"Social justice encompasses economic justice."

[Garrett78]

Given the way people keep referring to social justice and economic justice (the latter being a component of the former), I thought it worth sharing some definitions. And I think this is relevant to the postmortem because much of the post-election analysis is rooted in a misunderstanding of those terms.

From the Center for Economic and Social Justice:

Defining Social Justice

Social justice encompasses economic justice. Social justice is the virtue which guides us in creating those organized human interactions we call institutions. In turn, social institutions, when justly organized, provide us with access to what is good for the person, both individually and in our associations with others. Social justice also imposes on each of us a personal responsibility to work with others, at whatever level of the “Common Good” in which we participate, to design and continually perfect our institutions as tools for personal and social development.

Defining Economic Justice

Economic justice, which touches the individual person as well as the social order, encompasses the moral principles which guide us in designing our economic institutions. These institutions determine how each person earns a living, enters into contracts, exchanges goods and services with others and otherwise produces an independent material foundation for his or her economic sustenance. The ultimate purpose of economic justice is to free each person to engage creatively in the unlimited work beyond economics, that of the mind and the spirit.

From Wikipedia:

Social justice is the fair and just relation between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges. In Western as well as in older Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive what was their due from society.[1][2][3] In the current global grassroots movements for social justice, the emphasis has been on the breaking of barriers for social mobility, the creation of safety nets and economic justice.[4][5][6][7][8]

Social justice assigns rights and duties in the institutions of society, which enables people to receive the basic benefits and burdens of cooperation. The relevant institutions often include taxation, social insurance, public health, public school, public services, labour law and regulation of markets, to ensure fair distribution of wealth, equal opportunity and equality of outcome.[9]

[ucrdem]

1. That's well and good, but as it was used in the 2016 Dem primaries, "economic justice"

meant among other things:

1) sending Jamie Dimon to prison along with unnamed fellow finance sector perps;
2) bashing Barack for not doing #1;
3) bashing Hillary for colluding in #2, also for accepting speaking fees from Jamie Dimon;
4) bashing the TPP which means bashing Barack, Hillary, and Bill;
5) bashing NAFTA which means #4;

and of course,

6) have you accepted not-Hillary as your personal lord and savior?

[Ken Burch]

9. OK, you see most of those things as "bashing Barack, Hillary and Bill".

Last edited Tue Jan 10, 2017, 04:49 PM - Edit history (1)

But why would you put sending Jamie Dimon to prison in that list?

The man is clearly a criminal, and prosecuting him would not have done political damage to the president OR the Clintons.

The "don't bash Democrats" thing never meant that we couldn't post anything that disagrees with anything any Democratic political figure ever did.

[forjusticethunders]

2. The sad thing is that the Democratic Establishment accepted NAFTA was a failure for workers

TPP was supposed to be a fix for NAFTA by essentially imposing a framework for 1st World style labor, wage and environmental standards in the 3rd World in exchange for access to a massive trade economy of scale and economic protection from China. while opening new markets for US goods . I think the messaging on it was really really off, and I do point to that as a mistake by Obama. He should have sold it as a Global New Deal of some kind, and/or as a fix for NAFTA. Yes there's a level of secrecy that is neccessary for negotiation, but that allowed the """independent left""" press to run wild about what it really meant.

Also I do think Obama made a mistake by not jailing at least some of the bankers; I understand that he was never the type to go to war with Wall Street, and it would have been fine if income inequality and the cost of living didn't skyrocket, but the combination of those two factors made his standing in certain areas that have outsized electoral power a bit shakier which opened the way for Trump.

[JHan]

11. THat was my interpretation of the TPP as I read more on it...

And I was initially a strong TPP skeptic.

I've now given up trying to correct misconceptions about the deal. It's tragic how protectionist thinking gained traction in 2016, then again it's probably inevitable given current trends.

[zipplewrath]

13. Not quite

You suggest it would open "new markets". We trade currently with virtually all of the signatories. It would potentially change the nature of those markets, but even that was a tad unknown for a variety of reasons.

[jalan48]

3. Social justice doesn't encompass economic justice under our current economic system.

It does under the theory of "binary capitalism" which is mentioned in the articles but which doesn't currently exist in this country as the primary economic paradigm. It's wonderful idea but it's not currently real. Look no further than our exploitative trade policies and the environmental degradation associated with multi-national corporate activities. You wouldn't have the wealth inequality we see today if your system truly existed.

[mythology]

4. I think historically they have that kind of backwards

I think a growth in economic justice leads to a growth in social justice, unless done in the fashion of Reconstruction with the U.S. army treating the south like an invaded territory.

There is a reason the Civil Rights Movement came after the economic gains of blacks in WWII. It takes money to sustain things like the bus protests. People who are just at a subsistence level rarely successfully protest or revolt. It takes a certain financial stability to have something to risk.

Of course we should work on both, but I think that in general, economic justice will over time lead to social justice. Granted it's slow and hard to come by when dealing with a Republican party who seemingly has a focus on preventing both.

[Garrett78]

5. There isn't anything backward or forward about it. It isn't a matter of chronology.

Economic justice is a component of social justice.

When people on DU talk about them being separate entities and about how the Democratic Party should focus on one over the other, they fail to grasp that social justice encompasses economic justice. As if institutionalized racism and sexism doesn't have an impact on economic standing. As if simply promoting policies that lift all boats is sufficient.

[bettyellen]

8. Social justice will not be back burnered and wait for white men to have enough first.

[forjusticethunders]

10. The Civil Rights movement started long before the late 40s and 50s

It was black activism that made those gains possible in the first place by getting FDR to sign executive orders desegregating the military (though it took Truman to complete the process). All this despite FDR needing to kiss the ring of the DixieKKKrats.

[zipplewrath]

14. Not directly

Yes, economically empowering a oppressed class will aid them in achieving social justice. But there's a hint of "trickle down" here. The economic justice will also tend to empower their oppressors as well. Social justice needs to be pursued "on it's own". One can argue the trickle down aspects just as well by suggesting that social justice empowers the oppressed to pursue economic justice.

And really, in the social justice sphere, is the problem that certain class of people will get treated differently than others and that will inhibit their access to economic justice through the power of the government. i.e. if the criminal justice system is treating people differently, that can affect their long term economic opportunities.

[Orsino]

6. And vice-versa, whatever that means.

A lot of criticism was of the which-came-first variety. And wasn't helpful.

[Garrett78]

7. Not vice-versa if you go by the definitions in the OP.

Economic justice is one component of social justice, which forms the umbrella.

Social justice is the fair and just relation between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges.

Social justice is the virtue which guides us in creating those organized human interactions we call institutions.

Including economic institutions.

You're right that it isn't a matter of which comes first. It's not a matter of chronology.

The mistake is in thinking everything revolves around class and taking the "a rising tide lifts all boats" approach. Some boats aren't even allowed out to sea.

[JCanete]

12. One thing is true, there is no economic justice without important components of social justice,

and yes, economic justice itself is one component of that umbrella meaning of social justice. The question, since this is coming up a lot, is who is advocating for economic justice without social justice?

That isn't Sanders, and if you listen to Sander's recent discussions, I think both with Sarah Silverman, and with Amy Goodman, he points out that racism is a tool that people at the top exploit to divide us. He's not brushing inequality under the rug, he is attempting to expose one of the primary catalysts.

If its the news media talking heads, well I could care less, except that yes, they are propagandizing the public, but they certainly aren't talking about economic justice any more than they are promoting social justice. They're just riffing about that ephemerally defined "jobs" as somehow the other side of some coin with social justice on the other, and pretending if the coin ends up on social justice, nobody gets "jobs." That is typical media horse-shit,yes...derived from the economic message that Sanders was attempting to court white rural americans with, but twisted into something other, and entirely bereft of the original message.

Is there somebody who matters who is saying we should stop fighting for social justice?