For me, social and economic justice are indivisible.

[cali]

Social justice at its roots is about human dignity. Poverty strips away that dignity. Poor people are treated with contempt and even hatred in our society. The stress of poverty is as great as the stress of being discriminated against because of gender identity, race or or sexual orientation. In fact, the stress of poverty literally has a negative impact on brain function.

Are good schools and the opportunity to get a good education a social issue or an economic issue? That's easy, right? The answer is both.

African Americans have a shorter life expectancy than do whites, and that can be attributed not only to lack of access to medical care, but the lack of research. Again, it's both an economic and social justice issue.

Even marriage equality is both. Marriage, as has been pointed out by organization that have been fighting for marriage equality, offers economic benefits.

In some areas, we've made real progress regarding social justice. In others, we're not doing so well, but when it comes to poverty and particularly to the issue of children living in poverty, we've regressed terribly over the past quarter century.

Exploiting the slight differences between economic and social justice serves no one well. The liberal/progressive community should support both economic and social justice. You can have all the civil rights in the world, but without access to food, without a roof over your head or access to a decent education, or access to medical care, a child doesn't stand a chance. And economic security without rights isn't enough.

This may be the most unnecessary fight ever seen at DU. Economic and Social Justice are two simply two sides of the same coin. If, at this time, people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are focusing so sharply on economic imbalance, it's because we're at a dangerous, pivotal moment in history; one in which the economic ground is crumbling beneath the feet of tens of millions. If the trajectory isn't altered, the future is bleak. Our current course is unsustainable. That focus doesn't mean that social justice and civil rights aren't as important- the upcoming SCOTUS case on voting districts, the up and coming SCOTUS case on marriage equality, serve to emphasize how vitally important it is to keep fighting for social justice
.
We should stand together on both and not get caught up in petty argument over which is more important.

[Scuba]

1. I'm please to be the first to rec this post. Spot on.

[el_bryanto]

2. I can see what you are saying and largely agree

The problem comes when you apply this to real world politics; as we are doing right now. We have Warren and Sanders who are strong on Economic Justice, and Warren, Sanders and Clinton who are strong on Social Justice. I don't question whether Warren or Sanders would be strong on Social Justice issues; I believe they would be. I also think that Clinton would be.

The problem is that there is a perception that Sanders and Warren would be weaker in the general election than Clinton; given the crummy candidates that Republicans are serving up, particularly when it comes to social justice, we need to prioritize who would be the strongest candidate in the General Election. It doesn't do us that much good to say that Warren or Sanders would put really great candidates on the Supreme Court if you believe that they won't get the chance to do so. From a Social Justice perspective, Hillary Clinton might well be the best option. She will be strong on that issue, and she's more likely to win.

I agree with you that we don't need timidity on Economic issues right now; that's why I support Sanders, but I can understand how some people might feel that supporting Sanders is a luxury we can't afford in the face of Jeb Bush or worse becoming president.

Bryant

[cali]

4. I wasn't even thinking about the election or politics. Not at all.

[el_bryanto]

5. Fair enough. I suspect that many people involved in that debate are.

But I could be wrong.

Bryant

[cali]

9. That's undoubtedly true, but it still doesn't have to do with why I wrote the OP

and the larger issues beyond candidates and elections. I was just waxing philosophical. All the posts about how different social and economic justice are have set me to thinking about it.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. +1e9

I could not agree more. Nice post.

[frazzled]

6. Related often, but not identical

Economic justice does not always translate directly into social justice. (Witness the many times in history in which relative economic equality did not assure social justice: the Jews of Nazi-era Germany, for instance, who were well integrated into German society at that time. It didn't prevent Jewish professors and scientists from being removed from their positions, or even wealthy Jews from having their property confiscated and being sent to death camps. I take this only as a well-known and extreme example; but other examples abound throughout the world in recent decades and even today.)

Your argument makes sense until one realizes that it started out, somewhat tautologically, with the tacit assumption that "poverty" alone is the basis of social injustice. That's not quite right. It doesn't explain why women face barriers in their careers far beyond what males experience. Or why middle-class and even very upper-class African-Americans are pulled over by the police in alarmingly higher numbers than whites. Or why someone who applies for jobs with a Hispanic or black-identified surname gets fewer replies or call-backs than the same resume with a waspy name attached. It doesn't explain bias against gay or transgender people who in many cases are not economically disadvantaged at all.

Both issues are important, but they are not the same. Racial, religious, or ethnic intolerance is not always magically eradicated by economic standing. There are deeper seated issues of "otherness" and bias that also play significantly into social justice. Failure to recognize this will be a failure to address fundamental issues of intolerance and justice.

[cali]

10. Except I didn't say that poverty is the sole cause of social injustice. Not at all.

I agree that their are many reasons for social injustice beyond poverty- but poverty is a big honking and undeniable piece of of social injustice.

Nor did I say that the issues are the same. I said they're indivisible to me, and that's particularly true in our specific culture. I said they're two side to the same coin. That is not saying that they're the same. I made that clear when I pointed to two current SCOTUS cases.

No offense, but I think you read into my op what YOU wanted to read, not what it said.

[frazzled]

11. It seemed implicit

So while I may have been wrong about what you were intending, it might also be that what you are thinking is not entirely conveyed by what you actually wrote. You opened your argument with this:

Social justice at its roots is about human dignity. Poverty strips away that dignity. Poor people are treated with contempt and even hatred in our society.

It's an implicit syllogism of the classical sort (All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal):

1) (major premise) Social justice is about human dignity
2) (minor premise) Poverty strips away dignity (e.g., Poor people are treated with hatred)
3) (conclusion) Therefore, social justice is about poverty

"No offense" (yes, I do kind of take offense, when I was simply offering a sincere take on the subject; not an attack), but if you were intending something else it was not that clear. All I was arguing is that, while interrelated, they are also separate (but equally important) issues, and we may miss the boat if we focus only on one side of that coin. Bias has aspects of its own that are often separate from economic considerations.

[LWolf]

7. Yes.

Of course, I've never been an "either/or" kind of person. I've always seen the interconnections that make up a whole, and seen the process of taking things apart to focus only on one part a disintegration that doesn't help the whole.

They ARE two sides of the same coin. Social and Economic justice don't exist without each other.

[truebluegreen]

8. Absolutely.

It has bothered me for years that the official Democratic party has based its electoral chances on social justice only, while largely ignoring economic justice. In fact, we are informed that we shouldn't attack bankers, demonize the rich, engage in class warfare--as if we were the ones doing that.

I remember, back in the 70s, well-meaning people and/or useful idiots focusing on human rights abuses (in other countries of course) and totally ignoring the exploitative economic systems that gave rise to them. The two problems cannot be separated...not if we wish to solve them.

[carolinayellowdog]

12. African Americans have been economically screwed during the Obama presidency

So the question becomes, for me, not "which is more important" but rather "how much suffering are middle and upper class Black voters willing to justify on the basis of party loyalty"

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/

[bklyncowgirl]

13. Thank you, Cali, I agree this whole discussion is silly.

[redgreenandblue]

14. Yes. And also: How the hell is Hillary *the* champion of social issues of the candidates?

More than Warren or Sanders? Really?