Why I don’t believe in the myth of social justice

“Social Justice” is just “diversity” and “multiculturalism” renamed. The emphasis on “social justice’ concept is a propaganda’ way to look pretty and intelligent at the same time, like candidates for Miss World. When everyone is considered a center, then everyone is in reality marginalized! We are now very in-loved by our “social justice”, in fact this is a revenge of different “marginalized” groups over the “white, capitalists, Protestant, Euro-centric, homophobic, misogynistic and authoritative” majority of those who had power (yes, Marx is the “prophet” of our days!). We have “to liberate from the repressive power structures of the past” through the strategies of the new “soft” power! In doing these the new propaganda works very well in our times. The leftist authors make a lot of  selection of truth, demonization, scapegoating, retelling history, censorship of ideas, words, authors, etc.

I really think that the critique of absolutist ideologies has to be accompanied with the critique of contemporary relativism. It is very interesting how some very relativistic persons are so convinced by their multicultural values! The question is if they can imagine the values of tolerance, respect, dignity, and freedom exclusively based on the “marginalized cultures”. I really doubt about this. How will be a society built on the values of gay “community”? By the way, how is possible that a society obsessed with the concept of difference, the other as another differently, sees homosexuality, the love of each other as similar, as very “natural”? Or we can see a society built on the values of those who support abortion? Or we can teach our children something about acceptance and respect when we see a lot of slogans about women’s’ superiority (if misandry is good, then why misogyny is wrong?)? For some discussions about this read not only the “official” feminist literature, but also The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys wrote by David Benatar.

Coming from a society that lived a very high level of state control on almost every aspect of daily life, even in private life, I have to confess my skepticism about the state paternalism and about the government’s right to define morality. Every totalitarian state wants to become the father and the mother of nations!

It is good to have some common ideals like equity, equality, peace, freedom. But also it is important to keep a sense of reality. We live in a society that is still unjust. We can decrease some injustices, but we have to be careful with what cost we are doing this “social justice”. It is not possible to fulfill the concept of “equality” and “freedom” at the same time. We have to consider one over another! If discourses are parallel, equal in significance, then these discourses are without any purpose and value because it cannot be evaluated. Where there is no competition, error and correction, advancement is not possible! This is a sign of utopian thought! And we know from history how many suffers caused this utopian philosophy.

The future is not a completely new beginning; it is a sum of the present time!  And we cannot change the whole society into a better world if the individual is not changing for the  better. I found here another contradiction of “social justice”: we consider the Marxist and the Nietzsche’s concepts of power and class struggle as the inner motivation for the past injustices, but we consider ourselves immune to these. We have to consider the limits of the human nature. Otherwise we will live in a perfect hypocrisy of self-esteem slogans deconstructed by the statistics and horrific facts of daily news on TV.

Heaven is not here, but we can build a real hell in searching of this heaven!