"Human rights" as a tool of imperialism

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

A weapon used by imperialist organizations controlled by international capital and imperialist governments. Used against movements that threaten their hegemony -- with very few exceptions. Exceptions that prove the rule. The rule being that "human rights" is a tool of imperialism. Human rights NGOs and the UN who are always blathering on endlessly about human rights abuses. There is no doubt that these institutions are controlled by the bourgeoisie.

Should workers and the left reject this geopolitical and propaganda tool?
Is it possible for socialists to wield this weapon?
discuss?

[rebelmouse]

human rights are misused for the aim of Western hegemonists.
USA has no right to speak to China or Iraq or ... about breaking of human rights because USA is slavery country, Afro-Americans are still discriminated everywhere, authorities send soldiers against demonstrations, etc. but it is the truth that human rights are broken by every state, china also. just it is comic that USA give lessons about it, USA and Europe realize criminal robbery international politics. they rob other countries and of course they kill people, in the name of profit for corporations.
beside it, I have bad experience with amensty international in sweden, they publish what is bad in china but they don't want to do anything about foreigners who are discriminated in sweden. even they set you questions the same as authority when you ask for political asylum. they work for authorities. they check if we lied something. the same as priests who help to immigrants to hide themselves, he also cooperate with authorities so people are not really hidden. all organization who help to foreigners are connected or with immigration office or with secret agency. plus they get money because they "help us". every wednesday come AI man in gothenburg to speak with people who applied for political asylum, but he just work for authorities.

[RadioRaheem84]

Human rights groups are generally apolitical but do seem to have a liberal bent. Liberal of course meaning favorable to liberal capitalist nations like the US, Europe and Japan. Their extensive research is used by Western nations to politicize and demean nations they do not like, but look the other way at countries they like.

[gorillafuck]

I agree with OP to an extent, in that I don't think that human rights groups are consciously trying to promote imperialism, but since the only nations affected by these things are weaker nations and stronger nations don't have to adhere to them they are used for imperialist purposes.

[Jimmie Higgins]

A weapon used by imperialist organizations controlled by international capital and imperialist governments. Used against movements that threaten their hegemony -- with very few exceptions. Exceptions that prove the rule. The rule being that "human rights" is a tool of imperialism. Human rights NGOs and the UN who are always blathering on endlessly about human rights abuses. There is no doubt that these institutions are controlled by the bourgeoisie.

Should workers and the left reject this geopolitical and propaganda tool?
Is it possible for socialists to wield this weapon?
discuss?

Yes, i think we can work on some of the same cases that these groups do, but we should be totally independent and critical of any organizations that see potential military intervention as a means of "humanitarian" ends. We also need to be clear that the US military can not be justified through "humanitarian missions" and even "building levees" at home. The cost of the US military could easily have a fraction of it's overall budget used to rebuild every levee and bridge in the US, so saying that the US military will help us in times of disasters is like saying that eating cake all day might help raise your blood sugar if you ever get diabetes and don't know you have it.

Even when human rights groups are not (intentionally or unintentionally) calling for US intervention, they often look at human rights abuses ahistorically which confuses the reasons these things happen. So raising money for economic relief in country X but being uncritical and supporting US politicians that are enforcing neo-liberal policies in country X is worthless.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

They're in no way apolitical. They want to appear unbiased, but first, their supposed stance aganst human rights abuses is in itself a political agenda. Secondly, they're all funded and controlled by capitalists. The most important or vocal ones are all in Washington's pocket. The UN, as we know is, is also controlled by the hegemonic West. They're by all measures very political and very biased.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I agree with OP to an extent, in that I don't think that human rights groups are consciously trying to promote imperialism, but since the only nations affected by these things are weaker nations and stronger nations don't have to adhere to them they are used for imperialist purposes.

I said that they are consciously trying to promote imperialism

I'm not here to talk about accidents
What I'm talking about has clear objectives and methods

[Dimentio]

The UN general assembly is actually quite anti-western. There is a mainly islamic voting block which amongst other things has tried to make blasphemy a global crime. :closedeyes:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Whilst many human rights groups are in the pocket of the capitalists, we should not confuse this with the actual issue of human rights.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Whilst many human rights groups are in the pocket of the capitalists, we should not confuse this with the actual issue of human rights.
Actually, we have to be. Human Rights shouldn't be in a way of building socialism otherwise we will revert back to capitalism since capitalists can use it as an excuse.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There is nothing to be gained from denying people human rights.

I would rather not build a socialist society which banishes the very real issue of human rights simply to exclude capitalists from having any influence on events.

[Pawn Power]

Well Dr. P, to be fair you really haven't made much of an argument.

Your argument goes: NGO's and the UN use the term "human rights" and since rich people work in/run those organizations then the term "human rights" is a tool for imperialism.

I think this is called a "post hoc" argument or even "guilty by association."

I don't think this is a reasonable way to address the issues with 'human rights.'

Should socialists use human rights as a tool for their organizing? They already are.

[pranabjyoti]

REAL Human rights can only be established in a classless society. Otherwise, in a class based society, it will always remain as a tool in the hands of imperialists. We are talking about human rights, but to defend ones right, you have to break others. As for example, to depend the human rights of a capitalists, you have to break the human rights of a worker. In many third world countries, workers have to work more than their LEGAL(!) hours to earn LESS than their daily wage. But, so far, I haven't seen any Human Rights group have protested against it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

REAL Human rights can only be established in a classless society.

So you wouldn't disagree with the supposition that 'real' human rights were not established, at all, in Stalin's USSR, as they were only 'working towards socialism' as opposed to achieving the desired ends, a classless society?

[FSL]

There is nothing to be gained from denying people human rights.

I would rather not build a socialist society which banishes the very real issue of human rights simply to exclude capitalists from having any influence on events.


No, you'd rather stay in a capitalist society where capitalists can banish the very real issue of human rights.


Good examples of human rights used only as an excuse for agression is Cuba and how rights groups want those in prison for being funded from the US to be freed or Venezuela with "reporters without borders" protesting the lack of free press.

[Crux]

No, you'd rather stay in a capitalist society where capitalists can banish the very real issue of human rights.
That was uncalled for.

As for Human Rights Groups, of course there is a bias of course they can only, at best give a partial picture. But most of them are not directly out to give a distorted picture, rather the bouirguise makes it pretty difficult, even impossible, for them as "unbiased" organizations that, even when they present correct facts, to offer any solutions. if you are aware of this I definately think their facts can be used progressively, and even more so the issue of human rights in general.

[pranabjyoti]

So you wouldn't disagree with the supposition that 'real' human rights were not established, at all, in Stalin's USSR, as they were only 'working towards socialism' as opposed to achieving the desired ends, a classless society?
Certainly, no question about that point. The human rights of capitalists and their allies had been violated there, BECAUSE THERE WAS DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT. You can not defend the human rights of the workers without violating that of the capitalists and their imperial allies.

[NecroCommie]

The movements and organizations OP talks about are all for capitalist human "rights". Socialist human rights would start with these:
-Right to food
-Right to housing
-Right for education
-Right to the fruits of one's labour
-Right to personal time
and
-Right for healthcare

These are the true human rights no bourgeoisie fights for. There are ofcourse other important things but these are unquestionable, and I refuse to even discuss about whether these are valid. They are.

[RHIZOMES]

I think everyone should read this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Human-Rights-Empire-Philosophy-Cosmopolitanism/dp/0415427592) book.


Human Rights and Empire: The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism (Paperback)

by Costas Douzinas (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books-uk&field-author=Costas%20Douzinas) (Author)

Review

Universal human rights are today a topic of passionate
ideological and political struggle. Douzinas' book
intervenes into this struggle in a unique way: it
unites a full radical engagement - the rejection of
apolitical human rights as the ideological instrument
of late capitalist struggle for global domination -
with a detailed theoretical analysis of the history
and today's context of the reference to human rights.
Its thesis - human rights conceal a precise political
agenda which legitimizes their very opposite, wars and
mass suffering - is not just a political slogan, but
the result of hard and detailed critical work. After
reading Douzinas' book, every honest advocate of human
rights should feel ashamed and compelled to rethink
his position. A key contribution to the renewal of not
only radical theory, but also radical politics!
Slavoj Zizek

Douzinas has been one of our most original thinkers on the status of human
rights starting with a series of important articles published since the late
1990s. He brings his wide erudition and critical understanding of
jurisprudence to bear on one of the most pressing issues of our time...
Douzinas offers us a truly compelling argument, suggesting that in an era of
globalization we will need new structures of legality to support human
rights. Indeed, he is one of the few thinkers since Hans Kelsen to daringly
argue that the laws of the nation state must become subordinated to
international human rights if we are to ever effectively develop, promote,
and defend such rights.

Hannah Arendt wrote long ago that human rights were problematic because law
was necessarily subordinate to the nation state and it was only within the
context of the nation state that laws could be enforced. Douzinas offers an
eloquent answer to the dilemma raised by Arendt making even just this single
point reason enough to publish the larger text, which promises to be one of
the most original contributions to the compelling question of the moral and
legal status of human rights.

Ultimately, this text will not only be taught in law schools but will earn
its place in classrooms also concerned with philosophy, sociology, and
global transformations throughout the world.
Drucilla Cornell
a masterful job. Human Rights and Empire succeeds completely in locating contemporary human rights discourse and international law within the history of European thought...it is sprinkled with turns of phrase that reveal genuine wit. The book is political theory of the highest calibre
Jeanne Schroeder

[FSL]

That was uncalled for.

As for Human Rights Groups, of course there is a bias of course they can only, at best give a partial picture. But most of them are not directly out to give a distorted picture, rather the bouirguise makes it pretty difficult, even impossible, for them as "unbiased" organizations that, even when they present correct facts, to offer any solutions. if you are aware of this I definately think their facts can be used progressively, and even more so the issue of human rights in general.

It wasn't uncalled for, it was exactly what was expressed in the quote, just stripped from what in my opinion is pretentious I-love-all-peopleness.

Oh, and of course there is no such thing as being unbiased. What being unbiased means is accepting as a fact today's "objective truths". When an unbiased rights group talks about no freedom of press in Cuba, it means the Rupert Murdochs of this world don't have the right to control what people learn. If that isn't having a bias, what is.

[Pavlov's House Party]

As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the "sacredness of human life."

I suggest reading Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism: A Reply to Karl Kautsky. He basically destroys liberal ideas about how revolution takes place, saying that while violence should be avoided, there will be some sections of the ruling class are so reactionary that they cannot be reasoned with or intimidated, but only terrorized and crushed (like the White Guards in Russia). Despite how stalin-kiddies downplay or try to discredit anything Trotsky did, they would love this book:D

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/index.htm

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Well Dr. P, to be fair you really haven't made much of an argument.

Your argument goes: NGO's and the UN use the term "human rights" and since rich people work in/run those organizations then the term "human rights" is a tool for imperialism.

I think this is called a "post hoc" argument or even "guilty by association."

No, that isn't what I said.
The enforcement of human rights is both carried out by agents of Western imperialism and specifically against movements and governments which threaten their hegemony, as I explicitly pointed out before. It's a tool of imperialism because that's the role that it plays today, unfortunately.

My point is to try to identify it within the context of geopolitical and class relations.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

There is nothing to be gained from denying people human rights.

I would rather not build a socialist society which banishes the very real issue of human rights simply to exclude capitalists from having any influence on events.

This is obviously not what anyone is proposing.
Nowhere did I imply that human rights are essentially or inherently a capitalist tool.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

That was uncalled for.

As for Human Rights Groups, of course there is a bias of course they can only, at best give a partial picture. But most of them are not directly out to give a distorted picture, rather the bouirguise makes it pretty difficult, even impossible, for them as "unbiased" organizations that, even when they present correct facts, to offer any solutions. if you are aware of this I definately think their facts can be used progressively, and even more so the issue of human rights in general.

I'm talking about groups like Human Rights Watch, Freedom House and at least to a certain extent Amnesty International and also the United Nations
And to be honest, even ones funded by private philanthropists must be suspect.

By far the UN's main contributers are the major imperialist powers. It hardly has a democratic structure. A few sanctions against Israel shouldn't be enough to fool anyone.

Which groups are you talking about, exactly? Explain how they represent the majority of human rights groups.

[Pawn Power]

No, that isn't what I said.
The enforcement of human rights is both carried out by agents of Western imperialism and specifically against movements and governments which threaten their hegemony, as I explicitly pointed out before. It's a tool of imperialism because that's the role that it plays today, unfortunately.

My point is to try to identify it within the context of geopolitical and class relations.

All you are saying is that human rights are used as a tool for imperialism. Your reasoning is "that's the role it plays."

I don't see the argument. Unless that is it. Which would make it a very poor argument indeed.

Not that I do not think I argument cannot be made- it just hasn't. A better way to have started the thread is with a question of a hypothesis. I think we should at least expect some sort of substantiation with our arguments.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8361471.stm

[Luís Henrique]

Frankly.

The complete abstraction of this thread is shocking. "Human rights are a tool of imperialism", as opposed to what? The sistematic violation of human rights? Are imprisonment, beating, murder and torture of oppositionists part of the struggle against imperialism?

It is obvious that imperialist nations will use "human rights" issues against any nation that in any way stands in opposition to them, regardless of if there are or are not violations of human rights by the latter. It is not by claiming that "human rights are a tool of imperialism" that we counter that. It is by exposing the systematic violations of human rights in the imperialist nations and their third world allies, and how such violations are directly connected to the interests of imperialism and its local allies. It is by denouncing the limitations of the concept of "human rights" (being shot by the police is a violation of human rights, being starved to death by employers is not).

But this thread, of course, is consistent with the idolisation of violence that permeates revleft - human rights are for sissies, real, though, macho revolutionaries kill people by the dozens and are able to stand torture without whining about "human rights".

Good grief.

Luís Henrique

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Frankly.

The complete abstraction of this thread is shocking. "Human rights are a tool of imperialism", as opposed to what? The sistematic violation of human rights? Are imprisonment, beating, murder and torture of oppositionists part of the struggle against imperialism?

No, that's not what has been said here.
Human rights were conceived as a platform upon which to defend human rights. Today in geopolitics, however, it's an instrument of imperialist control. That doesn't mean that human rights should be infringed by anyone.


It is obvious that imperialist nations will use "human rights" issues against any nation that in any way stands in opposition to them, regardless of if there are or are not violations of human rights by the latter. It is not by claiming that "human rights are a tool of imperialism" that we counter that. It is by exposing the systematic violations of human rights in the imperialist nations and their third world allies, and how such violations are directly connected to the interests of imperialism and its local allies.Exposing human rights violations by imperialists will not counter their use of "human rights issues" against their enemies. Everybody knows that the Americans committed countless acts of human rights abuses. But still some Washington-funded Tibetan nationalist campaign managed to mobilize millons of tools all over the world.


It is by denouncing the limitations of the concept of "human rights" (being shot by the police is a violation of human rights, being starved to death by employers is not).That is not a limitation of the concept of human rghts, since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds that everyone has the right to food. It's a contradiction in the right's political use of human rights. Which is exactly what I think should be denounced.
Again, ours is not a struggle for human rights. Nor is theirs. The difference is they lie all the time. I don't believe we should do the same.

In fighting imperialism, it's imperative to identify their means of domination. Human rights, unfortunately, is one of them. It's by recognizing this fact that we can deprive their propaganda and rhetoric of its power.

[chegitz guevara]

Under capitalism everything is a tool of capitalism. Under imperialism everything is a tool of imperialism. That doesn't mean we necessarily oppose them. Food is a tool of imperialism. Do we oppose food? No! Human rights is a tool of imperialism. So what!?! It is also a tool against imperialism! Any revolution opposed to human rights deserves to be crushed, by the people, the workers, the peasants.

Any revolutionary opposed to human rights isn't worthy of the name.

[pranabjyoti]

Actually, there are division among Human rights groups. Those who are inclined to the WEST i.e. capitalist countries, focus on violation of "human rights" by the revolutionary groups and the socialist countries. But, just remained silent about the crimes of their FATHERS.
As for example, in India, the joint force has beaten aboriginal old man, women with sticks and in an incident, an eye of an woman, named Chitamani Murmu had been destroyed by baton charge. All this happened in the Lalgar area of West Bengal and I hope many know about the happenings there. But, so far, I don't know any so called human rights group, specially west sponsored groups like the Amnesty International had come for the aid and opposed the operation of the the joint force.
In a class based society, there are class division and inclination to everything, even to human rights groups too.

[leninpuncher]

Duane Clarridge, founder of the CIA's counter-terrorist sector, said that Amnesty International was at the centre of an international conspiracy to defame the US. Israeli officials refused to meet Amnesty delegations during the last Gaza invasion.

But because they criticize Cuba, they're a tool of imperialism, rite?


When an unbiased rights group talks about no freedom of press in Cuba, it means the Rupert Murdochs of this world don't have the right to control what people learn.

But Castro does?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Amnesty International is most certainly a tool of imperialism. Israel is the exception that proves the rule.

Whether or not the Cuban regime fits into your little utopian model of what socialism should look like, attacking it is part of the imperialist agenda. Not to say that Cuba must not be criticized by leftists.

[chegitz guevara]

Again, everything is a tool of imperialism.

[Luís Henrique]

Again, everything is a tool of imperialism.

This thread is a tool of imperialism.

Luís Henrique

[leninpuncher]

Amnesty International is most certainly a tool of imperialism. Israel (Indonesia, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, and pretty much everywhere else the US and it's allies have flouted human rights laws) is the exception that proves the rule.

Whether or not the Cuban regime fits into your little utopian model of what socialism should look like (Workers owning the means of production, and no it doesn't), attacking it is part of the imperialist agenda. Not to say that Cuba must not be criticized by leftists.
And attacking American war-crimes is part of the anti-imperialist agenda, yes?
Amnesty International criticizes every nation doesn't uphold international human rights acts, like the Geneva convention, the UN Charter and so on. Should Cuba be exempt from that criticism? Why?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It's totally counterproductive for you to dismiss their use of human rights by saying that everything is a tool of imperialism. Washington doesn't justify its imperialist foreign policies and send its troops all over the place to slaughter brown people by the millions with any random reason.

Leninpucher, your examples support my point. Human rights is a pillar upon which the imperialist domination of those countries rests.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

There is no universal law that all coutries are subject to. Ergo, there are no universal rights and there are no universal obligations. There is only priviledge and subordination based on imperialist power structures. This is what it means to enforce human rights.

[blake 3:17]

I think human rights are totally worth defending. For leftists to tolerate abuses of power is to abandon the project of emancipation.

But... I think to discuss this needs to be in reference to actual social realities -- the bombing of Yugoslavia was a horrific example of "human rights" imperialism. Cuba made enormous strides in the last couple of years by abolishing the death penalty.

We also shouldn't be too quick to denounce AI or HRW for being critical of states or nations we may support as anti-imperialist. Freedom of expression and assembly, the right to due process and other democratic rights shouldn't be just for people in liberal democracies or global North.

[Mehring]

Socialists are of course right to raise issues such as racial oppression and other “human rights” issues. These are important because the expose the lies of the bourgeoisie and in particular the liberal “left” who merely put a progressive face on a reactionary system of states and profit making. However, the decline of the revolutionary left and the key to its revival is to put class analysis central organising principle of political struggle. The common belief among many is that class (if it ever was a real issue) is not important these days so “radicals” need to focus on identity politics. This falls into the liberal “left” trap!
In order to revive the issue of class we could begin to see that the very fact that the left is less inclined towards class analysis is itself a class pressure and not a reflection of the bankruptcy of Marxism. The revolutionary left, being utterly betrayed by Stalin often bought the two stage theory. This has meant that many communists see progressive identity based political effort as a stepping stone to the development of “Socialist” consciousness at some distant future revolutionary time.


However, the current crisis reveals that class is still the central issue but it has been masked (making it appear less relevant to impressionistic interpretations).


With the entire contents of many state coffers being handed over to the bourgeoisie who gambled the trillions of dollars of money (the surplus value created by workers and NOT the bourgeoisie) the workers are now to be paid less through all sorts of mechanisms so as to return business to “profitability”. That is they wish to squeeze greater surplus value from the working class. This has been done with a thin veneer so it should now be clear to workers that the capitalists system does not now and never will operate in their interests! The objective conditions for a return of class conciousness is here right now. It is vital that the rank and file socialists and the leadership do everything in their power to spread Marxism and class consciousness to every section of the working class and their sympathisers. Only an independent political force that has the workers interest as paramount can resolve the historic crisis.

[FSL]

So, so much idealism in this thread.
A good discussion would be on how we can combat these views before they turn revolutionary parties to UNICEF.

[Luís Henrique]

Human rights is a pillar upon which the imperialist domination of those countries rests.
Shut up. You are an embarrassment for the left.

Luís Henrique

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think you're an intelligent guy, I was unclear, perhaps imprecise and you're just not understanding what's going on here, so Ill try once more. The conditions for enforcing human rights or any laws internationally do not exist. They simply don't. Human rights are universal in nature. They apply to humans as a whole, after all. Impossible to enforce. Any attempt to enforce human rights therefore fails before it even begins. How can universal rights be enforced only for and by a few?

It is of course our duty to struggle against human rights abuses to which leftists are often subject by the bourgeoisie. The foreign enforcement of human rights, however, is an act of hegemonic imperialism and must also not be tolerated by leftists. In Indonesia, Egypt and Iraq, which leninpuncher pointed out, the claim of upholding human rights forms part of the political and ideological basis for Western imperialist intervention.
The enforcement of such laws is a strategically-employed priviledge of the powerful and must be fought against by leftists for obvious reasons.

[Obstruction]

Any group, cause, or other organization which contains people even mildly sympathetic to the worker's struggle is one that we should be involved in. There are a large number of people who make up these organizations - workers and some sympathetic bourgeois - who do not know anything different. If we write these people off, we are writing off potential revolutionaries.

Are current human rights groups supporting imperialism and capitalism? Yes. So is purchasing most pairs of shoes, or most food items from major outlets. Near everything in a capitalist society is capitalist. That does not mean that these people, when enlightened, will still support capitalism.

I came to revolution through justice. Before meeting and discussing with socialists, I thought our problems could be "reformed" away. When I began to work with and read more about the revolutionary left, I began to examine my world: and I found that we cannot reform away problems. Clearly, the system is the root cause of these issues. That is what I believe that we should replicate, it is one way that we can expand our bases.

I will repeat it again: any group that is critical of the system is a group that can contain allies and potential revolutionaries.

[Mehring]

I think we can combat idealism by discussing the actual issues faced by workers. The purpose of discussing them is to demonstrate to workers that their problems can not be solved within the framework of capitalism. Another reason is to give socialists some ammunition in their own struggles.

[leninpuncher]

I think I'm going to start torturing Leninists.

[MeansOfDeduction]

I completely disagree with the inclusion of NGO's into the argument that they are used by the burgeoise to spread imperialist ideology. As a matter of fact, many NGO's, particularly in Latin America, have assisted in the uncovering of numerous disappearances and tortures that the military dictatorships in that region committed against leftist/socialist grassroots movements. I agree that there are governments which have manipulated the idea of human rights to promote "democracy" per se, but I believe that human rights, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in themselves promote the socialist ideal because of its accentuation on social and economic rights being something that all humans should possess. This is shown by the imperialist's, the United States in particular, rejection to sign the Covenant on Social and Economic Rights. Secondly, I do believe that socialist movements can use human rights to their advantage because capitalism has been established as an enemy of the human rights movement according to prominent human rights scholars (Jack Donnelly in particular), thus socialists and human rights activists already have a common cause, and can work in unison to combat imperialist forces.

[brigadista]

I completely disagree with the inclusion of NGO's into the argument that they are used by the burgeoise to spread imperialist ideology. As a matter of fact, many NGO's, particularly in Latin America, have assisted in the uncovering of numerous disappearances and tortures that the military dictatorships in that region committed against leftist/socialist grassroots movements. I agree that there are governments which have manipulated the idea of human rights to promote "democracy" per se, but I believe that human rights, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in themselves promote the socialist ideal because of its accentuation on social and economic rights being something that all humans should possess. This is shown by the imperialist's, the United States in particular, rejection to sign the Covenant on Social and Economic Rights. Secondly, I do believe that socialist movements can use human rights to their advantage because capitalism has been established as an enemy of the human rights movement according to prominent human rights scholars (Jack Donnelly in particular), thus socialists and human rights activists already have a common cause, and can work in unison to combat imperialist forces.


the problem is the funding conditions put on HR NGOs in order to carry out their activities..similar to the IMF...its the road to hell paved with good intentions but at the same time having to dance with the devil.. HRs in principle are not something to oppose however there are huge limitations to the effectiveness of HR NGOs for the reasons i have mentioned

[RadioRaheem84]

I think read somewhere in Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine that most human rights organization purposely omit the economic reasons behind torture and human rights abuses. They unintentionally make it seem as though the abuse they document seemingly spring out of nowhere and for no apparent reason other than the regime committing the crimes is just bad the hell of it.

[BobKKKindle$]

The OP is indeed a fool. A distinction needs to be drawn between human rights being used as a justification for imperialism, which is something that imperialist powers do all the time, and the validity of these rights themselves - as far as human rights are concerned, socialists recognize that the concept of a right in any context is philosophically problematic, due to rights not having any material basis, and being part of the ideological superstructure of certain modes of production, but that, at the same time, we strive for a world in which human rights are realized, a world in which each and every individual has the right to safety, education, and freedom from fear, and all of the other freedoms that are currently termed rights - as well as those which are not. It is because capitalism limits these freedoms to a privileged minority (this preventing them from being considered rights at all, in any meaningful sense) that we want to see it smashed.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'm not questioning the validity of human rights themselves at all, but the validity of enforcing them accross international borders. This has been made more than clear a number of times. You're being willfully obtuse.

[9]

^But when is it that imperialism is actually concerned about "enforcing human rights across borders"? It isn't. It violates more human rights than anything. So the question here really has nothing to do with "human rights". It's just an opportunistic justification. Just like the West is in the Mid East to "combat religious extremism" when they're doing nothing of the sort. It's just an excuse. And any excuse available will be opportunistically seized. Like shegetz guevara said, "everything is a tool of imperialism". So the problem isn't the plethora of "noble causes" being used as a disingenuous justification at any given time; the problem is imperialism itself. Which is why this thread sort of misses the point.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

A lot of self-procclaimed leftists see merits in things like human rights NGOs, the UN's efforts in enforcing human rights, the discourse of human rights used by pro-West elements (in Tibet, in the Caucuses, etc). The point of this thread is to point out the fact that these are all instrument of imperialism.

The missuse of human rights by imperialists isn't restricted to bombing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis "for freedom."
Upholding any "laws" accross borders, like I said before, is a strategically-employed priviledge of the wealthy and powerful. Human rights are the aforementioned "laws" that are in vogue in this day and age. Not to say that they mustn't be upheld. They mustn't be upheld by capitalist forces.

[pastradamus]

"human rights"....Now there's a term that has been fucked around and misused for the last 100 years!

American enter Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan and claim that they are Aiding Liberty and "human rights". Whilst at the same time bombing these oppressed people with such things as Napalm, Agent Orange, White phosphorous, Depleted Uranium and various other Carcinogenic explosives.

The UN is basically the members of the Permanent UN Security Council, coining terms and issuing slogans such as this and then slicing the world up between themselves a little finer. Whats does one in China,Russia, Libya, or Burkina Faso have to say about human rights for example?

[Revy]

Imperialism is all about bombing and pillaging. How is that human rights? What you are referring to is propaganda. Of course, they are going to say war is for human rights, or freedom, or democracy, or peace. But do they define reality? No. So...it's quite dumb to believe we must struggle against human rights because it's used in their propaganda.