Social Justice Fallacies and Regressive Ideologies

Thomas Sowell

** Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. It takes a great deal of time to read books (I’m up to 70 non-fiction this year) and write articles for this newsletter. You keep this blog going. Thank you! **

In this article, I cover Thomas Sowell’s most recent book, Social Justice Fallacies. [affiliate link when clicked from browser]

In a world increasingly divided by ideology — as opposed to believing in the intrinsic value of human beings — it is essential to scrutinize the foundations of disgusting ideologies like social justice.

Can you believe Sowell is 93? Let’s hope he hits the century mark. I hope he inspires millions to pursue removing social justice and DEI policies from schools, workplaces, and institutions. I hope he encourages us to pursue truth, individual justice, and ethical action in a world that increasingly encourages us to do the opposite. There will never be another Thomas Sowell, but we can do our best to share the thoughts of this intellectual giant with the masses.

We have to take part in destroying the fallacies and impracticalities that plague social justice loser movements. While the pursuit of individual justice is a noble endeavor, it is imperative to ensure that the path we choose is rooted in reason and reality. The introduction of common law and civil in the West is one of the world’s most important traditions. We can not give this up in favor of some social justice movement that believes you are guilty because of your political identity and not because of your individual actions.

Social Justice Losers

In the latter part of Sowell’s new book he says,

‘In our own times, prominent legal scholar Professor Ronald Dworkin of Oxford University declared that, “a more equal society is a better society even if its citizens prefer inequality.” French feminist pioneer Simone de Beauvoir likewise said, “No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have the choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” In a similar vein, consumer activist Ralph Nader said that “the consumer must be protected at times from his own indiscretion and vanity.”

Sowell continues, “We have already seen how similar attitudes led genetic determinists in the early twentieth century [emphasis added by me] to casually advocate imprisoning people who had committed no crime, and denying them a normal life, on the basis of unsubstantiated beliefs that were then in vogue in intellectual circles.”

It is a fundamental belief amongst SJWs not to believe that others should have their own self-efficacy. Equity, after all, is the equalizing of outcomes. That is detrimental to freedom of choice, free will, and free markets.

The Fallacies of Racial Determinism:

Racial determinism, the notion that one's destiny is predetermined by their racial background, is a perilous fallacy. It reduces individuals to mere statistics, ignoring the richness of their experiences and potential. The danger lies in applying a one-size-fits-all approach to racial justice, which oversimplifies complex societal issues and perpetuates division. We must reject this deterministic thinking and instead embrace a more nuanced understanding of race and identity.

In Social Justice Fallacies, Sowell points out,

“Stupid people can create problems, but it often takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe.”

Although not all of this next part is in his book, Sowell briefly discussed Hitler’s connection to progressive ideology in his interview with the Hoover Institution.

This is from his interview, so the quotations are what I could gather from listening,

Sowell: “You mentioned that with the genetic determinants, they drew the conclusions from their reasoning that you had to put an end to certain races because they… had what they call eugenics but what was later called genocide and so that idea originated with the progressives. And there was a progressive who wrote a book with that theme which was translated into German and Hitler called it ‘his Bible’.

Interviewer: “So, you draw a line from the progressive eugenicists to Adolf Hitler?

Sowell: He drew the line himself! [emphasis added] He drew the line and wrote a letter of fan mail to the author of that book… and we saw what that led to. 

Sowell mentioned that Hitler considered ‘The Passing of the Great Race,’ a book written by a progressive named Madison Grant, to be his “Bible”. That is quite disgusting. Unfortunately, the progressive movement had deep connections with the eugenics movement. Hitler also thought the pseudo-scientific nonsense within the book was so great that he made it the first book published by the Nazis.

The Nazi Connection to Social Injustice

Could Adolf Hitler be considered a social justice loser?

A few weeks ago I listened to the entirety of Mein Kampf. I really don’t recommend wasting your time with it. It is terribly written and will just put you in a bad mood like it did with me.

However, within the book, Hitler suggested that the Aryans were advocates for social justice. I could not believe what I was hearing while I was listening on audiobook so I backed it up and listened again.

Then I went online to see if the quotation could be real. I had to read the text below a few times to grasp it. As it turned out, I had not heard it wrong. Hitler, of all people, was an advocate for social justice.

Here are the excerpts from the book.

Just a heads-up, the following passages are quite racist,

"... he means the national economy which must be demolished in order that the international stock exchange can triumph over its dead body. Here the Jew's procedure is as follows: He approaches the worker, simulates pity with his fate, or even indignation at his lot of misery and poverty, thus gaining his confidence. He takes pains to study all the various real or imaginary hardships of his life--and to arouse his longing for a change in such an existence.

With infinite shrewdness he fans the need for social justice, somehow slumbering in every Aryan man, into hatred against those who have been better favored by fortune, and thus gives the struggle for the elimination of social evils a very definite philosophical stamp. He establishes the Marxist doctrine. By presenting it as inseparably bound up with a number of socially just..."

Hitler is clearly lying through his teeth here. He’s trying to write his ludicrous manifesto and hopes that nobody will pay any attention to his earlier life. The reality is that Hitler was a Marxist. He once said, “I have learned a great deal of Marxism… and I do not hesitate to admit it.” He pretended to be anti-Marxist when he saw the Bolsheviks espousing similar beliefs.

However, from the passage, we can see that Hitler believed the Aryans had intentions on social justice and that he believed Jewish people caused them to feel that way. It really sounds too much like Critical Race Theorists. People who support CRT say white supremacy causes them to feel the need for social justice.

Let’s remember that the author James Lindsay hoaxed feminists by rewriting parts of Mein Kampf and turning it into a tirade against white men. It clearly aroused a sense of social justice in the “Femnazis” because they published it in academic journals and completely embarrassed themselves.

Equal Chances Fallacy

Thomas Sowell writes, “Dr. King’s message was equal opportunity for individuals, regardless of race. In the years that followed the goal changed to equal outcomes for groups. What now rose to dominance was the social justice agenda.”

Sowell states in the Hoover Institution interview that if the social justice movement had its way “we’d all be killing each other.” He also points out that the preconditions for this utopian society where all outcomes are equal are simply not there. The only way to even attempt this endeavor is to compel others to bend their knee to the state.

Failures of Rousseau's Vision

Early on in the book Sowell hits on Rousseau’s failed ideology of social justice. Rousseau expressed this belief in the sentence, “the equality which nature established among men and the inequality which they have instituted among themselves.”

I am surprised Sowell did not mention that this is essentially Rousseau’s concept of, the ‘Noble Savage Theory’.  This is the idea that primitive people lived in perfectly equitable utopias before discovering the greed of modern society.

Karl Marx’s concept of proto-communism is similar to this theory. I might have mentioned this before, but Marx’s vision of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat may also come from Rousseau’s Dictatorship of the General Will. Marx was also a member of the Young Hegelians and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was an advocate for Absolute Dictatorship.

This concept of equal chances, often championed by modern social justice troglodytes, is fundamentally flawed. It falls prey to the fallacy that human potential can be equally distributed, ignoring the diversity of talents, interests, and motivations that make us unique.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's vision of social justice, with its utopian ideals, has proven to be an unattainable dream. The failures of his vision are evident in the countless attempts throughout history to impose uniformity, resulting in the suppression of individuality and the erosion of liberty.

Criticism of John Rawls' Theory of Justice

John Rawls' Theory of Justice, while celebrated by many, faces criticism for its impracticality. It envisions a society where individuals can be rearranged like chess pieces to achieve a predetermined notion of fairness. This approach neglects the inherent complexities of human nature and the limitations of government intervention. Human beings are not pawns on a chessboard, and imposing such a vision on society is bound to lead to unintended consequences.

Knowledge Fallacies and Their Impact on Government

Knowledge fallacies, such as the belief that experts possess all the answers, hinder effective governance. Relying on intellectual elites to shape policy without considering the practical implications can result in disastrous outcomes. Government must acknowledge its limitations and engage in evidence-based decision-making, rather than succumbing to the allure of quick-fix solutions driven by ideology.

The Problems and Dangers of Over-Reliance on Words, Deeds, and Intentions

In the pursuit of social justice, there is a growing emphasis on words, deeds, and intentions at the expense of practical and achievable solutions. While words have their place in shaping discourse, they alone cannot bridge the gap between ideals and reality. Intentions, no matter how noble, do not guarantee positive outcomes. It is essential to prioritize practicality and pragmatism, ensuring that our efforts lead to tangible improvements in the lives of those we aim to help.

In Summation

The right-wing libertarian or conservative perspective offers a critical lens through which we can evaluate the current state of social justice discourse. We must acknowledge the fallacies, impracticalities, and dangers that exist within these ideologies. From social justice types, all we see is violence, vitriol, and hatred.

A criticism, if not outright condemnation of social justice, is not a retreat from justice but a commitment to achieving it in a way that respects individuality, embraces complexity, and upholds the principles of liberty and equality of opportunity. It is only through a return to a classically liberal understanding of justice that we can build a more just and righteous society for all.