Posted on 05/16/2010 4:12:47 AM PDT by Scanian
In the movie “Poppy”, W.C. Fields is a con man. His daughter confronts him after one swindle.
“Pa, stealing is wrong.”
“I’m not stealing,” Fields says. “I’m taking from the rich and giving to the poor.”
“What poor?” she asks incredulously.
“Us poor,” he responds.
That’s Social Justice. We know it as theft.
ping
It’s interesting how socialists have basically dropped the notion that the state should own the means of production. I guess a few of their fringe still believe it, but the typical leftwinger really doesn’t. What they do believe in, though, is the redistribution of wealth. The deal seems so be “Okay greedy class enemies, you get to keep your factories (since when we socialists ran them it was a disaster of epic proportions) but we’re going to regulate you and bully you and demonize you, and the wealth you create we’re going to snatch out of your hands and give it to its rightful owners, the people”. But that’s really just fascism, isn’t it?
No, that's a leftist term too. They use it to mean social justice as it applies specifically within the sphere of economics.
Were nations or businesses to enslave anyone they would be abhorrent. But these people, they think it is all right for them to use their intellect to enslave all to them. They think becaue they deem themselves smart, its ok, it’s the proper order of things. I don’t think give a care about greed, etc. They just want to be in charge, and they could never be in charge of anything with their slovenly habits and whacked out ideas except government.
An oxymoron.
Conservatives by and large believe that charity is something that is a private matter between an individual and his or her community. Something that is looked upon as uplifting to the spirit because it is done freely and without compulsion with the expressed purpose of removing the impediments that keep one in poverty. For example, a job instead of a handout.
Liberals on the other hand view government's role in the elimination of poverty as an absolute. In fact I would go as far as to say that this view borders on a religious belief on their part and is certainly a linchpin of liberalism. The problem I see with this is two fold: 1) when “social justice” becomes compulsory it is neither social or just; and 2) liberal entitlement programs only further the dependence of the poor and keep them in a never ending state of poverty which is where liberals look for their base of support every election cycle.
When someone uses the term “social justice” it is an admission by them that they are a loser. You should reject whatever they say, shun them and get away quickly. If you are a policeman, arrest them immediately and deport them.
For all intents and purposes what’s the difference?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The hooded gunman is more apt to be nervous because he lacks the full backing of the REAL criminal class.
Someone said that the only legitimate function of government is to protect the citizenry against criminals (both foreign and domestic) but the government inevitably usurps the function of the criminal and becomes a greater danger to the public than the criminal could ever be.
When I told an Obamabot last year that Obama is the current equivalent of Mussolini he said I had gone off the deep end but he certainly seems to fit Benito’s definition of a Fascist to the letter.
Social Justice = the Marxist rendition of the story of Robin Hood.
At one point social justice was called “distributive justice” but that was to easy to understand. Social justice as a term is easy for liberals to work with, it is a living term that grows with the times.
When I visited MT Rushmore and listened to one of the movie presentations I learned our country was established for life, liberty, and the pursuit of social justice. Go listen for your self, you will hear it.
What Exactly is ‘Socical Justice’? Cultural Marxism
Same thing.
Actually I view it as “Government Shoplifting the Booty”
Whole hog thievery......and there is NO HONOR among thieves.
>“social justice” = toxic mix of socialism and racism, cf. “Nazism”>
‘Social justice’ is a BS term considering a thing it is used for.
The real social justice means that one who did a job is getting fruits of it. The one who didn’t gets nothing which is same justful.
Raising equality is giving a hand to a loser and it is a winner who is to pay a price for ‘equality’ sharing his result.
There is no need to do your best to be a winner and there is a reason to be a loser who gets the same doing nothing. A bad thing is if both are to become a losers they have nothing to share.There is no justice. That is just a simple reason why socialism is always about a poverty and failure at the end.
Ping
Jonah Goldberg does a great job of linking liberalism and fascism in his book Liberal Fascism, and he gets a lot of very convincing mileage out of Mussolini.
Prior to Liberal Fascism, there was this classic piece by David Ramsey Steele called The Mystery of Fascism which puts its finger right on the connection between socialism and fascism in Mussolini:
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm
It’s an analytical piece but is also jampacked with interesting anecdotes and quotes from Mussolini that make it clear he never thought of himself as anything other than a socialist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.