1)
The capitalist class do not only have undue power over the means of production and distribution – with all the profound affects that this has in all areas of daily life - they have undue power over language; and that is perhaps the major way that they maintain their power over us in other ways. Throughout history language has been used as a means of control in numerous, sometimes very subtle, but sometimes very unsubtle ways, such as the banning of entire languages. Celtic languages, for example, have at various times been completely banned by the English and later the British ruling class. Children were beaten for talking in their native language in the school yard. A ban on the use of the Irish language in courts in the North which stretches back to 1737 is still being contested.

The word 'justice' was around in some form before capitalism and will be around in some form afterwards. The correct understanding of the concept, how it is used and thus the correct usage of the word by socialists, I believe, will hasten that time when capitalism is over.

The word justice originated thousands of years ago if not tens of thousands. It has traveled though time and space gradually changing and diversifying in form, influencing and influenced by other words – its fellow travelers. Many related words hark to it, such as ‘judgment’, ‘justify’, ‘unjustifiable’ and ‘prejudice’. It connects different languages to each other, and where a language does not have a word that comes from the same root as ‘justice’, another has developed independently but to fulfill the same purpose. The concept is universal. It has been tried and tested by billions and it has endured because it has an essential use. People may use it in ways that involve misconceptions or deceit, but this can happen to any word. As it stands it provides a basis for mutual understanding which allows for further explanation, and for mistakes and falsity to be sorted out.

The words 'justice' and 'fairness' are rich with human culture and potent in their meaning and they belong to everyone. Are we to let the ruling class commandeer these words? Will we let them ignore the fullness of their meaning, so as to take the power of that meaning away from us, and thus take away our power? Will we not make a noise about that?? Will we let them steal words away from our tongues? Will we even agree that this is best?............Or do we help to recover the truth that there can be forms of justice other than capitalist justice, and admit that our principals form the basis of a different justice system that serves common ownership and will of the majority?

The words 'justice' and 'fairness' are rich with human culture and potent in their meaning and they belong to everyone. Are we to let the ruling class commandeer these words? Will we let them ignore the fullness of their meaning, so as to take the power of that meaning away from us, and thus take away our power? Will we not make a noise about that?? Will we let them steal words away from our tongues? Will we even agree that this is best?............Or do we help to recover the truth that there can be forms of justice other than capitalist justice, and admit that our principals form the basis of a different justice system that serves common ownership and will of the majority?

If we hold that the socialist party rules and democratic system do not already constitute a type of justice system, that they are not to ensure fairness, then we are kidding ourselves.


2)
We may disagree about what form justice should take - and indeed for some it seems to simply mean 'revenge' - but there is clearly a common usage which means something different and much bigger, and which is essential to the whole project of human cultural development; which is do with the common good. Thus it is also about truth, because we will want to know as much as we can about the truth in order to know what needs to be done.

If we hold that the purpose of language is to communicate truth for the benefit of life, then it can be said that any use of language to withhold or misrepresent the truth, and which is detrimental to life, is an abuse of language (however unaware of this the perpetrators may be). And any such abuse, and the cause of it, needs to be sorted out. - And if the language has a weakness that makes it vulnerable to abuse then it may be important to strengthen those parts with awareness, rather than to trying to do without them.

In all human societies there are concepts of good and bad, right and wrong beliefs, right and wrong behaviour and thus right and wrong in politics. And concerning certain aspects of politics, and of general behaviour, what is right is considered to be justice. For as long as there are criterion for what is good and what is bad in relation to belief/behaviour/politics there will be concepts of right and wrong. For as long as there are criterion for what is good and what is bad in relation to belief/behaviour/politics there will be concepts of right and wrong. The words ‘moral’ and ‘immoral’, ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ are frequently used as equivalents to ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Just because we disagree with someone we do not say – ‘well then, there must be no right or wrong’.

We may be right or wrong about what is right and wrong - about what is ethical or just and what is not ethical or just - but that does not mean that the truth is changed or that the words are not useful. If we are wrong, the truth is still there to be found and needs to be expressed by using the same terms differently.


3)
In a similar way to the word ‘good’ and many other words, ‘justice’ has an inherent meaning that relies on and expresses our core criterion of ‘what is healthy for life’, and which thus calls us to seek the objective truth about that. It is also used as a relative term – i.e. something can be ‘capitalist justice’ or ‘social justice’, ‘good for the environment’ or ‘good for capitalism’. In other words, context influences meaning.

According to the inherent meaning, i.e. according to the objective criterion of ‘what is healthy for life’, a whole system can be either just or unjust, and this will be expressed by the kind of laws or principles that are made to establish and maintain it. ‘Justice’ has particular connotations when used in a context that supports the capitalist legal system. However, capitalism confers undue power to a minority, and countless occurrences of ill health of every type issue from this. It is thus of great importance to point out that what is called justice in capitalism is largely not true justice. The great capitalist con is that capitalism and thus the capitalist justice system is what is best for our welfare. As with capitalist peace and capitalist freedom, capitalist democracy and capitalist morality, capitalist justice is generally a corruption of the real thing. If we believe it is true justice we are deluded.

Socialists stand against any ruling class dictating laws. Socialism provides us with a real democratic system via which any laws that are deemed necessary, such as to create and protect the democratic system itself, can truly be made by the people for the people. I believe that in socialism any laws will be of a very different type to the laws that we have today which are associated with a penal system. They may be much more flexible so that they can be usefully applied to different situations; and I believe that they will not be designed to punish in the sense of causing more unnecessary suffering, but only to provide the necessary recourse for people to protect themselves and the environment and to get help in solving problems.

The task in hand is not to try and get rid of the concept of justice – or of morality - but to get back to the point about what is actually good and bad for us as individuals and as communities; what is bad for life and what is good for life. We have to point out that capitalism sets communities and individuals against each other, causing jealousy, greed, hatred, fear and war, whereas socialism calls for us to cooperate to overcome our problems and to create an abundant and peaceful world for everyone. We have to point out that healthy communities interacting for mutual benefit in a healthy world community is what is best for individuals. Increasing knowledge of what is right and wrong for our welfare will follow from this, and thus morality will develop and true justice will continue to be discovered and will naturally be done.








1)
An essential part of the socialist task is to maintain and develop the language that we need to express ourselves so that we can achieve the changes that we hope for in society. Reclaiming words and reinventing concepts in the service of truth is a vital part of this work. The meanings of words do change due to how words are used. Language is evolving. We have to consciously and actively take part in this, not just passively accept corruption by abandoning concepts, and leaving ourselves with a smaller and smaller array of tools.

The socialist principle of supply for need can also be applied to language. And in the same way as we assume that what we mean by ‘supply for need’ is ‘supply of what we need for health and well being’, similarly, I am assuming here that what we need linguistically is what we need to be able to tell the truth. These two are linked, because it is by understanding the truth that we generally and enduringly improve our condition.

The attitudes that cause people to try to expel and exile the word justice and thus its meaning are also applied to other words. I think that this is very damaging to socialism, and thus to humanity. An important part of our job as socialists is to use these words to show how capitalism and indeed any hierarchical system corrupts their use. I would not insist on anyone using the word justice – but likewise I do not believe that it should be insisted that anyone should not.

Our touchstone concepts of awareness, responsibility, health, well being, goodness, justice, morality, ethics, love and wisdom etc. all enrich each other, because they give each other a context and all relate to each other. It is an affirmation that we are correct to trust in the potential of humanity for socialism, that we usually do not need to qualify such words for people to know what we mean. It seems to me that we are making our job unnecessarily difficult if we avoid words, with all the richness of their heritage, which we can use correctly to strongly make our case.

It is up to us to point out how capitalism uses the word ‘justice’ to deceive us – as it does with many words, and that socialism is the best system yet for providing real justice for individuals, communities and the global human community. We are tongue tied if we are not allowed to say this. I believe that we should be free to use the word ‘justice’ in material that represents the Socialist Party at our discretion, as long as we do not do so in a way that misrepresents socialism.

To tell us that we can’t use certain words and commonly used concepts is like telling a painter that he can’t use certain shades of colour. It won’t matter for a lot of the time; artists do not generally want to use all colours at once, but as soon as they need that colour for itself or for mixing to make other colours the work will be the worse for it. It will lose some of its effectiveness and appeal. And as time passes the work will degenerate and become irrelevant to people.


2)
The present ‘justice system’ has been set up within capitalism and to serve it. Capitalism is a corrupt system and thus its justice system is corrupt, and does not to that extent offer real justice. Although it may genuinely help people sometimes (but less and less so due to recent changes such as cuts in legal aid), this is still only within the context of a generally unhelpful system, which will have been a big cause of the problem in the first place. In other words, some justice may be done but it is within (and may be used to support) the greater injustice of capitalism; and what justice is done is frequently mixed up with, or imbued with injustice that results from the capitalist system, and from the human failings that it nurtures.

A capitalist may claim that ‘it is justice for me to have privilege because I have worked for it’ – but this statement is full of beliefs and misunderstandings that we as socialists would challenge. The explanation of why this is not actually justice goes to the very core of socialism. - And explaining it in these terms is the way that this capitalist, and others that he has previously convinced that he is right, can come to understand the truth of the matter.

I believe that what ‘this capitalist’ is speaking of is not real justice. We often have to point out that political systems that have been/are called ‘socialist’ are not ‘real socialism. We hold that the word ‘socialism’ is much misused – but we do not ban it or give up on it.

We also could say the same thing about the word ‘truth’. There are also many claims about what the truth is – but I presume that we agree that none of these claims change the actual truth; they do not change what the truth is [except in that it becomes true that these claims have been made, with all the subsequent effects of this]. We do not stop believing that there is truth. We do not tend to not use the word. To avoid the word ‘truth’, I believe, would tend to make us unaware of what is true.

Do we think that actual justice is changed by what people say it is? Are we to believe in some form of extreme dualistic skepticism and doubt the evidence of our five senses and/or our sense of reason? That is what we are doing if we doubt that we can know or find out what is just for society/for humanity because by implication we must then also doubt that we can know or find out truth about society/humanity. This is how the word works. Telling the truth, that is what it is for.

I think we often run more of a risk of being misunderstood by using different words than by using the word justice, and that people are less likely to be persuaded to find out more about socialism without the appropriate use of this word. To tell the truth as powerfully as possible we need to speak of what justice is; we have to tell the truth about justice and do justice to the truth.








I think that in some ways we have to leave aside the issue of whether or not there will need in socialism for bodies to deal with alleged infringements of society's rules - and so "justice" in that sense. It is going to be up to communities to decide. However 1) Some speculation can be useful 2) it will be essential in socialism, certainly at first, to have laws or ‘rules’ - as the socialist party does - to protect the process of democracy or at least so that it works efficiently. Within that it will be interesting for those who are there to witness how societies and the world society as a whole develops, and how particular issues are handled. Socialism is the best system yet for providing real justice even the modes of democracy will themselves be subject to the democratic process. In my belief, true democracy is a justice system, or a just system; one which has not yet been experienced and will be fundamentally different to what has gone before.

It will be a system run by everybody for everybody; it will be self adjusting for best practice without the corrupting influences of class structures and financial interests, and will involve a lot of learning about what true justice is. One of the great things about socialism is that it facilitates rather than prevents that learning. My belief is that where controls have to be exercised on any individual or group in the best interests of the whole community, that these will be designed to help people rather than to punish them.

‘Justice’ has a general use in the English language; it has a wider application than just to do with any state justice system. For example, the common phrase ‘to do justice to it’, meaning ‘to use it well’ or ‘to do it well’ or ‘to fully appreciate it’, carry the implication that something of worth appeals to us to be worthy.

Because something exists in and to some extent (perhaps completely) serves the state does not mean that it cannot or should not exist without the state – for the same ostensible purpose – but truly or much more fully functioning in accordance with the stated purpose. ‘Rights’ are said to be there to protect us, and in some ways do. In socialism they may not be called ‘rights’, but we will have to apply our knowledge about the most helpful and healthy conditions for human beings and the most helpful and healthy ways for human beings to be treated in different circumstances. For example, our knowledge of child welfare, or how to manage illness - including conditions that make a person a danger to others - will have to be applied. This has a much bigger remit than ‘rights’ as it is thought of today, but where the intention is to provide appropriate care it means much the same.

To characterize the word justice as merely a ‘hurrah word’ I think is to miss a lot. It does get used as such. But it is not always used as such, and when it is, this often constitutes a total degradation of its original meaning and purpose and certainly wastes its potential as a truth telling word. Also, other words get this treatment. It has to be said that there has been no word that has been more used as a ‘hurrah word’ than ‘freedom’. Especially recently. The invasion of Iraq by coalition forces, which was actually arranged and conducted to expand the business interests of, and make profits for, mainly U.S. oil companies, building contractors and arms manufacturers was (and still is?) called ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’. The people of Iraq have suffered all the upheavals and terrible casualties of war to have one brutal dictator replaced with another, but one made up of many corporations, and many politicians who tell them that they have democracy. ‘Freedom’ and ‘democracy’ along with ‘justice’ need defining.

Many organizations that have arisen because of oppression fight for peace and justice. They may not have the benefit of class consciousness, and the realization that their problems and many others can be most efficiently solved by getting rid of the capitalist system, rather than by trying to rectify only one particular complex of abuse within it. They may not understand how democracy can be used to set themselves free, especially when their experience of democracy is of having no real choice, or of having their choices ignored or stolen from them. However, they are clearly aware that there can be forms of peace which involve acquiescence to subjugation, and they know that that is not what they want. What they want is peace with equality and autonomy, which is also called 'justice'.