^ Not silly. The fundamental distinction is the distinction between individual justice – as in a private court case – and justice on a social scale – which would certainly include civil rights.
Here are a few passages from the wiki article, which treats the liberal political philosopher John Rawls (no Marxist he) first in its article but also includes discussion of Jewish and Christian ideas of social justice.
“Social justice is the application of the concept of justice on a social scale.”
“Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system.”
“The liberal political philosopher John Rawls draws on the utilitarian insights of Bentham and Mill, the social contract ideas of John Locke, and the categorical imperative ideas of Kant.”
“The basic liberties according to Rawls
Freedom of thought;
Liberty of conscience as it affects social relationships on the grounds of religion, philosophy, and morality;
Political liberties (e.g. representative democratic institutions, freedom of speech and the press, and freedom of assembly);
Freedom of association;
Freedoms necessary for the liberty and integrity of the person (viz: freedom from slavery, freedom of movement and a reasonable degree of freedom to choose one’s occupation); and
Rights and liberties covered by the rule of law.”
So my inclusion of civil rights in a discussion of social justice was not silly (and note that I also mentioned economic rights).
Your understanding of Marx is clearly very weak and in some ways quite wrong and you are ignorant of some of the major scholars in the field (though you call yourself an expert), and your understanding of social justice is also wrong. You often fail to define your terms, or when you do define them, your definitions are idiosyncratic at best. You make sweeping generalizations and unsubstantiated charges. I’m sure you can do better if you try.
May 31, 2016
May 24, 2016