d iv isio n o f p e o p le a n d p r o p e r ty h a s h a p p e n e d, th e v a lu e o f e q u a lity w ill go to its o p p o s ite, w h ic h fo r lib e r a lis m c a n b e ju s tifie d an d r e a d ju s te d if th e p r o c e s s is legal. T h e k e y p r o b le m is s till th a t w ith w h ic h th e e a rly M a rx w a s c o n c e rn e d, n a m e ly th e s e p a r a tio n b e tw e e n c a p ita l a n d w o rk e rs. T h a t is w h y M a rx w a n ts to ch a n g e th e s o c ia l s tr u c tu r e (r e la tio n s o f p ro d u c tio n ), w h ile n o t th e p rin c ip le itself. T h e R a w ls w a y o f tr e a tin g s o c ia l d iffe re n c e lo o k s lik e to re d u c e th e d o u b le re la tio n s to a s in g le re la tio n ; it is s o m e th in g lik e if in d iv id u a ls

8 6 8 Social and Political Philosophy fr e e ly g e t in to th e la b o r m a r k e t a n d a r e n o t fo rc e d to do so, th e r e s u lt o f d is tr ib u tio n a c c o r d in g to p r o p e r ty co u ld b e ju s tifie d. N o zick a n d R a w ls d is a g re e o n ly a b o u t th e re d is tr ib u tio n o f p ro p e rty. N ow w e sh a ll ask, co u ld th e d o u b le re la tio n s to b e r e d u c e d to o n e? A c c o rd in g to th e R a w ls th e o r y o f ju s tic e a s fa irn e s s : a. h e d o e s n t c h a lle n g e th e b a s ic ru le o f ca p ita lism. b. h e a m e n d s th e u n e q u a l d is tr ib u tio n w ith r e -d is tr ib u tio n, a n d h e d e fe n s e s it w ith e q u a l o p p o rtu n ity, e q u a l lib e rty, a n d th e b e n e fit a lso fo r th o s e le s s w e ll p e o p le. T h is o b s c u r e s tw o re la tio n s : a. th e r e la tio n b e tw e e n tw o p e r s o n ch a n g e th e ir o w n p ro d u c ts w ith th e r e la tio n b e tw e e n c a p ita lis ts a n d w o r k e r s ch a n g e th e ir m o n e y w ith th e ir la b o r fo rc e a r e d iffe re n t, a c c o r d in g to M arx, it is a n u n e q u a l e x c h a n g e, th e la te is th e r e s u lt o f s o c ia l d iv isio n. b. th e e q u a l o p p o rtu n ity a n d e q u a l lib e r ty a r e n o t o n ly th e r e la tio n b e tw e e n p e o p le a n d p e o p le, b u t a ffe c te d b y th e r e la tio n b e tw e e n p e o p le a n d p ro p e rty. A lth o u g h R a w ls s d iffe r e n tia p rin c ip le co u ld b e d e fe n s e a s a lso b e n e fit th e le s s w e ll p e o p le fro m it s p o in t o f e c o n o m ic e ffic ie n c y, b u t d u e to th e tw o k in d s o f re la tio n s, p e o p le h a v e m o re p r o p e r ty w o u ld b e b e n e fite d m o re fro m h is d iffe r e n tia p rin c ip le, w h ic h w o u ld r e s u lt in th e te n d e n c y o f in c r e a s in g s o c ia l d iffe re n c e, th r e a te n in g e q u a l o p p o rtu n ity a n d e q u a l lib e rty. V. Problems in M arx theory of distrib u tive justice P rin c ip a lly a c c o r d in g to M a rx a fte r th e e n d o f th e s e p a r a tio n b e tw e e n th e m e a n s o f p r o d u c tio n a n d w o rk e rs, d is tr ib u tiv e ju s tic e co u ld b e re a liz e d, b u t M a rx u n d e rs ta n d, it is n o t so e a sy, a lth o u g h n o w th e r e a re n o p riv a te o w n e r s a s e m p lo y e rs a n d th e p r o le ta r ia t a s e m p lo y e e s, b o th th e m a n a g e rs a n d w o r k e r s th e o r e tic a lly a re th e o w n e rs o f th e m e a n s o f p ro d u c tio n, th e y a r e e q u a l in p o sitio n.

Wei Xiaopin: Distributive Justice, Injustice and Beyond Justice 8 6 9 E v e n so, fo r M a rx th e r e a re s till p r o b le m s b e tw e e n e q u a l rig h ts an d e q u a l d is trib u tio n. In C ritiq u e o f th e G o th a P ro g ra m, M a rx d is c u s s e s a c o n fu s io n b e tw e e n e q u a l rig h ts a n d e q u a l d is trib u tio n. W h a t M a rx m e a n s a s e q u a l r ig h h t b y its e s s e n c e is a r e m u n e r a te r ig h t w h ic h is a c tu a lly b a s e d o n th e p rin c ip le o f d is tr ib u tiv e ju s tic e : w h a t y o u o w n d e p e n d s o n w h a t y o u h a v e d o n e. O ne is fo c u s e d o n th e rig h t, th e o th e r is fo c u s e d o n th e d is trib u tiv e, a n d b o th o f th e m d e a l w ith th e s a m e th in g. M a rx k n o w s th a t e q u a l r ig h t d o e s n t m e a n e q u a l d is tr ib u tiv e, ju s t as w e k n o w th a t d is tr ib u tiv e ju s tic e d o e s n t m e a n d is tr ib u tiv e e q u ally. C o n sid e rin g th e d iffe re n c e in a b ilitie s (b o th m e n ta l a n d m a n u a l) th a t p e o p le c a n c o n tr ib u te a n d a lso th e d iffe r e n t liv in g c o n d itio n s th a t p e o p le h a v e (e. g. h o w b ig th e fa m ily is), th e e q u a l r ig h t fo r a llo c a tio n a c c o r d in g to o n e s c o n tr ib u tio n m ig h t a c tu a lly m e a n u n e q u a l d is tr ib u tio n fo r e a c h p e r s o n o f c o n s u m e r g o o d s. T h e r e fo r e M arx re g a rd s e q u a l r ig h t a s is s till b a s e d o n th e ru le o f b o u r g e o is ie p rin cip le. F o r if r e m u n e r a tio n im p lie s d iffe r e n c e s in d is tr ib u tio n, th e n h o w sh o u ld w e d e a l w ith th e a c c u m u la tio n o f d iffe re n c e s? C ould th is d iffe re n c e b e tr a n s fo r m e d in to c a p ita l? I f th e a n s w e r w e r e y e s, th e n th e p r o c e s s o f h is to r y w o u ld r e p e a t itself. I f th e a n s w e r is n o, th e n th e d iffe r e n c e s a re lim ite d. B u t w e k n o w w ith m o d e rn s c ie n c e an d te c h n o lo g y h o w b ig th e d iffe r e n c e s co u ld b e. Y e t if w e lim it th e d iffe re n c e s, th e n w e c lo s e th e w a y th a t s u rp lu s la b o r c a n b e tr a n s fo r m e d in to s o c ia l p ro d u c tiv e fo rce. In re a lity, th is p r o b le m h a d a p p e a re d in tr a d itio n a l s o c ia lis t c o u n trie s. A n d in o r d e r to a v o id th e tr a n s fo r m a tio n o f a c c u m u la te d d iffe re n c e s in to c a p ita l, in p r a c tic e th e p rin c ip le o f r e m u n e r a tin g d is tr ib u tio n w a s r e p la c e d b y e q u a l d is tr ib u tio n, w h ic h a c tu a lly h a d a p p e a re d as e g a lita ria n is m. T h e a c tu a l p r a c tic e o f e g a lita ria n is m w o u ld u n a v o id a b ly n e g le c t o f e q u a l r ig h t o r w e co u ld s a y d is tr ib u tiv e ju s tic e, lim itin g th e e c o n o m ic m o tiv a tio n o f p e o p le s e ffo rt, w h ic h w o u ld u n a v o id a b ly c u t d o w n th e

8 7 0 Social and Political Philosophy p a c e o f e c o n o m ic d e v e lo p m e n t T h is k in d o f s itu a tio n a c tu a lly h a d r e s u lte d in g r e a t d iffe re n c e in e c o n o m ic d e v e lo p m e n t b e tw e e n R u s s ia n a n d A m e rica, b e tw e e n E a s te r n E u ro p e a n d W e s te r n E u ro p e, b e tw e e n N o r th e r n K o re a a n d S o u th e rn K o re a, b e tw e e n th e m a in la n d o f C h ina a n d T a iw a n, a n d etc. T h e te n s io n b e tw e e n ju s tic e (e q u a l rig h t) a n d e q u a lity a re c le a r, n o m a tte r u n d e r th e c o n d itio n o f p riv a te o w n e rs h ip o r p u b lic o w n e rs h ip. A s c o n c e r n s th e fo rm e r, th e in e q u a lity c o m e s fro m th e s o c ia l d iv is io n o n p r o p e r ty c o n c e r n in g th e m e a n s o f p ro d u c tio n, in tu r n th e s o c ia l d iv isio n u n a v o id a b ly w o u ld b e in c re a s e d ; a s c o n c e r n s th e la tte r, th e in e q u a lity is d iffic u lt to lim it w ith in a c e r ta in s c a le, e s p e c ia lly a s r e la te s to m o d e rn s c ie n c e. B a s e d o n th e a b o v e a n a ly sis, o n e c a n s a y th a t th e r e a r e n o d iffe re n c e s in th e p rin c ip le o f d is tr ib u tiv e ju s tic e b e tw e e n M a rx a n d lib e ra lis m, an d th e d iffe r e n c e s b e tw e e n th e m e x is t m a in ly in p r a c tic e, in th e re a lity c o n t e x t A c c o rd in g to M arx, th e s e p a r a tio n o f w o r k e r s fro m th e m e a n s o f w o rk is th e p r e c o n d itio n o f d is tr ib u tiv e in ju s tic e. L ib e r a lis m ju s tifie s th e p r o c e s s o f s e p a r a tio n w ith th e s a m e p rin c ip le. Y e t w h e n th e y fa ce s e r io u s in e q u a lity a s th e r e s u lt o f d iv isio n, th e y h a v e d iffe r e n t o p in io n s. E ith e r th e y ju s tify th e u n e q u a l r e s u lt th r o u g h d e fe n d in g th e p rin c ip le (N o z ick ), o r th e y ju s tify th e u n e q u a l r e s u lt fro m th e v ie w o f e c o n o m ic e ffic ie n c y (R a w ls d iffe r e n tia p rin c ip le ) a n d a m e n d it w ith re d is tr ib u tio n th r o u g h ta x a tio n. VI. From justice to beyond justice: the d ifferent way of M arx and Rawls F o r th e th e o r y o f M arx, a fte r th e e lim in a tio n o f p riv a te o w n e rsh ip, th e c o n d itio n s o f e x p lo ita tio n n o lo n g e r e x ist, a n d th e ju s tic e d is tr ib u tio n c a n b e re a liz e d. B u t ju s tic e d is tr ib u tio n s till m e a n s a c tu a lly u n e q u a l d is tr ib u tio n, w e co u ld a lso s a y th a t e q u a l r ig h t s till m e a n s u n e q u a l d is tr ib u tio n, th e s tr e s s b e tw e e n th e tw o s till e x is t. In o r d e r to s a tis fy th e la tte r, o n e h a s to ch a n g e th e fo rm e r, th a t is to ch a n g e th e p rin c ip le o f

Wei Xiaopin: Distributive Justice, Injustice and Beyond Justice 8 71 remunerate distribution, which is the problem Marx studies with respect to the second period of communism. The second period of communism different from that of the first is that it transform from the principle of from each according to his/her effort to each according to his/her needs, therefore the equal right of remunerating distribution, or the principle of distributive justice has been beyond: it gives up any direct correspondence between a person s effort w ith his reward, to satisfy his needs no matter how much he has done. Marx expresses this idea in the "Critique of the Gotha Programme" as: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs! 9 By this way Marx solves the problem of the stress between justice and equality, the new idea of equal right is already different from the old one: it is not equal on the sense of remunerating distribution, while equal on the sense of being satisfied w ith one s own needs. At the same time the economic development is not motivated by one s selfownership, but by, as Cohen interpreted, by one s communist ethos. Rawls dose not express the view that there are conflicts between the principle of justice and capitalism, but when he says that the coherence society is beyond justice that means he has recognized the existence of the contradiction. He said: "Rather a society in which all can achieve their complete good, or in which there are no conflicting demands and the wants of all fit together without coercion into a harmonious plan of activity, is a society in a certain sense beyond justice."10 This means Rawls understands that if in a society all people can achieve their complete good, just like what Marx said satisfy what they 9 Karl Marx Frederick Engels Collected Works, 1989. Progress Publishers Moscow, Vol.24 P. 87. 10 John Rawls, 1971. A Theory of Justice,Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, P.281.

8 7 2 Social and Political Philosophy n e e d, it is in a s e n s e o f b e y o n d ju s tic e, th a t is b e y o n d th e r e la tio n b e tw e e n w h a t a in d iv id u a l d o w ith w h a t a in d iv id u a l o w n : th e p rin c ip le o f ju s tic e, a lth o u g h h e n e v e r c h a lle n g e s c a p ita lis t s o c ia l s tru c tu r e. It is o b v io u s th a t th e c o n tr a d ic tio n o f e q u a l rig h ts w ith u n e q u a l d is tr ib u tiv e, w h ic h le a d s to th e r e s u lt o f s o c ia l d iffe re n c e is re c o g n iz e d b o th b y M a rx a n d R aw ls. B u t th e y r e a c t to th e s a m e p r o b le m in d iffe r e n t w ay s. B e s id e s d iffe r e n t a ttitu d e s to w a r d s th e re la tio n s o f p ro d u c tio n, th e y a lso d iffe r in th e ir w a y o f lo o k in g a t h is to ry. M a rx tr e a ts th e tr a n s fo r m a tio n o f th e p rin c ip le o f d is tr ib u tio n fro m r e w a rd to n e e d s o c c u rs h is to r ic a lly o n e a fte r th e o th e r, w e c o u ld sa y th a t in M a rx s th e o r y th e r e a re th r e e h is to r ic a l s ta g e s : in ju s tic e, ju s tic e (re la tiv e ly ), a n d b e y o n d ju s tic e. R a w ls b e lie v e s th a t d iffe r e n c e s in d is tr ib u tio n a n d r e a d ju s tm e n ts c a n e x is t s im u lta n e o u s ly. He lo o k s fo r c o h e r e n c e b a s e d o n c a p ita lis m w ith c e r ta in k in d s o f d is tr ib u tio n a l e q u a lity th r o u g h th e p rin c ip le o f g o in g b e y o n d ju s tic e in a s o c ie ty b a s e d o n c la ss. W h a t w e h a v e s e e n in n o w d a y s w e s te r n s o c ie ty th e e x is te n c e s o f d iffe r e n t e x te n t o f s o c ia l w e lfa re, su ch a s th e fre e c h a rg e o f c e r ta in s ta g e o f e d u c a tio n, m e d ic a l in s u ra n c e a n d th e m in im u m o f liv e s ta n d a rd, co u ld b e r e g a rd e d a s th e p r a c tic e o f th e p rin c ip le o f b e y o n d ju s tic e, it g u a r a n te e o n e s b a s ic n e e d s w ith o u t c o u n t w h a t o n e c o n tr ib u te s, m e a n w h ile th e r e c o n tin u e th e tr e n d s o f in c r e a s in g s o c ia l d iv is io n b e tw e e n th e ric h a n d p o o r, a n d th e c o n flic ts b e tw e e n d iffe r e n t in t e r e s t g ro u p.