Theft for All - The Fallacy of Social Justice
The following is a summary. To read the full original article on Carl’s susbtack click here.
In Theft for All: The Fallacy of Social Justice, Carl Teichrib traces the historical and ideological roots of modern “social justice,” arguing that it functions primarily as an emotional appeal to collectivism rather than as an expression of biblical compassion. Originally written in 2010 and lightly revised, the essay examines two parallel streams that shaped contemporary social justice rhetoric: Roman Catholic social teaching and Marxist revolutionary ideology.
Teichrib begins with a personal childhood story, recounting how early exposure to environmentalist and anti-capitalist narratives in public education stirred emotional outrage against perceived injustices. Reflecting later, he recognized that his indignation mirrored a Marxist framework—class struggle, systemic oppression, and the necessity of radical restructuring. He attributes this mindset not to his Christian family upbringing but to broader cultural and educational influences emerging from the New Left movements of the late 1960s and 1970s. Environmental curricula, anti-capitalist rhetoric, and peace activism often framed capitalism as the source of injustice and war, subtly shaping a generation toward collectivist solutions.
The essay then shifts to the Catholic development of “social justice.” Teichrib acknowledges that the term was first used by Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in the 1840s as a virtue oriented toward the common good. However, over time, Papal encyclicals increasingly expanded the concept to include wealth redistribution and calls for international or even global authority. While earlier teachings rejected Marxist socialism, later documents—such as Quadragesimo Anno and Caritas in Veritate—advocated strong public authority, economic planning, and even the emergence of a “true world political authority.” Teichrib argues that this evolution blurred distinctions between charity and coercion, shifting from voluntary virtue to state-managed redistribution.
Parallel to Catholic developments, Marxist movements explicitly employed social justice language to justify revolutionary collectivism. From Marx and Engels to Lenin, Castro, and Che Guevara, social justice was equated with eliminating capitalism and centralizing production under state authority. Teichrib highlights how revolutionary rhetoric framed redistribution as moral necessity, often fueled by envy and mass psychology. The historical outcomes—mass violence, repression, and economic collapse—serve as cautionary examples.
The essay also addresses modern extensions of social justice into environmental and global governance initiatives. Conferences promoting sustainable development and “green justice” have at times included proposals for population control, global authority, and economic equalization. Teichrib warns that while genuine oppression exists and compassion is essential, collectivist solutions risk creating new forms of systemic coercion.
In the final section, Teichrib distinguishes biblical compassion from social justice collectivism. Acts of mercy—feeding the poor, caring for the vulnerable—are voluntary expressions of love, exemplified by the Good Samaritan. By contrast, modern social justice, he argues, often leverages victims to advance political agendas centered on wealth redistribution and structural transformation. Scripture, he maintains, upholds impartial justice, neither favoring the rich nor privileging the poor simply on economic grounds.
Teichrib concludes that when social justice becomes a mandate for enforced equality, it effectively sanctions state-directed redistribution—what he calls “socially-sanctioned theft.” Christians, he urges, must pursue true justice grounded in biblical compassion while remaining vigilant against ideological collectivism masked as moral virtue.
