What Exactly Is 'Social Justice'? (It sort of sounds good, until you seriously think about it)

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.

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.

There were many of those as you indicate, however, they were small fry. They did not have the large holdings and considerable wealth of the gentry, and aristocracy. Those shopkeepers, engineers, and freehold farmers were still part of the lower classes unrelated to the crown.

Their success depended on the largess and in many cases the approval of the large manor owner or directly the crown.

Those who lived in cities were for the most part not landowners, and what land they did own was nominal.

Those who lived in the small towns operated on the direct and indirect influence of the manor.

Many of the locals worked directly for the manor, or in one of the ancillary businesses that supported the manor operations. Many were land lease farmers who worked land leased from the manor.

I don’t think that you fully appreciate the lingering effects of the royals and their extended families, and those who were bestowed favor by the crown and their extended families too. There is one hell of a lot of people. princes, counts, viceroy, etc. etc. etc. who are related to the crown, by blood. Though they may not be in the direct line of succession, they benefit from the influence and deference for members of the royal classes.

Remember, this is 1850. The crown still wielded considerable influence.

In the USA, there is no royalty with hundreds of years of accumulated wealth and influence. In 1850 this was still a pretty poor country for the most part. There were centers like the whaling and coal businesses that created wealthy individuals, but it was not centuries worth of wealth, it was the accumulation of a couple of decades of an individuals working lifetime. There are significant differences in the the scheme of 20+ years versus 200+ years.

Just a bit of perspective.

***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 Parasite class, like my wothless brother-in-law(If you know him he probably owes you money! He filed for bankruptcy because for the last 30 years he couldn’t find work HE wanted to do!)

>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.

Why then must the thief make restitution for something he stole? IIRC, twice the value if it was not destroyed/harmed, seven-fold if it was.

Social justice is a way to even the score. Post modernists believe that all of history is simply a meta narrative that has been written by White men to prop up the Western White male power structure and perpetuate it. They believe that White men have “oppressed the minorities” for all of time and exploited the labor of the minorities to benefit themselves. Therefore, the Post Modernists have revised history to diminish the achievements of White men and tout the cultures of lesser developed societies as equal to or even better than Western white culture. In addition to re-writing history, they wish to roll back history and “return the wealth” to the rightful owners, the minorities.

The plan for returning the wealth is a One World Government, with a one world taxing authority and one world currency that will tax the wealthy nations and industries and redistribute the wealth through international unions that include third world countries. International unions would meant that moving a company off shore would not save money because you would be paying the same wages and benefits.

Despite the clamour of the hour he will know that the obligation to society is not the primal law and is not the source of personal integrity, but is secondary to personal integrity. He will believe that social justice is in itself desirable, but he will hold that it is far more important to preach first the responsibility of each man to himself for his own character. He will admit that equality of opportunity is an ideal to be aimed at, but he will think this a small thing in comparison with the universality of duty. In his attitude towards mankind he will not deny the claims of sympathy, but he will listen first to the voice of judgment:

Away with charity that soothes a lie,
And thrusts the truth with scorn and anger by.

He will be sensitive to the vast injustices of life and its widespread sorrows, but he will not be seduced by that compassion into the hypocrisy of saying that “the love of those whom a man does not know is quite as elemental as sentiment as the love of those whom a man does know.” Nor, in repudiating such a falsehood, will he, like the mistress of Hull Hall, lose his power of discrimination under the stress of “those vast and dominant suggestions of a new peace and holiness,” that is “to issue forth from broken human nature itself, out of the pathetic striving of ordinary men.” Rather, he will, at any cost, strive to dear away the clouds of cant, and so open his mind to the dictates of the everlasting morality.

Paul Elmer More.1902 The New Morality

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.