This is an excellent summary. Thank you for sharing it. The term 'social justice' has been used as a Trojan Horse for Critical Social Justice ideology. If you have the time (and inclination!) here is report I wrote last year with Dr Kirsty Miller about the politicisation of clinical psychology training courses here in the UK: https://save-mental-health.com/training-courses/
This is an amazing resource. Thank you for making it available. I will be sure to share widely. Critical Social Justice is definitely distinct from other forms of Social Justice and folks should be very clear and think critically when the term 'Social Justice' is used that we understand what is meant. I find similar thoughts on the concept of "racial equity" which I outline in my essay on Race Ideology-in-Practice: Racial Equity in American Learning Environments which is available at: https://freeblackthought.substack.com/p/race-ideology-in-practice
Yes, you are correct that we will not agree on Marxism. All of the organizations I mentioned can’t possibly be that misled, so maybe it’s you.
I am an artist (among other things) and am well aware of the history of patrons throughout the ages. I simply find the comparison in relation to Marx rather laughable. He ended up being financed ( and sponging off of) people he worked on theory with. This was more in the sense of a guest who refused to leave than a beneficiary of largesse from some wealthy donor. The reason I think this matters is that he envisions a governmental system which would enable a populus to do exactly that.
As far as Keynsian economics goes, that is something that is embraced by the far Left in my experience and utilizes Socialist principles ( such as “creating” jobs , printing cask and inflating the economy by large funding and welfare programs. Obama and Biden have utilized it and it has been a dismal failure.
You no doubt approach Marx from an economic standpoint because that is where your background lies. He is, however, founder of a movement that is much more than that. Transferring the means of production to “the people” never happens because the government, in his eyes, IS “the people”. Neat trick to give up one’s autonomy entirely and be deluded that you are doing a GOOD thing. That’ why when I hear words like “Imperialism”, anti-Capitalist statements and your theory that clearly ends with the Unicorns and rainbows of a one-world government (such as the World Economic Forum is trying to sell us along with replacing our meat with crickets) I truly have to wonder: if you aren’t a Marxist, what are you?
The principles of collectivism, anti-Capitalism, historical revisionism, the de-emphasizing family ties as opposed to government ties, the expectation that the State will be your Mom, Dad and Comrade, and the oppressed/oppressor model are indeed Marxist. Class struggle is Marxist. Neo-Marxists have substituted race for class but the hierarchies are the same.
You don’t have to agree with me. In the way that Marx’s personality matters not to you, Marxist theories don’t matter to me. The veil of compassion, altruism and the “better world” that we keep hearing Marx is all about is utterly useless. It’s a smoke screen. Marx and his economic theories have never made any place better. They have only enriched autocracies in brutal ways that Capitalism doesn’t—- though Socialists delight in their constant complaints about wealthy people. Greed plays a part in both economic theories. It’s just that Capitalism has historically enabled more people to rise out of poverty than Communism or Marxism ever could.
Nice discussion. We will agree to disagree. There is no possible way that everyone on the planet can reach “a high level of wealth and technological advancement.” People are too different in culture, intellect, abilities, desires and a host of other factors. Not everyone’s idea of Utopia is the same. Unfortunately, there are still megalomaniacs with a Messiah Complex out there who believe the old theories (Progressives, ironically) who think they and the government can “save” humanity. More death and destruction has been unleashed on the world by deluded do-gooders than inherent evil. We always need to be skeptical when a government entity arrives to “help.”
The absolute dismissal of the current movements that self-identify as Marxist of the core of Marxist philosophy--historical materialism--makes them as Marxist as self-identifying as female renders a man a woman. The reification of individuality, individual desires, and identities as central to justice and social change are also a slap in the face of Marxist principles, which were to apply to humanity as a whole, and never to groups divided according to their identities (self or otherwise), their race, sex, sexual orientation, or any other marker, other than their relation to the means of production: did they own the means of production, or did they have to work for a living?
So no, sorry, just because a group self-identifies as Marxist or even post-Marxist, does not mean that they actually embrace Marxist analysis. Because Marxism was, first and foremost, a perspective from which to understand the way societies worked that was based on understanding their ECONOMIC structures, and nothing about the so-called critical theories of today that are based on group identities, even remember that there is a thing called "the economy".
I really appreciate this, and this is an issue that I've had to grapple with when talking to my friends who are ready to hit me with a bigotry accusation the moment I dissent from Social Justice dogma.
But the distinction I usually use is Liberal vs Leftist, as in: The American liberal dispensation of rights earned through debate and the ballot box has done a lot more to help black people than the silly Kill Whitey! rhetoric that emanates from Leftist academia.
There is a rich tradition of African American uplift that predates the Leftist fever dreams of people like bell hooks and Angela Davis, and you can believe that American blacks have faced terrible treatment for centuries, that they still need various forms of help, but also believe that people like Kendi and Nikole Hannah-Jones are obvious charlatans and that BLM was a scam designed to score "white guilt money" (not my words, but those of one of its founders).
(But this is just one example, and I say the same when it comes to gay rights vs Queer Theory: one is designed to help actual humans thrive in the world, the other is designed to make campus radicals get off on "performing transgression," when they're actually apex conformists who've lived their entire lives in a state-subsidized epistemic coocon.)
As for the term "Social Justice": it is their property and there is no way to get it back. Instead I would just use 'liberal' in its original definition.
Well done - and I'm decidedly liberal, although I think Marcuse's one of the best analysts of modernity (his Critique of Pure Tolerance is fascist though.)
One only wishes that the distinctions could be as easy as the table categorises. Surely it is a good summary of liberal and "woke" worldviews. But of social justice?
To begin with, insofar as liberal thought entertains the idea of social justice, it completely entertains the idea of social groups and classes, which existed far before Marxism even if it has been central to the economic philosophy of Marxism.
Social justice as the problem of a state of things in which some groups have objectively disproportionately more power than others, has been and remains a question vastly debated by liberal thinkers. I understand that for many Americans class does not exist, but it is a fine blind spot. Class will not disappear because you look the other way. But a liberal approach to the problems of inequality between groups is certainly different from a woke, Marxist, Fascist, or religious approach.
And many of the philosophies and ideas mentioned are partly shared by thinkers in one field and the other, because, well, thinkers, not pamphlet-writers. The history of ideas is never so simple.
But again. I find it completely useless to put this in terms of What Kind of Social Justice, because the term "social justice" is mostly a Marxist term leaked down to woke thought, and anybody who talks of social justice these last years is irremediably woke. The liberals (who are a far more diversified spectrum than the woke, especially between the two sides of the Atlantic) more usually speak of more just and fair societies and of balancing social inequalities.
Objecting to ‘Social justice’ is actually fairly straightforward. ‘Justice’ should have no modifier.
Such modifiers only serve to describe what particular flavour of ‘injustice’ is being recommended.
Justice is hard enough to lay our hands on as it is, without intentionally doling out injustices; fuelled on spite and resentment, and acted out against a dodgy backdrop of supposedly ‘seeking to even-up the cosmic scales of historical inequity’.
I know it’s a platitude, but two wrongs really *don’t* make a right. It became a platitude because seeking vengeance, while in our nature, emerges from that part of our nature that is self destructive, and socially immiserating. It should certainly never be touted as a ‘virtue’, and legislatively enshrined. 
‘Justice’, unadulterated, must continue to serve as our target. Yes, it is hard to hit, but only justice brings peace. That is what balanced scales represent; the situation at rest.
Revenge is a broad target, and far less distant. This is because an outcome serving and sating vengeance is prescribed subjectively; by our lizard brains when we feel wronged. Acting to affect such outcomes subsequently produces no balance, and so brings no peace; it is the action that perpetuates conflict; an overreach that powers a persistent oscillation of suffering, recrimination, and retribution.
I’m not a fan of injustice, therefore I wholeheartedly object to ‘social’ justice, and all similar midwit foolishness.
Excellent summary! I have shared this on my Twitter account. https://x.com/Nemasoil/status/1763010473992040533?s=20
Brilliant summary, thank you.
This is an excellent summary. Thank you for sharing it. The term 'social justice' has been used as a Trojan Horse for Critical Social Justice ideology. If you have the time (and inclination!) here is report I wrote last year with Dr Kirsty Miller about the politicisation of clinical psychology training courses here in the UK: https://save-mental-health.com/training-courses/
This is an amazing resource. Thank you for making it available. I will be sure to share widely. Critical Social Justice is definitely distinct from other forms of Social Justice and folks should be very clear and think critically when the term 'Social Justice' is used that we understand what is meant. I find similar thoughts on the concept of "racial equity" which I outline in my essay on Race Ideology-in-Practice: Racial Equity in American Learning Environments which is available at: https://freeblackthought.substack.com/p/race-ideology-in-practice
Yes, you are correct that we will not agree on Marxism. All of the organizations I mentioned can’t possibly be that misled, so maybe it’s you.
I am an artist (among other things) and am well aware of the history of patrons throughout the ages. I simply find the comparison in relation to Marx rather laughable. He ended up being financed ( and sponging off of) people he worked on theory with. This was more in the sense of a guest who refused to leave than a beneficiary of largesse from some wealthy donor. The reason I think this matters is that he envisions a governmental system which would enable a populus to do exactly that.
As far as Keynsian economics goes, that is something that is embraced by the far Left in my experience and utilizes Socialist principles ( such as “creating” jobs , printing cask and inflating the economy by large funding and welfare programs. Obama and Biden have utilized it and it has been a dismal failure.
You no doubt approach Marx from an economic standpoint because that is where your background lies. He is, however, founder of a movement that is much more than that. Transferring the means of production to “the people” never happens because the government, in his eyes, IS “the people”. Neat trick to give up one’s autonomy entirely and be deluded that you are doing a GOOD thing. That’ why when I hear words like “Imperialism”, anti-Capitalist statements and your theory that clearly ends with the Unicorns and rainbows of a one-world government (such as the World Economic Forum is trying to sell us along with replacing our meat with crickets) I truly have to wonder: if you aren’t a Marxist, what are you?
The principles of collectivism, anti-Capitalism, historical revisionism, the de-emphasizing family ties as opposed to government ties, the expectation that the State will be your Mom, Dad and Comrade, and the oppressed/oppressor model are indeed Marxist. Class struggle is Marxist. Neo-Marxists have substituted race for class but the hierarchies are the same.
You don’t have to agree with me. In the way that Marx’s personality matters not to you, Marxist theories don’t matter to me. The veil of compassion, altruism and the “better world” that we keep hearing Marx is all about is utterly useless. It’s a smoke screen. Marx and his economic theories have never made any place better. They have only enriched autocracies in brutal ways that Capitalism doesn’t—- though Socialists delight in their constant complaints about wealthy people. Greed plays a part in both economic theories. It’s just that Capitalism has historically enabled more people to rise out of poverty than Communism or Marxism ever could.
Nice discussion. We will agree to disagree. There is no possible way that everyone on the planet can reach “a high level of wealth and technological advancement.” People are too different in culture, intellect, abilities, desires and a host of other factors. Not everyone’s idea of Utopia is the same. Unfortunately, there are still megalomaniacs with a Messiah Complex out there who believe the old theories (Progressives, ironically) who think they and the government can “save” humanity. More death and destruction has been unleashed on the world by deluded do-gooders than inherent evil. We always need to be skeptical when a government entity arrives to “help.”
Thank you for daring to mention "possible biological differences"!
The absolute dismissal of the current movements that self-identify as Marxist of the core of Marxist philosophy--historical materialism--makes them as Marxist as self-identifying as female renders a man a woman. The reification of individuality, individual desires, and identities as central to justice and social change are also a slap in the face of Marxist principles, which were to apply to humanity as a whole, and never to groups divided according to their identities (self or otherwise), their race, sex, sexual orientation, or any other marker, other than their relation to the means of production: did they own the means of production, or did they have to work for a living?
So no, sorry, just because a group self-identifies as Marxist or even post-Marxist, does not mean that they actually embrace Marxist analysis. Because Marxism was, first and foremost, a perspective from which to understand the way societies worked that was based on understanding their ECONOMIC structures, and nothing about the so-called critical theories of today that are based on group identities, even remember that there is a thing called "the economy".
I really appreciate this, and this is an issue that I've had to grapple with when talking to my friends who are ready to hit me with a bigotry accusation the moment I dissent from Social Justice dogma.
But the distinction I usually use is Liberal vs Leftist, as in: The American liberal dispensation of rights earned through debate and the ballot box has done a lot more to help black people than the silly Kill Whitey! rhetoric that emanates from Leftist academia.
There is a rich tradition of African American uplift that predates the Leftist fever dreams of people like bell hooks and Angela Davis, and you can believe that American blacks have faced terrible treatment for centuries, that they still need various forms of help, but also believe that people like Kendi and Nikole Hannah-Jones are obvious charlatans and that BLM was a scam designed to score "white guilt money" (not my words, but those of one of its founders).
(But this is just one example, and I say the same when it comes to gay rights vs Queer Theory: one is designed to help actual humans thrive in the world, the other is designed to make campus radicals get off on "performing transgression," when they're actually apex conformists who've lived their entire lives in a state-subsidized epistemic coocon.)
As for the term "Social Justice": it is their property and there is no way to get it back. Instead I would just use 'liberal' in its original definition.
Well done - and I'm decidedly liberal, although I think Marcuse's one of the best analysts of modernity (his Critique of Pure Tolerance is fascist though.)
One only wishes that the distinctions could be as easy as the table categorises. Surely it is a good summary of liberal and "woke" worldviews. But of social justice?
To begin with, insofar as liberal thought entertains the idea of social justice, it completely entertains the idea of social groups and classes, which existed far before Marxism even if it has been central to the economic philosophy of Marxism.
Social justice as the problem of a state of things in which some groups have objectively disproportionately more power than others, has been and remains a question vastly debated by liberal thinkers. I understand that for many Americans class does not exist, but it is a fine blind spot. Class will not disappear because you look the other way. But a liberal approach to the problems of inequality between groups is certainly different from a woke, Marxist, Fascist, or religious approach.
And many of the philosophies and ideas mentioned are partly shared by thinkers in one field and the other, because, well, thinkers, not pamphlet-writers. The history of ideas is never so simple.
But again. I find it completely useless to put this in terms of What Kind of Social Justice, because the term "social justice" is mostly a Marxist term leaked down to woke thought, and anybody who talks of social justice these last years is irremediably woke. The liberals (who are a far more diversified spectrum than the woke, especially between the two sides of the Atlantic) more usually speak of more just and fair societies and of balancing social inequalities.
This is excellent! Indeed, so many people are fooled by these redefinitions and providing some clarity should help.
Nice to have the scorecard.
"Can't tell the players without a program."
Objecting to ‘Social justice’ is actually fairly straightforward. ‘Justice’ should have no modifier.
Such modifiers only serve to describe what particular flavour of ‘injustice’ is being recommended.
Justice is hard enough to lay our hands on as it is, without intentionally doling out injustices; fuelled on spite and resentment, and acted out against a dodgy backdrop of supposedly ‘seeking to even-up the cosmic scales of historical inequity’.
I know it’s a platitude, but two wrongs really *don’t* make a right. It became a platitude because seeking vengeance, while in our nature, emerges from that part of our nature that is self destructive, and socially immiserating. It should certainly never be touted as a ‘virtue’, and legislatively enshrined. 
‘Justice’, unadulterated, must continue to serve as our target. Yes, it is hard to hit, but only justice brings peace. That is what balanced scales represent; the situation at rest.
Revenge is a broad target, and far less distant. This is because an outcome serving and sating vengeance is prescribed subjectively; by our lizard brains when we feel wronged. Acting to affect such outcomes subsequently produces no balance, and so brings no peace; it is the action that perpetuates conflict; an overreach that powers a persistent oscillation of suffering, recrimination, and retribution.
I’m not a fan of injustice, therefore I wholeheartedly object to ‘social’ justice, and all similar midwit foolishness.
Objectivity and logic are tools of the white supremacist patriarchy! Reeeeeee!