First, thanks to this author for an interesting and informative article. Rawls's first book and the academic debate it inspired formed the core of my Thesis for my M.A. (in political economy).

I have learned that the mistake Rawls and all people on the political left have made is to think that equality is in itself a valid rule to govern the governance of society. (Marx was a radical equalitarian--not a materialist.) Equality is not a rule of any kind. It does, however, imply a rule: mutual respect (of a basic kind, i.e., taking one another into account as we live our separate lives together in this world).

Since mutual respect follows from equality, a society governed by mutual respect would look very familiar. It would have the maximum liberty that coexisting people can share simultaneously--which obviates liberty, the very antithesis of a rule to govern conduct, as the predicate (or "first principle") of justice. Political democracy is actually already governed by mutual respect, in that all members of the community are taken into account in the political process--even though many are denied rights of participation (voting and running for office), based on age. Unlike equality per se, mutual respect can be efficaciously applied to the governance of the existing economy--any existing economy--with astonishing results for society.

If curious, there is "Equality Is All We Need" (here in Medium).