Communism and individual liberty

[Magneto]

In the past I have generally supporter liberal socialism, but I now find myself drawn to more Marxist ideas, particularly about democratizing the means of production.

However, I commonly hear people saying things along the lines of "communism values society over the individual". I also read about how many of the "communist" governments(Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc.) created societies where individuals' lives were government by whatever moral standards the government supported. In many cases, these standards were quite similar to those in Puritanical religious societies.

Personally, I am a strong supporter of individual liberties. I oppose any form of enforcing morality on people. Basically, if there is to be any government, it should exist solely for the purpose of social welfare(healthcare, education, housing, security, disaster relief etc.). The government has no business telling people who they should be having sex with or what music they should be listening to. These beliefs are typically associated with libertarians or anarchists and not with Marxists, but I am wondering why that is? Is there anything in Marxist ideology that justifies restricting individual liberties in favor of enforcing society's values? What was the rationale behind the policies of those repressive "communist" leaders I mentioned?

[tuwix]

There is nothing in Marxist which could justify breaking human rights. In fact, Leninism started to break it and in my opinion Leninism doesn't have much to do with Marxism.

But rationale of Leninist leaders were various. Stalin wanted to have absolute power. Mao was convinced that he's unequivocal although didn't know very much about economics. Castro's lack of economic knowledge was obvious too. But all they started with elitist approach, then it couldn't give truly egalitarian society. The crime for them was a mean to achieve some higher goal. But they haven't achieved a socialism in any way, because socialism must be based on human rights.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

There is nothing in Marxist which could justify breaking human rights.

Human rights you say? So it's a revolution and we have to shoot counter-revolutionary petty-bourgeoisie. Is it a violation of human rights or not? In post-revolutionary situation we have to do the same - again, is it a violation of human rights?

tuwix, are you gonna oppose a revolution because it's not ethical enough by your standards?


In fact, Leninism started to break it and in my opinion Leninism doesn't have much to do with Marxism.

I am genuinely not sure, could you please clarify what you are referring to here?

[Magneto]

Human rights you say? So it's a revolution and we have to shoot counter-revolutionary petty-bourgeoisie. Is it a violation of human rights or not? In post-revolutionary situation we have to do the same - again, is it a violation of human rights?


Depends what exactly what you mean by that. Killing enemy combatants or leaders in a war is not the same as executing people simply because they hold certain views. The latter would certainly be a violation of human rights and I would definitely oppose anything like that.

Personally, I place human rights and individual liberty on the same level as equality, so sacrificing the former, even if it was to enforce the latter, I would not find justifiable.

[tuwix]

Human rights you say? So it's a revolution and we have to shoot counter-revolutionary petty-bourgeoisie. Is it a violation of human rights or not? In post-revolutionary situation we have to do the same - again, is it a violation of human rights?

tuwix, are you gonna oppose a revolution because it's not ethical enough by your standards?


Revolution can take many forms. Today it can take form of global general strike. It can take form of occupying the crucial buildings to system. Obviously it can take a form of bloody slaughtering. But there is a day after the revolution. And bloody slaughtering can become a way of life or there can be human rights restored. I'm for restoring the human rights. And morality have nothing to do with that.



I am genuinely not sure, could you please clarify what you are referring to here?

That responsible for all atrocities isn't Marxism but Leninism in many its forms. And Leninism doesn't have much to do with Marxism.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Revolution can take many forms. Today it can take form of global general strike. It can take form of occupying the crucial buildings to system. Obviously it can take a form of bloody slaughtering. But there is a day after the revolution. And bloody slaughtering can become a way of life or there can be human rights restored. I'm for restoring the human rights. And morality have nothing to do with that.

Do you somehow have a view that there are revolutionaries who support bloody slaughtering after the revolution just because? Even Stalinist aren't that crazy. Or by "bloody slaughtering" you are referring to something else?


That responsible for all atrocities isn't Marxism but Leninism in many its forms. And Leninism doesn't have much to do with Marxism.

Okay, I get it. My question was about what sort of atrocities are you talking about as far as Leninism is concerned.

[Tim Cornelis]

Property rights are part of human rights. Of course, communism will violate human rights. Human rights are a liberal-democratic construct. The word 'liberty' is also associated with political liberalism; freedom should be preferred. Communism is based on the free association of equals, so logically it maximises individual freedom.

[tuwix]

Do you somehow have a view that there are revolutionaries who support bloody slaughtering after the revolution just because? Even Stalinist aren't that crazy.


Every killer has some justification for his crime. The problem is that very rarely it is really justifiable.



Okay, I get it. My question was about what sort of atrocities are you talking about as far as Leninism is concerned.

There were so many of them. But the most of obvious of them was suppression of the Kronstad rebelion and Makhno movement. And it was only for classical Leninism. Stalin was Leninist too... Mao adopted a model of vanguard party too. His "economic" experiments were idiocy resulting in mass death. Pol Pot who adopted a concept of vanguard party didn't need to economy to his mass murdering...

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I think the vast majority of individuals' choices in contemporary capitalist society are pretty much controlled not necessarily by 'the government', as you could possibly argue happened in the nation states derived from Stalinism, but by what Althusser called the 'ideological state apparatus' (the culture industry, church, schools, traditions etc). In capitalism, there is only freedom to conform and consume.

[tuwix]

Property rights are part of human rights. Of course, communism will violate human rights.


No. Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:

"(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
"

As far as I know, many form of communism regards a personal property. So everyone has a right for it. And if there is a law to deprive property that isn't arbitrary, it's perfectly possible.

[Sinister Intents]

No. Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:

"(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
"

As far as I know, many form of communism regards a personal property. So everyone has a right for it. And if there is a law to deprive property that isn't arbitrary, it's perfectly possible.

Property is robbery, and rights are liberal constructions. If someone is determining your rights, who received rights and who doesn't?

[Tim Cornelis]

No. Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:

"(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
"

As far as I know, many form of communism regards a personal property. So everyone has a right for it. And if there is a law to deprive property that isn't arbitrary, it's perfectly possible.

If you abolish private property, you violate the right to property. Simple: no one has the right to own property alone or in association with others.

[tuwix]

Property is robbery, and rights are liberal constructions. If someone is determining your rights, who received rights and who doesn't?


I must agree. And I'd alter human rights in these terms. However, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it's perfectly possible to deprive anyone of his private property.


If you abolish private property, you violate the right to property. Simple: no one has the right to own property alone or in association with others.

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is no reference to private property. And one can be deprived of property according to some law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't give absolute property rights. However, it isn't my favorite article. I'd abolish it. But expropriation can be done according to it.

[Sinister Intents]

If you support the right to property, then you support the right t to capitalize making you pro capitalist.

[Tim Cornelis]

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is no reference to private property. And one can be deprived of property according to some law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't give absolute property rights. However, it isn't my favorite article. I'd abolish it. But expropriation can be done according to it.

Property rights are only absolute in the right-libertarian narrative.

The declaration does not mention private property explicitly, because according to property rights there is no distinction between private and personal: it's both just people owning things; and a violation of property rights to outright deprive them of this.

[tuwix]

If you support the right to property, then you support the right t to capitalize making you pro capitalist.

But I don't.



The declaration does not mention private property explicitly, because according to property rights there is no distinction between private and personal: it's both just people owning things; and a violation of property rights to outright deprive them of this.

But expropriation is still possible according to it. If we interpret a property included there as personal property, we can eliminate a private property according to human rights.

[Tim Cornelis]

But I don't.



But expropriation is still possible according to it. If we interpret a property included there as personal property, we can eliminate a private property according to human rights.

Expropriation is possible under very specific conditions, which would generally include compensation and mediated through a court and due process. Plus it would only apply to rare cases. In a revolutionary situation, workers are going to occupy means of production and expropriate them, they are not going to compensate the owner or allow a court to get involved.

I don't think a single human rights expert or organisation would be interested in your semantical technicality on which we could deprive possibly millions of their property. And why should we do our very very best to try and force our conception of ownership to fit with human rights anyway? We should do what reasonably advances the liberation and emancipation of the working class globally regardless of what liberals may think of it.

[tuwix]

Expropriation is possible under very specific conditions, which would generally include compensation and mediated through a court and due process. Plus it would only apply to rare cases. In a revolutionary situation, workers are going to occupy means of production and expropriate them, they are not going to compensate the owner or allow a court to get involved.


The declaration says nothing about compensation. It says about depriving of property arbitrarily. When is law for that, expropriation isn't arbitrary.



I don't think a single human rights expert or organisation would be interested in your semantical technicality on which we could deprive possibly millions of their property.


I think that revolutionary leftist expert or organization actually would.



And why should we do our very very best to try and force our conception of ownership to fit with human rights anyway?

The human rights is some concrete thing. Individual freedom is something more vague. When someone says that all those revolutionary leftists are barbarians with autocratic view of reality and there must be oppression due to that, then we can show that Marxism can work even according to human rights and capitalism is breaking them now.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

The declaration says nothing about compensation. It says about depriving of property arbitrarily. When is law for that, expropriation isn't arbitrary.

Well, since you are interested in these semantic nuances, I must ask you this: do you realise that a law can be arbitrary? Like, implementing a law, which says "anyone with a nickname of "tuwix" ought to be killed" is arbitrary, regardless of the fact that it's a law. In the very same sense, a law which says "all property owners must be expropriated" would seem arbitrary in the eyes of the bourgeoisie.

Quite frankly, I have no idea why are you trying to find a justification for revolutionary expropriation in some bourgeois document.

[tuwix]

^^ Your recognition of the human rights as bourgeois is arbitrary. The bourgeoisie has no business in giving rights to workers and especially right to work which included in the article 23 of the declaration.

But what is arbitrary or not is quite subjective to estimate. However, a law that would describe that all individual or corporate property above a value of $1,000,000 should be given to its workers, I wouldn't recognize as arbitrary. And I think I wouldn't be alone in terms of this opinion.

[The Jay]

In the past I have generally supporter liberal socialism, but I now find myself drawn to more Marxist ideas, particularly about democratizing the means of production.

However, I commonly hear people saying things along the lines of "communism values society over the individual". I also read about how many of the "communist" governments(Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc.) created societies where individuals' lives were government by whatever moral standards the government supported. In many cases, these standards were quite similar to those in Puritanical religious societies.

Personally, I am a strong supporter of individual liberties. I oppose any form of enforcing morality on people. Basically, if there is to be any government, it should exist solely for the purpose of social welfare(healthcare, education, housing, security, disaster relief etc.). The government has no business telling people who they should be having sex with or what music they should be listening to. These beliefs are typically associated with libertarians or anarchists and not with Marxists, but I am wondering why that is? Is there anything in Marxist ideology that justifies restricting individual liberties in favor of enforcing society's values? What was the rationale behind the policies of those repressive "communist" leaders I mentioned?

I think that you'll understand better if you ask: from what do these rights arise? Rights are arbitrary concepts of the dominant morality of the time which arises in tandem with the dominant forces of production. The already given example of property rights is evidence of this. When considering what rights that a person has you must also think of how those rights are protected or acted out. If it is viewed through the example of bourgeois property rights then it is clear to see that the enforcement is carried out by a select group loyal to the bourgeois ideology and who is authorized by the state to use force in service to the 'right' of property owners.

Rights in and of themselves mean nothing. What matters is the force used to maintain them, the ideology that breeds them, and the forces of production that guide the ideology.

[Tim Cornelis]

The declaration says nothing about compensation. It says about depriving of property arbitrarily. When is law for that, expropriation isn't arbitrary.

Compensation is a requirement for eminent domain or compulsory acquisition or expropriation in the public interest in, as far as I know, essentially all expositions of property rights, for instance in the constitution of the Netherlands, Zimbabwe, and the USA. So when human rights guarantee property rights it stands to reason that it includes reservations about expropriation for the public interest, and therefore that compensation is a requirement for it not to qualify as arbitrary. When human rights organisations criticise land reforms in Zimbabwe which expropriated Euro-African commercial farmers or the Syrian government expropriating Kurdish commercial farmers, lack of compensation is generally a pinpoint besides the expropriation itself.


I think that revolutionary leftist expert or organization actually would.

:confused:

But we're talking about human rights, so obviously human rights organisations and experts are relevant. Not sure why you brought up 'revolutionary leftist experts'. And if this forum is an indication, I don't think many do care about semantical gymnastics to reconcile property rights with communism.


The human rights is some concrete thing. Individual freedom is something more vague. When someone says that all those revolutionary leftists are barbarians with autocratic view of reality and there must be oppression due to that, then we can show that Marxism can work even according to human rights and capitalism is breaking them now.

We don't need human rights to do that, nor do we need tailism. We should be clear about our intentions, and educate people that today's conceptions of 'rights' generally stem from bourgeois-democratic consciousness and are far from ideologically neutral and serve to protect the interests of an unelected, unaccountable minority of property owners instead. By emphasising that liberal-democratic constructions of rights and laws are somehow, no matter how far fetched, compatible with communism you are essentially marrying people to the institutions of that liberal-democracy. You give them false hope that communism can come about through reforms via bourgeois institutions.


^^ Your recognition of the human rights as bourgeois is arbitrary. The bourgeoisie has no business in giving rights to workers and especially right to work which included in the article 23 of the declaration.

Of course they do. By conceding to workers' demands you may co-opt militancy, and prevent radicalisation. Liberal democracy grew out of the need for social peace to conduct commercial activities as reasonably undisturbed as possible, so logically it will accord rights to guarantee that social peace and thereby the perpetuation of capitalism.


But what is arbitrary or not is quite subjective to estimate. However, a law that would describe that all individual or corporate property above a value of $1,000,000 should be given to its workers, I wouldn't recognize as arbitrary. And I think I wouldn't be alone in terms of this opinion.

Well, that 1 million dollar line is arbitrary, though in a different sense (not in the context that the human rights charters use). It's arbitrary in that there's no rational reason to draw the line exactly at one million. Also, this suggests you have no problem with the existence of the petty bourgeoisie.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In the past I have generally supporter liberal socialism, but I now find myself drawn to more Marxist ideas, particularly about democratizing the means of production.

However, I commonly hear people saying things along the lines of "communism values society over the individual". I also read about how many of the "communist" governments(Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc.) created societies where individuals' lives were government by whatever moral standards the government supported. In many cases, these standards were quite similar to those in Puritanical religious societies.

Personally, I am a strong supporter of individual liberties. I oppose any form of enforcing morality on people. Basically, if there is to be any government, it should exist solely for the purpose of social welfare(healthcare, education, housing, security, disaster relief etc.). The government has no business telling people who they should be having sex with or what music they should be listening to. These beliefs are typically associated with libertarians or anarchists and not with Marxists, but I am wondering why that is? Is there anything in Marxist ideology that justifies restricting individual liberties in favor of enforcing society's values? What was the rationale behind the policies of those repressive "communist" leaders I mentioned?

Class societies imply people having power over other people. Private productive wealth is a manifestation of that... An individual controlling the productive output of others.

In class societies, there is a divide between most individuals and "society" or the "community" because society or the community are organized around an order which only benefits the small ruling classes. So while the king sees his interests and "the greater good" as one and the same, or "what's good for business is good for America" or when state-capitalist beurocrats claim to speak for the workers, it is not "society's values" in the abstract, but ruling class values.

Communism, a post-class society, would eliminate that divide so that society is actually the sum of a group of individuals. Class society is divided into antagonistic classes who have different goals: it's theft to free a slave according to the slaveowner, but slavery itself is theft according to the slave. There can be no abstract "greater good" or "collective interests" in such an arrangement.

So so-called collectivism or "the community" in communism is not about tying the individual to some alien group, but actually eliminating power over individuals so that collective efforts are mutual efforts of the individuals involved.

[tuwix]

Compensation is a requirement for eminent domain or compulsory acquisition or expropriation in the public interest in, as far as I know, essentially all expositions of property rights, for instance in the constitution of the Netherlands, Zimbabwe, and the USA. So when human rights guarantee property rights it stands to reason that it includes reservations about expropriation for the public interest, and therefore that compensation is a requirement for it not to qualify as arbitrary.


The declaration doesn't mention it at all. Human rights are used in political disputes very frequently and in propaganda too. However, property rights included there gives a great room for interpretations. And compensation isn't included there.




Of course they do. By conceding to workers' demands you may co-opt militancy, and prevent radicalisation. Liberal democracy grew out of the need for social peace to conduct commercial activities as reasonably undisturbed as possible, so logically it will accord rights to guarantee that social peace and thereby the perpetuation of capitalism.


I don't think so. The declaration is product of some international bureaucracy and if there was a financing of government dependent on it, they wouldn't sign it. The right to work is against bourgeoisie but it's just fiction in capitalism. This is why it can exist.



Well, that 1 million dollar line is arbitrary, though in a different sense (not in the context that the human rights charters use). It's arbitrary in that there's no rational reason to draw the line exactly at one million. Also, this suggests you have no problem with the existence of the petty bourgeoisie.

It was just an example. There can be built whole system for the process of expropriation (including courts of many levels) that it would seem as non-arbitrary at all and that would serve our goals.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Personally, I feel, very much so, that this is a fiction. This "but look at the capitalist West with their freedoms and hotdogs and internets," and so on. The neo-liberal democracies only given the illusion of freedom and choice but in fact their is really neither. I would go so far as to say Lous 16th would be shocked at how much a republican PM/president can get away with and how much control the government actually wields. In America look at the NSA. Look at FAA re authorization act. FEMA camps. Dodgy elections. Rampant corruption. Idk what kind of world you guys live in but to me the narratives are reversed. Yeah there was and is restrictions in Communist countries but more or less same individual freedoms as the democracies (arguably).

[exeexe]

What was the rationale behind the policies of those repressive "communist" leaders I mentioned?
They wanted to enforce authority where liberty was the prevailing social order so that everyone would act like mind controlled robots. One leader one party one mind.

And this is funny because you know who said:
One People, One empire, One Leader

[RedWorker]

Human rights are a liberal-democratic construct.

That goes along with the nonsense on RevLeft that "morality is bourgeois" along with other things.

The thing is that none of these concepts are inherently bourgeois, but with the correct conditions the prevailing theory of these concepts is aligned with bourgeois ideals. In communist society, bourgeois morality will be destroyed along with a bourgeois conception of human rights.

Morality and "human rights" will prevail, but the current mainstream understanding will be destroyed.

The concept itself is not to blame, but in the current system such concepts have a prevailing definition.

Thus:


Property rights are part of human rights.

Depends on who you ask.

[Red Star Rising]

"Property rights" is a meaningless term in Communism because the concept of private property would cease to exist. This however will not infringe on anyone's ability to live properly because the right to own property is not the same as the right to have shelter, eat food and drink water etc. They only dictate that for some reason it violates human rights if we are not allowed to "own" these things. It would make no material difference to human rights.

[motion denied]

Human Rights are limited. Very limited. They are the right of the egoistic bourgeois men.

Behind all the verbose talk of "personal liberty", "freedom", "all equal before the law" etc, lies the same crap Marx criticized here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/)


None of the so-called rights of man, therefore, go beyond egoistic man, beyond man as a member of civil society – that is, an individual withdrawn into himself, into the confines of his private interests and private caprice, and separated from the community. In the rights of man, he is far from being conceived as a species-being; on the contrary, species-life itself, society, appears as a framework external to the individuals, as a restriction of their original independence. The sole bond holding them together is natural necessity, need and private interest, the preservation of their property and their egoistic selves.

The very 17th paragraph mentioned in this thread is vague on purpose. The United Nations, as well as the Constitution Marx demolishes, are not talking about your personal property, but of property in general.

The point, of course, is not only deny this limited, vague and abstract rights. These are the political emancipation, within bourgeois society. That's given. Our goal is to overcome it all together; the true human community, when "man has recognized and organised his 'own powers' as social powers".

[Tim Cornelis]

The declaration doesn't mention it at all. Human rights are used in political disputes very frequently and in propaganda too. However, property rights included there gives a great room for interpretations. And compensation isn't included there.




I don't think so. The declaration is product of some international bureaucracy and if there was a financing of government dependent on it, they wouldn't sign it. The right to work is against bourgeoisie but it's just fiction in capitalism. This is why it can exist.



It was just an example. There can be built whole system for the process of expropriation (including courts of many levels) that it would seem as non-arbitrary at all and that would serve our goals.

No it really can't, and your nonsense feeds into gradualist and reformist illusions.

And come on, you try to curb, twist, pivot, and turn a right that says "everyone has the right to own property alone or in association" into a situation where it would justify disallowing anyone to own property alone, or in association for that matter.


That goes along with the nonsense on RevLeft that "morality is bourgeois" along with other things.

The thing is that none of these concepts are inherently bourgeois, but with the correct conditions the prevailing theory of these concepts is aligned with bourgeois ideals. In communist society, bourgeois morality will be destroyed along with a bourgeois conception of human rights.

Morality and "human rights" will prevail, but the current mainstream understanding will be destroyed.

The concept itself is not to blame, but in the current system such concepts have a prevailing definition.

Thus:



Depends on who you ask.

No it's not. When there's talk of 'human rights' it's shorthand for those rights that were drawn up in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Property rights are guaranteed in that declaration, and therefore property rights are part of human rights. This is not a matter of whom you ask. Otherwise it would make no sense to talk of 'human rights' at all as everyone could define them as they please (e.g. 'everyone has the right to torture anyone else if they feel wronged'). All those human rights activists, experts, and organisations uphold the same 'human rights' because they use the universal declaration.
As communists, we oppose the right to property and therefore also human rights. Human rights were thought up based on liberal-democratic principles and their implementation results in a liberal-democratic system. Saying "bourgeois conception of human rights" is redundant because human rights are inherently connected to bourgeois society and developed from liberal principles and natural rights.

Of course, an independent philosopher may want to redefine 'human rights' but referring to that particular philosophy of human rights would not be referred to as 'human rights' as it would result in ambiguity. Human rights = universal declaration of human rights.

[RedWorker]

There is usually much debate around such subjects like what "human rights" means. I have no doubt that most people's understanding of "human rights" includes for example the right to food and housing. Which leads to the conclusion that a socialist society is optimal to fulfill human rights.

I doubt that all human rights organizations define "human rights" by that UN definition. Even if so, just because everyone does everything one way does not make it so. For example even if all communists were Marxist-Leninists, communism is not Marxism-Leninism, even though that is a common point people use against communism. ("virtually all communists are Marxist-Leninists, therefore communism is Marxism-Leninism, therefore Stalin, therefore communism is evil")

Personally I would argue that private property violates human rights. And so would many others.

Many human right organizations are bullshit. For example "Human Rights Watch" which is an agent of imperialism and bourgeois ideals. Even on right-wing website Wikipedia the list of criticisms about that organization is endless.

[exeexe]

I think human rights where invented/needed because the liberal capitalist system was inherently exploitive. And exploitation leads to more exploitation, so the leaders felt a line had to be drawn somewhere dictating how much greed could be accepted.

Once after a revolution when social liberty prevails there wouldn't even be a need for human rights because the system would be working independently. Therefore revolutionaries ought not to speculate at how much marxists are the human rights or whatever, unless ofcourse they plan to construct an oppressive society.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Individual rights? You mean like being able to do what you want on your own without some busybody hovering over you? Sure, I believe in that.

I don't oppose the concept of rights by themselves. But you must understand that rights are not something that appear out of thin air. They are rights that have to be strived for, fought for. Even the so-called 'equality' under the bourgeois law that we currently live under didn't appear out of no where. It was fought for with blood and treasure.

Because the bourgeois have come to dominate the discussion on the rights of humanity, they therefore have fixed the debate in their favor, cushioned in their language. Obviously, opposing the rights of property and capital will violate those 'human rights' that they've set up.

One of the major goals of socialism and communism is to maximize freedom for the individual as part of a community of individuals, and to tear down the very barriers that keep individuals apart from each other. It allows the individual the oppurtunity (at this point an impossible oppurunity) to apply themselves and develop themselves as they wish.

That, my friend, is true freedom.

[tuwix]

No it really can't, and your nonsense feeds into gradualist and reformist illusions.

And come on, you try to curb, twist, pivot, and turn a right that says "everyone has the right to own property alone or in association" into a situation where it would justify disallowing anyone to own property alone, or in association for that matter.


In such phrase is very much obvious your lack of knowledge in terms of law interpretations. I said that property rights in the declaration gives a great room to interpretations, but obviously you refuse to acknowledge what does it mean. You obviously think that "everyone has the right to own property alone or in association" is about private property and there is no second point to that allowing expropriations. I'm sorry but that shows your ignorance in those terms.

But the Universal Declaration of Human Rights isn't only one. The actual international law is the European Convention on Human Rights. There is no property law at all in original text from 1950.

[Thirsty Crow]

I

However, I commonly hear people saying things along the lines of "communism values society over the individual". Most commonly when people say something like this they assume the kind of liberty that is based on property possession - and not any kind of property possession, but that property which cam be used to make profit by means of coercing the dispossessed into selling their labor power.

It's a particular view of liberty that cannot stand any close scrutiny of its assumed conditions and effect upon workers.


Personally, I am a strong supporter of individual liberties. I oppose any form of enforcing morality on people. Basically, if there is to be any government, it should exist solely for the purpose of social welfare(healthcare, education, housing, security, disaster relief etc.). The government has no business telling people who they should be having sex with or what music they should be listening to. These beliefs are typically associated with libertarians or anarchists and not with Marxists, but I am wondering why that is?

There are two reasons why these views aren't associated with Marxists.

The first concerns decades and decades of ruling class propaganda (see above for its presupposed concept of liberty) which either outright distorts what Marxists actually had to say or engages in blatant fabrication.

The second is those nominally Marxist currents that do indeed hold on to that false dichotomy individual v. society and have presided over such a social development in places like the former USSR.

I for one do think that the idea of liberty is important; and of course I do not hold the opinion that constituted power has as its goal to regulate the lifestyles of people.


Is there anything in Marxist ideology that justifies restricting individual liberties in favor of enforcing society's values?If by individual liberties you include the possession of productive property, then surely, yes. This also concerns society wide mechanisms of discouraging anti-social behavior, like discrimination and harassment which should not be expected to simply disappear over night.

[Tim Cornelis]

There is usually much debate around such subjects like what "human rights" means.

To be honest, I've never ever heard or seen discussed what human rights are -- not in the same way that the definition of socialism is discussed. It's pretty straightforward, when we talk about human rights, or human rights violations in such and such regime, it's shorthand for the human rights as described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are being violated, etc.


I have no doubt that most people's understanding of "human rights" includes for example the right to food and housing. Which leads to the conclusion that a socialist society is optimal to fulfill human rights.

I doubt that all human rights organizations define "human rights" by that UN definition.

Well I think they do because when they speak of human rights it's shorthand for the human rights as described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

http://www.amnesty.org.au/about/comments/21681/
http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/human-rights-basics

'Human rights' is far far less ambiguous than just 'rights'. Rights can refer to any rights someone thinks you should have; human rights 'without footnote', in my experience, always refer to the human rights from the universal declaration.


Personally I would argue that private property violates human rights. And so would many others.

You can argue all you want, but it's a fact that the right of property is included in the universal declaration of human rights, which is what we are talking about when we say 'human rights' (without footnote or disclaimer explicitly specifying that we are not talking about the human rights of the UDHR, but a different or new concept that seeks to reinvent human rights or something).


Many human right organizations are bullshit. For example "Human Rights Watch" which is an agent of imperialism and bourgeois ideals. Even on right-wing website Wikipedia the list of criticisms about that organization is endless.

So? That is based on your own circular reasoning. I always said human rights are a bourgeois democratic concept so it's no surprise to me they would support... bourgeois democracy and its principles. Not sure if HRW is actually "an agent", Amnesty International certainly isn't.


In such phrase is very much obvious your lack of knowledge in terms of law interpretations. I said that property rights in the declaration gives a great room to interpretations, but obviously you refuse to acknowledge what does it mean. You obviously think that "everyone has the right to own property alone or in association" is about private property and there is no second point to that allowing expropriations. I'm sorry but that shows your ignorance in those terms.

Not really. As explained, it refers to property in general, including private and personal property. To liberals, there is no distinction between the two: it's just people owning things. So if you want to insert that distinction and expropriate private property, you are violating property rights. You can say 'interpretation', but it's not a question of interpreting it so much that a right becomes the opposite of what it says. You do semantic gymnastics to the point where you say that the right to property can mean not having a right to property.


But the Universal Declaration of Human Rights isn't only one. The actual international law is the European Convention on Human Rights. There is no property law at all in original text from 1950.

The UDHR is what defines human rights. All others are based from this document and are reaffirmations of it; and it's become part of international law. Also, the European Convention on Human Rights is not international law because it applies to Europe.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

The closest pre-Marxian declaration of rights I think I can get behind is The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1793. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_Citizen_of_17 93)

But again, it's still very much seated in the concepts of 'natural rights' and bourgeois property. That's pretty much the reason the French Revolution was doomed to fail: It was a petite-bourgeois revolution with 'egalitarian' leanings. As long as private property exists, true egalitarianism is impossible.

[Magneto]

I am not really asking about property rights, since in a Marxist society, private property would not exist.

What I am asking about is more personal freedoms. For example, if the majority of society does not like the way I dress, would it be justifiable to force me to conform because it is what is in the good of the collective? Or would my individual right to dress as I please trump that?

If one were to take a position of total collectivism and reject the concept that individual rights exist, I think that would lead to justifying things like forced labor, enforcement of popular morality, and eugenics. To me, this sounds more like fascism than Marxism.

[tuwix]

Not really. As explained, it refers to property in general, including private and personal property. To liberals, there is no distinction between the two: it's just people owning things. So if you want to insert that distinction and expropriate private property, you are violating property rights. You can say 'interpretation', but it's not a question of interpreting it so much that a right becomes the opposite of what it says. You do semantic gymnastics to the point where you say that the right to property can mean not having a right to property.



The UDHR is what defines human rights. All others are based from this document and are reaffirmations of it; and it's become part of international law. Also, the European Convention on Human Rights is not international law because it applies to Europe.

This discussion is pointless due to your lack of knowledge in terms of law and especially of its interpretations. Your statement "the European Convention on Human Rights is not international law because it applies to Europe" only proves that. As far, as I know Azerbaijan or Turks and Caicos aren't in Europe, but they recognize the European Convention on Human Rights and they signed it. So it is international law that doesn't include property rights. But as I said, this due to your lack of knowledge the discussion is pointless.

[Tim Cornelis]

This discussion is pointless due to your lack of knowledge in terms of law and especially of its interpretations. Your statement "the European Convention on Human Rights is not international law because it applies to Europe" only proves that. As far, as I know Azerbaijan or Turks and Caicos aren't in Europe, but they recognize the European Convention on Human Rights and they signed it. So it is international law that doesn't include property rights. But as I said, this due to your lack of knowledge the discussion is pointless.

Again, you can't interpret something to the point where it becomes the opposite of what it means. Under no condition can a law guaranteeing the right to property be used to abolish the right to property. You can say I'm ignorant or whatever, but that seems like a red herring.

You literally think that a right that literally says "everyone has the right to own property alone or in association" can somehow be used to deny everyone the right to own property alone or in association. It's ridiculous.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Property rights are part of human rights. Of course, communism will violate human rights. Human rights are a liberal-democratic construct. The word 'liberty' is also associated with political liberalism; freedom should be preferred. Communism is based on the free association of equals, so logically it maximises individual freedom.

This. The obessesion with 'rights' and 'liberty' seems to be with a liberal filter on - the right to accumulate wealth at the expense of others, the liberty / freedom to choose from 20 varieties of sugary Nestle cereal.
We haven't experienced real individual freedom yet, true communism (not 1984 version the 'freedom-lovers' espouse) should provide it.

[bropasaran]

Freedom is the absolute right of every adult man and woman to seek no other sanction for their acts than their own conscience and their own reason, being responsible first to themselves and then to the society which they have voluntarily accepted.

IV. It is not true that the freedom of one man is limited by that of other men. Man is really free to the extent that his freedom, fully acknowledged and mirrored by the free consent of his fellowmen, finds confirmation and expansion in their liberty. Man is truly free only among equally free men; the slavery of even one human being violates humanity and negates the freedom of all.

V. The freedom of each is therefore realizable only in the equality of all. The realization of freedom through equality, in principle and in fact, is justice.

VI. If there is one fundamental principle of human morality, it is freedom. To respect the freedom of your fellowman is duty; to love, help, and serve him is virtue.



Bakunin, Revolutionary Catechism:


https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htm

[RedWorker]

Hmm. Do Amnesty International or other organizations based on the "Universal Declaration" ever really complain about "violations" of private property, though? Most I've seen from them deals with torture, etc.

[Thirsty Crow]

Hmm. Do Amnesty International or other organizations based on the "Universal Declaration" ever really complain about "violations" of private property, though? Most I've seen from them deals with torture, etc.
Why would they when executive and repressive state apparatuses, as well as the judiciary is quite swift to act on it.

[The Jay]

Hmm. Do Amnesty International or other organizations based on the "Universal Declaration" ever really complain about "violations" of private property, though? Most I've seen from them deals with torture, etc.

As linksradical said, those rights are the first to be protected anyway.

[Tim Cornelis]

Hmm. Do Amnesty International or other organizations based on the "Universal Declaration" ever really complain about "violations" of private property, though? Most I've seen from them deals with torture, etc.

Yes, but usually in concert with other violations. I think they spoke out against the land acquisitions in Syria as component of the Arabization campaign; and the fast track land reform in Zimbabwe. But like I said, usually in concert with other human right's violations, including banning of language and culture in Syria, etc.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What I am asking about is more personal freedoms. For example, if the majority of society does not like the way I dress, would it be justifiable to force me to conform because it is what is in the good of the collective? Or would my individual right to dress as I please trump that?

If one were to take a position of total collectivism and reject the concept that individual rights exist, I think that would lead to justifying things like forced labor, enforcement of popular morality, and eugenics. To me, this sounds more like fascism than Marxism.

No, class societies need conformity because that is part of how they discipline people.

What is the function of uniforms historically... To broadcast your position in society. As someone who has spent over 15 years wearing uniforms mandated by companies along with hygiene and attitude dictates by bosses... I really find this argument about personal freedoms being curtailed by revolution bizzare.

It is only through the elimination of power of one over another that we can achieve abstract individual freedom. So a mutual, collective society would be one where if someone tells you that your shirt is ugly, you could take their opinion or leave it and tell them to fuck off*. Of course peer pressure or custom would still have a general sort of influence, but humans learn through others and so some of that is just part of humanity (so if you wear a hat made from shit or a rotting fish... Probably people are going to tell you to not wear that).



* on the public street today, outside of work or school or formal settings, of course in many places there is little formal regulation of freedom to dress or whatever. But the larger social inequalities still inform the kind of peer pressure people feel to conform. The way someone dresses still informs others of their status or identity. Eliminating class, gets rid of the status aspect so that the way someone presents themselves is just personal preference or comfort, not their relative privilege or poverty or general reflation ship to power in society.

[Jimmie Higgins]

And again on the collectivism leading to eugenics and forced labor... So if community is based on shared power or no one having power over another... How if force labor forced if it's mutual? What community is collectively deciding against the wishes of the individuals in the collective?

The only power people would have over others in a non class society is the power to exclude someone from a community or for individuals to persuade through argument or cajoling... Aww come-on.


As yourself, where does power actually come from in our society? IMO power is in two main things, the power over the things that people need in order to survive and secondly, the power of force which depends ultimately on the first source of power. With either kinds of power, people can force others to do things. We aim to eliminate theses imbalances of power.