Posted on 05/16/2010 12:44:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The term "social justice" is now commonly used by leftist activists, clergy, educators, judges, and politicians to describe the goal they seek to achieve with many of their policies. No precise definition of "social justice" is ever offered by the left. Instead, the term is always used in a vague way -- as if everyone already knows, or should know, what the seemingly well-intentioned phrase "social justice" means.
So, what exactly is "social justice"?
Social justice is the complete economic equality of all members of society. While this may sound like a lofty objective, what it really means is that wealth should be collected by the government and evenly distributed to everyone. In short, social justice is communism. It is rooted in the Marxist idea that the money people make and the property they own do not rightfully belong to the people who make the money and own the property.
Karl Marx's ultimate criticism of capitalism is its recognition of private property. The reason private property is so evil, Marx contended, is that it is a function of economic class warfare. In other words, "the rich" use the concept of private property to oppress "the poor." In order to understand this convoluted thought process, Marx's view of money must be examined, since money is the means by which private property is acquired.
According to Marx, money is really a "collective product" that belongs to everyone. His reasoning, as described in The Communist Manifesto, is that money can be made only "by the united action of all members of society." Factory owners, for example, cannot manufacture goods by themselves. Rather, the factory owners need workers to run the machines that produce goods. Consequently, in Marx's mind, when the manufactured good is sold, the worker has as much right to the proceeds of that sale as the factory owner does.
Marx transposed that idea to the societal level, professing that the aggregate wealth of the rich was actually created by the aggregate work of the poor.
As a result, capitalism is seen by Marxists as a system invented by the rich to ensure that the poor do not get their fair share of money. Instead, the rich keep most of the money for themselves. In turn, the rich use this "stolen" money to selfishly purchase private property in the form of factories, land, houses, and anything else they choose. As such, Marxists see all privately owned property as the fruit of a massive capitalist fraud against the poor.
What about wages? Aren't workers compensated for the work that they do under a capitalist system? Not according to Marx, who saw wages merely as part of the capitalist scheme.
First of all, Marx believed that capitalists pay workers only the bare minimum to survive -- an amount that "merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence."
Secondly, Marx stated that every cent a worker makes is paid back to the rich in the form of rent, groceries, car payments, and the like. As Marx said, "no sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer ... at an end ... than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc."
Consequently, Marx held that workers, by design, can never make enough money to acquire private property of their own under the capitalist system.
"Social justice" is intended to remedy this exploitation of workers by capitalists. Marx saw man only in a social context -- meaning not as an individual, but as a part of a class. Thus, the word "social" (in "social justice") refers to classes in a society.
"Justice," in the Marxist context, means economic equality. This is the Marxist utopian ideal that all members in a society should receive the same amount of compensation, regardless of occupation, skill, or work ethic. The oft-quoted socialist mantra, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," comes from this concept.
Social justice can be accomplished in only one way in a capitalist society -- by wealth redistribution. This is done by seizing the wealth of the greedy rich and giving it to the poor, using the government as the agent of redistribution. This is the true aim of the left's social justice agenda.
Marx's dim view of capitalism must be put in context, taking into consideration the time and place in which he lived. In 1848, the year of The Communist Manifesto's publication, the Industrial Revolution was at its height in Europe. In many European towns, the skies were filled with black smoke spewing from massive factories that employed scores of workers in horrible conditions.
However, just as Marx's understanding of capitalism was limited to factories existing in 1840s Europe, his criticisms of capitalism must be likewise limited. Marx's philosophy is demonstrably false in the modern-day United States.
To begin with, Marx contemplated only two classes. One was a very small and privileged class of property and business owners; the remainder of the population was grouped into a massive class of impoverished workers. Therefore, Marxism cannot account for the millions of American middle-class property owners, nor can it explain the existence of small businesses, which are the backbone of the American economy.
People who enjoy their job or make more than a subsistence wage are also inexplicable under Marxism, as are "rags to riches" stories and anyone advancing in salary or position. Those people simply don't exist in the Marxist world.
The truth is that the only "class" in the United States excluded from reaping the benefits of capitalism is the class that chooses not to participate in American society. Fueled by the rhetoric of leftists, this class sits idle, dreaming of perceived wrongs that justify its inactivity. The only exploitation in America is committed by politicians, who use stolen money to subsidize this class in exchange for votes. That is not justice -- it is criminal.
Postmodernists want to put hope and change in the place of knowledge of God's will, Moral Law, the Laws of History and Economics, or the facts of science and reality.They want to substitute shared utopian dreams for individual freedom and reason.
“Social Justice” is equality of outcome. In other words, it is the punishment and denial of merit and achievement.
Social justice, multiculturalism--there're just euphemisms for communism. That's the way the Left softens its language. Talking about communism directly would offend people. So they couch it in terms that sound harmless. It's just wolves in sheep's clothing.
It means that everyone gets their five minutes of fame like socialite Paris Hilton.
They want to make the state the ultimate unchecked capitalist. Doleing out slave rations to the ignorant masses. Ending up with that which they hate.
Excellent.
Marx' theories were muddled. You are right about the aristocracy, but they weren't capitalists in any sense. Their wealth came from owning land. Commoners owned the factories. But he appealed to the model people knew and so they just figured that the capitalists would end up replacing the gentry.
But Marx was wrong about just about everything.
Ultimately, this is what “social justice” looks like. The members of the ruling class become the gentry in a mockery of feudalism.
I like telling people that they wouldn’t like “social justice” because they’d have to spend their lives carrying 1/4th of my sedan chair.
By way of explanation, the relevant verses of the NIV translation read, All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. .... There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."
There are 3 reasons this is NOT communism. First, the sharing was voluntary. Second, it didn't involve ALL private property; only as much as was needed for the situation at hand. Finally, giving up one's material possessions and belongings was NOT a requirement for membership.
"Social justice" - aka communism - takes by force as much as it wants and everyone MUST participate. (Think health care!)
At the same time we work to restore the republic, we must also work to restore the churches to their authentic, Christian, purpose.
Disagree. Nineteenth-century England was "a nation of shopkeepers". Tradesmen, artificers, chandlers, merchants big and small, freehold farmers, masters and mates, junior army officers, and a small professional class of doctors, divines ("passing rich on forty pounds a year" -- as per Oliver Goldsmith), attorneys, and engineers made up the middle classes.
Even Silas Marner could accumulate a little pile of gold sovereigns.
Social justice is another name for equality. Equality can be applied to various categories, such as economic equality. If you begin with the foundational view that governments should promote equality, it will eventually lead to Marxism or Communism. Governments must enforce equality, for people left to themselves will not remain equal for long. Some people will prosper more than others. Equality can only be maintained in a society that takes from one group and gives to another. The United States was based upon the idea of individual freedom or rights, not economic equality. In a free society, people are free to prosper or to fail. There is no right to equality of results.
ML/NJ
Social justice means precisely what socialists intend it to mean, nothing more nor nothing less.
Usually they intend it to mean absolute equality, except when they don’t.
Social justice = giving power to liberals so they can control us
Bee hive mentality.
Class, what exactly is social justice?
O, O, O, pick me, pick me, teacher!!!
Okay, Johnny, what is social justice?
Systemic corruption, theft, shortage, mass deception and misery?
Very good, Johnny! You get 10 credit points on your grade.
It might be objected that, although we cannot give the term 'social justice' a precise meaning, this need not be a fatal objection ... we might not know what is 'socially just' yet we know quite well what is 'socially unjust'; and by persistently eliminating 'social injustice' whenever we encounter it, gradually approach 'social justice'. This, however, does not provide a way out of the basic difficulty. There can be no test by which we can discover what is 'socially unjust' because there is no subject by which such an injustice can be committed, and there are no rules of individual conduct the observance of which in the market order would secure to the individuals and groups the position which as such (as distinguished from the procedure by which it is determined) would appear just to us. [Social justice] does not belong to the category of error but to that of nonsense, like the term `a moral stone.'
from Law, Legislation, and Liberty; Volume II - The Mirage of Social Justice, Friedrich Hayek
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.