What is the difference between socialism and social justice?
71
Social justice and socialism share the root word, social. This word connects them to social gatherings and social studies. To claim that one supports socialism because one is a proponent of social justice or social studies or social gatherings is to teeter on the ridiculous.
Social has many definitions, all relating to interactions between an individual and a group. Insects can be social. Does it follow that insects are socialists?
Definition and history of socialism up to Lenin
Socialism as a socio-economic system exists in the continuum between capitalism and communism. In socialism, a collective- often a government- owns and administers production and distribution of goods for the community, intending all members of that community to equally participate in its prosperity, as well as its recessions.
Plato's Republic advocated co-prosperity and common cause to the extreme of sharing wives and children. It described a society where men and women of the guardian class shared their material goods.
Early Christian communities advocated one, committed "body of Christ" that expressed equal love and concern for all its members, sharing goods and labor.
The world's first socialist was probably Francois Noel Babeuf, a French revolutionary and social philosopher who was guillotined in 1797 for attempting to overthrow the French Directory. His doctrine, called Babouvism, recommended doing away with private property in order to create equality- his plan, a "Conspiracy of Equals."
To Karl Marx (1818-1883), socialism was a transitional stage, in the movement from capitalism to communism.
It was the Industrial Revolution that introduced socialism as a political movement. Hiring workers in large scale, increased the social distance between employer and worker. William Blake in his poem Jerusalem described factories as "dark Satanic mills" where men, women and children labored 10 to 12 hours in dismal conditions. Karl Marx drew from horrific detail contained within the first Factory Act of 1802, an indignant analysis of capitalist evils.
Capitalist economies were extremely unstable from 1830 to 1930 and economists speculate why. Some consider the impact of growth in the scale of production to be the cause, shifting from small pin factories to giant enterprises. Some believe production was inaccurately calculated and matched. Others believe government policies in regard to the monetary system are to blame.
Whatever the reason, these were trying times for the masses. The Russian Revolution in 1917 introduced socialism as a large scale economic solution. Lenin mobilized human capital to distribute goods from production points to points of need. This socialist vision could not coordinate supply with demand and production quickly collapsed. In 1920, Lenin reintroduced concepts of capitalism.
 | Amazon Price: $40.89 List Price: $54.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $12.58 List Price: $20.00 |
Social Justice
Justiceexpresses the concept of fairness between what a person merits and the good or bad that befalls him/her. Within the law, such justice means treating cases alike- i.e., our system of precedent- no matter the individual's race, creed, or economic class. Justice does not involve distribution of wealth or other goods- it is not an economic system.
Social justice expands the idea of justice into the social arena. It includes what is just within and between a multitude of people. Does everyone deserve equal access economically, politically and socially? Who decides whether a person can be denied the opportunity to run for public office, eat at a public restaurant, attend a public school? It is not a system of wealth distribution. It is not a system at all. Social justice begs protection for those institutions working toward equal economic, political and social access and opportunity.
Jesuit Luigi Taparelli invented the phrase in the mid-1800s, believing social justice entailed a social order in which government didn't overrun or crowd out institutions of civil society such as family, church and local organizations, but respected, protected and allowed them to flourish. His thought was not to create a welfare system, but rather to maintain guilds and chariatble associations threatened by government interference.
My observations
Taparelli wrote, “Deprecating or weakening the inferior is to deprecate and weaken even the superior.”
To me, these issues define social justice:
- Social justice was Abraham Lincoln coming out of poverty to run for President.
- Social justice was child labor laws.
- Social justice was Rosa Parks sitting down on a bus.
- Social justice safeguards clean water and clean air required for mankind to survive.
- Social justice allows gays to freely serve their Country in the military.
As an American, I believe social justice means the United States is as strong as our weakest link. Supporting family, church and local institutions that offer marginalized populations the means to achieve economic, political and social access and opportunity does not require moving along the political continuum toward socialism toward wealth distribution. However, how we as a nation handle humanistic forms of justice defines all of us.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (3)
- Funny
- Awesome (4)
- Beautiful
- Interesting (1)
CommentsLoading...
I suppose that whether or not the GI bill was social justice depends on what justice is. Whether or not it was intended to be social engineering it was certainly one of the greatest pieces of social engineering in human history. I tend to think that it was justice as well. Men who fought for their country and for certain ideals, with no thought of reward, were rewarded with the greatest gift that their country had to give. Sounds just to me.
Hi James - probably the Illich hub was mine. I haven't seen any others.
The trouble with reading _about_ writers is the inevitable slant of the biographer. For example, you might almost have put me off Bertrand Russell, were it not for the fact that I'd read him extensively before :D
Dolores, I agree social justice has improved the lot of most on many levels. I wonder if the GI Bill would be a form of social justice? Certainly it changed the fortunes of many!
James, thanks for the clarification! It didn't seem you were addressing any of my points. Paraglider has written an excellent hub on Illich. Memorable enough to be the one you read, I think!
Dolores, I agree social justice has improved the lot of most on many levels. I wonder if the GI Bill would be a form of social justice? Certainly it changed the fortunes of many!
James, thanks for the clarification! It didn't seem you were addressing any of my points. Paraglider has written an excellent hub on Illich. Memorable enough to be the one you read, I think!
I read the whole article. I always read the whole article if I leave a comment. I wouldn't do that to you! :-)
I was just pointing out that your definition of Social Justice is different from the definition of our public school system and therefore I offered specific quotes to support my point of view.
And to Dave—I have not read Freire's books nor those of Illich. I read a Hub on Illich once, was that yours?
Anyway, I have read a fair amount about their ideas but not their own works.
The idea of a totally free market, where the people with a lot of money and power does not wash here in the US. Social justice brought the end of slavery, the right to vote, an end to child labor, and civil rights.
James, thank you for reading the headline and ignoring the hub. Happy holidays.
Paraglider, I am very intrigued and will order this book for further reading.
James, I'll keep this short because it is not my hub, but I wonder if you have actually read Paulo Freire? He and his close associate Ivan D Illich did great practical work for third world development in addition to their sociological and philosophical writings. They were heroes of their time. Personally I believe Illich's time has come. His definition of Convivial Technologies is exactly what we need to escape from the current oligarchic mockery of democracy. Don't dismiss these brilliant people as 'mere' leftists. It's not that simple!
"Social Justice" is certainly not a new concept, but leftwing educators have redefined the term to mean teaching for "social justice" by overthrowing the current money and power structure in America by instituting Socialism (Communism lite) or outright Communism (as in the USSR).
'Education Week' identifies this new meaning of "social justice" as coming from the writings of the late Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire. His best-known book, 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed' (1970), is considered a classic text of radical education theory and is regularly assigned in education schools.
The National Association of Scholars reports that the term "social justice" is today understood to mean "the advocacy of more egalitarian access to income through state-sponsored redistribution of wealth and income."
"Social Justice" teaching is "shorthand for opposition to American traditions of individual justice and free-market economics." It teaches students that "American society is an inherently 'oppressive' society that is 'systemically' racist, 'sexist,' and 'classist' and thus discriminates institutionally against women, nonwhites, working Americans, and the poor."
"Social-justice" lessons concentrate on past mistakes in U.S. history rather than on our many remarkable accomplishments and opportunities.
The National Association for Multicultural Education (NAME) sponsors seminars with sessions entitled "Our Work as Social Justice Educators," "Teaching for Social Justice in Elementary Schools," "Dismantling White Privilege and Supporting Anti-Racist Education in our Classrooms and Schools," "Talking About Religious Oppression and Christian Privilege," and "Creating Change Agents Who Teach for Social Justice."
Social Justice is a concept that is anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-White, anti-Free Enterprise.
In any race, including the human race, there are inevitably winners and losers. Social Justice teaches the losers that the winners have ill-gotten gains that should be forceably taken from them in the name of "fairness." It absolves individuals from the choices they have made that have made their lives a mess instead of say becoming Oprah Winfrey—who rose the most humblest of childhoods—and instead blames some mysterious outside force or conspiracy or the successful people at living life.
Social Justice is a combination of Marxism and Freudism. It is designed to deconstruct the United States.
Bob, fascinating! I am definitely going to have to revisit the social contract concept. I remember it from... high school? Probably! It sounds like a concept I could embrace. I love what you have to say. I am going to head to your hubs and read more. Thanks!!!
Jim, now that Bob has raised this issue of social contract, I am already thinking well, the Swedes have embraced social justice as their social contract, which includes socialism. But I don't believe the Swedes are purist socialists, are they? I know the Norwegians have a modified form of it. Anyway, another thought provoking comment. Thanks!
Such a thought provoking read B. I'm just throwing this out .. Socialism is defined pretty much the same way yesterday, today, and tomorrow by virtually everyone. That difinition, in general, is tiemless. The definition of social justice can change from one culture to the next and one period of time to the other. Social justice might line up with socialism in certain demographics. I just met two Swedes who were traveling the U.S. and writting a book on cultures. Facinating people. Their socialism equaled social justice for them, and they could make a case for it. Funny though, they admired capitolism while seeing it's potential for greed at the same time.
You wrote this hub and it's awesome. It opens up the door for construstive discussion.
jim
I think that you are partially right (and Locke is certainly one of the philosophers I had in mind). Part of the idea behind the social contract is that we can, if we choose, have one imposed on us dictatorially. However, we can also choose to die rather than live under that contract, or revolt, which is what the founding fathers did. Someone said to me the other day that the rich having 85% of the money in this country and in the world, is only a part of the principle of survival of the fittest. My response was to point out that in the French Revolution, the masses showed that they were fitter due to greater numbers by dragging the rich out of their palaces and cutting off their heads.
I don't think that the social contract is stuck in place forever but instead ever living and ever changing. Every time we vote, we reaffirm the social contract. Every time we obey a law we are choosing to live under it and if we choose to become an outlaw we are choosing to live outside of it. What we choose in numbers tends to stick for awhile.
Bob
Jim, yep, I think they are difficult to separate- especially if it becomes politically expedient to connect them.
Gypsy, thank you for your support!
Paraglider, excellent example. Thanks so much!
Bob, hmm. I need to think about this. I assume you are talking about John Locke.
I can see how socialism might fall under a social contract, as might social justice- the community chooses it as a means to its agreed upon ends. But this assumes that a rational ruling power is in place (like the Founding Fathers who cared) or that those in power are willing to enact a social contract for the good of all. Isn't it possible to have socialism outside a social contract, where it is thrust upon a people without them choosing it (certainly Will Starr would agree)?
And couldn't a form of social justice exist within a fascist country like Hitler's Germany, where the Resistance continued to work for social justice among Jews, gypsys, etc- where no social contract has been made for the good of all? Just musing. Perhaps I am not comparing apples but apples and oranges, as the infamous Cain once said. I will have to think more on this. Maybe I will work it out in a hub. Thanks so much for your comment.
Dolores, thanks! I find it hard to discern between family values and social justice as well. Reminds me of folk against abortion but all for capital punishment.
I enjoyed this one and voted it up. Good to see someone pointing out the difference. Too many people like to call social justice socialism. And I find it odd how some people who claim to be ethical and to admire family values can stand against social justice, labeling it with that boogie man word, socialism. They called the suffragettes socialists, as well as the people who fought for safety in the work place back in the beginning of the 20th century.
I would just add what the "Enlightenment" philosophers who were so influential to The U.S.'s founding fathers called "The Social Contract" which goes something like, we want to live together, we need a set of rules to do so etc. Both Social Justice and Socialism fall under the Social Contract in that, we choose what we believe to be just as a part of the social contract and some people in this world choose socialism as the form of economy that they want as they put together their social contract. Of course one of the problems that we have as a nation is our size and the size of our population. The more people we have and the farther apart that they are, the more likely it is that thy will see social justice and the social contract differently, which is why our social contract is fairly loose compared to some others out there and why we have different social contracts at different levels from village up to federal. The further removed we are from the level... the harder it is to make changes to the contract or remedy an injustice.
Bob
Of course you can have social justice with or without (a degree of) socialism, just as you can have perfectly sound ethics with or without a belief in the supernatural. Keep spreading the word :)
A great and informative read. Good job!
B,
Yeah, they don't belong together, but it's hard to keep them from over lapping unfortunatly.
Jim, I believe social justice belongs ouside political discussions. I believe I hear your message! Is this accurate?
Hey my friend! I completely enjoyed this, and did some good voting. Social justice is what God intended. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." I'm not going to write a book this time, but social justice can easily be raped or pervertrd slowly over a period of time. Without social justice, we are animals, however, we can't allow people to dress up their personal agenda to look like social justice. OOOGH, Late breaking news! Some of my so called conservative brothers and sisters do this very thing to capitolism, and call it good business! Jerks! Don't get me started. The politicians on both sides have moved the lines to suit their needs and have the good people hating one another, or at least not listening to one another. Sucks my sister. Like just about the time you and I are making headway listening to each other about the difference in the way we see certain things, some dude comes in screaching his "Socialist" bull. the defences go up. as they should, then it takes us two days to get back to the table, have a glass of tea, and resume our respectful discussions about out differences as friends. When I understand you, it makes me better at what I do. Otherwise, my organization becomes another Tea Party under a different name. That ain't my bag! I dunno. Do you get what I'm saying B? I said I wouldn't write a book, I did it anyway. :/ We're gonna get this mess straightened out one of these days sis!
jim
Max, you are a very kind, intelligent man. Thanks.
Lapse of the Pink Floyd, glad I got you thinking. Your comments were very reflective and I appreciate You making me think as well!
That bit about the weakest link sums it up for me. Strengthen the weakest and you strengthen the whole. Of course that's a simplified way to put it cause you can be smart or naive about HOW you strengthen, but its so true. Subsequently I would say that most of us fall into two groups. Those that say we're doing too much and those that say we're doing too little to help the disadvantaged. I know which one I fall into and wonder why some people on the other side can be so blind...
Had to turn on my brain for this one which took a bit but it needed the exercise. Thanks Story!!!
"I was hoping it was clear enough!" That is what I call modesty and it was rated "Awesome". Just for you to know I don't like to brag, it will be the exception.
maxoxam41, lol, that is HUGE-- I am thrilled to read your comment.
I did not do well in graduate school economics, because the assumptions are so different from my undergraduate degree in sociology. The professor got to the point where he would ignore my waving hand, even if I sat right in front of him, haha. Stupid me signed up for a second economics class from the same guy. I am uncertain he could answer my questions. In the end, he was let go from the University- nothing to do with me.
Anyway, I need to read more about Keynsian approaches. I don't even dare postulate with you reading my work, lol. Thanks for keeping me honest.
I am not religious but I guess you rectified it on your own.
I am religious, but I will say AMEN. I thought you understood nothing in economics. You agreeably fooled us!
Thank you Ralph. I was hoping it was clear enough!
That's a good summary and comments.
Storytellersrus Hub Author 5 months ago
Paraglider, thanks for you clarification.
FIS, I appreciate so much your focus on my question! I find your response most thoughtful and I tend to agree with your point of view. I think this is the point of social justice- to create opportunities for citizens!