Human Rights?

[mrld1630]

Hi everyone! I'm kind of new to all of this and I was wondering what the left's opinion on human rights was? I understand that some countries like the Soviet Union had a different view of human rights than the west does... I was wondering what everyone's definition of human rights here is?

[sologdin]

yeah, the soviets were often criticized for not being too keen on ICCPR (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm), despite the fact that their constitution nominally contained much of the rights noted therein, and despite the fact that the USSR ratified the treaty in 1976. (of course, the US didn't ratify ICCPR until after the dissolution of the soviet union, and only then with significant reservation--including a declaration that most of the rights are not "self-executing" in the US judiciary, i.e., US courts need not give them any effect until such time as they are made executory by the legislature.)

the USSR is thought to have been more interested in ICESCR (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm), also ratified in 1976--and never ratified by the US.

both treaties have been ratified by the vast majority of states--though all states typically make reservations--and compliance for such items is always a problem. the additional problem is that many of the rights, especially in ICESCR, are aspirational, or subject to a progressive implementation regimen. that last is not horrible in itself--just a reflection of material conditions.

i happen to take human rights law very seriously, and suggest that all leftists should also.

[Sixiang]

There are different idea about rights that vary from society to society. For instance, Americans think that the 3 major rights of all people are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The last point originally being written as and usually including property. Some people think it is a "right" for people to gather capital, exploit workers, and become capitalists. I would not say that this is a right for anyone. I would say it is an ethically wrong thing. I would say that everyone has these rights as human beings:

-Free access to water and food: the most essential ingredients for keeping us alive.
-Free access to clothing and shelter. I usually call these two things warmth. As in, people shouldn't be freezing to death or dying from heat strokes from being outside all day when they could have been in a warm building or under the shade of a building with air circulation in it. It seems obvious that people shouldn't walk around naked all day.
-Free access to education. Knowledge is our most powerful weapon and the greatest means of freeing oneself and arming oneself against evil.
-Free access to health care. I think this should even go with food and water as necessary for keeping us alive, but it seems like its own issue these days.
-Free access to information. This means I don't believe in copyright. All news should be honest and free. All information should be free because I would even classify this as a part of the education thing. Knowledge isn't for a select few, it's for all of us. Society will progress much faster when everyone is smart as opposed to only a few.

Civil liberties and what not are somewhat of a different category in my opinion. I would say those that I listed above are essential human rights.

[Widerstand]

Human Rights are first and foremost idealism/specifics of some forms of social relations (mediated by state and law), and should be treated as such. To think they are innate or self-evident or that all humans somehow just "have" them is to fetishize them.


There are different idea about rights that vary from society to society. For instance, Americans think that the 3 major rights of all people are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The last point originally being written as and usually including property. Some people think it is a "right" for people to gather capital, exploit workers, and become capitalists. I would not say that this is a right for anyone. I would say it is an ethically wrong thing. I would say that everyone has these rights as human beings:

-Free access to water and food: the most essential ingredients for keeping us alive.
-Free access to clothing and shelter. I usually call these two things warmth. As in, people shouldn't be freezing to death or dying from heat strokes from being outside all day when they could have been in a warm building or under the shade of a building with air circulation in it. It seems obvious that people shouldn't walk around naked all day.
-Free access to education. Knowledge is our most powerful weapon and the greatest means of freeing oneself and arming oneself against evil.
-Free access to health care. I think this should even go with food and water as necessary for keeping us alive, but it seems like its own issue these days.
-Free access to information. This means I don't believe in copyright. All news should be honest and free. All information should be free because I would even classify this as a part of the education thing. Knowledge isn't for a select few, it's for all of us. Society will progress much faster when everyone is smart as opposed to only a few.

Civil liberties and what not are somewhat of a different category in my opinion. I would say those that I listed above are essential human rights.

What's your quarrel with freedom of movement?

[Sixiang]

What's your quarrel with freedom of movement?

I don't have one. I just forgot to mention it.

[Queercommie Girl]

Hi everyone! I'm kind of new to all of this and I was wondering what the left's opinion on human rights was? I understand that some countries like the Soviet Union had a different view of human rights than the west does... I was wondering what everyone's definition of human rights here is?

Stalinism is a distorted form of socialism.

Socialists should believe in universal human rights. The only real difference between how socialists and capitalists think about human rights are not really about the rights themselves, but their class character. Capitalists believe human rights are completely trans-class, whereas socialists believe human rights are class-specific.

Capitalists and workers do not have equal human rights, because capitalists should not have the right to exploit workers.

Apart from this class character, there is no difference at all. Socialists believe in universal human rights for all workers.

[Obs]

Stalinism is a distorted form of socialism.
Maybe it would be an idea to not make huge blanket statements like this in the Learning forum?

[Queercommie Girl]

Maybe it would be an idea to not make huge blanket statements like this in the Learning forum?

Why not? Everyone knows I'm Trotskyism-leaning, even though I'm not a formal Trotskyist.

Should we limit freedom of speech on this forum now? Do I not have the right to simply speak my mind?

I don't even completely write off Stalin, but actually many people on this forum are much more anti-Stalin than I am. You need to learn to live with that.

[The Militant]

There are no such things as rights. Some countries may have privileges but definitely not rights. U.S. claims to have rights but their not rights if you can take them away.

[Obs]

Why not? Everyone knows I'm Trotskyism-leaning, even though I'm not a formal Trotskyist.

Should we limit freedom of speech on this forum now? Do I not have the right to simply speak my mind?

I don't even completely write off Stalin, but actually many people on this forum are much more anti-Stalin than I am. You need to learn to live with that.
Touchy, I see.

I don't have any problem with you being anti-Stalin (apart from how you're obviously wrong, but now's not the time for that discussion) but it might be misleading for someone who is not familiar with different tendencies within the left to come to the Learning forum and immediately be told "Stalinism is a distorted form of socialism". Not only is there wide disagreement as to whether "Stalinism" is even a thing, there is also a fairly large portion of people on here who regard the USSR during the Stalin era to have been, if not socialist, then at least about as close to socialism as was realistically possible at that time.

So now you know that, OP.

On the question of "human rights": they are idealist nonsense that disregard reality and class struggle. Next question.

[Queercommie Girl]

On the question of "human rights": they are idealist nonsense that disregard reality and class struggle. Next question.


So you think in a socialist state, (in which the capitalist class has already be overthrown) workers should not have full universal human rights?

I think not only should they have human rights, but they should have even more human rights than people under capitalism nominally have.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Human rights shouldn't be a priorty during the bloody revolution. After securing the revolution, then we should priortize human rights to the top.

[Black Sheep]

There is no universal divine "human rights".It's a construct of societies, and a construct of the ruling class in particular.


There are different idea about rights that vary from society to society. For instance, Americans think that the 3 major rights of all people are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And this is an illustration that the notion of "human rights" has a class origin and determination factor.

[sologdin]

Americans think that the 3 major rights of all people are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

yeah, and the bizarre thing is that this formulation is not in the US constitution (though the 5th and 14th amendments to same articulate that no persons shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process).

i've actually had rightists tell me that these three items are the only human rights, as though the US constitution were the measure of all things. amazing, the arrogance.


There are no such things as rights. Some countries may have privileges but definitely not rights. U.S. claims to have rights but their not rights if you can take them away.

they are idealist nonsense

and yet were one to be arrested in the US, one can demand that the following material practices & conduct occur (just to make a few examples from the criminal law):

provision of an attorney at state expense;
provision of all investigatory materials compiled by the state, with several important exceptions;
provision of all adverse witnesses, for confrontation at trial;
speedy & public adjudication;
bond from pre-trial detention;
a hearing almost immediately after arrest to determine if there is cause to detain;
for more heinous crimes, convention of a grand jury for the issuance of an indictment (rather than mere affidavit by the assistand district attorney);
provision of the specific legal charges and factual allegations supporting same with which must contend;
compulsory process at state expense to procure witnesses on one's behalf;
an ability to remain silent regarding the charge and not to have that silence used as evidence in itself of guilt;
a ban on torture for the acquisition of confessions;
a ban on the fruits of unlawful searches & seizures being used as evidence;
a ban on being charged with the same crime twice, punished for the same crime twice, or being recharged after acquittal;
a ban on cruel & unusual punishments in the event that one is convicted; and
provision of appellate process, and, once appeals are exhausted, state law post-conviction relief, and, after that, federal habeas relief (in all, a total of up 11 separate hearings on the same indictment in most criminal matters).

these are all very basic and important rights in the US criminal system; as they are all material processes, each with its own enforceable remedy by further material process, i can't see how they are either mere privileges or idealism.

perhaps i have missed the point, and happily submit to any corrective elaboration that anyone may bring to bear on the issue.

[Widerstand]

So you think in a socialist state, (in which the capitalist class has already be overthrown) workers should not have full universal human rights?

I think not only should they have human rights, but they should have even more human rights than people under capitalism nominally have.

What the fuck are universal human rights? Some things some people made up, which nobody gives a damn fuck about, except the people who think their witty piece of writing can somehow force a capitalist or state to be just and fair and whatnot, ergo mentals.

[gorillafuck]

I don't have any problem with you being anti-Stalin (apart from how you're obviously wrong, but now's not the time for that discussion):laugh: I love when people are so comically passive aggressive.

It is in the interest of workers and healthy working class rule to make sure certain rights are not violated against workers.


What the fuck are universal human rights?Rules in place to prevent certain things from being done to certain people. Seems pretty straightforward.


Some things some people made up, which nobody gives a damn fuck about, except the people who think their witty piece of writing can somehow force a capitalist or state to be just and fair and whatnot, ergo mentals.When was he talking about forcing capitalist states to do anything?

[Queercommie Girl]

There is no universal divine "human rights".It's a construct of societies, and a construct of the ruling class in particular.

And this is an illustration that the notion of "human rights" has a class origin and determination factor.


While "human rights" as understood in capitalist societies is obviously based on capitalism and there is no real human rights that is trans-class, I see no reason why in a socialist society workers should not have full universal human rights.

You are right that "human rights" are a construct of societies, and different societies have different kinds of "human rights". But a socialist or communist society is still a society, and "universal human rights for all workers" is indeed the social construction of such a socialist/communist society.

Unless you believe communism is about returning humans to the "primitive natural condition" before class societies arose, (which is a completely reactionary position to take) there is no reason why human rights won't continue and indeed improve under a socialist society.

[Queercommie Girl]

What the fuck are universal human rights? Some things some people made up, which nobody gives a damn fuck about, except the people who think their witty piece of writing can somehow force a capitalist or state to be just and fair and whatnot, ergo mentals.

I'm talking about rights workers would have in a future socialist state.

So how should worker's rights be defended and protected in a communist society? Are you advocating a social darwinist style "law of the jungle" where the armed people must defend their own rights?

What if I am incapable of defending myself? Do I not have the right to live?

[gorillafuck]

Also, what the hell is this "rights are a societal construct" argument? Of course they are. But I also can't prove that rape is wrong scientifically, so it's also a social construct to think rape is wrong. Hmm, maybe I should reconsider rape, then?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Hi everyone! I'm kind of new to all of this and I was wondering what the left's opinion on human rights was? I understand that some countries like the Soviet Union had a different view of human rights than the west does... I was wondering what everyone's definition of human rights here is?

Welcome onboard!

I would say that the idea of socialism is to fullfill all the necessary needs for humans and in that way we will give ourselves the rights we want.
Kind of messy respond i know.

[sologdin]

what the hell is this "rights are a societal construct" argument?

it's a reasonable response to someone who argues that all rights come from the gods, or against a crypto-kantian who believes in so-called natural rights, which is probably just theology again.

but it simply affirms the existence of the right to designate it as constructed--and is self-contradictory to then conclude, on the basis of constructedness alone, that rights do not exist.

[Widerstand]

Rules in place to prevent certain things from being done to certain people. Seems pretty straightforward.

Then any formulation of "right to" is not a human right, because a "right to" doesn't prevent anything from being done to anyone, it's an entitlement. Seems like either your definition or the human rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml) are wrong.

Regardless, if you would be so kind as to point out where the hell in a human these supposed "rights" (whatever they may be) are innate or seated, I'd be much inclined to believe that they are not just some bullshit people more or less arbitrarily made up (read: ideology).



When was he talking about forcing capitalist states to do anything?

Oh I wasn't so much talking about him as I was talking about the usual crowd of human rights or citizen rights or whatever rights zealots, eg. Amnesty International and the various people who complain when the state or a capitalist "illegally" (as if legality wasn't a ruling class invention!) does something - as if legally killing people was better! But hey, because in some countries it is legal, we have to make up this new, even less binding set of rules, so we can cry and blame without criticizing the underlying system!


I'm talking about rights workers would have in a future socialist state.
So how should worker's rights be defended and protected in a communist society? Are you advocating a social darwinist style "law of the jungle" where the armed people must defend their own rights?

What if I am incapable of defending myself? Do I not have the right to live?

No matter how much bullshit people make up, and no matter how much people talk about humans having "innate" rights (I've never seen a right when I looked at a human, maybe someone can help me?), rights are always a product of society, both their conception and (even more so!) their application. Rights are born out of social relations, and social relations are born out of the mode of production. To uphold something like "universal human rights" is to throw materialism out of the window, and ultimately opens the door for all sort of idealist crap, not lastly the notion that humanity could be free and happy and whatnot under capitalism if people would just respect the human rights (which amounts to "capitalism is only bad because people are evil"). The only "innate" right you have under capitalism is the right to be exploited.

[Widerstand]

what the hell is this "rights are a societal construct" argument?

it's a reasonable response to someone who argues that all rights come from the gods, or against a crypto-kantian who believes in so-called natural rights, which is probably just theology again.

but it simply affirms the existence of the right to designate it as constructed--and is self-contradictory to then conclude, on the basis of constructedness alone, that rights do not exist.

Well obviously people here argue that rights come from being human, I'm just setting the record straight.

[Queercommie Girl]

No matter how much bullshit people make up, and no matter how much people talk about humans having "innate" rights (I've never seen a right when I looked at a human, maybe someone can help me?), rights are always a product of society, both their conception and (even more so!) their application. Rights are born out of social relations, and social relations are born out of the mode of production. To uphold something like "universal human rights" is to throw materialism out of the window, and ultimately opens the door for all sort of idealist crap, not lastly the notion that humanity could be free and happy and whatnot under capitalism if people would just respect the human rights (which amounts to "capitalism is only bad because people are evil"). The only "innate" right you have under capitalism is the right to be exploited.


Maybe you have an innate problem in reading my words?

I wasn't even talking about "human rights" under the present system of capitalism, which obviously is rather hypocritical.

I was referring to the hypothetical "human rights" people would have in a communist society in the future. I agree that "human rights" are socio-economic constructions and therefore different societies (e.g. feudalism, capitalism) would tend to have different kinds of "human rights". However, communism is also a particular kind of society and a particular kind of socio-economic relationship. So what human rights would workers have in a communist society?

[Widerstand]

Also, what the hell is this "rights are a societal construct" argument? Of course they are. But I also can't prove that rape is wrong scientifically, so it's also a social construct to think rape is wrong. Hmm, maybe I should reconsider rape, then?

Rape is wrong based on a certain moral position to which certain people have agreed for various reasons. Humans don't innately have a right to not be raped, that's insane. Just like humans don't have a right not to starve, nor do they have a right not to get shot in the head. Although many think it would be good if humans were spared from all of those.

The fact that rights are a social construct isn't an argument against rules or morals (although those are, obviously, social constructs as well).

[Widerstand]

Maybe you have an innate problem in reading my words?

I wasn't even talking about "human rights" under the present system of capitalism, which obviously is rather hypocritical.

I was referring to the hypothetical "human rights" people would have in a communist society in the future. I agree that "human rights" are socio-economic constructions and therefore different societies (e.g. feudalism, capitalism) would tend to have different kinds of "human rights". However, communism is also a particular kind of society and a particular kind of socio-economic relationship. So what human rights would workers have in a communist society?

Okay sorry, maybe I am being confused by your choice of words, but can you please not call it "human rights" (or even worse "universal human rights")? Those words bring up very despicable images in me, read: liberals.

[Queercommie Girl]

Rape is wrong based on a certain moral position to which certain people have agreed for various reasons. Humans don't innately have a right to not be raped, that's insane. Just like humans don't have a right not to starve, nor do they have a right not to get shot in the head. Although many think it would be good if humans were spared from all of those.

The fact that rights are a social construct isn't an argument against rules or morals (although those are, obviously, social constructs as well).

Talking like this is completely useless because there is no such thing as a "human in the abstract" either. Humans are fundamentally imbedded in various socio-economic formations: tribal, slavery, feudal, capitalist, socialist etc. There is simply no such thing as the "abstract natural man".

In fact, I would go as far as argue that human beings are intrinsically collective in nature, and the purely independent "individual ego" is itself a psycho-social construction. There is no "absolute self".

For socialists, the only thing that matters is what kind of rights humans should have while imbedded in a socialist society, and how contemporary capitalist society falls short of such a socialist standard. (Hence the need for change)

[Widerstand]

Talking like this is completely useless because there is no such thing as a "human in the abstract" either. Humans are fundamentally imbedded in various socio-economic formations: tribal, slavery, feudal, capitalist, socialist etc. There is simply no such thing as the "abstract natural man".

In fact, I would go as far as argue that human beings are intrinsically collective in nature, and the purely independent "individual ego" is itself a psycho-social construction. There is no "absolute self".

Not much disagreement here, but I didn't express any of the positions you misattribute to me (just like I didn't advocate Social Darwinism as you claimed).



For socialists, the only thing that matters is what kind of rights humans should have while imbedded in a socialist society, and how contemporary capitalist society falls short of such a socialist standard. (Hence the need for change)

"What kind of rights humans should have" is not the same as "human rights." "Human Rights" are an idealist position that holds that humans are innately entitled to something. "What kind of rights humans should have" presupposes a society which can grant and enforce these rights.

[gorillafuck]

Regardless, if you would be so kind as to point out where the hell in a human these supposed "rights" (whatever they may be) are innate or seated, I'd be much inclined to believe that they are not just some bullshit people more or less arbitrarily made up (read: ideology).Do you believe in the right not to be raped? If so, then do you believe that this is an innate right?

and if not, then leave.


Oh I wasn't so much talking about him as I was talking about the usual crowd of human rights or citizen rights or whatever rights zealots, eg. Amnesty International and the various people who complain when the state or a capitalist "illegally" (as if legality wasn't a ruling class invention!) does something - as if legally killing people was better! But hey, because in some countries it is legal, we have to make up this new, even less binding set of rules, so we can cry and blame without criticizing the underlying system!Why are you talking about this here? We're talking about rights under a socialist system.


No matter how much bullshit people make up, and no matter how much people talk about humans having "innate" rights (I've never seen a right when I looked at a human, maybe someone can help me?), rights are always a product of society, both their conception and (even more so!) their application. Rights are born out of social relations, and social relations are born out of the mode of production. To uphold something like "universal human rights" is to throw materialism out of the window, and ultimately opens the door for all sort of idealist crap, not lastly the notion that humanity could be free and happy and whatnot under capitalism if people would just respect the human rights (which amounts to "capitalism is only bad because people are evil"). The only "innate" right you have under capitalism is the right to be exploited.Stop talking about people trying to get capitalists to respect "human rights". The strawman here is painful.



"What kind of rights humans should have" is not the same as "human rights." "Human Rights" are an idealist position that holds that humans are innately entitled to something. "What kind of rights humans should have" presupposes a society which can grant and enforce these rights.You made up that difference. There is no difference between a human right and a right aside from that human rights are considered to be international whereas normal rights are not.


Those words bring up very despicable images in me, read: liberals.
She shouldn't have to alter her language based on your preconcieved notions. Nothing she is saying indicates a capitalist view point or a sympathy for the bourgeoisie.

[Widerstand]

Do you believe in the right not to be raped? If so, then do you believe that this is an innate right?

and if not, then leave.

Depends on what you are asking, really.

Do I believe that humans should not rape each other and (consequently) should not be raped? Yes.

Do I believe that society and individuals should do whatever it/they can to stop rape from happening? Yes.

Do I believe that I have or that anyone else has an "innate right" not to be raped? No, obviously not, because there is no such thing as an "innate right."

So, should I gtfo now?



Why are you talking about this here? We're talking about rights under a socialist system.

Stop talking about people trying to get capitalists to respect "human rights". The strawman here is painful.

You made up that difference. There is no difference between a human right and a right aside from that human rights are considered to be international whereas normal rights are not.

Okay, since we seem to be in some misunderstanding here: I do not believe in innate rights, and I oppose the concept of "human rights" on this basis. If I've misunderstood what others mean by "human rights" I am sorry to have caused disruption, but I do not know any usage of the phrase outside the context of groups such as the UN and Amnesty, which always use it in the sense of "innate rights" which, if they were just respected, would make capitalism a wonderful place for everyone to live in.

[Demogorgon]

Human Rights are first and foremost idealism/specifics of some forms of social relations (mediated by state and law), and should be treated as such. To think they are innate or self-evident or that all humans somehow just "have" them is to fetishize them.

To say they are innate is of course absurd, but society does have certain standards by which people must be treated. These change over time of course, but experience teaches us that if people are not being treated properly it leads to extremely undesirable results and as such we have learned that it is best to have established rights that we all respect.

[Dimentio]

Hi everyone! I'm kind of new to all of this and I was wondering what the left's opinion on human rights was? I understand that some countries like the Soviet Union had a different view of human rights than the west does... I was wondering what everyone's definition of human rights here is?

http://wiki.eoslife.eu/index.php/Constitution

This is my opinion.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

There are no such things as rights. Some countries may have privileges but definitely not rights. U.S. claims to have rights but their not rights if you can take them away.

they are idealist nonsense

and yet were one to be arrested in the US, one can demand that the following material practices & conduct occur (just to make a few examples from the criminal law):

provision of an attorney at state expense;
provision of all investigatory materials compiled by the state, with several important exceptions;
provision of all adverse witnesses, for confrontation at trial;
speedy & public adjudication;
bond from pre-trial detention;
a hearing almost immediately after arrest to determine if there is cause to detain;
for more heinous crimes, convention of a grand jury for the issuance of an indictment (rather than mere affidavit by the assistand district attorney);
provision of the specific legal charges and factual allegations supporting same with which must contend;
compulsory process at state expense to procure witnesses on one's behalf;
an ability to remain silent regarding the charge and not to have that silence used as evidence in itself of guilt;
a ban on torture for the acquisition of confessions;
a ban on the fruits of unlawful searches & seizures being used as evidence;
a ban on being charged with the same crime twice, punished for the same crime twice, or being recharged after acquittal;
a ban on cruel & unusual punishments in the event that one is convicted; and
provision of appellate process, and, once appeals are exhausted, state law post-conviction relief, and, after that, federal habeas relief (in all, a total of up 11 separate hearings on the same indictment in most criminal matters).

these are all very basic and important rights in the US criminal system; as they are all material processes, each with its own enforceable remedy by further material process, i can't see how they are either mere privileges or idealism.

perhaps i have missed the point, and happily submit to any corrective elaboration that anyone may bring to bear on the issue.

I guess I'll elaborate on this.
First, we need to analyze whether those things which American's receive are really rights. We can see that they are generally upheld, but there are historical cases when they've been ignored (Japanese Internment), and even under the patriot act they are completely disregarded. So, for this reason, most leftists consider them privileges rather than rights.

Second, let's analyze things such as the right to accumulate property and capital. Taking a close look at this, we can see that excessive/accumulated property and capital is based off of the labor of others. In order for one man to have excessive property, others must go without (read Das Kapital for elaboration on this). So, if this "right" is selective and exists only because people from other countries and even within the United States are not given access to property and capital, how can we consider this "right"?

Third, let's analyze WHO these "rights" are offered to. In the Soviet national anthem, it says, "freedom is merely privilege extended unless given to one and all". Unless a country is willing to extends it's "rights" to all other countries and all social classes, they can not be "rights", but must be considered privileges. In the United States and Europe:
a: Rights are selectively given and enforced according to social class.
b: These rights are predicated on the lack of those rights in other countries. This "right to property" can not exist if it is not denied in other places. The right of "freedom of speech and press" has been denied to citizens of countries oppressed by capitalist nations. Additionally, capitalist nations support despotic dictators (see Egypt) and give them billions of dollars while they continually deny these rights to their citizens. These rights are selectively given based on class and nationality, and so it is hypocrisy to call them rights.

Lenin said, "Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot." Rights are not extended to everyone, and are even denied based on social class and nationality, thus they are privileges.

Additionally, many leftists would agree that rights to free speech and press should be extended, but are these human rights? It's very subjective based on your definition of human rights. Humans INVENTED the concept of human rights, and based on who you are talking to, their idea of human rights will be completely different. They are not set in stone. Saying that they are derived from God and, because of this, set in stone is a cop out. Whenever someone doesn't have an argument they pull the God card. It is impossible to argue with because there is literally no logical basis and people accept it regardless of logical basis. So, attacking the logical basis makes no difference to those who use the Bible and God to determine human rights. The left upholds a series of beliefs, however, although you may or may not definitively call them human rights.

To make a long answer short, leftists deny those rights that can be given only to specific social classes. Leftists generally uphold rights to the means of subsistence and the means of production which are not accepted in most countries. We believe that wealth should be equally distributed. We oppose the right to profit off of other individuals labor (in other words the right to exploit).

This is very quick and scratching the surface, but I don't want to bore you. Feel free to ask for elaboration.

[sologdin]

I do not believe in innate rights, and I oppose the concept of "human rights" on this basis

sounds to me that the opposition is to a theological concept: reified rights that are not alienable, and exist from the time of ensoulment until the time of perdition, &c.

i'd submit that that we can discuss human rights without bringing theological questions into it.

for instance, the treaties that i've posted, above, contain concrete expressions of numerous rights to which the vast majority of states in the world have agreed. the rights exist because states have agreed to them; a number of these rights in the ICCPR and ICESCR were taken from the older Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a UN general assembly document. Becuase of its origin, UDHR is not a binding treaty, but is representative of customary international law. numerous of its provisions are also jus cogens peremptory norms: the prohibitions on slavery, torture, genocide, and so on are quite simply not variable as a matter of law.

none of the law on human rights, of course, means that the prohibited practices are abolished de facto simply because of a de jure pronouncement; the suggestion that they would be idealist, i think. however, that is the state of the law--despite the lack of enforcement, generally, at the international level.

viewed from this perspective hereinabove, the rights belong to human persons (as opposed to corporate persons) and arise out of the law, rather than out of religion. that the law is malleable and at times unenforceable does not change the existence of the right, although lack of a remedy might suggest that the right is not taken very seriously. (e.g., the ICC has not yet defined the crime of aggression--so the right to be free from military invasion, itself codified in art. 2 of the UN charter, does not have an effective remedy in the criminal law.) this latter point is especially serious--but it does not change the fact that the rights in question actually exist.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

I do not believe in innate rights, and I oppose the concept of "human rights" on this basis

sounds to me that the opposition is to a theological concept: reified rights that are not alienable, and exist from the time of ensoulment until the time of perdition, &c.

i'd submit that that we can discuss human rights without bringing theological questions into it.

for instance, the treaties that i've posted, above, contain concrete expressions of numerous rights to which the vast majority of states in the world have agreed. the rights exist because states have agreed to them; a number of these rights in the ICCPR and ICESCR were taken from the older Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a UN general assembly document. Becuase of its origin, UDHR is not a binding treaty, but is representative of customary international law. numerous of its provisions are also jus cogens peremptory norms: the prohibitions on slavery, torture, genocide, and so on are quite simply not variable as a matter of law.

none of the law on human rights, of course, means that the prohibited practices are abolished de facto simply because of a de jure pronouncement; the suggestion that they would be idealist, i think. however, that is the state of the law--despite the lack of enforcement, generally, at the international level.

viewed from this perspective hereinabove, the rights belong to human persons (as opposed to corporate persons) and arise out of the law, rather than out of religion. that the law is malleable and at times unenforceable does not change the existence of the right, although lack of a remedy might suggest that the right is not taken very seriously. (e.g., the ICC has not yet defined the crime of aggression--so the right to be free from military invasion, itself codified in art. 2 of the UN charter, does not have an effective remedy in the criminal law.) this latter point is especially serious--but it does not change the fact that the rights in question actually exist.

Yes, but who do these rights benefit? The right to property allows 1% of the world population to live luxurious lives while 99% of the world population suffers because of those 1%. Rights need to be restructured to benefit at least the majority if not all of the people. That's why we accept some of these rights and not others. Also, who made states working for their own interests experts on metaphysical concepts such as rights? It's the same thing as states controlling religion. They're just after their own interests (hence the right to property).

[gorillafuck]

Straatsfeind: Where has anybody said anything about innate rights?

[Widerstand]

To say they are innate is of course absurd, but society does have certain standards by which people must be treated. These change over time of course, but experience teaches us that if people are not being treated properly it leads to extremely undesirable results and as such we have learned that it is best to have established rights that we all respect.

I'm not disagreeing with that.


I do not believe in innate rights, and I oppose the concept of "human rights" on this basis

sounds to me that the opposition is to a theological concept: reified rights that are not alienable, and exist from the time of ensoulment until the time of perdition, &c.

i'd submit that that we can discuss human rights without bringing theological questions into it.

for instance, the treaties that i've posted, above, contain concrete expressions of numerous rights to which the vast majority of states in the world have agreed. the rights exist because states have agreed to them; a number of these rights in the ICCPR and ICESCR were taken from the older Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a UN general assembly document. Becuase of its origin, UDHR is not a binding treaty, but is representative of customary international law. numerous of its provisions are also jus cogens peremptory norms: the prohibitions on slavery, torture, genocide, and so on are quite simply not variable as a matter of law.

none of the law on human rights, of course, means that the prohibited practices are abolished de facto simply because of a de jure pronouncement; the suggestion that they would be idealist, i think. however, that is the state of the law--despite the lack of enforcement, generally, at the international level.

viewed from this perspective hereinabove, the rights belong to human persons (as opposed to corporate persons) and arise out of the law, rather than out of religion. that the law is malleable and at times unenforceable does not change the existence of the right, although lack of a remedy might suggest that the right is not taken very seriously. (e.g., the ICC has not yet defined the crime of aggression--so the right to be free from military invasion, itself codified in art. 2 of the UN charter, does not have an effective remedy in the criminal law.) this latter point is especially serious--but it does not change the fact that the rights in question actually exist.

The problem with these rights and your line of argumentation is that, just like every "right", if it isn't applied, eg. guaranteed and if necessary enforced, it is practically worthless. Who is in a position to enforce these rights granted by the UDHR? Obviously those who are in charge of force, which is the ruling class - the bourgeoisie and the state with all it's facets (politicians, judges, cops, to name a few central ones). We all know that the ruling class will not do that if it shrinks their profits - not unless they absolutely have to. We also know that the world isn't a shithole because people or amoral assholes, but because capitalism thrives in and produces a world like the one we live in. Therefor, the UDHR is essentially worthless - except that it isn't, because it serves well to obscure what is really to blame for the miserable state of things. The existence of these rights means nothing to them, guarantees nothing to us, but it diverts a lot of anti-capitalist energy into "oh if people only were nice" liberalism. The UDHR is a useful crowd control device.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

http://www.blythe.org/peru-pcp/rights/ai.htm

http://www.blythe.org/peru-pcp/rights/hhrr-c.htm

http://gci-icg.org/english/communism8.htm#mythdemo

[Widerstand]

Straatsfeind: Where has anybody said anything about innate rights?

I'll repeat: I am not aware of the phrase "human rights" existing outside the context in which I discussed it (neither does Wikipedia: "Human rights are "rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."[1] Proponents of the concept usually assert that everyone is endowed with certain entitlements merely by reason of being human."). If it was not the point of this thread to talk about what is usually understood as "human rights" (which are always innate rights, in the sense of the the UN's UDHR, AI, HRW, etc.), then I'm sorry for my misunderstanding.

[Aurorus Ruber]

I understand that some countries like the Soviet Union had a different view of human rights than the west does...

To put it mildly...

As others have said, human rights are a rather ideal and abstract concept yet one that often subtly reflects a rather specific agenda. One can talk about the right to own property in the abstract and use that to justify the very concrete harm that specific property owners have caused by exercising this supposed right. It also represents a classic "feel good" term, handy for rhetorical purposes. It's easy and satisfying to say we have universal human rights, and especially to condemn others for violating them, but far more difficult to create a world that concretely embodies them.

That said, I would not dismiss the sentiment behind human rights too casually. I think simply declaring that we have no universal rights invites the risk of some pretty nasty abuses. We ought to aim for some ethical standard beyond mere expediency, if only to avoid sinking to the level of what we're fighting.

[smk]

Hi everyone! I'm kind of new to all of this and I was wondering what the left's opinion on human rights was? I understand that some countries like the Soviet Union had a different view of human rights than the west does... I was wondering what everyone's definition of human rights here is?

human rights=good

I don't think anyone sane person in the world believes otherwise.

Even capitalists (following the tradition of Adam Smith) believe capitalism will lead to greater human rights.

[Jose Gracchus]

Ugh. Okay, what provisions in a post-revolutionary society should probably be codified as protections of personal and political liberties and guarantees of legal process, etc.

Quite frankly, the desire firstly and foremostly to go on a crusade against conceptual liberalism is misguided, and contributes to the prevailing belief that revolutionary leftists are ambiguous to human suffering, the protections of individuals (yes - especially workers, not just bourgeois), and political accountability and transparency. Workers need to have a consensus that workers should not be deprived of legal protections, including protections regarding personal property. Workers need to have safe, fair, free means of voting and other political activities to enforce accountability on leadership and institutions. They need the free ability to form peace associations of any nature they so desire. They need the ability to get on a street corner and do exactly what we do now, regardless if the government likes the bad publicity. Workers should be guaranteed counsel and due process of legal proceedings. They need to be able to have some freedom of movement intra-nationally; means of managing these kind of things should take the form of carrots, not sticks.

[sologdin]

EUDO--



We can see that they are generally upheld, but there are historical cases when they've been ignored (Japanese Internment), and even under the patriot act they are completely disregarded. So, for this reason, most leftists consider them privileges rather than rights.


the belief is not unreasonable, though i'd draw the distinction between the existence of the right itself on the one hand, and the relative economic privilege that facilitates its exercise. the examples that i'd rattled off upthread (in response to the charges that human rights are either non-existent or idealist, which amounts to the same thing) exist in the US as a matter of law--that's sufficient because that's all rights happen to be: creatures of law.

but: the exercise of a given right, or the vindication of a given right, or the protection of a right each require a certain economic basis. the citizen will need to be sufficiently educated to know of the right's existence and its subsequent violation; lawyers cost money; court costs pile up; one needs the time and endurance to litigate a right, with an uncertain outcome at the outset. i do not blame a proletarian who has no desire to put up with all that, and would rather drink a beer and hang out with her kids after her shift ends.

nonetheless, the denial of the existence of a right because of these other very important considerations is to collapse the important distinction between substantive and procedural egalitarianism, about which, more below.


right to accumulate property and capital. [...] So, if this "right" is selective and exists only because people from other countries and even within the United States are not given access to property and capital, how can we consider this "right"?
US citizens are generally procedurally equal but substantively unequal--the right to own property itself is general in the US, with only a few categories without the right to own property (mentally disabled and children, for instance). The vast majority of US citizens have the right to own property but no actual property. (FYI, i don't consider substantive inequality to be right in the sense quoted above, i.e., as in "correct.")

there is, i.e., no need to collapse the distinction between the right to own property and a specific property right. i have a right to own property, for example, but i own virtually nothing. the former right is considered fundamental these days, and therefore i can't sell my right to own property--rights are also properties; i can however sell my rights in any particular article of property--property is just a collection of rights (basically: the right to use, the right to fruits, and the right to alienate under the civilian tradition; common law construes it somewhat differently). each individual right in a particular piece of property is also a right that may be sold separately; possession of the physical article itself is almost not relevant when discussing rights.

not too long ago, the right to own property (a basic civil right now in the US) was restricted to white persons and to male persons; in two separate reforms, these restrictions on the right to own property were destroyed.

the suggestion that the right to own property is meaningless in such circumstances is a suggestion that civil rights for african-americans and for women were not substantial moments of progress.



Third, let's analyze WHO these "rights" are offered to. In the Soviet national anthem, it says, "freedom is merely privilege extended unless given to one and all".

that's not objectionable (though the soviet anthem is not the most persuaive authority).



Unless a country is willing to extends it's "rights" to all other countries and all social classes, they can not be "rights", but must be considered privileges.


this strikes me as definitional, rather than empirical. that's fine--we can use the term in whatever way we want--but the formulation is not based on inductive survey of actual rights in any state.


a: Rights are selectively given and enforced according to social class.

this is tautological if we are discussing the right in any particular property, surely--i do not disagree, though. regarding other rights, the procedural egalitarianism is in place generally.


b: These rights are predicated on the lack of those rights in other countries.

i could use some further elaboration of this thesis. my first impression is that rights are not something that can exist in one place only by virtue of their non-existence elsewhere--i.e., what economy of rights? what scarcity sufficient to produce an extraction and export of rights from, say, sub-sharan africa by multinational cappies back to the US?



The right of "freedom of speech and press" has been denied to citizens of countries oppressed by capitalist nations. Additionally, capitalist nations support despotic dictators (see Egypt) and give them billions of dollars while they continually deny these rights to their citizens. These rights are selectively given based on class and nationality, and so it is hypocrisy to call them rights.



all true, though i'd thank you to refrain from making this personal. i'd furthermore submit that the right of expression is universally granted by all relevant human rights documents and the vast majority of national constitutions--but that right is a) severely limited in scope in numerous places, including within imperialist states, and b) badly enforced and badly protected. to suggest, though, that the right does not exist because we think that its scope should be broader or that its enforcement is lax is like suggesting that there is no criminal law of rape because most rapists get away without punishment--an assertion that is manifestly erroneous.


Additionally, many leftists would agree that rights to free speech and press should be extended, but are these human rights? It's very subjective based on your definition of human rights.

i agree that this approach will render different definitions and therefore different responses as to the right of expression. that said, i disagree that this approach is useful. the right is written in international treaties and in national statutes and constitutions, and all of that is subject to very precise development in particular adjudications. not all subjectivity is removed from this process (how could it be?), but, as rights are creatures of law, the law is place to look for the scope of a specific right.

(incidentally, materialists should actually like law, i'd think: sure, there's abstractions in statutes and treaties, which might appear on superficial review to be idealist--but law always works itself out in adjudications, where specific adverse parties have a precise concrete dispute, which must be decided on its own facts, as proven at a hearing, with reference to the applicable law, the latter always subject to dispute. law, from this perspective, is an inductive engine; to view it deductively may give rise to an erroneous impression of idealism.)



They are not set in stone.


nothing is.

To make a long answer short, leftists deny those rights that can be given only to specific social classes.

that sounds agreeable, though a few examples of such rights might be useful. (caste india, sure. sumptuary law in early modern england, yes. slavery & jim crow in the US, aye. but: what in my original list regarding the criminal law is relevant to this point?)


Leftists generally uphold rights to the means of subsistence and the means of production which are not accepted in most countries. We believe that wealth should be equally distributed. We oppose the right to profit off of other individuals labor (in other words the right to exploit).


all goes without saying--we're in revleft's forum for non-restricted members. (please don't assume that i'm not a marxist just because i don't quote althusser or plekhanov or the 18th brumaire or whatever every other line.)


Yes, but who do these rights benefit? The right to property allows 1% of the world population to live luxurious lives while 99% of the world population suffers because of those 1%.

is the argument that the criminal procedure rights that i'd listed off benefit only the top 1% of property holders in the world?


That's why we accept some of these rights and not others.

which criminal procedure rights that i'd listed are unacceptable?




Also, who made states working for their own interests experts on metaphysical concepts such as rights? It's the same thing as states controlling religion. They're just after their own interests (hence the right to property).


no doubt. i don't think that is relevant, however, to a determination regarding the existence of human rights.



Staatsfeind--



The problem with these rights and your line of argumentation is that, just like every "right", if it isn't applied, eg. guaranteed and if necessary enforced, it is practically worthless.


no doubt that a right can be practically worthless or actually worthless. i assume, though, that you agree, then, in the existence of rights as such, even though such rights that exist might be practically worthless or actually worthless?



Who is in a position to enforce these rights granted by the UDHR?


international human rights are enforceable in some national courts (US supreme court, say), all internationalized courts (the cambodia and sib-saharan africa processes), international courts (ICC, ICJ), and international ad hoc tribunals (ICTY, ICTR).

NB: UDHR doesn't grant rights--it can't--it's just UNGA resolution. it reflects some enforceable propositions from customary international law and some jus cogens norms that are more or less undisputable. the actual documents that matter, though, are the ones that i'd linked way upthread. free legal advice: do not rely on UDHR; rely on ICCPR and ICESCR--except in the US, where the former is ratified but not made executory, and the latter is not ratified.



Therefor, the UDHR is essentially worthless - except that it isn't, because it serves well to obscure what is really to blame for the miserable state of things. The existence of these rights means nothing to them, guarantees nothing to us, but it diverts a lot of anti-capitalist energy into "oh if people only were nice" liberalism. The UDHR is a useful crowd control device.


right. the UDHR is aspirational, and as such, cannot in itself be a source of law for any enforceable right under any circumstance, no matter how many liberals wave it in the air at protests for tastier lattes at their favorite cafe or better sound at their local cinema. does the UDHR actually obscure capitalist relations or production and divert folks from the struggle against the cappies? perhaps so--though i must admit that teleological marxist writings might be said to do the same thing at times.

i do not, moreover, agree that rights in ICCPR and ICESCR are readily summarized by the phrase if only people were nice liberalism.

[mrld1630]

I appreciate all the philosophy but what about human rights in according to the Soviets which were the rights to work, rest and leisure, health protection, care in old age and sickness, housing, education, and cultural benefits (1977 Constitution). Why did they feel these were the most important and not combine these rights with western ideas of human rights like the Eurocommunists, Marxist Humanists, and Praxis schoolers wanted to to so they could create a socialist society that was fair and just?

[skizzy]

Some very interesting views on here. Personally, I think every human should be guaranteed:
-food and water
-shelter
-education
-Healthcare
-information (no censorship)
-free speech (say whatever you whenever you want)
-freedom of press
-freedom to protest
-access to a fair trial and representation

I probably left some out. These I feel are the things every human should be able to do with out fear of prosecution. I do believe in "rights". I don't think any person or any structure should be able to take these away.