<<<Yoshie quotes big chunks of Mill's more embarassing colonialist passages to support claims about what "the liberal tradition" thinks about historical change,a nd expects us to infer from this that Rawls believes that historical change happens because the idaes of the enlightened elite change through peaceful ratiocination.
Now this obviously does not follow. It's not even true that Mill always thought in such an elitist vein (see his comments on socialism in his Political Economy), and there is no reason to think that Rawls follows Milll at his worst. In fact there is reason to think otherwise, since in hos one relatively extended discussion of transitions, he specifically points to the abolitionists and to the civil rights movement, that is, to struggle from below, and he also expressly and quite inconsistently justifies the use of coercion against slavers and segregationists. OK, then.>>>
Mill's & Rawl's friendliness to the idea of socialism has to be qualified, though. There are socialisms, and there are socialisms. For instance, between left-wing liberals and Fabian socialists, there is little difference, to be sure. Both are "designers" of institutions & social arrangements. The rhetoric of abolitionists & civil rights movements of course contained vital elements of moral suasion in the interest of creating the enlightened opinion, with which one can expect Rawls to feel kinship. I'd be surprised, though, if you tell me that Rawls gets inspired by David Walker, C. L. R. James, Franz Fanon, Malcolm X, Angela Davis, etc.
<<<But my real point about Rawls' historicism did not involve his lack of a transition theory, but his insistence that justice depends on historical circumstances and the kind of justice one can aspire to depends on the level of productivity, or, as we say here, the development of the productive forces. If that ain't historical materialism, I will eat my hat, brim and all.>>>
Liberalism contains the idea of historical evolution -- the history of Progress -- with stages and all; it is clear in Mill, Kant, and other giants of liberalism, so it is no wonder Rawls endorses it. Some people think that historical materialism is a version of teleology, a stagist history of Progress, but I beg to differ. I do agree with you, however, Marx may be inconsistent on this question.
Yoshie