Hayek's scalpel & Duff's bludgeon vs. 'Social Justice'

The term "Social Justice" should stand on a monument as an example of socialism in practice.  First, it involves the theft of words which have a prior and clear meaning in other, proper contexts; and second, it involves deceit because when it is put into socialist action it results in the exact opposite of what the naive and unwary might suppose.  It is also a prime example of what I call 'a slogan phrase', by which I mean, a phrase which can be fitted easily onto a banner or placard and which, on a quick reading, sounds plausible and reasonable.  It is only when you actually think about it that you realise how empty and meaningless it is.  "A fair day's pay for a fair day's work" is another example of socialist word-rape because no effort is ever made to define what "fair" means in precise terms, and equally it is clear from the context that the 'fairness' is entirely one-way and that, of course, is the very opposite of 'fairness'! 

However, let us return to "Social Justice".  After even a moment's contemplation one is forced to admit grudging admiration for the clever thieving of the words by the Left.  After all, the subject of the phrase, "Justice", is one that instantly summons up widespread feelings of sympathy because everyone desires 'justice' and wishes to see it meted out on every possible occasion, indeed, its opposite, 'injustice', offends everyone's sensibilities.  Similarly, no-one can be against "Social" because that would imply that you were anti-social and therefore on a par with the yobs and villains who plague your neighbourhood. 

But let us compare the socialist misuse of these words with their proper meaning, and here, given my own intellectual short-comings, let me call up my reserves in the form of the late and very great F. A. Hayek and his book Law, Legislation & Liberty.  In this superb book Hayek draws a distinction between proper justice which is the system of law which governs the moral conduct of individuals inter-acting together in a free society, and 'social justice' which is the manipulation of economic intercourse between people in order to achieve specific ends.  It is yet another example of that almost delicious paradox in which socialists, who pride themselves on their ability to conduct a rigorous analysis of social and economic affairs, fail utterly to comprehend the reality before them.  Hayek points to the self-organising processes of the free market in which goods and services are freely exchanged and which result in a steadily increasing benefit to a majority but either less of a benefit, or none at all, to a minority.  Rather like theists seeing the self-ordering process of nature and believing that there must be a guiding hand behind it all, socialists swallow whole the notion that some group of powerful and rich individuals are using market processes to reach some definite conclusion:

As primitive thinking usually does when first noticing some regular processes, the results of the spontaneous ordering of the market were interpreted as if some thinking being deliberately directed them, or as if the particular benefits or harm different persons derived from them were determined by deliberate acts of will, and could therefore be guided by moral rules.  This conception of 'social' justice is thus a direct consequence of that anthropomorphism or personification by which naive thinking tries to account for all self-ordering processes.  It is a sign of the immaturity of our minds that we have not yet outgrown these primitive concepts and still demand from an impersonal process which brings about a greater satisfaction of human desires than any deliberate human organisation could achieve, that it conform to the moral precepts men have evolved for the guidance of their individual actions.

In its extreme form this "primitive thinking" in which arrogant humans sought to improve a spontaneous and natural order by imposing a set of aims and targets led to monstrosities like Stalin's 5-year plans which impoverished and enslaved a generation of Russians with virtually no improvment in their well-being.  Today people are wary of such grandiose plans and progressives have been forced to 'box clever'.  Today they recognise that brute force nationalisation and forced labour will be opposed by their electorates so they have seized upon the taxation system as the means of achieving their ends.  Nobody likes taxation but if it can be sugar-coated with ideas like 'social justice', and if constant propaganda is maintained in pointing up the deficiencies of the market system, people will reluctantly troop along.  After all, who could possibly wish to be both anti-social and unjust?

Comments

[hank]

David

Where ever did I go wrong.

A long time ago I commented on an article calling Hayek an exemplar of social justice.

I need to pay more attention to your words of wisdom.

http://eclecticmeanderings.blogspot.com/2006/02/what-is-social-justice_21.html

[David Duff]

Thanks, Hank, an interesting post. It reminded me of this passage from Hayek's book:

"The phrase [social justice] could exercise this effect because it has gradually been taken over from the socialist not only by all other political movements but also by most teachers and preachers of morality. It seems in particular to have been embraced by a large section of the clergy of all Christian denominations, who, while increasingly losing their faith in a supernatural revelation, appear to have sought a refuge and consolation in a new 'social' religion which substitutes a temporal for a celestial promise of justice, and who hope that they can thus continue their striving to do good."

That strikes me as a fairly accurate assessment. Again it demonstrates the difference between laying down the moral conduct of individuals, and the interference in economic exchanges with purpose of achieving a fixed aim.

[Umbongo]

DD

One of the many reasons I won't be voting Conservative on 6 May is the existence - and approval by the Cameroons - of their ex-leader's think-tank, the Centre for Social Justice - http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/

As Simon Heffer wrote in this morning's Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7561148/General-Election-2010-the-only-thing-you-wont-hear-in-the-next-30-days-is-the-truth.html - whichever of the main parties the electorate votes for there'll be a social democrat in no. 10 on 7 May.

[David Duff]

You (and Heffer) are right, of course, 'Bongers'. I still can't make up my mind who to vote for or whether to vote at all. In the meantime, four weeks of unmitigated tedium . . .