Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
To generate ideas about how theories of distributive and procedural justice might be usefully expanded, this article content analyzes the ways leaders of violent, 20th-century revolutions describe the injustice of a status quo system of reward distribution, justify bloodshed, assess the balance of power, and envision a perfectly just future. Results suggest that conceptualizations of injustice should be broadened by incorporating emotional and ideological concerns, by examining the effects of legitimated and delegitimated contexts for assessments of outcome distribution, and by specifying conditions under which complex and simplified justice judgments are likely.Methodological and ethical concerns make it difficult to study injustice under conditions in which economic inequality is extreme, people are severely disadvantaged. livelihoods are at risk, the surrounding context is delegitimated, and feelings of injustice are sufficiently intense to provoke bloodshed. We can circumvent some of these difficulties and expand theories of justice by studying how leaders of violent 20th-century revolutions used injustice claims to delegitimate a status quo system of reward distribution, to justify bloodshed, to assess the balance of power, and to envision a perfectly just future. This focus on a revolutionary context is quite different from the legitimated settings-student evaluations, pay for short-term tasks, and courts-so frequently the focus of previous research.The Past: Delineating the Injustice of the Status QuoIn accord with theories of justice such as equity, exchange, and relative deprivation (e.g, AdamsStouffer et al, 1949), we expected that revolutionary leaders would use social comparisons to map the terrain of similarities and differences within the revolutionary group and between the revolutionary group and their enemies. In addition, we expected that
To generate ideas about how theories of distributive and procedural justice might be usefully expanded, this article content analyzes the ways leaders of violent, 20th-century revolutions describe the injustice of a status quo system of reward distribution, justify bloodshed, assess the balance of power, and envision a perfectly just future. Results suggest that conceptualizations of injustice should be broadened by incorporating emotional and ideological concerns, by examining the effects of legitimated and delegitimated contexts for assessments of outcome distribution, and by specifying conditions under which complex and simplified justice judgments are likely.Methodological and ethical concerns make it difficult to study injustice under conditions in which economic inequality is extreme, people are severely disadvantaged. livelihoods are at risk, the surrounding context is delegitimated, and feelings of injustice are sufficiently intense to provoke bloodshed. We can circumvent some of these difficulties and expand theories of justice by studying how leaders of violent 20th-century revolutions used injustice claims to delegitimate a status quo system of reward distribution, to justify bloodshed, to assess the balance of power, and to envision a perfectly just future. This focus on a revolutionary context is quite different from the legitimated settings-student evaluations, pay for short-term tasks, and courts-so frequently the focus of previous research.The Past: Delineating the Injustice of the Status QuoIn accord with theories of justice such as equity, exchange, and relative deprivation (e.g, AdamsStouffer et al, 1949), we expected that revolutionary leaders would use social comparisons to map the terrain of similarities and differences within the revolutionary group and between the revolutionary group and their enemies. In addition, we expected that
It was maintained by many historians until quite recently that 1912 was the high point in the influence of socialism in the United States. Daniel Bell wrote in 1952: "The War and the defections of many party leaders merely completed, but were not themselves the cause of, the isolation of the socialist movement from American politics. The eclipse of American socialism took place in 1912; the rest of the years were trailing penumbra."1 Ira Kipnis in his book of the same year. The American Socialist Movement. ended the work in 1912 with the claim that the party had then started on its irreversible decline because of opportunism, racism and the lack of party democracy. Another common belief was that Wilsonian democracy pre-empted many of the planks that the Socialist Party had been fighting on.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.