By Sosamma Samuel-Burnett, J.D.
Founder & President, G.L.O.B.A.L Justice
In November 1989, I was a junior at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. I had come of age during the Cold War and the world was evenly divided between Democracy (led by the USA) and Socialism (led by the USSR). I had spent the previous 2 1/2 years immersed in international politics, especially studying Soviet politics and Marxist theory to prepare for the diplomatic needs of this divided world. But that fall semester, the Berlin Wall fell and, within two years thereafter, so did the USSR. The world and life, as I had known and studied, had forever changed.
Years later as a professor in California, I would share that experience with my students – to prepare them for a much more fractured and volatile world that was not anchored by just two camps. I taught them that the lessons learned from the Soviet experiment was simply that Socialism does not work. Communism as a theory is quite Utopian, but Socialism as its political construct is not about Utopia but is about control. And the controls that Socialism creates ultimately removes rights and freedoms from individuals, and also heavily burdens the economic system. Certainly Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev were chief among architects of the Soviet Union’s fall, but even without these two leaders, it was an eventuality that the Soviet system would fail, because socialism eventually implodes.
Fast forward to Fall 2015. The word and concept of socialism has crept back into the U.S. lexicon, but curiously it has taken on a different context. Where socialism and communism were taboo terms that referenced “the enemy” in earlier decades. Socialism has now taken on a certain cache among predominately liberal circles. Given my experiences as a child, as a student, and as a professor, I am struck that this term has become more appealing, in light of our history and that of socialist countries, particularly the USSR.
Consider the fact that one of the Democratic presidential front runners, Bernie Sanders, not only identifies himself as a Democratic Socialist but is highly regarded by many. I would argue that he is highly regarded less because of his political views and more because of his personal authenticity. However, his identification as a “Democratic Socialist” is problematic. Not only is this reference an oxymoron, if we consider the meaning of either term, but also seems to be an attempt to intertwine with the concept of the more democratic “social justice.”
I am equally struck by the fact that social justice, in turn, has increasingly fallen out of favor among Conservative and even Christian circles. They also seem to interrelate the idea of social justice with something akin to socialism. If history and society can demonstrate one thing to us in this context, it would be this – socialism does not create social justice. And in the converse, social justice does not create socialism.
Socialism is not limited to a singular definition, but in general can describe both a social and an economic system. It has been a significant political and economic movement in the modern era among mostly intellectual elites. From an economic perspective it promotes social ownership and control over the means of production. From a political perspective, it would create a system that promotes common or state ownership. From the 18th century to the present, a number of intellectuals, most notably Karl Marx, promoted socialism as a statement against industrialization and private property and their impacts, particularly on class conflicts. Fundamentally, socialism is about opposition to capitalism.
Social justice also is not limited to one definition, but generally is about political, social, and economic equality, rights, and/or opportunities. Social justice is focused in particular with concerns about those in greatest need. Social justice has traditionally been focused on rights and duties in the context of democratic institutions, and can include both corrective and distributive justice. However, the misunderstanding of the term distributive justice is likely the culprit for society’s misapplication of social justice to mean socialism. Distributive justice does not equate to control over the means of production and property, but is about receiving the benefits and opportunities that may be due to individuals based on the rights and duties provided. In that sense, social justice can function within capitalist society and does not have to be opposed to it.
To put it another way, unlike socialism, social justice can be a manifestation of democracy fully at work. But the essential element of social justice is rights and duties. Whereas, the essential aspect of socialism is control. For socialism to work, it requires that the state own, manage, and dictate what happens not only to the means of production, but also to the products, and to whom they are distributed. It is not about individual rights and duties from the government, but about duties to the government in the context of state controls.
Consider this example, my friend Natasha was born in the USSR in 1969. Her pregnant mother went into labor on a cold spring day while she was waiting in a bread line. She refused to leave that line to go to the hospital until she received her bread – knowing that once she missed that ration she would be without bread for some time. After she received her bread, she collapsed into the back of a cab and gave birth to her child. Remarkable story, but not an altogether unusual one in the context of the USSR, and not unlike other socialist countries.
But some would argue that this example is strictly in the USSR and that the USSR itself was not truly socialist. Even if the USSR was not fully socialist and was a state run capitalist system, just as communist China is in many ways now, the USSR’s bread lines are emblematic of the results of the pursuit of socialism through government control. Eventually the economic weight of government run production and controlled products results in bread lines or worse – no bread for anyone.
Social justice, by contrast, is not about rationing bread or about controlling the means, products, or distribution, It is about considering the rights and duties granted by the people with the laws they enact through the government. It is about applying those rights and duties fairly and with consideration to where there are discrepancies and disparities that prevent any individual or group from the full exercise of those rights and duties. So instead of how much bread everyone gets, social justice would consider whether some have no access to bread at all.
Given this contrast between socialism and social justice, we would have to conclude that socialism does not address social concerns but actually creates more social concerns. Government control, and its related economic burdens of government distribution, are not effective at promoting rights and duties, equality and opportunities. Socialism does not create social justice because it inherently does not value the individual but rather the government’s determination of what is due for and from the group. Further, social justice would not create socialism, because the very freedoms social justice is intended to protect would be lost in the socialist construct.
By avoiding social justice, Conservatives and Christians are creating a vacuum for disadvantaged in our society. And by embracing socialism (or at least misapplying the idea of socialism), Liberals and others are deconstructing the democratic principles that can support those that are disadvantaged. With clarity of definition and purpose, Liberals, Conservatives, and even more so, Christians have an opportunity to be champions for everyone in our society, particularly for those who are disadvantaged. By learning from history in general, the Cold War in particular, and engaging social justice not socialism, we can begin the work of addressing the very real human rights concerns of our society.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not imply endorsement by G.L.O.B.A.L. Justice. We are a faith-based, nonpartisan organization that seeks to extend the conversation about justice with a posture of dignity and respect.