On the question of "Rights"....

[Hexen]

Eversince I've been reading about China and Chinese philosophy, I noticed that they have no concept of "rights" which is entirely a western invention which puts it to question...are "Rights" really about individualism? Of course we all know that it's origins are derived from the "Divine Right to Kings" which is known today as the secular argument for the "Human Nature" argument used by capitalists today.

If this is the case, then I guess we should abandon the term "Workers/Women's/Human/etc Rights" perhaps? Since let's not forget that they also use the term for copyrights, Patents, IP, or "All Rights Reserved" crap and such....and even more ironically...right wing perhaps?

Of course another thing too that most USias and Westerners often brag about "Our Rights" and such as well.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Just understand that different notions of rights are historically, socially, politically and culturally contingent, and you'll be fine using the term.

[BIXX]

There is a difference between "right" (right vs wrong, which is based in giving us a code of conduct) and "rights" (what we are determined to deserve to do).

Just thought that would be a good distinction to make.

[Hexen]

and "rights" (what we are determined to deserve to do).

Well my main point that "Rights" is entirely an individualist origin though which implies that a individual feels determined to do what is deserved to do out of the expense of others without any responsibility.

[BIXX]

Well my main point that "Rights" is entirely an individualist origin though which implies that a individual feels determined to do what is deserved to do out of the expense of others without any responsibility.

Well, kinda. I mean, society decides what rights you get normally, but yes, individuals have overridden what society has decided to grant them, instead deciding that what society says is "wrong" is their right.

[Hexen]

Well, kinda. I mean, society decides what rights you get normally, but yes, individuals have overridden what society has decided to grant them, instead deciding that what society says is "wrong" is their right.

Well rather society has never "given us rights", but it's actual definition actually means the will of the bourgeoisie/capitalists which is how it works.

[BIXX]

Or rather society has never gave anyone rights and the ones with the rights are the bourgeoisie.

Well, truthfully, rights don't exist. That's my opinion.

However, rights are decided by society (Renzo Novatore talks about this is "My Iconoclastic Individualism" http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/renzo-novatore-my-iconoclastic-individualism), but yet are used as tools to limit the individual. So seeing as they are used as a tool to limit us, why would we follow them? This idea allows us to do whatever we want.

However, I believe we must make sure we don't lock ourselves into subjugate roles by acting in ways which subjugate others. Because if we subjugate someone, the role crystallizes and this we cannot move away from the things that role imposes on us (like gender roles).

[Hexen]

Well, truthfully, rights don't exist. That's my opinion.

They don't, they're imaginary constructs from Individualist philosophy that modern day capitalism comes from.


However, rights are decided by society (Renzo Novatore talks about this is "My Iconoclastic Individualism" http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/renzo-novatore-my-iconoclastic-individualism), but yet are used as tools to limit the individual. So seeing as they are used as a tool to limit us, why would we follow them? This idea allows us to do whatever we want.

Well thing is "individual" actually means capitalist/bourgeoisie and the others are the proletariat.


However, I believe we must make sure we don't lock ourselves into subjugate roles by acting in ways which subjugate others. Because if we subjugate someone, the role crystallizes and this we cannot move away from the things that role imposes on us (like gender roles).

Then again you have to ask yourself, who and what system benefits from those gender/race/etc roles? Point is, to solve that issue is to remove the environment or system that causes and benefits from it as a system in the first place.

[RedSunrise]

They don't, they're imaginary constructs from Individualist philosophy that modern day capitalism comes from.


"Rights" are needed in some cases... The right to live. Needed? I think so.

The word is thrown around much to often these days, but I think an underlining set of "axioms" inside of society are necessary for a certain amount of order to occur. "The right of life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness" (As seen in the USA Declaration of Independence) has a single flaw. The final clause would be considered by some as a "bad" right. The first two (Depending on your views) are excellent, because they define the"axioms" of society.

The idea of "rights", in my opinion, are the Atheist's ethical code. An Atheist cannot have ethics, so he must create his own. Each country sets those "base ethics"/"rights" and society builds off them, so you don't run into the more post-Modern (IIRC) idea of lawlessness. (Since everyone is right)

[BIXX]

They don't, they're imaginary constructs from Individualist philosophy that modern day capitalism comes from.

I disagree. Like I said earlier, I define rights are what society decides we are allowed to do. Care to explain why you believe otherwise?


Well thing is "individual" actually means capitalist/bourgeoisie and the others are the proletariat.

I disagree- can you show me why to believe that? Individuals can be bourgeoisie or proletariat. Individuals are just individuals- I consider them to be defined by their feelings and desires.


Then again you have to ask yourself, who and what system benefits from those gender/race/etc roles? Point is, to solve that issue is to remove the environment or system that causes it in the first place.

Yeah, if I understand what you are advocating, you are saying if we destroy the structures and systems of oppression, them oppression (other than on an individual basis) will cease to exist. I agree. But that is why I believe in permanent insurrection- so we will always attack structures and systems because they will always oppress someone.

However, we cannot subjugate people or else we just re-create those structures.

[RedMaterialist]

They don't, they're imaginary constructs from Individualist philosophy that modern day capitalism comes from.



Capitalism doesn't come from individualist philosophy - individualist philosophy comes from capitalism.

[BIXX]

Capitalism doesn't come from individualist philosophy - individualist philosophy comes from capitalism.

Well, this also depends on if you are talking about the ego-of-the-strong individualism that capitalism supports (smash all competition) or ego-of-the-weak, which involves understanding that cooperation and mutual aid is the best way to survive.

[Firebrand]

Rights are a very interesting social construct with a high degree of cultural variability. They are the subject of a large number of anthropological texts written by people with letters after their names. Rights and responsibilities and the way they interact with each other are a cornerstone of human social interaction. Then there's the question of who has rights and who doesn't, the rights of the community versus those of the individual, what rights people have depending o their role in society, under what circumstances can those rights be withdrawn, and of course what happens when two cultures with completely different ideas about such things try and form a discourse.
Its really a very interesting subject, but possibly one more suited to philosophy rather than learning. Or maybe research?

[Remus Bleys]

There is no such thing as rights or the individual.
The "left" would do well to purge itself of such bourgeois nonsense.
This will sound corny but:
Notice how rights are given (reformist), but liberation is taken (revolution).

[Yuppie Grinder]

Well, this also depends on if you are talking about the ego-of-the-strong individualism that capitalism supports (smash all competition) or ego-of-the-weak, which involves understanding that cooperation and mutual aid is the best way to survive.

I don't really buy this. I think acceptance of society as it exists today is an act of submission if you're not part of the privileged sector of society.
Selfishness is a weakness in my eyes. It's easy to live strictly for oneself. It requires no sacrifice. Someone who is willing to sacrifice and to struggle for the people they care about is a strong person. Cowards exploit and manipulate, the strong treat others as equals.

[BIXX]

I don't really buy this. I think acceptance of society as it exists today is an act of submission if you're not part of the privileged sector of society.

I don't disagree with this. What I was saying was that the ego of the weak is based heavier in mutual aid. Aka non-acceptance of the current society.


Selfishness is a weakness in my eyes. It's easy to live strictly for oneself. It requires no sacrifice. Someone who is willing to sacrifice and to struggle for the people they care about is a strong person. Cowards exploit and manipulate, the strong treat others as equals.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by ego of the weak and ego of the strong. The strong are those with the ability to smash others and love strictly for themselves. The weak are those who don't have that ability, so the individuals in this group realize the way to further their own goals is to band together and care for one another.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think you misunderstood what I meant by ego of the weak and ego of the strong. The strong are those with the ability to smash others and love strictly for themselves. The weak are those who don't have that ability, so the individuals in this group realize the way to further their own goals is to band together and care for one another.
I don't think that the fact that I've got no bloody money to smash people and bind them to my will actually entails I'm weak. But hey that's just me, and my little point about this twisted acceptance of the notions like "ego of the strong" - which are a self-serving fantasy.


There is no such thing as rights or the individual.
The individual of liberal lore is a fantasy - which doesn't mean your facile judgement is not another fantasy.

[BIXX]

I don't think that the fact that I've got no bloody money to smash people and bind them to my will actually entails I'm weak. But hey that's just me, and my little point about this twisted acceptance of the notions like "ego of the strong" - which are a self-serving fantasy.

It doesn't mean you are weak, but that you are in a position of weakness compared to those who do have the power to oppress others.