Social Justice, the New Feudal Capitalism
Posted on 26. Feb, 2010 by James Devere in American Politics, Political News
Social justice is a feel-good term that stands to, as Obama has promised, “Fundamentally change our economy.” Social justice has undergone a transformation in the past fifteen years; it has been adopted by the left as a talking point that can put a friendlier face on more politically charged terms like “income redistribution” and “property redistribution.” But for social justice to become a reality, it is necessary for the middle class to take a step back on the economic scale. Rest assured, our social engineers in Congress and the Administration will sacrifice the continued growth of our middle class for their vision of economic egalitarianism that, in the name of sharing wealth, will consolidate power in a new elite class.
Social justice is a tool that will cross international boarders and allow for a world that is committed not to individual freedom but rather to a sustainable global socialism, if such an economy is even possible. What is possible, however, is that through increased “cooperation” with international bodies, the administration can tout their open and engaging foreign policy while at the same time using international pressure to force changes at home.
Equality is the stated goal of social justice, yet what suffices for equality under such a system is a government-controlled economy which guarantees that producers and non-producerswould have the same income. Social justice is the exact opposite of equality when you look at the necessity of hamstringing some in order to guarantee equity in outcome to all. The march to social justice has been called socialism by some, but it is something larger. The socially just world that is beginning to emerge is more accurately somewhere between a “Feudal Capitalist” and a Socialist society.
As Margaret Thatcher once said, socialism eventually fails as you run out of other people’s money. However, there are some new buzz words in the Administration that point to this new economy or a new socialism; terms like “public private partnership” where the lines between K Street and Wall Street begin to blur. The pay to play crowd was supposed to be out on the street during the Obama Administration. Yet it is thriving; the difference is that you can still pay to play, but it is an invitation-only party. Companies that play the game will still employ workers, they just better abide by the Administration’s compensation rules.
As a society we are headed, under the guise of social justice into a true feudal capitalism economy. This is not the feudal Capitalism as defined by leftists: an all powerful corporation society, where free men and free women are not free to make their own career choices. That economic system is the invention of academics as a justification for a change to a socialist or communist government. That rhetoric is old and has failed to bring about the desired change in the past. Our current path takes us to government controlled private business. No longer will businesses be on par with government nor will the people be able to stop such a large and powerful entity. Government control will be the dogma of this economy, not government ownership. Private business will exist in principle, but will owe their charter to the government as medieval barons owed theirs to the crown. A new serfdom awaits the American worker.
As part of the change with this Administration, a new term entered the vernacular: “too big to fail.” These are the companies that are needed for sustained socialism. No longer dependent upon the market to compete but both subsidized by taxpayers and creating taxpayers. How will small business compete in an economy of subsidies? It is not the too-big-to-fail companies that we have to worry abou,t but rather the too-small-to-subsidize business that will be harmed. Small and midsized businesses will feel the pinch and we will see a new round of consolidation.
In this public/private socialist society, government rests on top of society: employing some and keeping others on the dole, select mega businesses will thrive, but will owe their political clout to a single party in Washington. Many will work for the companies, and be paid a good salary; which will in turn be taxed by the government. The King is replaced by a strong central government, lords by the preferred corporations, and the serfs by you and me. Education is already headed in this direction with a focus on creating good citizens over encouraging creative minds.
What will suffer is the middle class; what will fail are our small businesses. What will be a thing of the past will be the ability to employ hard work, creativity, and risk to better our station in life as the founders of this country intended. The framers of this new “fundamentally changed” economy do not believe in competition or personal freedom. They see a threat in individuality. They believe that a ruling class should take the burden of success from the masses and protect them from the opportunity of failure. If success is measured as a degree of personal freedom then failure is the certainty of our new brand of socialism.
As nice as it may seem to believe that our social ills would be solved if everyone had a guaranteed minimum income, and that somehow equality would blossom, it is a fallacy. No matter how much money you give everyone, different personal habits will be exposed. Some people will use their equal share to pay their living expenses; some will buy luxuries, leaving nothing for healthcare, for housing, even for food. It will be determined that these necessities are a right, too important not to be granted and controlled by the government.
Social Justice is not an economy. It is crime spree in the guise of a government program, it is a new slavery for new century. It is, however, change.
This is just another teabag website. What a bunch of kooks. Go Obama!!!
No one has explained this better! This should be a must read!
The early tip-off that "social justice" is something different from justice is that if "social justice" WERE justice, there would be no need for the adjective. As we can see, "social justice" is grave injustice to anyone who expends time and effort to develop what would normally be valuable skills. Those people are cruelly robbed of those pieces of their lives by so-called "social justice". The word "social" might as well be replaced by "anti-". At least the truth would be clearer.