Capitalism - a fundamental human right?

[alooo]

Lately I have been reading a bit around. Some of it about the internationally known Rafto Foundation. Internationally known persons like Aung San Suu Kyi and Kim Dae-jung have received their prices.

I didn't think much over this foundation before the improper action of giving the price to the saboteur Thich Quang Do from Vietnam. After a while I found out the true reason why he got this price:

Founded in the humanistic tradition of the Helsinki Accord, the aim of the Rafto Foundation is the promotion of the fundamental human rights of intellectual and political freedom and free enterprise. Established in 1986, in fond memory of Professor Thorolf Rafto, it acknowledges the need to carry on his lifelong struggle for the oppressed and persecuted in this world.
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_enterprise):

Free enterprise system or Free enterprise economy --another term for capitalism.
And according to Cambridge Dictionary of American English (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=free*1+0&dict=A):

Free enterprise is an economic system in which private businesses compete with each other to sell goods and services in order to make a profit.
This comes to my question: What is human rights? Is this just a bourgeois term for capitalism, or how can this well known and well trusted organisation get away with this?

[BobKKKindle$]

The entire concept of a 'right' and why certain abilities including the ownership of property should be classified as 'rights' is a very interesting topic. Fundamentally, especially when we are concerned with 'rights' relating to the economic relations and structure of capitalism, 'rights', in addition to other types of values and ideas such as ethics, form part of the superstructure of the existing mode of production - Capitalism. They do not 'exist' insofar as they have no logical and objective philisophical basis.

This is not something that is restricted to capitalism. It's important to note that throughout history the ruling class has always tried to justify their position and the existing system by suggesting it is somehow 'normal' or through basing their arguments on metaphysical and unsubstantiated ideas such as 'natural law' - a comparable example is the concept of the 'divine right of kings' which was used to support the feudal mode of production. All 'rights' in this respect, especially economic 'rights' simply reflect the interests of the ruling class.

[Tatarin]

Then, shouldn't community-based places, like small countries, be able to live without money and without leaders? Why are these not human rights?

You certainly will not see "human rights" in countries refusing to submit to the global market...

[Lark]

Considering free enterprise as synonymous with capitalism is just wrong I think, I like to think of it in a broader sense, the way that the poem disiderata talks about business and means it in the wider sense than simply buying and selling, sort of your affairs.

There are great resources and commentaries online by the uncapitalists, un as opposed to anti, like mutualists, market socialists and that sort of thing.

Though I'm a pluralist socialist, I believe in a very rich variety of economic forms, mutuals, co-ops, non-governmental and central plan, consumers and workers councils etc. etc. altogether, which would be flexible and capable of reinvention, innovation and evolution in the way that capitalism has been.

Plus I dont mind if people on some street corner engage in a bit of capitalism between conscenting adults after socialism has become the economic norm, it would have as much of an implication of the general population as either fuedal reinactment societies or retreatist religious orders or cults at present.

The guarding of these rights maybe has something to do with capitalist thinkers concerns that spontaneous capitalism shouldnt be hindered, well, fair enough but without Capone stylings or government I dont see it surviving very long.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:50 pm
Then, shouldn't community-based places, like small countries, be able to live without money and without leaders? Why are these not human rights?

You certainly will not see "human rights" in countries refusing to submit to the global market...
The "human rights" as we know are not universal as certain leaders like them to be, they are very much based on Western capitalism and individualism.

We definately need to redefine the human rights and not use this bourgeoise set of rules they use to keep their hands "clean".

[Lark]

Originally posted by Avtomat_Icaro+May 28, 2007 05:25 pm--> (Avtomat_Icaro @ May 28, 2007 05:25 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 01:50 pm
Then, shouldn't community-based places, like small countries, be able to live without money and without leaders? Why are these not human rights?

You certainly will not see "human rights" in countries refusing to submit to the global market...
The "human rights" as we know are not universal as certain leaders like them to be, they are very much based on Western capitalism and individualism.

We definately need to redefine the human rights and not use this bourgeoise set of rules they use to keep their hands "clean". [/b]
You think so?

I work for the social services and the human rights act, european convention on human rights etc. is a great piece of legislation I reckon, although there are gaps between understanding and interpretation and stuff like that, what I mean is I dont think that its a compromise legislation which protects entrenched interests, the banks or businesses.

However rights is one of those issues, when it just translates into laws then it could just be bad laws heaped on an already shakey set of good and bad law which will only be a money spinner for law firms.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

It doesnt take away the fact that these so called "universal" human rights are far from universal. If capitalism is a fundamental human right we definately need to look at them again and change them!

[Lark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 05:40 pm
It doesnt take away the fact that these so called "universal" human rights are far from universal. If capitalism is a fundamental human right we definately need to look at them again and change them!
How do you mean?

I think the idea of universal human rights is a great achievement, that people irrespective of class or status have the same negative and positive rights, that's a huge change.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Originally posted by Lark+May 28, 2007 05:45 pm--> (Lark @ May 28, 2007 05:45 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 05:40 pm
It doesnt take away the fact that these so called "universal" human rights are far from universal. If capitalism is a fundamental human right we definately need to look at them again and change them!
How do you mean?

I think the idea of universal human rights is a great achievement, that people irrespective of class or status have the same negative and positive rights, that's a huge change. [/b]
The rights are not universal, they are oriented towards the Western individualsist capitalist. Many cultures are less individualistic.

It would be a great achievement if they were universal, but they are not, but we like to pretend they are and shove them down everybody's troat proclaiming they are universal.

[Lark]

I believe fundamentally in universal human rights, any amount of anti-socialist and pre-modern nonsense has been trying to survive under the cover of multi-culturalism and I dont care a damn for that really, not a bit of it.

I dont understand what you mean by individualistic or socialistic per se, I'm a very big fan of both individualism and socialism and do not see them as diametrically opposed to one another, I'm interested in socialism because if considers the alternatives to capitalism which could yet self-destruct and all the good that capitalism has brought about about be lost.

A lot of societies and cultures which suggest they are socialistic are actually authoritarian, controlling or imposing, that's not what I want, I dont think its what anyone who's really thought about it wants either.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

I believe fundamentally in universal human rights, any amount of anti-socialist and pre-modern nonsense has been trying to survive under the cover of multi-culturalism and I dont care a damn for that really, not a bit of it.
So you support cultural imperialism. The rights we have no are hardly universal, in those rights stuff like "free elections" or "free press" (insulting as it might be, such as the Mohammed cartoons) are more important than everybody having access to healthcare, food and education. Are those universal rights?

These universal human rights have toned down the definition of genocide to such a level that the permanent members of the security council were out in the clean of those crimes.

Universal human rights are fun, but we simply have too much cultural diversity to have a single set of rules, unless you want to perform some shoving down the troat imperialism.

[Lark]

So you support cultural imperialism.

Call it what you want I dont want the Taliban in my back yard.


The rights we have no hardly universal, in those rights stuff like "free elections" or "free press" (insulting as it might be, such as the Mohammed cartoons) are more important than everybody having access to healthcare, food and education. Are those universal rights?


First of all I dont scoff at free elections or a free press, I'm prepared to die for those things and I dont think that secular world reacted with enough of a serious rebuke to the terroristic reaction of muslims to the innoctious cartoons in a French newspaper.

I dont believe that health care, food or education trump those basic freedoms, do you want to be a well feed, well cared for a comforted prisoner? That sounds like the freedom of a domestic cat or dog.

It will depend on whether or not you consider positive or negative freedom to be of paramount importance, negative freedom is being left alone and not being interfered with, no one will starve, keep you in ignorance or ill health, positive freedom is freedom to, which I would say is respected in all western liberal societies too.

The question of whether your freedom to eat, be educated or access health care is a personal responsibility or a social one is another one altogether, to be worked out through political and public processes.

No one is that deprived, in the northern hemisphere at least, of any of those things, the European Convention on Human Rights and Human Rights act in the UK pretty much institutionalised a number of measures guaranteeing they will all be assured as a right.


These universal human rights have toned down the definition of genocide to such a level that the permanent members of the security council were out in the clean of those crimes.


I dont really believe that the permanent members of the security council engage in deliberate acts of genocide that much, unless Serbia and Rwanda are now members.


Universal human rights are fun, but we simply have too much cultural diversity to have a single set of rules, unless you want to perform some shoving down the troat imperialism.


What? Are we into respecting the cultural rights of the KKK or pedophile communities now? Should we worry that permitting abortion or inter-racial marriage or enforcing child protection measures we're engaging in cultural imperialism? Really?

I mean define your terms and do a proper critique, what is it exactly in universal human rights or universality which is wrong, there are some things which it is really safe to generalise on if you ask me.

[Anarchovampire]

The main problem with capitalism is that it is fundamentally contriticting itself. The entire freedom in capitalism does not come from the freedom to buy or sell what you wish, because honestly that isn't really ended by either communism or socialism (and defintially not by anarchism). Instead it is the freedom to manipulate those around you and money to move up and down the social hierarchy.

In simple words, it is the freedom to create tyranny through the manipulation of money. So 'free enterprise' isn't about human rights, it is about the rich justifing the control they wield through money. Capitalism isn't a human right, because it applies to so few people in the world. Too many people can hardly afford to feed their kids and themselves to ever have the money to invest it or start a business.

I apologise if this has already be made clear.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Call it what you want I dont want the Taliban in my back yard.

Same as that the people in Afghanistan dont want to become a US satellite state...


First of all I dont scoff at free elections or a free press, I'm prepared to die for those things and I dont think that secular world reacted with enough of a serious rebuke to the terroristic reaction of muslims to the innoctious cartoons in a French newspaper.

I think free elections where you can pick between two identical candidates are irrelevant when you are starving...as for the reaction to those cartoons. I wonder if French newspapers would have posted it everywhere if somebody proclaimed the fundamentals of the French state are terrorist. The cartoons simply said Mohammed was a terrorist, should freedom of speech also be the freedom to offend and discriminate?


I dont believe that health care, food or education trump those basic freedoms, do you want to be a well feed, well cared for a comforted prisoner? That sounds like the freedom of a domestic cat or dog.

Ah its totally acceptable that more than 60% of the worlds population are living in poverty and that in many countries children die simply because their parents arent rich enough to get decent drinking water or a doctor or even food! But hey, at least they can vote for who can rip them off for the next 4 or 5 years right!


No one is that deprived, in the northern hemisphere at least, of any of those things, the European Convention on Human Rights and Human Rights act in the UK pretty much institutionalised a number of measures guaranteeing they will all be assured as a right.
The West remains that prosperous due to the exploitation of the Third World...simple as that!


I dont really believe that the permanent members of the security council engage in deliberate acts of genocide that much, unless Serbia and Rwanda are now members.
Raphael Lemkin worked on a definition of genocide, after the WWII the permanent members of the security council werent that happy with that definition so they altered it to their needs. Resulting in many crimed which were commited by them to be allowed since they arent "genocide".


What? Are we into respecting the cultural rights of the KKK or pedophile communities now? Should we worry that permitting abortion or inter-racial marriage or enforcing child protection measures we're engaging in cultural imperialism? Really?
No we shouldnt, but with your concept of freedom you mentioned earlier you would tolerate KKK and pedophile communities. However simply ramming your ideals down everybody's troat will not work. Changes need to be made without you shoving your morality down everybody's troat.


I mean define your terms and do a proper critique, what is it exactly in universal human rights or universality which is wrong, there are some things which it is really safe to generalise on if you ask me.

Well, good luck with that in a diverse world we are living in, unless you want everybody to become capitalist Westerners like the imperialists want I doubt you would come up with that much.

[norwegian commie]

I could just as easily claim that communism is a basic human right. Having the opportunity to be what you want, and not get exploited by the capitalists.

[Coggeh]

Capitalism is merely the right for the poor to starve in the gutter and the rich to keep them there

Nice sayings aside ,communism doesn't stop people from pursueing their goals .. it makes it easier for people to do so , without the worry of paying the rent putting food on the table and clothes on your kids back . It makes university a right and not a privilege.. health a right ... housing a right . What good is trying to make more profit if all necessities are free as long as you work for the good of society .

[Janus]

What is human rights?
Human rights and animal rights (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58284&hl=right*)
on the concept of rights (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55788&hl=right*)
Human rights (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51733&hl=right*)

[Soterios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:12 pm
Lately I have been reading a bit around. Some of it about the internationally known Rafto Foundation. Internationally known persons like Aung San Suu Kyi and Kim Dae-jung have received their prices.

I didn't think much over this foundation before the improper action of giving the price to the saboteur Thich Quang Do from Vietnam. After a while I found out the true reason why he got this price:

Founded in the humanistic tradition of the Helsinki Accord, the aim of the Rafto Foundation is the promotion of the fundamental human rights of intellectual and political freedom and free enterprise. Established in 1986, in fond memory of Professor Thorolf Rafto, it acknowledges the need to carry on his lifelong struggle for the oppressed and persecuted in this world.
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_enterprise):

Free enterprise system or Free enterprise economy --another term for capitalism.
And according to Cambridge Dictionary of American English (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=free*1+0&dict=A):

Free enterprise is an economic system in which private businesses compete with each other to sell goods and services in order to make a profit.
This comes to my question: What is human rights? Is this just a bourgeois term for capitalism, or how can this well known and well trusted organisation get away with this?
Quite actually, rights are in the eyes of the beholder, like just about everything else. In out current western, bougoisie society, the ruling class sees "free" enterprise as a basic right, yet this privilege is only given to those in power, or those who are lucky enough to inherit it. the rich view it as a right, and the rich and powerful write the "official" records of history.

[Guerrilla22]

Lets see there&#39;s the right to food, water adequate shelter and of course the right to make a profit by exploiting someone else. <_<

[luxemburg89]

Lets see there&#39;s the right to food, water adequate shelter and of course the right to make a profit by exploiting someone else.


Lol, we should see if we can list the capitalist declaration of inhuman rights.

1. Each person is entitled to be enslaved by the bourgeois system.
2. There is total freedom of speech for those who aren&#39;t different to us

...etc