Rights, freedoms, and the mystical prejiduce of liberalism

[Sea]

The bourgeoisie has no rights that the proletarian ought to respect. This much is obvious, but many here are reluctant to go further than this.

Why should we limit the scope of our struggle by things such as freedom or "rights", which are fabricated in the first place? To do so is to voluntarily restrict the arsenal of the proletariat in the struggle against capitalism, and that is absurd. There is a very good reason that you cannot find any good Marxist arguments that base themselves on rights and freedoms. It is because these concepts are hollow. They do not hold water, they are not materialistic, and they have no real meaning.

As communists, we are against freedom, against rights, and against liberalism. This often goes unsaid, and when mentioned, is taken as confrontational, but I might as well throw it out there for discussion.

[argeiphontes]

If it wasn't for the gains of liberalism, there wouldn't be any right to assemble, organize, unionize, speak, revolt, or publish any of Marx's works. Of course, that could just be a convenient mistake on society's part, to be exploited by the movement.

But I would question why somebody is a communist in the first place. After all, there's no right to the social surplus then, or even to exist. Are communists just poor calculators of probabilities? Surely agitating for communism isn't the most direct, efficient or most materialist way of getting stuff. Why not become a capitalist or a pirate? The chances of either of those are greater than world-wide revolution, aren't they? You might want to recalculate...

;)

[consuming negativity]

As communists, we are against freedom

....we are? :confused:

Perhaps you are saying that in reference to the "free market" or "free enterprise"; to which I would say is a misnomer - and that communism is much more "free" than laissez-faire capitalism (as you would agree, I'm sure).

If that's not it, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Real freedom is impossible without communism. Freedom from capitalism, patriarchy, racism & discrimination, exploitation, etc. are all things I am in favor of.

[Sabot Cat]

I am not against freedom, and I am a revolutionary leftist because of my desire for the proletariat to be liberated. From a perspective informed by the implications of materialism, power and freedom are not given to people by states; power is simply the aggregate of the resources one has control over, while freedom is the ability to determine one's own circumstances. The bourgeois, through their ownership of the means of production, deprive the working class of power, and it is only through a revolution that workers can seize the power necessary to have true freedom. I believe that in your condemnation of freedom, you are accepting the liberal conceit that power is political and not material.

[Illegalitarian]

Against freedoms and rights? Speak for yourself, comrade. :glare:


Of course, freedom and rights are things to be taken by the working class for themselves and not given by any sort of higher institution, such as the state, the party, etc, nor something to be accepted as natural, as if they're some sort of objective moral truths as purposed by the American political caste. If this is what you mean, I agree completely, but to reject the very concept of freedom, or rights.. that's something else entirely.

[Remus Bleys]

Freedom for women necessarily implies suppression of sexism. This is an instance of being anti-freedom towards sexists.
Freedom for lgbt necessarily implies suppression of anti-lgbt. This is an instance of being anti-freedom towards anti-lgbters.
Freedom for the proletariat necessairly implies suppression of the bourgeoisie. This is an instance of being anti-freedom towards the bourgeoisie.
Communism may or may not be the most free society - i think it will - but free for whom? Certainly not free for reactionaries. Thus, we do not believe in freedom for everyone and everything. We "believe" in "freedom" for these specific groups, but not freedom as a principle. Thus marxists could be said to be anti-freedom, roughly to the same extent that Bordiga was anti-democracy.

Sea is 99% correct. The only issue I have with is his "against" meaning we are anti-freedom, which implies (but he isn't saying this but still its been interpreted as such) when in fact going "hurr durr freedom! I HATE IT" just makes one sound as an edgy teenager and still subscribes to the metaphysical concept known as freedom, which marxists do not. We are not against freedom, we are against freedom as a principle. We are not anti-freedom, we are apathetic towards freedom ("unfreedom" if you will).


[/URL]]If it wasn't for the gains of liberalism No one was denying that liberalism wasn't once revolutionary.

wordsCommunists are the direct result of class struggle.

[argeiphontes]

Freedom for women necessarily implies suppression of sexism. This is an instance of being anti-freedom towards sexists.
Freedom for lgbt necessarily implies suppression of anti-lgbt. This is an instance of being anti-freedom towards anti-lgbters.
Freedom for the proletariat necessairly implies suppression of the bourgeoisie. This is an instance of being anti-freedom towards the bourgeoisie.
....
No one was denying that liberalism wasn't once revolutionary.


It sounded like the OP wanted a roll-back of those gains, and I disagree. I didn't mean to imply he didn't think it was revolutionary at one point.

As for the rest, I would say (along with the anarchists) that there is no contradiction, because someone's freedom ends where another person's begins. So it's one thing to sit in the corner and rant and rave about the opposite sex, but another thing to impose power over somebody else to make them conform. If somebody is actively trying to oppress somebody else, or exploit them, then acting against them isn't really taking away their freedom, because they don't have the right (oops ;) ) to take away anybody else's in the first place.



Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.




Be whoever you are, do whatever you wanna do, just so long as you don't hurt anybody.

[Remus Bleys]

Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. This is an instance of Luxemburg being stupid.
Hair was so stupid


As for the rest, I would say (along with the anarchists) that there is no contradiction, because someone's freedom ends where another person's begins.
Why?

So it's one thing to sit in the corner and rant and rave about the opposite sex, but another thing to impose power over somebody else to make them conformNo that cannot be tolerated.

they don't have the right (oops ;) ) to take away anybody else's in the first place. Why not?

It sounded like the OP wanted a roll-back of those gains, and I disagree. I didn't mean to imply he didn't think it was revolutionary at one point. We must be talking about different "gains"

[argeiphontes]

Hair was so stupid


I strongly disagree. Let the sunshine in.

[Sea]

Sea is 99% correct. The only issue I have with is his "against" meaning we are anti-freedom, which implies (but he isn't saying this but still its been interpreted as such) when in fact going "hurr durr freedom! I HATE IT" just makes one sound as an edgy teenager and still subscribes to the metaphysical concept known as freedom, which marxists do not. We are not against freedom, we are against freedom as a principle. We are not anti-freedom, we are apathetic towards freedom ("unfreedom" if you will).Against the concept of freedom is what I meant. But yeah, it's edgier the way you said it. :lol:

Compare the counterarguments in this thread, which are completely empty if one doesn't already accept that freedom is a valid concept.
I strongly disagree. Let the sunshine in.
Let us sun our hair in accordance with the un-free lifestyle! :hammersickle:

[Hexen]

"Rights" and "Freedoms" is entirely a individualist/western concept that actually means the "rights" and "freedoms" of the bourgeoisie under it's actual context much like the "Divine Right to Kings" under Western Feudalism, but outside of that, they don't actually exist since it's just a excuse for the "It's all about Me" mentality and they need to be abandoned entirely but instead there's only responsibility and people learning from them based on their own actions while suffering the consequence due to them.

Also see this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-rights-t184842/index.html?t=184842

Point is and in short "Rights" "Freedoms" is just another justification for ones own irresponsibility.

[argeiphontes]

It seems to me that freedom is something pretty concrete. It's being able to do what you want without being restricted by others.

If freedom was just a metaphysical or idealist concept, wouldn't that open the door to Hegelian idealism? Look how this idealist 'freedom' was expressed in concrete movements (liberalism), after all.

[argeiphontes]

"Rights" and "Freedoms" is entirely a individualist/western concept that actually means the "right" and "freedoms" of the bourgeoisie under it's actual context much like the "Divine Right to Kings" under Western Feudalism, but outside of that, they don't actually exist since it's just a excuse for the "It's all about Me" mentality and they need to be abandoned entirely but instead there's only responsibility and people learning from them based on their own actions while suffering the consequence due to them.

It's very important to ask "Freedom for who to do what?" no doubt about it. But that doesn't invalidate the concept of freedom. The definition just needs to be changed to include the freedom of everybody.

[Hexen]

It's very important to ask "Freedom for who to do what?" no doubt about it. But that doesn't invalidate the concept of freedom. The definition just needs to be changed to include the freedom of everybody.

Well it does invalidate it since "freedom" is only a subjective concept that doesn't actually exist but it's officially main intended definition of it that it's a product of western society and individualist thought that is actually intended for the capitalists to have which is how the system operates. In the end there's only responsibility.

[helot]

Freedom for women necessarily implies suppression of sexism. This is an instance of being anti-freedom towards sexists.
Freedom for lgbt necessarily implies suppression of anti-lgbt. This is an instance of being anti-freedom towards anti-lgbters.
Freedom for the proletariat necessairly implies suppression of the bourgeoisie. This is an instance of being anti-freedom towards the bourgeoisie.


I think it's a bit disingenuous to go and compare the freedom of the oppressor to oppress to the oppressed being free from their oppression. The former necessitates a condition of unfreedom and is necessarily self-refuting. The oppressor by excercising their "freedom" scars society with the brand of slavery.

[Hexen]

I think it's a bit disingenuous to go and compare the freedom of the oppressor to oppress to the oppressed being free from their oppression. The former necessitates a condition of unfreedom and is necessarily self-refuting.

Of course that's what "Freedom" and "Rights" under it's original context actually means which it cannot be divorced from, the freedom and right for the bourgeoisie to oppress others while escaping responsibility so they can do it again and again.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

From the Encylopedia on Marxists.org:


Freedom is the right and capacity of people to determine their own actions, in a community which is able to provide for the full development of human potentiality. Freedom may be enjoyed by individuals but only in and through the community.

Only in community [has each] individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible. In the previous substitutes for the community, in the State, etc. personal freedom has existed only for the individuals who developed within the relationships of the ruling class, and only insofar as they were individuals of this class.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
The German Ideology , Chapter 1d (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01d.htm)

In capitalism, only those who have money can enjoy real freedom. Those who have no means of living other than selling their labour power may have freedoms, but their opportunities are always restricted. In bourgeois society some freedoms are considered more important than others.

Freedom of trade is precisely freedom of trade and no other freedom because within it the nature of the trade develops unhindered according to the inner rules of its life. Freedom of the courts is freedom of the courts if they follow their own inherent laws of right and not those of some other sphere, such as religion. Every particular sphere of freedom is the freedom of a particular sphere, just as every particular mode of life is the mode of life of a particular nature.
Karl Marx
On Freedom of the Press (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1842/free-press/ch06.htm)

Before the development of bourgeois society (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/o.htm#bourgeois-society) in seventeenth century Europe, and with that, conceptions of individualism (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/n.htm#individualism), freedom was posed only in the form of the question of Free Will (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/w/i.htm#will) , i.e., the problem of Freedom and Necessity, which is dealt with below. The emergence of a civil society (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/i.htm#civil-society) governed neither by feudal right (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/e.htm#feudal-society) nor family relations, posed the question of social freedom for the first time. The conception of freedom has since developed along two lines – positive and negative freedom.

Positive Freedom and Negative Freedom:
Negative freedom means the lack of forces which prevent an individual from doing whatever they want; Positive freedom is the capacity of a person to determine the best course of action and the existence of opportunities for them to realise their full potential.
The overwhelmingly dominant tendency in the history of bourgeois society has been to open up negative freedom, by removing feudal and other reactionary constraints on freedom of action. Free trade (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/r.htm#free-trade) and wage-labour (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/w/a.htm#wage-labour) are the most characteristic bourgeois freedoms which have resulted from this history: free trade being the freedom of a capitalist to make a profit without restriction, and wage-labour being the freedom of a worker from any means of livelihood other than being able to sell their labour power (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/a.htm#labour-power) to the highest bidder. Thus this negative bourgeois freedom is a kind of freedom which is real only for those who own the means of production (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/e.htm#means-production).
Positive freedom has been built up almost exclusively as a result of the struggle of the working class: initially the legislation limiting hours of work, child labour and so on, later the creation of free compulsory education, public health systems, right to form trade unions, and so forth, freedoms which explicitly limit the freedom of the capitalists to exploit workers, but give worker the opportunity to develop as human beings.
The freedom people have is determined by the ethical system of the society they are born into, which is fundamentally based on the economic relations that society is based on: for example in capitalistic society a person is free to exploit wage, but labourers are not free to receive things like an education and health care in accordance to what they need; only in accordance to what they have to pay. In socialist society, a person is not free to exploit labourers (i.e. restrict the freedoms of labourers), but are free to own a more or less equal portion of the means of production in accordance to their own need and ability.
In hitherto existing Socialist states, like the Soviet Union and China, “negative freedoms” were severely restricted, while “positive freedoms” were advanced. All people had universal access to health care, full university education, etc, but people could only use those things they had in a particular way - in support of the government. In the most advanced capitalist governments, this relationship is the other way around: “positive freedoms” are restricted or do not exist all together, while “negative freedoms” are more advanced than ever before. A worker in capitalist society has the freedom to say whatever she believes, but she does not have the freedom to live if crippled by a disease regardless of how much money she has. A socialist society that has been established from a capitalist society will strengthen “negative freedoms”, while ushering in real “positive freedoms” across the board, ensuring equal and free access to social services by all.
The fullest development of positive freedom is impossible however without a further development of negative freedom – people cannot be forced to be free.

Free activity for the Communists is the creative manifestation of life arising from the free development of all abilities of the whole person.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
The German Ideology (Ch. 3abs) (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03abs.htm)

Freedom can be attained only in and through the community. The development of real freedom always and everywhere means the restriction of the freedom of others to oppress and do wrong. Freedom for the vast majority necessarily means restriction of the freedom of a small minority to exploit the labour of others, destroy nature monopolise the social means of production and communication.

Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the “freedom of the state”.
Karl Marx
Critique of the Gotha Program, Chapter 4 (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm)

Freedom is so much the essence of man that even its opponents implement it while combating its reality; they want to appropriate for themselves as a most precious ornament what they have rejected as an ornament of human nature.
No man combats freedom; at most he combats the freedom of others. Hence every kind of freedom has always existed, only at one time as a special privilege, at another as a universal right.
Karl Marx
On Freedom of the Press (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1842/free-press/ch04.htm)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why should we limit the scope of our struggle by things such as freedom or "rights", which are fabricated in the first place? To do so is to voluntarily restrict the arsenal of the proletariat in the struggle against capitalism, and that is absurd. There is a very good reason that you cannot find any good Marxist arguments that base themselves on rights and freedoms. It is because these concepts are hollow. They do not hold water, they are not materialistic, and they have no real meaning.

As communists, we are against freedom, against rights, and against liberalism. This often goes unsaid, and when mentioned, is taken as confrontational, but I might as well throw it out there for discussion.
Well yes and no... but on the other hand sometimes no, but yes.

the ideological concept of "rights" as an abstract ideal is certainly not materialist and politically it would be weak to rely on these concepts. But rights also do exist in a more materialist sense within the system and are determined by the balance of class forces and by custom and specific history. So if someone is talking about a anti-nazi rally as infrindgeing on rights of assembly by nazis, then this is an abstraction... But would we equally say that workers trying to protect their ability to organize as laboring at a fantasy? This "right" certainly makes a real impact in the class struggle and workers trying to extend or defend it are people with a basic sense of class consciousness... It's also not an abstract one, but a real result of forces of the working class asserting themselves against the ruling class.

Since states exist because of irreconcilable class divisions and antagonisms, the "rights" workers can force the ruling class to extend are not abstractions, but expressions and legacies of class struggle... Positive and negative. It doesn't directly mean they are part of a revolutionary struggle, but certainly can be part of class struggles for position.

[Comrade #138672]

We should not let ourselves be fooled by bourgeois notions of freedom and rights. Obviously a communist should agree with that, because in and of themselves, freedom and rights leave out the most important aspect of class society: classes. In fact, they obscure the very existence of classes and are used as an ideological weapon by the bourgeoisie to promote class collaborationism.

Obviously the TS did not mean that we should want a "totalitarian" society, which is governed by some Big Brother figure. He meant that we should get over these silly bourgeois notions of freedom and rights, that only serve to obscure classes and frustrate the independent development of the proletariat.

We should use a different language.