The Concept of Privilege

[Starlight]

Food stamps is a marvelous example of a good idea executed as poorly as I think it possibly could be.

I have to say as an external observer I find it a little weird as a program. As far as I am aware, the social safety nets of other Western countries simply give poor people money, there are no requirements that it be used for food as opposed to anything else. Obviously poor people will buy food to eat with money just like other people do. Giving them special food vouchers comes across to me as pretty patronizing.

As a result, it is rife with fraud and misuse, and does little to ensure that people are getting good food.

What poor people dare occasionally spend the money on things that aren't food? How dare they!

I do totally support government initiatives to see that people have good quality food available to them in their areas for easy purchase. Obviously the US has a big problem with regard to the fact that there are huge corn subsidies for historical reasons and that has led to HFCS being put into just about every product leading to very unhealthy diets for the general population.

It's a great example of how the left has a tendency to create programs that foster dependence rather than solve problems.

I consider that sentence to be relatively nonsensical, and false insofar as it can be made to make any sense.

Obviously if a person is poor to the point where they are struggling to afford food, giving them food stamps pretty self-evidently solves a pretty major problem for them - they can now buy food. That is an inherent good in all sorts of ways. If and when they are no longer poor (due to having got a job or whatever) they no longer need help purchasing food and no longer get food stamps.

Of course, I would argue both that the fact that the US food stamp program ceases to give food stamps to a person after a set time period even if they still need them, is self-evidently immoral and evil, and also argue that poor people probably need a lot more help than merely food. They probably need money for other things, they probably need help finding a job, they probably need housing assistance etc. The US social safety net looks pretty woefully inadequate compared to the rest of the Western world, and the US right-wing seems to me totally morally culpable for deliberate and ongoing sabotage of it.

[Mountain Man]

No, it isn't. Any you are just dumb if that's what you think it is.

The way you presented this had me initially thinking it was coming from some sort of textbook or CRT expert. But I got as far as the end of the first paragraph of your boxed explanation, and was thinking "Wat, that's not right?! " so I clicked on the 'source' link, and bingo, Breitbart. The way they make stuff up to deceive the gullible and incite people against liberalism is disgusting, but I guess that's the propaganda their tax-evading Mercer sugar-daddies pay them to put out.

Are you learning anything from that fact that 100% of the liberal in this thread are rejecting the creative redefinitions of 'privilege' you've been providing and the creative 'what it really means' you've been pulling from lying Breitbart? The crazy stuff you're coming out with is just not what liberals believe.

Nope, not learning anything I didn't already know: liberals can't be honest about what they really believe, sometimes not even with themselves.

Of course they're going to object to any disarmingly accurate description of critical race theory because it undermines the entire liberal/socialist ideology of perpetuating racial division and class envy.

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice you never refuted Breitbart's insightful and accurate analysis. You just appealed to the genetic fallacy, stuck your fingers in your ears, and said, "La la la, I can't hear you!" But this, of course, is not unexpected, although it continues to be amusing.

[carpedm9587]

No study accounts for everything, but the factors I listed are cited in the study. You might want to read it.

Because most of the privileges you mentioned deal with how you were raised. The only way to elimate these social privileges would be to raise every child the same

I took the liberty of emphasizing the error in your approach. I have already outlined two ways that the outcomes of implicit bias can be countered. Similar apporaches can be used in other contexts. We can also do a great deal to counter implicit bias by including it in our school curricula, talking about it in our churches, passing around links like the one I passed where people can test themselves, using the bully pulpit of the government, holding seminars and education sessions in our workpkaces, especially for those in public service, and so forth. Nowhere have I suggested that implicit bias can be completely eliminated, in any of its dimensions. I HAVE said, mutiple times, that we need to do all we reasonably can to minimize it. That we cannot make the world "perfect" doesn't mean we cannot try to make the world as good as we can make it.

Using all of these approaches, and any others we can conceive, over time, implicit bias CAN be reduced. IMO, any reduction is a good thing if the implicit bias is leading to unbalance/unfair social/financial/political realities.

BTW: parents abusing their children is an example of situational/circumstantial privilege; it's not an example of systemic implicit bias. That is a different thing.

[carpedm9587]

I have to say as an external observer I find it a little weird as a program. As far as I am aware, the social safety nets of other Western countries simply give poor people money, there are no requirements that it be used for food as opposed to anything else. Obviously poor people will buy food to eat with money just like other people do. Giving them special food vouchers comes across to me as pretty patronizing.

What poor people dare occasionally spend the money on things that aren't food? How dare they!

Actually, I wasn't thinking of people buying things other than food. I was thinking more of the black market that has developed in "food stamps," turning them into a commodity and strippin them of their purpose. I agree that if you are going to give something that has monetary value, then give it and let the individuals determine what they need. If you want to make sure the benefit being derived is food, then it would seem to me a cleaner way to give people a way to apply for a particular status that comes with an ID card, and then partner with the local food kitchens to provide the food/meals at the local level. If someone comes in whi doe snot have the card, the food outlets are local and best able to sort out "needy" from "stealing for personal gain." I do not think localities are empowered enough. It is easy to steal from a bureaucracy. It's harder to steal from a member of the community member that you have to look in the eye each time.

I do totally support government initiatives to see that people have good quality food available to them in their areas for easy purchase. Obviously the US has a big problem with regard to the fact that there are huge corn subsidies for historical reasons and that has led to HFCS being put into just about every product leading to very unhealthy diets for the general population.

Don't get me started. Farm subsidies made some amount of sense in the age of the family farm and to meet specific objectives. They make no sense in the age of "big farming."

I consider that sentence to be relatively nonsensical, and false insofar as it can be made to make any sense.

Obviously if a person is poor to the point where they are struggling to afford food, giving them food stamps pretty self-evidently solves a pretty major problem for them - they can now buy food. That is an inherent good in all sorts of ways. If and when they are no longer poor (due to having got a job or whatever) they no longer need help purchasing food and no longer get food stamps.

Of course, I would argue both that the fact that the US food stamp program ceases to give food stamps to a person after a set time period even if they still need them, is self-evidently immoral and evil, and also argue that poor people probably need a lot more help than merely food. They probably need money for other things, they probably need help finding a job, they probably need housing assistance etc. The US social safety net looks pretty woefully inadequate compared to the rest of the Western world, and the US right-wing seems to me totally morally culpable for deliberate and ongoing sabotage of it.

The problem, Star, is that many of the programs are created to solve an immediate problem (e.g., hunger) with no thought given about how to end that problem. So the approach is either to place a time limit (which is arbitrary and may be too long for some and too short for others), or to place a finance boundary (which is again arbitrary and often leaves the person losing the support before they are fully on their feet, or continuing to get the support after they no longer need it). On this I agree with you.

When neither of these things is done (which happens) you end up with people on long term support, sometimes for generations. In the U.S., little thought is given to how we actually SOLVE the problem, and help people take themselves out of the place where they need help. I believe part of the reason for this is because there are stereotypes on both sides. The left tends to have a knee-jerk reaction to the rich, assuming all rich people are money-grubbing thieves only out for themselves; the right tends to have a knee-jerk reaction to the poor, assuming everyone who is poor is poor because they are lazy or otherwise willing to do the work to make themselves successful. The latter is a major reason why so many programs are so badly sabotaged before they "go live" or somewhere along their lifespan.

[Jedidiah]

. . . The people I know working in this field have no intention of hammering people with "guilt" .. .. ..

It is the liberal extremists in the street who is calling for "white guilt." Starbaby's cartoon is a lot like that. Not to say that there is no such thing as privilege. It is just that the effort in play is across the board. Such mass attempts are both apt to have bad results, and border on immorality.

[Jedidiah]

It just seems like this "make everybody equal" crap is more about pulling down the top than raising up the bottom.

Sad but true.

[Mountain Man]

It just seems like this "make everybody equal" crap is more about pulling down the top than raising up the bottom.

Or at least making those at the "bottom" resentful and jealous of those at the "top".

[Jedidiah]

Food stamps is a marvelous example of a good idea executed as poorly as I think it possibly could be. As a result, it is rife with fraud and misuse, and does little to ensure that people are getting good food. It's a great example of how the left has a tendency to create programs that foster dependence rather than solve problems.

These big "across the board" solutions virtually always make things worse instead of better.

[carpedm9587]

It is the liberal extremists in the street who is calling for "white guilt." Starbaby's cartoon is a lot like that. Not to say that there is no such thing as privilege. It is just that the effort in play is across the board. Such mass attempts are both apt to have bad results, and border on immorality.

You know, I guess it's all in how we read things. I read that cartoon and saw nothing in it that said "guilt." I saw something that outlined circumstances. The only place where I saw a degree of remonstration was in the last panel, where the person experiencing the privilege was denying it was so, and making a statement about "being handed things," implying that somehow this is bad. Ironically, that is essentially the core of the responses I've been getting here: denial that such privilege exists, that others are on the short end of the "privilege" stick. I have worked with many people who have been working incredibly hard to overcome obstacles, but encounter one socially created obstacle after another. It is often frustrating in the extreme. And then to turn around and be told that they are lazy and should be self-starters like other successful people, it's like a slap in the face.

[carpedm9587]

These big "across the board" solutions virtually always make things worse instead of better.

That is my experience as well. IMO, solutions in which "the top" provides the resources so that grassroots organizations are enabled to help with the local problems are far more effective. As I noted before - it's easy to cheat a bureaucracy. it's harder to look your neighbor in the eye and cheat them.

[Cow Poke]

Or at least making those at the "bottom" resentful and jealous of those at the "top".

Class envy.

[siam]

In another thread, I made reference to various ways in which I feel our society/culture privileges me in ways that it does not privilege others, and the requirement my moral code places on me to recognize that and do what I can to help balance the scales. Almost immediately after the post, the discussion was buried in a sea of accusations of "self-loathing," "guilt trips" and various other things that had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. No amount of trying to reset the discussion helped. So I'm going to start a fresh thread to explore this concept, with the hopes that what I am actually trying to say is heard and not, again, buried in meanings and ideas that are NOT part of what I am saying.

I do not need to "feel guilty" to acknowledge that I have been privileged in ways that I did nothing to earn. Indeed, the primary feeling I experience is thankfulness, not guilt. I also do not need to "feel guilty" because I recognize that someone else does not have access to those privileges. I didn't do anything to create that situation, so I have nothing to feel guilty about. I do not need to loathe myself to recognize I have been privileged, nor do I need to loathe myself to recognize when someone else does not have access to those privileges.

Sometimes, the "privilege" is nothing more or less than a circumstance. My parents stayed married, and I had both of them throughout my youth, and through to my mid-fifties. They were not rich, but I was never hungry, never truly lacked for any need, had my health seen to, and had a comfortable (though small) and safe home. Although I was born with two fairly serious physical defects, my parents had the contacts to deal with them medically, and the healthcare coverage (due to their jobs) to pay for it. These are forms of privilege that are "circumstances" for which I am grateful, and that gratitude is part of why I find myself wanting to find an help those who did not find themselves with those kinds of circumstantial privileges.

Then there are some kinds of privilege that are more ingrained in our culture/system/society. When we live in a culture/family that teaches "X," we assimilate "X" often without even being conscious of it. That then colors how we behave going forward, sometimes even unconsciously. These are the things we know as "implicit bias." They don't make us bad people. They make us human - stewed in the behaviors of our culture. The behaviors and attitudes transcend generations, and are notoriously difficult to work out of the culture. Several researchers at Harvard found an objective way to actually measure implicit bias. It's called Project Implicit. I referenced it in my previous posts. I won't explain it again here unless someone has questions about it.

I believe it is incumbent on me to look for every way in which imlicit bias affects our society. I want to know when it is present in a way that negatively affects me (disdvantages), and when it is present in a way that positively affects me (privileges). The evidence that these biases exist in our culture as unequivocal to me. I cannot ignore it. The evidence that it exists in racial, gender, ethinic, sexual-orientation, religious, and class-based domains is crystal clear. I know I am not free of it because I took the Project Implicit tests and valued the feedback. I know it is present in the people around me - it cannot NOT be.

For us to look for and try to correct these biases is nothing more or less than acting justly, so that all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or social class have the same possibilities, affected only by random circumstance, and not systemic bias. This is what I think. This is how I try to live. Wanting to be better than I am today is not rooted in guilt or self-loathing. I do not have to say "I am horrible and I suck" to say "I want to be better tomorrow than I am today." I do not have to wallow in guilt to say "I want our culture/society to be better tomorrow than it is today." After all, the best atheletes in the world STILL keep trying to be better on the next run/swim/game. Wanting to be better does not mean I think I am bad.

Perhaps if we break down the concept of privilege a bit more it might provide more nuance?...
lets put up 3 categories such as 1) advantage (gained by oneself or circumstances) 2) entitlement (what is due because of circumstances or systems) 3) Rights (privileges accorded because one is human)
As a Theist...I will use "circumstance" as interchangeable with "God-given". In the Islamic concept "rights" are also "God-given" in that we do not decide to be born as human---this is a matter of "circumstance" as well...
The 3 categories overlap because all 3 have elements that are circumstantial/God-given and systemic/man-made. (for example, "rights" may be God-given---but its implementation (as laws) is systemic/man-made)

a symbol of "Justice" often has weight scales depicted....and in order to balance our concept of privilege, we need 2 more ideas/concepts ---the weight on the other side of the scale of privilege is obligation/responsibility. The scale itself must be a symbol of the concept of equality. Under this setup, let us consider "rights"---simply being "human" one has certain "rights" that of life, wealth, conscience/morality, education, etc...but some people have more than others because of circumstances (advantage)---therefore those who have less, have more entitlement (due) than those who have more. This is because all humanity is of equal worth therefore have equal (God-given) rights. Justice can only be achieved by creating a system in which rights are distributed in ways in which advantages and entitlements are balanced. Those who have been given more--have a higher degree of obligation /responsibility and those who have been given less have a higher degree of entitlement.

The principle concept is that all humanity is of equivalent worth and are entitled to "rights"---but we are also diverse and this diversity creates a diversity of needs...thus "justice" for one (or a group) can become an oppression for another---that is why "same possibilities" is not enough.....rather a diversity of solutions is better....they provide specificity and may be more just.

The way I see it, the problem with Modernity/Capitalism is that those who have wealth and/or power assume they are "entitled" ---that "circumstances" had nothing to do with it and they are the sole creators of their wealth and power. But it is possible this is simply an illusion and the reality may be that circumstances played a major role in their achievements.....from an Islamic point of view---such a self-centric worldview leads to worship of "self" (idolatry) and erodes gratefulness in the heart. Without gratefulness there is no humility and without humility one cannot be compassionate and merciful. Arrogance and pride fills up a person so there is no space for others.

Solutions must begin with the family...a person who has more should begin by sharing with family, then with the larger circle of relatives particularly the elderly, the sick, the handicapped, widowed, orphaned ...etc and then go on to share with the neighbors and community...and go on from there.... So why start with the family?....consider, some of those who are homeless or in poverty are someones parent or child are they not? someones relative or neighbor....they are where they are because they were abandoned......Considering our human nature, it is easier to acknowledge the basic rights of our unfortunate family and/or relatives and treat them with compassion and mercy...we can then build on this and extend it to others as we begin to acknowledge that all humanity is family....this way can also lead to more tailor-made solutions which might be more just and efficient. Once families and communities begin to actively take responsibility for those who are at a "disadvantage", one would need to rely less on governments. This would be a good thing because implementing standard, single large-scale solutions to a diversity of needs will inevitably leave some behind, cause an injustice to some, or infringe on the rights of some....

What if a community is so advantaged that there are no disadvantaged members---or if there are---they are taken care of---then such communities can become mentors of other communities. Personal contacts and relationships between communities will generate unique solutions that fit the resources and needs of both communities so that burdens are lessened in a win-win solution. Such personal contacts and friendships between communities might bring awareness of privilege to the community with an advantage and hope of better possibilities/future to the community with a disadvantage...?....

It is not our fault that we have an advantage and likewise, it is not our fault that we have a disadvantage---we are all one family with different circumstances. Our differences do not make one more worthy and the other less worthy---it simply creates diversity. This diversity is an essential ingredient in creating humane societies and individuals.

[siam]

In another thread, I made reference to various ways in which I feel our society/culture privileges me in ways that it does not privilege others, and the requirement my moral code places on me to recognize that and do what I can to help balance the scales. Almost immediately after the post, the discussion was buried in a sea of accusations of "self-loathing," "guilt trips" and various other things that had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. No amount of trying to reset the discussion helped. So I'm going to start a fresh thread to explore this concept, with the hopes that what I am actually trying to say is heard and not, again, buried in meanings and ideas that are NOT part of what I am saying.

I do not need to "feel guilty" to acknowledge that I have been privileged in ways that I did nothing to earn. Indeed, the primary feeling I experience is thankfulness, not guilt. I also do not need to "feel guilty" because I recognize that someone else does not have access to those privileges. I didn't do anything to create that situation, so I have nothing to feel guilty about. I do not need to loathe myself to recognize I have been privileged, nor do I need to loathe myself to recognize when someone else does not have access to those privileges.

Sometimes, the "privilege" is nothing more or less than a circumstance. My parents stayed married, and I had both of them throughout my youth, and through to my mid-fifties. They were not rich, but I was never hungry, never truly lacked for any need, had my health seen to, and had a comfortable (though small) and safe home. Although I was born with two fairly serious physical defects, my parents had the contacts to deal with them medically, and the healthcare coverage (due to their jobs) to pay for it. These are forms of privilege that are "circumstances" for which I am grateful, and that gratitude is part of why I find myself wanting to find an help those who did not find themselves with those kinds of circumstantial privileges.

Then there are some kinds of privilege that are more ingrained in our culture/system/society. When we live in a culture/family that teaches "X," we assimilate "X" often without even being conscious of it. That then colors how we behave going forward, sometimes even unconsciously. These are the things we know as "implicit bias." They don't make us bad people. They make us human - stewed in the behaviors of our culture. The behaviors and attitudes transcend generations, and are notoriously difficult to work out of the culture. Several researchers at Harvard found an objective way to actually measure implicit bias. It's called Project Implicit. I referenced it in my previous posts. I won't explain it again here unless someone has questions about it.

I believe it is incumbent on me to look for every way in which imlicit bias affects our society. I want to know when it is present in a way that negatively affects me (disdvantages), and when it is present in a way that positively affects me (privileges). The evidence that these biases exist in our culture as unequivocal to me. I cannot ignore it. The evidence that it exists in racial, gender, ethinic, sexual-orientation, religious, and class-based domains is crystal clear. I know I am not free of it because I took the Project Implicit tests and valued the feedback. I know it is present in the people around me - it cannot NOT be.

For us to look for and try to correct these biases is nothing more or less than acting justly, so that all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or social class have the same possibilities, affected only by random circumstance, and not systemic bias. This is what I think. This is how I try to live. Wanting to be better than I am today is not rooted in guilt or self-loathing. I do not have to say "I am horrible and I suck" to say "I want to be better tomorrow than I am today." I do not have to wallow in guilt to say "I want our culture/society to be better tomorrow than it is today." After all, the best atheletes in the world STILL keep trying to be better on the next run/swim/game. Wanting to be better does not mean I think I am bad.

Perhaps if we break down the concept of privilege a bit more it might provide more nuance?...
lets put up 3 categories such as 1) advantage (gained by oneself or circumstances) 2) entitlement (what is due because of circumstances or systems) 3) Rights (privileges accorded because one is human)
As a Theist...I will use "circumstance" as interchangeable with "God-given". In the Islamic concept "rights" are also "God-given" in that we do not decide to be born as human---this is a matter of "circumstance" as well...
The 3 categories overlap because all 3 have elements that are circumstantial/God-given and systemic/man-made. (for example, "rights" may be God-given---but its implementation (as laws) is systemic/man-made)

a symbol of "Justice" often has weight scales depicted....and in order to balance our concept of privilege, we need 2 more ideas/concepts ---the weight on the other side of the scale of privilege is obligation/responsibility. The scale itself must be a symbol of the concept of equality. Under this setup, let us consider "rights"---simply being "human" one has certain "rights" that of life, wealth, conscience/morality, education, etc...but some people have more than others because of circumstances (advantage)---therefore those who have less, have more entitlement (due) than those who have more. This is because all humanity is of equal worth therefore have equal (God-given) rights. Justice can only be achieved by creating a system in which rights are distributed in ways in which advantages and entitlements are balanced. Those who have been given more--have a higher degree of obligation /responsibility and those who have been given less have a higher degree of entitlement.

The principle concept is that all humanity is of equivalent worth and are entitled to "rights"---but we are also diverse and this diversity creates a diversity of needs...thus "justice" for one (or a group) can become an oppression for another---that is why "same possibilities" is not enough.....rather a diversity of solutions is better....they provide specificity and may be more just.

The way I see it, the problem with Modernity/Capitalism is that those who have wealth and/or power assume they are "entitled" ---that "circumstances" had nothing to do with it and they are the sole creators of their wealth and power. But it is possible this is simply an illusion and the reality may be that circumstances played a major role in their achievements.....from an Islamic point of view---such a self-centric worldview leads to worship of "self" (idolatry) and erodes gratefulness in the heart. Without gratefulness there is no humility and without humility one cannot be compassionate and merciful. Arrogance and pride fills up a person so there is no space for others.

Solutions must begin with the family...a person who has more should begin by sharing with family, then with the larger circle of relatives particularly the elderly, the sick, the handicapped, widowed, orphaned ...etc and then go on to share with the neighbors and community...and go on from there.... So why start with the family?....consider, some of those who are homeless or in poverty are someones parent or child are they not? someones relative or neighbor....they are where they are because they were abandoned......Considering our human nature, it is easier to acknowledge the basic rights of our unfortunate family and/or relatives and treat them with compassion and mercy...we can then build on this and extend it to others as we begin to acknowledge that all humanity is family....this way can also lead to more tailor-made solutions which might be more just and efficient. Once families and communities begin to actively take responsibility for those who are at a "disadvantage", one would need to rely less on governments. This would be a good thing because implementing standard, single large-scale solutions to a diversity of needs will inevitably leave some behind, cause an injustice to some, or infringe on the rights of some....

What if a community is so advantaged that there are no disadvantaged members---or if there are---they are taken care of---then such communities can become mentors of other communities. Personal contacts and relationships between communities will generate unique solutions that fit the resources and needs of both communities so that burdens are lessened in a win-win solution. Such personal contacts and friendships between communities might bring awareness of privilege to the community with an advantage and hope of better possibilities/future to the community with a disadvantage...?....

It is not our fault that we have an advantage and likewise, it is not our fault that we have a disadvantage---we are all one family with different circumstances. Our differences do not make one more worthy and the other less worthy---it simply creates diversity. This diversity is an essential ingredient in creating humane societies and individuals.

[Starlight]

The Guardian ran an interesting article on the topic of privilege today:

What's behind rich people pretending to be self-made?



Although I think even the article itself ignores the extent to which people tend to take their own society / institutions / government for granted. For example, if history's best entrepreneurs had been born into tribes who lived in the Amazon rainforest, I sincerely doubt they would have achieved billionaire status. People who boast of self-made success in the Western world, e.g. through running their own business and working hard, seem to not only overlook all the people who worked equally hard but who didn't achieve success, I think they overlook just how much efforts by their governments and society have gone into making their country / civilization the kind of place in which people can work hard and build a business and achieve success.

[siam]

The Guardian ran an interesting article on the topic of privilege today:

What's behind rich people pretending to be self-made?



Although I think even the article itself ignores the extent to which people tend to take their own society / institutions / government for granted. For example, if history's best entrepreneurs had been born into tribes who lived in the Amazon rainforest, I sincerely doubt they would have achieved billionaire status. People who boast of self-made success in the Western world, e.g. through running their own business and working hard, seem to not only overlook all the people who worked equally hard but who didn't achieve success, I think they overlook just how much efforts by their governments and society have gone into making their country / civilization the kind of place in which people can work hard and build a business and achieve success.

"... if history's best entrepreneurs had been born into tribes who lived in the Amazon rainforest, I sincerely doubt they would have achieved billionaire status. " Maybe or maybe not?---one of the hallmarks of the modern capitalist system is that wealth is often built on the exploitation/oppression of others...The amazon rainforest has an amazing resource for pharmaceuticals---but the wealth generated is not shared justly--- with the few taking in vast amounts of profits. This is because there is a perception that "they"/owners (of corporations) are entitled even though "they" are not the ones who actually put in the labor. (The feudal system of "entitlements"). Today, with the internet...those in the amazon who did not have the opportunity to market and connect to customers...may now have the chance....and who knows...there may be billionaires in the future....(though I hope not as too much money corrupts). Any system that is built on a principle of hierarchy cannot achieve justice---because justice needs to be built on the principle of equality. So, an amazon tribesman has just as much "right" to wealth as the Western Corporation. The reason we do not see this is because inequality is built into the system of modern capitalism.
I am not advocating some sort of marxism/communism type of thing....IMO, both the corporation and the tribesman have equal right to wealth and neither right should be infringed---then how does one bring justice? By restraining/restricting wrongful generation of wealth---which are the profits generated through exploitation of others. These include manipulation of prices of commodities, raw materials, resources, as well as low wages, unjust laws, unfair government regulations and other wrongful/discriminatory practices. An economic system that values the contributions of all parties of a business transactions from producers to sellers to consumers...creates more chances of win-win solutions...which can lead to a just economic system. But...just as big government is unlikely to create just social solutions, big corporations are unlikely to create just economic systems....the responsibility for this justice lies with us, as the member of a society and as a consumer.....?
.....we decide how, when and where to use our money, time and knowledge for the benefit of all whom we care about....

In a just economic system...one must not simply look at the distribution of wealth but also the generation of wealth---both ends must be healthy because if the generation of wealth is wrong/unhealthy---it will unbalance the other end---the distribution of wealth.