Social Justice Essay Example for Free

Social Justice Essay Social justice is defined as justice exercised within a society, particularly as it is exercised by and among the various social classes of that society. A socially just society is defined by its advocates and practitioners as being based on the principles of equality and solidarity; this pedagogy also maintains that the socially just society both understands and values human rights, as well as recognizing the dignity of every human being.[1][2] The Constitution of the International Labour Organization affirms that universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice. [3]Furthermore, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action treats social justice as a purpose of the human rights education.[4] The term and modern concept of social justice was coined by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in 1840 based on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and given further exposure in 1848 byAntonio Rosmini-Serbati.[1][2][5][6][7] The phrase has taken on a very controverted and variable meaning, depending on who is using it. The idea was elaborated by the moral theologian John A. Ryan, who initiated the concept of a living wage. Father Coughlin also used the term in his publications in the 1930s and the 1940s. It is a part of Catholic social teaching, the Protestants Social Gospel, and is one of the Four Pillars of the Green Partyupheld by green parties worldwide. Social justice as a secular concept, distinct from religious teachings, emerged mainly in the late twentieth century, influenced primarily by philosopher John Rawls. Some tenets of social justice have been adopted by those on theleft of the political spectrum. - Theories of social justice [edit]Social justice from religious traditions [edit]Judaism Main article: Tikkun olam In To Heal a Fractured World: The Ethics of Responsibility, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks states that social justice has a central place inJudaism. One of Judaism’s most distinctive and challenging ideas is its ethics of responsibility reflected in the concepts of simcha(gladness or joy), tzedakah (the religious obligation to perform charity and philanthropic acts), chesed (deeds of kindness), andtikkun olam (repairing the world). Christianity Catholicism Main article: Catholic social teaching Catholic social teaching consists of those aspects of Roman Catholic doctrine which relate to matters dealing with the collective aspect of humanity. A distinctive feature of the Catholic social doctrine is their concern for the poorest members of society. Two of the seven key areas[8] of Catholic social teaching are pertinent to social justice: * Life and dignity of the human person: The foundational principle of all Catholic Social Teaching is the sanctity of all human life and the inherent dignity of every human person. Human life must be valued above all material possessions. * Preferential option for the poor and vulnerable: Catholics believe Jesus taught that on the Day of Judgement God will ask what each person did to help the poor and needy: Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.[9] The Catholic Church believes that through words, prayers and deeds one must show solidarity with, and compassion for, the poor. The moral tes t of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. People are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor.[10] Even before it was propounded in the Catholic social doctrine, social justice appeared regularly in the history of the Catholic Church: * The term social justice was adopted by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in the 1840s, based on the work of St. Thomas Aquinas. He wrote extensively in his journal Civiltà   Cattolica, engaging both capitalist and socialist theories from a natural law viewpoint. His basic premise was that the rival economic theories, based on subjective Cartesian thinking, undermined the unity of society present in Thomistic metaphysics; neither the liberal capitalists nor the communists concerned themselves with public moral philosophy. * Pope Leo XIII, who studied under Taparelli, published in 1891 the encyclical Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of the Working Classes), rejecting both socialism and capitalism, while defending labor unions and private property. He stated that society should be based on cooperation and not class conflict and competition. In this document, Leo set out the Catholic Churchs response to the social instability and labor conflict that had arisen in the wake of industrialization and had led to the rise of socialism. The Pope advocated that the role of the State was to promote social justice through the protection of rights, while the Church must speak out on social issues in order to teach correct social principles and ensure class harmony. * The encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (On Reconstruction of the Social Order, literally in the fortieth year) of 1931 by Pope Pius XI, encourages a living wage, subsidiarity, and advocates that social justice is a personal virtue as well as an attribute of the social order, saying that society can be just only if individuals and institutions are just. * Pope John Paul II added much to the corpus of the Catholic social teaching, penning three encyclicals which would deal with issues such as economics, politics, geo-political situations, ownership of the means of production, private property and the social mortgage, and private property. The encyclicals of Laborem Exercens, Solicitudo Rei Socialis, and Centesimus Annus are just a small portion of his overall contribution to Catholic social justice. Pope John Paul II was a strong advocate of justice and human rights, and spoke forcefully for the poor. He addresses issues such as the problems that technology can present should it be misused, and admits a fear that the progress of the world is not true progress at all, if it should denigrate the value of the human person. * Pope Benedict XVIs encyclical Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) of 2006 claims that justice is the defining concern of the state and the central concern of politics, and not of the church, which has charity as its central social concern. It said that the laity has the specific responsibility of pursuing social justice in civil society and that the churchs active role in social justice should be to inform the debate, using reason and natural law, and also by providing moral and spiritual formation for those involved in politics. * The official Catholic doctrine on social justice can be found in the book Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, published in 2004 and updated in 2006, by the Pontifical Council Iustitia et Pax. Methodism From its founding, Methodism was a Christian social justice movement. Under John Wesleys direction, Methodists became leaders in many social justice issues of the day, including the prison reform andabolitionism movements. Wesley himself was among the first to preach for slaves rights attracting significant opposition.[11][12][13] Today, social justice plays a major role in the United Methodist Church. The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church says, it is a governmental responsibility to provide all citizens with health care.[14] The United Methodist Church also teaches Population control as part of its doctrine.[15] Hinduism Ancient Hindu society was based on equality of all beings. However, to divide labor society divided itself into hundreds of tribes[Jati]. India was governed by people of non-Hindu faiths from the 8th century which caused ruptures in societal fabric. Caste is a word from the Portuguese word casta and caste came to define the jatis only 500 years ago. Considerable social engineering occurred during the British rule which impacted the societys self governance. There was some social injustice in which some jatis considered themselves superior to others (just as in the western societies). The present day jati hierarchy is undergoing changes for variety of reasons including social justice,which is a politically popular stance in democratic India. Institutionalized affirmative action has swung the pendulum. The disparity and wide inequalities in social behaviour to some of the jatis led to various reform movements in hinduism for centuries. While legally outlawed, the caste system remains s trong in practice, with social and employment opportunities strongly governed by ones caste of birth.[16] Vivekanandas calls to promote social justice have been largely heeded. Of course there is room for improvement as in the rest of the world. Islam | This section requires expansion. (July 2011)| The Quran contains numerous references to elements of social justice. For example, one of Islams Five Pillars is ZakÄ t, or alms-giving. Charity and assistance to the poor – concepts central to social justice – are and have historically been important parts of the Islamic faith. In Muslim history, Islamic governance has often been associated with social justice. Establishment of social justice was one of the motivating factors of the Abbasid revolt against the Umayyads.[17] The Shiite believe that the return of the Mahdi will herald in the messianic age of justice and the Mahdi along with the Messiah (Jesus) will end plunder, torture, oppression and discrimination.[18] For the Muslim Brotherhood the implementation of social justice would require the rejection of consumerism and communism. The Brotherhood strongly affirmed the right to private property as well as differences in personal wealth due to factors such as hard work. However, the Brotherhood held Muslims had an obligation to assist those Muslims in need. It held that zakat (alms-giving) was not voluntary charity, but rather the poor had the right to assistance from the more fortunate.[19] [edit]John Rawls Main article: John Rawls Political philosopher John Rawls draws on the utilitarian insights of Bentham and Mill, the social contract ideas of John Locke, and thecategorical imperative ideas of Kant. His first statement of principle was made in A Theory of Justice where he proposed that, Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others..[20] A deontological proposition that echoes Kant in framing the moral good of justice in absolutist terms. His views are definitively restated in Political Liberalism where society is seen as a fair system of co-operation over time, from one generation to the next..[21] All societies have a basic structure of social, economic, and political institutions, both formal and informal. In testing how well these elements fit and work together, Rawls based a key test of legitimacy on the theories of soc ial contract. To determine whether any particular system of collectively enforced social arrangements is legitimate, he argued that one must look for agreement by the people who are subject to it, but not necessarily to an objective notion of justice based on coherent ideological grounding. Obviously, not every citizen can be asked to participate in a poll to determine his or her consent to every proposal in which some degree of coercion is involved, so one has to assume that all citizens are reasonable. Rawls constructed an argument for a two-stage process to determine a citizens hypothetical agreement: * The citizen agrees to be represented by X for certain purposes, and, to that extent, X holds these powers as a trustee for the citizen. * X agrees that enforcement in a particular social context is legitimate. The citizen, therefore, is bound by this decision because it is the function of the trustee to represent the citizen in this way. This applies to one person who represents a small group (e.g., the organiser of a social event setting a dress code) as equally as it does to national governments, which are ultimate trustees, holding representative powers for the benefit of all citizens within their territorial boundaries. Governments that fail to provide for welfare of their citizens according to the principles of justice are not legitimate. To emphasise the general principle that justice should rise from the people and not be dictated by the law-making powers of governments, Rawls asserted that, There is a general presumption against imposing legal and other restrictions on conduct without sufficient reason. But this presumption creates no special priority for any particular liberty.[22] This is support for an unranked set of liberties that reasonable citizens in all states should respect and uphold — to some extent, the list proposed by Rawls matches the normative human rights that have international recognition and direct enforcement in some nation states where the citizens need encouragement to act in a way that fixes a greater degree of equality of outcome. The basic liberties according to Rawls * Freedom of thought; * Liberty of conscience as it affects social relationships on the grounds of religion, philosophy, and morality; * Political liberties (e.g. representative democratic institutions, freedom of speech and the press, and freedom of assembly); * Freedom of association; * Freedoms necessary for the liberty and integrity of the person (viz: freedom from slavery, freedom of movement and a reasonable degree of freedom to choose ones occupation); and * Rights and liberties covered by the rule of law. Criticism The concept of social justice has come under criticism from a variety ofperspectives. Many authors criticize the idea that there exists an objective standard of social justice. Moral relativists deny that there is any kind of objective standard for justice in general. Non-cognitivists, moral skeptics, moral nihilists, and most logical positivists deny the epistemic possibility of objective notions of justice. Cynics (such as Niccolà ² Machiavelli[citation needed]) believe that any ideal of social justice is ultimately a mere justification for the status quo. Many other people accept some of the basic principles of social justice, such as the idea that all human beings have a basic level of value, but disagree with the elaborate conclusions that may or may not follow from this. One example is the statement by H. G. Wellsthat all people are equally entitled to the respect of their fellowmen.[23] On the other hand, some scholars reject the very idea of social justice as meaningless, re ligious, self-contradictory, and ideological, believing that to realize any degree of social justice is unfeasible, and that the attempt to do so must destroy all liberty. Perhaps the most complete rejection of the concept of social justice comes from Friedrich Hayek of the Austrian School of economics: 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.[24] Ben ONeill of the University of New South Wales argues that, for proponents of social justice:[25] the notion of rights is a mere term of entitlement, indicative of a claim for any possible desirable good, no matter how important or trivial, abstract or tangible, recent or ancient. It is merely an assertion of desire, and a declaration of intention to use the language of rights to acquire said desire. In fact, since the program of social justice inevitably involves claims for government provision of goods, paid for through the efforts of others, the term actually refers to an intention to useforce to acquire ones desires. Not to earn desirable goods by rational thought and action, production and voluntary exchange, but to go in there and forcibly take goods from those who can supply them! Janusz Korwin-Mikke argues simply: Either social justice has the same meaning as justice – or not. If so – why use the additional word social? We lose time, we destroy trees to obtain paper necessary to print this word. If not, if social justice means something different from justice – then something different from justice is by definition injustice' Sociologist Carl L. Bankston has argued that a secular, leftist view of social justice entails viewing the redistribution of goods and resources as based on the rights of disadvantaged categories of people, rather than on compassion or national interest. Bankston maintains that this secular version of social justice became widely accepted due to the rise of demand-side economics and to the moral influence of the civil rights movement.[26] Cosmic values Hunter Lewis work promoting natural healthcare and sustainable economies advocates for conservation as a key premise in social justice. His manifesto on sustainability ties the continued thriving of human life to real conditions, the environment supporting that life, and associates injustice with the detrimental effects of unintended consequences of human actions. Quoting classical Greek thinkers like Epicurus on the good of pursuing happiness, Hunter also cites ornithologist, naturalist, and philosopher Alexander Skutch in his book Moral Foundations: The common feature which unites the activities most consistently forbidden by the moral codes of civilized peoples is that by their very nature they cannot be both habitual and enduring, because they tend to destroy the conditions which make them possible.[27] Pope Benedict XVI cites Teilhard de Chardin in a vision of the cosmos as a living host [28] embracing an understanding of ecology that includes mankindss relationship to fellow me n, that pollution affects not just the natural world but interpersonal relations also. Cosmic harmony, justice and peace are closely interrelated: If you want to cultivate peace, protect creation.[29] - Social justice movements Social justice is also a concept that is used to describe the movement towards a socially just world, i.e., the Global Justice Movement. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality, and can be defined as the way in which human rights are manifested in the everyday lives of people at every level of society.[30] A number of movements are working to achieve social justice in society.[31][32] These movements are working towards the realization of a world where all members of a society, regardless of background or procedural justice, have basic human rights and equal access to the benefits of their society. Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition The Interfaith Social Justice Reform Coalition (ISARC) is Ontarios largest interfaith organization dedicated to faith-based approaches to public policy reform in the areas of social justice and poverty eradication. ISARC has a shared hope to mobilize, facilitate, and empower diverse faith communities to research, educate and advocate for public policy for the elimination of poverty in Ontario. ISARCs values include human dignity, social equity, mutual responsibility, fiscal fairness, economic equity and environmental sustainability. Since 1986, ISARC has been a leader in mobilizing faith communities to advocate for systemic change in the Province of Ontario, Canada. Liberation theology Main article: Liberation theology Liberation theology[33] is a movement in Christian theology which conveys the teachings of Jesus Christ in terms of a liberation from unjust economic, political, or social conditions. It has been described by proponents as an interpretation of Christian faith through the poors suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor,[34] and by detractors as Christianity perverted by Marxism and Communism.[35] Although liberation theology has grown into an international and inter-denominational movement, it began as a movement within theCatholic Church in Latin America in the 1950s – 1960s. It arose principally as a moral reaction to the poverty caused by social injusticein that region. It achieved prominence in the 1970s and 1980s. The term was coined by the Peruvian priest, Gustavo Gutià ©rrez, who wrote one of the movements most famous books, A Theology of Liberation (1971). According to Sarah Kleeb, Marx would surely take issue, she writes, with the appropriation of his works in a religious contextthere is no way to reconcile Marxs views of religion with those of Gutierrez, they are simply incompatible. Despite this, in terms of their understanding of the necessity of a just and righteous world, and the nearly inevitable obstructions along such a path, the two have much in common; and, particularly in the first edition of [A Theology of Liberation], the use of Marxian theory is quite evident.[36][dead link] Other noted exponents are Leonardo Boff of Brazil, Jon Sobrino of El Salvador, and Juan Luis Segundo of Uruguay.[37][38] Social justice in healthcare Social justice has more recently made its way into the field of bioethics. Discussion involves topics such as affordable access to health care, especially for low income households and families. The discussion also raises questions such as whether society should bear healthcare costs for low income families, and whether the global marketplace is a good thing to deal with healthcare. Ruth Faden and Madison Powers of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics focus their analysis of social justice on which inequalities matter the most. They develop a social justice theory that answers some of these questions in concrete settings. Social injustices occur when there is a preventable difference in health states among a population of people. These social injustices take on the form of health inequities when negative health states such as malnourishment, and infectious diseases are more prevalent among an impoverished nation.[39] These negative health states can often be prevented by providing social and economic structures such as Primary Healthcare which ensure the general population has equal access to health care services regardless of income level, gender, education or any other stratifying factor. Integrating social justice to health inherently reflects the social determinants of health model without discounting the role of the bio-medical model.[40] [edit]Social justice and human rights education Main article: Human rights education The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action affirm that Human rights education should include peace, democracy, development and social justice, as set forth in international and regional human rights instruments, in order to achieve common understanding and awareness with a view to strengthening universal commitment to human rights.[41] A general definition of social justice is hard to arrive at and even harder to implement. In essence, social justice is concerned with equal justice, not just in the courts, but in all aspects of society. This concept demands that people have equal rights and opportunities; everyone, from the poorest person on the margins of society to the wealthiest deserves an even playing field. But what do the words â€Å"just† or â€Å"fair† mean, and what defines equal? Who should be responsible for making sure society is a just and fair place? How do you implement policies regarding social justice? Alternately, should you legislate for justice in society or merely rely on the moral compass of society’s members? From a political stance that is leftist, you must legislate to create a just society, and various programs need to exist in order to collect monies needed to even the playing field between rich, middle class, poor and those people who are routinely marginalized by s ociety. Equal rights can be defined as equal access to things that make it possible for people in any societal sector to be successful. Therefore, leftist philosophy would support things like anti-discrimination laws and equal opportunity programs, and would favor taxation, especially of those who make a lot of money, to pay for programs that help provide equality for all. The far left would argue that there are certain basic needs that must be offered to all. These include things like truly equal education and safety in all schools and programs that would help all children have the financial opportunity to attend college. Far left groups, often termed socialist even if they differ from true definitions of socialism, further argue that a just society cannot be had unless everyone has access to food, safe shelter and medical care. The way to achieve this is through taxation and government implementation of programs that will guarantee these things for all people. The right political stance equally endorses a just society, but may criticize those who make poor choices and feel that while equal opportunity should exist, a government should not legislate for this. In fact it is argued that social justice is diminished when governments create programs to deal with it, especially when these programs call for greater taxation. Instead, those who have more money should be encouraged to be philanthropic, not by paying higher taxes, which is arguably unjust. From a religious perspective, you’ll find people all over the political spectrum who argue forsocial justice. Many Christian groups believe that you bring about justice through Christlike actions of mercy, especially those that help people who have been marginalized by society. Islamic perspective on social justice is similar; one of the Five Pillars of Islam is that all must give to the poor. However, certain sects of Islam promote views of women and men as different; women are not equal to and are subservient to men. The postmodern critique on the idea of a just society provokes interesting debate. Can there ever be a just society? Can we ever view all people as inherently equal and entitled to the same rights and privileges? It’s hard to know, since most philosophers would argue that no one has ever created a completely just society, where all people have an even chance. Even in the most socialist nations, there is poverty and unequal distribution of wealth. In societies like the US, which hinge on creating social justice, we have distinct problems, like hungry children, homelessness, and problems with making sure all children receive the same high standard of education. This is no reason to abandon attempting to promote a just society and trying to aim for it. Yet due to the complex nature of society, the US may not ever fully achieve justice for all, and the debate of how to achieve this state is ongoing. â€Å"Social justice is about equality and fairness between human beings. It works on the universal principles that guide people in knowing what is right and what is wrong. This is also about keeping a balance between groups of people in a society or a community. Social justice is an underlying principle for peaceful and prosperous coexistence within and among nations. We uphold the principles of social justice when we promote gender equality or the rights of indigenous peoples and migrants. We advance social justice when we remove barriers that people face because of gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion, culture or disability.† Source: United Nations Our Commitment To Social Justice As Social Justice refers to creating a society that is based on the principles of equality and understanding the value of human rights, it is in direct alignment with our organisational values and philosophy. As an organisation of over 650 staff, we have embraced the Social Justice message and looked at powerful ways to raise awareness and showcase our advocacy for Social Justice throughout the community. FSGA collectively advocates for Social Justice by giving it a regular ‘Day’. Every Wednesday all FSGA staff are encouraged to wear something orange, to remind them of the FSGA value and philosophy and what we are advocating and working towards. The signature of modern leftist rhetoric is the deployment of terminology that simply cannot fail to command assent. As Orwell himself recognized, even slavery could be sold if labeled freedom. In this vein, who could ever conscientiously oppose the pursuit of social justice, i.e., a just society? To understand social justice, we must contrast it with the earlier view of justice against which it was conceived one that arose as a revolt against political absolutism. With a government (e.g., a monarchy) that is granted absolute power, it is impossible to speak of any injustice on its part. If it can do anything, it cant do anything wrong. Justice as a political/legal term can begin only when limitations are placed upon the sovereign, i.e., when men define what is unjust for government to do. The historical realization traces from the Roman senate to Magna Carta to the U.S. Constitution to the 19th century. It was now a matter of justice that government not arrest citizens arbitrarily , sanction their bondage by others, persecute them for their religion or speech, seize their property, or prevent their travel. This culmination of centuries of ideas and struggles became known as liberalism. And it was precisely in opposition to this liberalism not feudalism or theocracy or the ancien rà ©gime, much less 20th century fascism that Karl Marx formed and detailed the popular concept of social justice, (which has become a kind of new and improved substitute for a storeful of other terms Marxism, socialism, collectivism that, in the wake of Communisms history and collapse, are nowunsellable). The history of all existing society, he and Engels declared, is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf oppressor and oppressed, stood in sharp opposition to each other. They were quite right to note the political castes and resulting clashes of the pre-liberal era. The expositors of liberalism (Spencer, Maine) saw their ethic, by establishing the political equality of all (e.g., the abolition of slavery, serfdom, and inequality of rights), as moving manki nd from a society of status to a society of contract. Alas, Marx the Prophet could not accept that the classless millenium had arrived before he did. Thus, he revealed to a benighted humanity that liberalism was in fact merely another stage of Historys class struggle capitalism with its own combatants: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The former were manual laborers, the latter professionals and business owners. Marxs classes were not political castes but occupations. Today the terms have broadened to mean essentially income brackets. If Smith can make a nice living from his writing, hes a bourgeois; if Jones is reciting poetry for coins in a subway terminal, hes a proletarian. But the freedoms of speech and enterprise that they share equally are nothing but lies and falsehoods so long as their differences in affluence and influence persist (Luxemburg). The unbroken line from The Communist Manifesto to its contemporary adherents is that economic inequality is the monstrous injustice of the capitalist system, which must be replaced by an ideal of social justice a classless society created by the elimination of all differences in wealth and power. Give Marx his due: He was absolutely correct in identifying the political freedom of liberalism the right of each man to do as he wishes with his own resources as the origin of income disparity under capitalism. If Smith is now earning a fortune w hile Jones is still stuck in that subway, its not because of the class into which each was born, to say nothing of royal patronage. They are where they are because of how the common man spends his money. Thats why some writers sell books in the millions, some sell them in the thousands, and still others cant even get published. It is the choices of the masses (the market) that create the inequalities of fortune and fame and the only way to correct those injustices is to control those choices. Every policy item on the leftist agenda is merely a deduction from this fundamental premise. Private property and the free market of exchange are the most obvious hindrances to the implementation of that agenda, but hardly the only. Also verboten is the choice to emigrate, which removes one and ones wealth from the pool of resources to be redirected by the demands of social justice and its enforcers. And crucial to the justification of a classless society is the undermining of any notion that individuals are responsible for their behavior and its consequences. To maintain the illusion that classes still exist under capitali sm, it cannot be conceded that the haves are responsible for what they have or that the have nots are responsible for what they have not. Therefore, people are what they are because of where they were born into the social order as if this were early 17th century France. Men of achievement are pointedly referred to as the priviliged as if they were given everything and earned nothing. Their seeming accomplishments are, at best, really nothing more than the results of the sheer luck of a beneficial social environment (or even in the allowance of one egalitarian, John Rawls natural endowment). Consequently, the haves do not deserve what they have. The flip side of this is the insistence that the have nots are, in fact, the underpriviliged, who have been denied their due by an unjust society. If some men wind up behind bars, they are (to borrow from Broadway) depraved only because they are deprived. Environmental determinism, once an almost sacred doctrine of official Soviet academe, thrives as the social constructionist orthodoxy of todays anti-capitalist left. The theory of behavioral scientists and their boxed rats serviceably parallels the practice of a Central Planning Board and its closed society. The imperative of economic equality also generates a striking opposition between social justice and its liberal rival. The equality of the latter, weve noted, is the equality of all individuals in the eyes of the law the protection of the political rights of each man, irrespective of class (or any assigned collective identity, hence the blindfold of Justice personified). However, this political equality, also noted, spawns the difference in class between Smith and Jones. All this echoes Nobel laureate F.A. Hayeks observation that if we treat them equally [politically], the result must be inequality in their actual [i.e., economic] position. The irresistable conclusion is that the only way to place them in an equal [economic] position would be to treat them differently [politically] precisely the conclusion that the advocates of social justice themselves have always reached. In the nations that had instituted this resolution throughout their legal systems, different political treatm ent came to subsume the extermination or imprisonment of millions because of their class origins. In our own American mixed economy, which mixes differing systems of justice as much as economics, social justice finds expression in such policies and propositions as progressive taxation and income redistribution; affirmative action and even reparations, its logical implication; and selective censorship in the name of substantive equality, i.e., economic equality disingenuously reconfigured as a Fourteenth Amendment right and touted as the moral superior to formal equality, the equality of political freedom actually guaranteed by the amendment. This last is the project of a growing number of leftist legal theorists that includes Cass Sunstein and Catherine MacKinnon, the latter opining that the law of [substantive] equality and the law of freedom of expression [for all] are on a collision course in this country. Interestingly, Hayek had continued, Equality before the law and material equality are, therefore, not only different, but in conflict with each other a pronouncement that e vidently draws no dissent. Hayek emphasized another conflict between the two conceptions of justice, one we can begin examining simply by asking who the subject of liberal justice is. The answer: a person a flesh-and-blood person, who is held accountable for only those actions that constitute specifically defined crimes of violence (robbery, rape, murder) against other citizens. Conversely, who is the subject of social justice society? Indeed yes, but is society really a who? When we speak of social psychology (the standard example), no one believes that there is a social psyche whose thoughts can be analyzed. And yet the very notion of social justice presupposes a volitional Society whose actions can (and must) be held accountable. This jarring bit of Platonism traces all the way back to Marx himself, who, despite all his anti-Idealistic and anti-Hegelian rhetoric, is really an Idealist and Hegelian asserting, at root, that [Society] precedes and determines the characteristics of those who are [its] members (R.A. Childs, Jr.). Behold leftisms alternative to liberalisms atomistic individualism: reifying collectivism, what Hayek called anthropomorphism or person ification. Too obviously, it is not liberalism that atomizes an entity (a concrete), but social justice that reifies an aggregate (an abstraction). And exactly what injustice is Society responsible for? Of course: the economic inequality between Smith and Jones and Johnson and Brown and all others. But there is no personified Society who planned and perpetrated this alleged inequity, only a society of persons acting upon the many choices made by their individual minds. Eventually, though, everyone recognizes that this Ideal of Society doesnt exist in the real world leaving two options. One is to cease holding society accountable as a legal entity, a moral agent. The other is to conclude that the only practicable way to hold society accountable for its actions is to police the every action of every individual. The apologists for applied social justice have always explained away its relationship to totalitarianism as nothing more than what we may call (after Orwells Animal Farm) the Napoleon scenario: the subversion of earnest revolutions by demented individuals (e.g., Stalin, Mao to name just two among too many). What can never be admitted is that authoritarian brutality is the not-merely-possible-but-inevitable realization of the nature of social justice itself. What is social justice? The theory that implies and justifies the practice of socialism. And what is socialism? Domination by the State. What is socialized is state-controlled. So what is totalitarian socialism other than total socialism, i.e., state control of everything? And what is that but the absence of a free market in anything, be it goods or ideas? Those who contend that a socialist government need not be totalitarian, that it can allow a free market independent choice, the very source of inequality! in some things (ideas) and not in others (goods as if, say, books were one or the other), are saying only that the socialist ethic shouldnt be applied consistently. This is nothing less than a confession of moral cowardice. It is the explanation for why, from Moscow to Managua, all the rivalries within the different socialist revolutions have been won by, not the democratic or libertarian socialists, but the totalitarians, i.e., those who dont qualify their socialism with antonyms. Totalitarian socialism is not a variation but a redundancy, which is why half-capitalist hypocrites will always lose out to those who have the courage of their socialist convictions. (Likewise, someone whose idea of social justice is a moderate welfare state is someone whos willing to tolerate far more social injustice than hes willing to eliminate.) What is social justice? The abolition of privacy. Its repudiation of property rights, far from being a fundamental, is merely one derivation of this basic principle. Socialism, declared Marx, advocates the positive abolition of private property [in order to effect] the return of man himself as a social, i.e., really human, being. It is the private status of property meaning: the privacy, not the property that stands in opposition to the social (i.e., socialized, and thus really human) nature of man. Observe that the premise holds even when we substitute x for property. If private anything denies mans social nature, then so does private everything. And it is the negation of anything and everything private from work to worship to even family life that has been the social affirmation of the socialist state. What is social justice? The opposite of capitalism. And what is capitalism? It is Marxs coinage (minted by his materialist dispensation) for the Western liberalism that diminished state power from absolutism to limited government; that, from John Locke to the American Founders, held that each individual has an inviolable right to his own life, liberty, and property, which government exists solely to secure. Now what would the reverse of this be but a resurrection of Oriental despotism, the reactionary increase of state power from limited government to absolutism, i.e., totalitarianism, the absolute control of absolutely everything? And what is the opposite the violation of securing the life, liberty, and property of all men other than mass murder, mass tyranny, and mass plunder? And what is that but the point at which theory ends and history begins? And yet even before that point before the 20th century, before publication of the Manifesto itself there were those who did indeed make the connection between what Marxism inherently meant on paper and what it would inevitably mean in practice. In 1844, Arnold Ruge presented the abstract: a police and slave state. And in 1872, Michael Bakunin provided the specifics: [T]he Peoples State of Marx will not content itself with administering and governing the masses politically, as all governments do today. It will also administer the masses economically, concentrating in the hands of the State the production and division of wealth, the cultivation of land, the establishment and development of factories, the organization and direction of commerce, and finally the application of capital to production by the only banker the State. All that will demand an immense knowledge and many heads overflowing with brains in this government. It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant, and elitist of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and counterfeit scientists and scholars, and the world will be divided into a minority ruling in the name of knowledge, and an immense ignorant majority. And then, woe unto the mass of ignorant ones! It is precisely this new class that reflects the defining contradiction of modern leftist reality: The goal of complete economic equality logically enjoins the means of complete state control, yet this means has never practically achieved that end. Yes, Smith and Jones, once socialized, are equally poor and equally oppressed, but now above them looms an oligarchy of not-to-be-equalized equalizers. The inescapable rise of this new class privileged economically as well as politically, never quite ready to wither away forever destroys the possibility of a classless society. Here the lesson of socialism teaches what should have been learned from the lesson of pre-liberal despotism that state coercion is a means to no end but its own. Far from expanding equality from the political to the economic realm, the pursuit of social justice serves only to contract it within both. There will never be any kind of equality or real justice as long as a socialist elite stands behind the trigger w hile the rest of us kneel before the barrel. Further Reading The contemporary left remains possessed by the spirit of Marx, present even where hes not, and the best overview of his ideology remains Thomas SowellsMarxism: Philosophy and Economics, which is complemented perfectly by the most accessible refutation of that ideology, David Conways A Farewell to Marx. Hayeks majestic The Mirage of Social Justice is a challenging yet rewarding effort, while his The Road to Serfdom provides an unparalleled exposition of how freedom falls to tyranny. Moving from theory to practice, Communism: A History, Richard Pipes slim survey, ably says all that is needed.