Social justice is the pursuit of a society that has equality of opportunity.

It means a fair chance of success regardless of your race, sex, creed or the wealth of your parents. A true meritocracy if you will. It inherently protects the rights of individuals and sub-groups. Social justice is a way to do things.

As for the means to achieve it? I don't believe in extra-legal and dictatorial means of achieving this. But I do believe in Affirmative Action style schemes, temporary actions that attempt to put society on a more equal footing (such as encouraging more Catholics to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland). I don't believe in the use of force to achieve these aims, but certainly strength needs to be shown against minorities that are unwilling to yield power.

I see social justice as rewarding talent and effort and fairness, encouraging social mobility, discouraging dynasties.

In this I see much (but definitely not all) of the autonomous movements as the enemies of social justice, as they seek to hold what they have, a society that is implicitly unfair and unequal. Of the old ruling classes in Bolivia there is simply no national acceptance of the apartheid they have held over indigenous people and until there can be an honest acceptance of this there is little chance to move forward. Any thought of social revenge on the part of indigenous blocks this too.

Social justice certainly doesn't mean putting MAS cronies into unsuitable positions, just as it didn't before when it was MNR etc.

Social justice is also economic, and that is key. It means we should work toward a Bolivia where an indigenous kid has the same chance at economic success as one born in San Miguel in La Paz. This shouldn't be achieved through any means necessary, but pragmatically with an acceptance of Bolivia's past and an inclusive vision of it's future. That means accepting the autonomy movements, but ones that are fair for the entire country and most importantly enshrine the rights of citizens that live in autonomous regions - that's my greatest fear.

@Steve: Are you suggesting that ALL people living in Santa Cruz are European, rich, elite (and therefore trying to keep what is "theirs")? One could argue (certainly many in the autonomy movement do) that centralism keeps power in the hands of the European elite living in San Miguel.

I agree w/ the gist of the rest. But I'm curious about how you define the "enemies" of social justice ... and wonder whether social justice requires more care in such definitions, too.

I also take issue w/ the use of the term "apartheid" to describe Bolivia. There is much racism in Bolivia, to be sure. And it's systemic. But to equate it to the kind of legalized segregation in South Africa prior to 1994 (which barred inter-rational marriages, minority residence in certain towns, didn't allow blacks to vote, etc) cheapens the term & makes it hard to define just how horrible that regime was.

I'll have to chew a bit on my definition of social justice. Steve, I do wonder what your opinion is on inheritance law under a truly socially just system? To eliminate dynasties, I would think you would have to eliminate inheritance. Then what? Do my possessions then revert to the state? But if I can acquire wealth (let's say massive wealth) can I then pass it on to my son or daughter? Is that fair/unfair to others? Or let's say, I don't acquire wealth, though I have every opportunity. I lack initiative or I'm lazy; I lack foresight or just spend money on neat toys as fast as I get it. What should I expect when I reach retirement age? Should my children have the same opportunities as yours when you've worked and scraped and saved? Wher does equality of opportunity start and stop?

Social Justice, to me, is a philosophical concept applicable to a society, in which there is justice (equal, that is) for everyone in that society. That's it! The rest is up to one's own interpretation.

In this case one has to define each and every term. What is just for you, might be unjust for me.

With that in mind, a society with a high degree of social justice (note I think complete social justice cannot be achieved, i.e. utopia) is one that provides equal opportunities for everyone living in it.

Examples? In the political arena, for example, the opinions of the minority has to be heard, respected and taken into account, and not ignored (even if it is 1% of the electorate).

Another example, if there is social justice, then we do not need policies like Affirmative Action, do we?

Meritocracy? I don't know. Too much potential for injustice. Leveled ground and equal opportunity? Perhaps.

Access to health for everyone? Yes!

We can go on and on. The best thing to do, for me, is to give the benefit of the doubt to most people and assume they also want social justice.

@Steve: Are you suggesting that ALL people living in Santa Cruz are European, rich, elite (and therefore trying to keep what is "theirs")? One could argue (certainly many in the autonomy movement do) that centralism keeps power in the hands of the European elite living in San Miguel.

No Miguel not at all. But a brief look at wealth generation in Santa Cruz over fifty years can take in a considerable amount of corruption, political favouritism and high crime. That much of the autonomy movement is geared at protecting an unfair system. And lets face it, the European elite in San Miguel have been thoroughly stripped of political power over the past ten years. You know Miguel, I think you may have guessed I have strong beliefs about social justice in Bolivia but I'd like to think I'm not blinkered too much by them. However, I'm not going to engage in relativism that loses sight of the fact that there are major elements in Bolivia that are living in 19th century colonialism, have entrenched power, and have no intention of changing.

@Norman: To eliminate dynasties, I would think you would have to eliminate inheritance. Then what?

Eliminate is a harsh word. I don't believe in eliminating inheritance just making it more difficult to transfer wealth from parent to child, through significant taxing. I understand that parents want to provide for their children, so a fair society should allow parents tax breaks on investing in their children's education and opportunities - just not passing on a dynasty of wealth.

I also take issue w/ the use of the term "apartheid" to describe Bolivia. There is much racism in Bolivia, to be sure. And it's systemic. But to equate it to the kind of legalized segregation in South Africa prior to 1994 (which barred inter-rational marriages, minority residence in certain towns, didn't allow blacks to vote, etc) cheapens the term & makes it hard to define just how horrible that regime was.

Well up until 1952 there was a clearly defined apartheid state. Since 1952 there has been a functioning one, denying opportunities and repressing the political and economic freedoms of the indigenous. But yeah I accept that my use of the term is more emotional than factual and Bolivia certainly did not have the extreme apartheid apparatus of South Africa in the past or the lighter version of apartheid in Israel today (I hope that doesn't explode too many heads).

@Steve: Good points. I'm curious, however, where you think I'm being relativistic? I hope I'm not! And believe me, having spent my childhood in Bolivia (as the son of a kolla immigrant to Santa Cruz), I'm well aware of the racial, regional, and neocolonial attitudes of many Bolivians—and both sides of the geographic divide.

What European elite in San Miguel are we talking about? Have you been to San Miguel (in La Paz, that is) lately?

And what do you mean by European? Most of the people who live in Bolivia have some kind of mix with indigenous. Yes, even the most European looking people. The most I would consider is light-skinned Bolivians!

One of the most interesting things I noticed, while I was there this year, is that Paceno society has changed completely. San Miguel, for example, is not the San Miguel of 10 or even 20 year ago. According to my observations and my experience, there is a new wealthy society emerging in La Paz. That society, one can call it elite as well, has been emerging from commerce activities within the city. It is a different society from the one before, in that they strongly identify even themselves with their indigenous roots.

Your conversation above makes it seem that there is a fight between Europeans and indigenous. No, the fight is between Bolivians and Bolivians.

Hey mabb can't agree with you more. I have family (of a kind) in San Miguel and while there's plenty of dynastic wealth there it is certainly more socially mobile than before.

I always hear the term "social justice." How is social justice different from another kind of justice? The word "social" is redundant here since all justice is inherently social.

@Anonymous: Good point. Yes, I've often wondered that, too. I suppose it's supposed to differentiate from "legal" justice or "economic" justice (which probably means the same thing as "social" justice). I think it's a rhetorical device. To be against "social" justice is to be "anti-society". The war over terminology is intense. Look at the efforts to paint candidates as "pro-poor" (as if other candidates are deliberately "anti-poor"). I prefer to label things by non-normative terms.