This is precisely what Rawls is trying to get at with his "original position". Our system certainly creates value and that value is certainly unequally distributed. Would someone support that situation if they did not know what part of the value distribution they would receive?
I think it's likely that a lower class person might prefer an alternative system that produced somewhat less value but distributed it more equally.
> I think it's likely that a lower class person might prefer an alternative system that produced somewhat less value but distributed it more equally.
As evidenced by the vast amount of poor Americans emigrating to Cuba, or poor Brazilians crossing the border to Venezuela. They really desire all that sweet equality.
You are presenting a false dilemma. The only options are not American corporate capitalism or authoritarian communism. We could instead have varying degrees of welfare capitalism or one of the numerous other systems that have been suggested such as anarcho-syndicalism.
I think it's likely that a lower class person might prefer an alternative system that produced somewhat less value but distributed it more equally.