Am I misunderstanding or is Rawlsianism simply “yeah we should be nice” as an economic/political goal?

Like… HOW Rawls??? We can all agree that being nice is a good thing. But how do we get the capitalists to do that??? Why do they need to do that? Do you think nobody in the past several thousand years thought that the poor might need to be the target of social welfare? What are you even saying??? When did the poor simply become subjects to our economic policy??? A byproduct???

In my opinion, Rawlsianism is completely redundant to Marxism. Am I missing something?

  • purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    10·
    3 months ago

    I have often remarked on the fact that an “anti-Marxist” argument is only the apparent rejuvenation of a pre-Marxist idea. A so-called “going beyond” Marxism will be at worst only a return to pre-Marxism; at best, only the rediscovery of a thought already contained in the philosophy which one believes he has gone beyond.

    • Sartre, who I broadly dislike but had it right here.
      • purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        His overall political analysis isn’t great (he’s not all that interested in democracy from what I’ve read) and obviously on a personal level he and Beauvoir had somewhat predatory relationships with young students and the like, and I think he was part of one of the infamous “let’s have all the French pedophiles sign their names here” petitions.

        I don’t have some deep analysis on this subject (or whatever passes for that when I rant about things), I just think he was kind of a piece of shit who was nonetheless insightful part of the time.