social justice = cough up the money white boy...
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.
It is communism.
It is. Why should a welfare queen be given the same wage as a brain surgeon? Why bother becoming a brain surgeon when there's no reward? Why not relax and enjoy the ride like the welfare queen instead?
If social justice becomes the norm - don't expect me to sweat. I'm going on a permanent vacation. Millions would join me. Why not? There's nothing to lose.
So what if people get hungry? Why should I work to bake the bread? As long as I have my mine, who cares? It would be all about me and my free stuff, right? Isn't that how it works?
since last year... when tax money was used for private good instead of public good... we have been living under communism
then again, progressive taxes are unConstitutional and socialistic/communistic by definition.
to fit with the Constitution, taxes would have to be even regardless of the person being taxed. percentages are percentages. to say one person should be taxed more than another, just because what? the color of their skin? religion? amount they earn? sexual preference? what’s the difference... it all infringes on the civil rights of the individual and no longer treats us all equal under the law
lady justice is blind folded to insure everyone is treated equally. the quality of the clothing being worn by those being taxed would be irrelevant.
then again.. progressive taxes are a tool of the left to redistribute wealth and keep people from ever getting out of the hole
I notice a lot of churches and seminary theologians are very attracted to this idea of “social justice”. Many pastors and seminary teachers seem to think that the Old Testament Levitical laws support this idea.
Don't think that the theft will stop when some sort of economic equality is established by coercion. There is a very strong element of revenge, of retribution, in the class relationships implied by "social justice." We have already seen a vicious and tragic example in history. "Privileged" Jews were not simply impoverished by their Nazi "victims," who were, after all, using as their excuse the attempt to remediate what they considered an unfair economic advantage, the Jews were beaten, ostracized, encamped, murdered. That was the doctrine of social justice in action, and the newspapers of the time proudly proclaimed it so.
"Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
“Social Justice” has no definition and it’s why the left loves the phrase: because it sounds good but means different things to different people.
It’s like “Racism”. Ever wonder why in a world where everyone wants to get rid of “racism” the institution still exists?
This evil, parasitical ideology must attach itself to a Good, so as to move forward. Inferior to 'Good'; it must depend on it; By it's own inferiority to Good; 'evil' must depend on Good - use it/cloak itself in it. Otherwise it is helpless. And of course the challenge is always to 'recognize it'.
Anything that screws average whitey taxpayer.
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions…”
Social Justice is where if you don’t work, you don’t get stuff from someone elses work by force of law.
social justice = cough up the money white boy...
But it bears repeating
As Cripplecreek posted
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C. S. Lewis
When I was converting to Catholicism my group had to endure a lecture from some bitter old communist nun with the title, “Diocesan Director for Social Justice”. I can’t remember most of her painful blather but I do remember the part about the evils of buying Nike tennis shoes (no I am not making that up).
When leftist politicos use the phrase “social justice”, it, of course, goes undefined, because like all Newspeak phrases and words (”health care” as used lately, “comprehensive immigration reform”, “racist”, and so forth), it means exactly what The Party wants it to mean at any given time.
What is more interesting is to analyse the phrase in the mouths of ostensibly Christian clerics. Here it seems to represent an abrogation of Christian responsibility, and a failure to heed the words of Christ, when He said, “the poor you have with you always.” The Christian responsibility to succor the poor, “in as much as ye did it to the least of these, ye did it unto Me,” to imitate the Good Samaritan who voluntarily used his own money to pay for the care of the man who fell among theives, gets twisted by clerics who buy into “social justice” into a responsibility to badger ‘Caesar’ into succoring the poor out of tax revenues, which ultimately is no responsibility at all.
Replacing philanthropy with “social justice” denies the donor the opportunity to imitate the Father, who makes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike, and gives the recipient a sense of entitlement rather than gratitude. In the end “social justice” turns out to be a demonic simalcrum of Christ’s command to love one’s neighbor as one’s self, and like all such delusions only leads to harm, both spiritual and material.
“Social Justice” is code for socialism.
The Good Samaritan voluntarily helped someone in need - once. He was not responsible for the mans health care forever. If he were, he'd be enslaved by the wounded man for life.
Unfortunately, the writer fails to mention that in England of the time, there was the landed gentry (distant relatives of the crown), and the aristocracy (direct relatives of the crown) and royalty. There really wasn't a middle class as such, and social mobility was almost nil.
Marx' theory was about how to break this deadlock of the upper classes of the time in the UK. They did have a stranglehold over the economy.
But today's Marxists are little more than thieves. They complain that the wealthy have the same strangelhold over the economy, yet there is unlimited upward mobility for anyone willing to make the effort.
just a way to control people & turn them against the only working economic system so that you can dominate & control.
same ol’ same ol’.
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.