but you should consider the source. Read the "Who we are" section.

Also read their Core Values section.

This group rejects "academia" because it doesn't agree with what it teaches.
It rejects labor unions in favor of "ownership unions".
It pushes private ownership above all else, presumably with the idea that if everyone "homesteads" then no one needs anything from government - and it doesn't like big government.
Somewhat problematically (for me), it puts "God" front and center in its Core Values.

Lots of bell-whistle words surround its central idea of capital homesteading - "protecting private property", rejecting 'socialistic' tendencies . . .

Frankly, if you read the "Code of Ethics" the group starts to sound like a cult, which in a way I suppose it is.

I thought I was making progress in understanding economic justice.

I think I'll have to wait until Monday to understand how most DUers define it.

Thanks for digging into it.

I appreciate it. Really.

I tried to get through it, but it was too much for the brain to process at 1:22am.

But at least it helps me understand that economic justice has an academic meaning, grounded in what I'll call "applied" philosophy and backed by mathematics.

Personally, I don't think many people go that deep when they talk about economic justice. But that's just a guess and I could be wrong.

anything at 1:22 am!

The reading voice in my head was reading along to me and after the first couple of sentences, I thought, "whoa, I've gotta go back." I haven't read anything that dense in a long time. I need to find an existential philosophy book and exercise my mind.

*blush*

I think it's healthy.

I'm tired of the confusion on this site regarding the phrase social justice. Social justice is a holistic approach that encompasses both social and economic issues. It's a true human rights approach, rather than piecemealing it. To talk of economic justice in contrast to social justice isn't even wrong. That's how ridiculous it's gotten on this site when it comes to this subject.

that economic and social justice are different concepts and, to some, adversaries! I get why some people are stirring this pot right now, though. People can come up with some convoluted shit when it's time to shill for a lackluster candidate. Jesus, what bullshit!

Lately I've been feeling like someone looking at politics on another planet when I read some of these posts. These people are their own proctologists, and their heads are deep, deep up in there. This shit has no basis in reality, and it should be recognized for the most disgusting propaganda that it is.

Social justice encompasses racial justice and economic justice.

But I do see racial justice and economic justice as distinct.

BTW, this has NOTHING to do with the candidates, for me. I am beyond undecided. I am okay letting others make the decision. My expectations of the Democratic candidates are that low.

Bernie Sanders is hard to criticize on his progressive credentials.

Some people here invented a wedge out of a big old strip of complete bullshit and wove together a "narrative" that, although absurd, got some traction because of the blind partisanship here.

They are fine with great privilege and great poverty as long as that privilege is based only on money and no immutable characteristic such as skin color, sex or gender orientation and so on.

At least that is my working hypothesis based on reading a lot of posts.

It's social justice from the point of view of a sociopath.

and I'm sorry for it.

My life is touched by economic inequities and I do what I can on a personal level to make a difference.

It just seems to me that I can separate out racial injustice from economic injustice, and I see them as distinct. Economic justice does not help black people at the top, racial justice does not help black poor escape poverty any faster than it helps white poor escape poverty.

It also seems to me that when black people who are not dealing with money problems talk about racial inequities, there is an assumption that we don't care about economic inequities. That's not what we're saying. We care. We're probably working personally to make a difference in the lives of people who are poor or not doing well. I've done this since I was 22, and that's a long time ago. I'm also involved politically.

So, if you think someone black on this board does not care about economic inequity, that's a misinterpretation. What we black DUers see is that there seem to be DUers who do NOT care about racial inequity, or are convinced that solving one solves the other... and as such, are focused on economic inequity, and don't pay much attention to racial inequity except to say "oh yes, it's terrible".

But solving one does put power back into the hands of the people so that they can work toward solving the other.

Money = Power. And right now, the oligarchy has the money and the power. The only way for the oligarchy to hold on to their money/power is by quashing voting, etc, rights which is exactly what we have witnessed since about 2000 and have seen escalating since the crash of 2007.

Nobody is saying that civil rights/social justice don't matter. That is the false dichotomy that is being pushed here. It isn't a one or the other proposition.

I was just giving my general impression from reading hundreds of thousands of posts over years and years. I have forty thousand posts and have read many, many times that. Nothing personal to you at all since I don't really recognize you as a distinct voice yet as I do with some others who have considerably more posts than you.

To be clear, I don't think social justice and economic justice are separable things but it certainly appears that some people here want to make them that way.

I'm by no means blind to social justice, I have posts up from years ago talking about hyper incarceration of black males for instance, I also have posts from years ago advocating the empowerment and education of women.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2719737

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=652830

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=653280

I am one of those who thinks that economic justice and racial justice are separable, but apparently they both fall under the umbrella of social justice. So, a lot of it depends on which justice is being discussed.

There's no division between the two. I think it's based on ignorance of the idea, which dates back to the 19th century Jesuits. Given the outright hostility to religion on this site, and especially the Catholic Church, I'm pretty surprised to find people (incorrectly) discussing a Catholic doctrine formulated by Jesuits and popularized by a Papal encyclical.

The basic problem is the New Left emphasis on biological identity as opposed to class. They were right to point out that identity issues had been almost completely ignored and were relevant, but it's been taken to the same extreme as those who would claim that only class matters. There are no hard division lines in these categories, so it's always problematic to pretend that there are.

that a bunch of folks are being deliberately obtuse.

They reject academia while wrapping their message in god.

They call themselves "third-way" and tout their work with Reagan while bashing labor unions and promoting what amounts to contract based work.

It reeks of right-wing propaganda.

thinking of deleting the thread. I see now that there are better definitions out there.

I was not familiar with that group (even though they have been around for a long time) and your OP led me to take a closer look at what they espouse, which was a very good thing to do.

It was quite troubling to realize the extent that their concept of "capital homesteading" has permeated many places (try just googling the phrase), as the idea on the most basic level is appealing to many who see it as a solution. Unfortunately, the details of the program are not as benevolent or as 'doable' as the basic message implies.

So, please leave your OP. I think it is very useful to ask the question, particularly of that group you linked!

Even though I only got to the Lorenz equations. And I'm a math major. It may have been that I could have gotten through the math but I was already blown away by the philosophy. Any notions I ever had that philosophy is an "easy major" got tossed! (Not that I thought that, but I'm just sayin')

'tany rate, at least let me know if I should edit my OP and put your link in as well. I think the point I'm getting at is that economic justice is very complicated, and throwing around the phrase may be inappropriate if you haven't done some homework.

might get us both in trouble - it is, looking at it again, pretty dense (and I'll be honest and say I sort of skip over the mathy bits with my standard "historians don't do maths" excuse!)


It's a complicated topic, more-so when moved from the esoteric world of theory and into the nitty-gritty of reality. The more we can think about it, the better equipped we are to form workable definitions.

I do agree with your thoughts about the intricacies of how social, racial, and economic justice play out. It is never wise to lump people together in big boxes; the result is definitions that are too broad to be very useful.

I dislike constant bickering!

From the article:
The Three Principles of Economic Justice

Participative Justice:
“Participative Justice” describes how one makes “input” to the economic process in order to make a living. It requires equal opportunity in gaining access to private property in productive assets as well as equality of opportunity to engage in productive work. The principle of participation does not guarantee equal results, but requires that every person be guaranteed by society’s institutions the equal human right to make a productive contribution to the economy, both through one’s labor (as a worker) and through one’s productive capital (as an owner).

Distributive Justice:
“Distributive Justice” defines the “output” or “out-take” rights of an economic system matched to each person’s labor and capital inputs. Through the distributional features of private property within a free and open marketplace, distributive justice becomes automatically linked to participative justice, and incomes become linked to productive contributions. The principle of distributive justice involves the sanctity of property and contracts. It turns to the free and open marketplace, not government, as the most objective and democratic means for determining the just price, the just wage, and the just profit.

Distributive justice follows participative justice and breaks down when all persons are not given equal opportunity to acquire and enjoy the fruits of income-producing property.

Social Justice
“Social Justice” is the “feedback” principle that detects distortions of the input and/or out-take principles and guides the corrections needed to restore a just and balanced economic order for all. This principle is violated by unjust barriers to participation, by monopolies or by some using their property to harm or exploit others.

My view:
The sentence, "the free and open marketplace, not government" is the key concept here. That somehow, through the "miracle of the marketplace", a just wage and a just profit will be determined. But this Libertarian type fantasy ignores the historical fact that rich people in every society use their riches to enhance their own power and income. The 6 principal Walton heirs possess more wealth than the bottom 40% of the US population. They accomplished this through buying politicians, to ensure a favorable tax code, as well as bullying suppliers and workers to maximize their own wealth.
And every person does not possess "equal opportunity to acquire...". Racism, sexism, and other barriers work against any equality of opportunity.