What rights?
Results 1 to 16 of 16
Why do communists oppose natural rights?
Why do communists oppose natural rights?
What rights?
Define "natural," rights, exactly, I assume you're talking about the bourgeois "natural," rights cappies go off about.
First of all, communists are diverse and there are plenty who do support some version of natural rights.
For those of us that don't, at least those who think as I do on this philosophical subject, it is because we are materialists. What are natural rights, and where do they come from? Without God or some higher power, where are you getting them?
Historically, different societies have had different conceptions of what, if any, are natural rights. As materialists, we see, that natural rights are actually social rights that derive from the ruling ideology and mode of production. Therefore, we take them as such. They are not "natural," but "social."
That does not mean we oppose rights! On the contrary, in recognizing that they are social, we recognize that the only way to gain them, is through social struggle. Not appeal to some God or other metaphysical source.
Most communist oppose the traditional bourgeois misconception of rights. "Rights", as such, are granted, from the state or from God, communists oppose the idea that these things should be granted by anyone to another or withheld.
That said, many communists, though not all, also oppose things like "freedom of speech" for fascists and other reactionaries.
Put capitalism in a bag of rice.
We support lots of rights - the right to democratically participate in society, the right to be free from sexism and racism, the right to good, safe work - but we don't have any illusions that these rights necessarily exist, and where they do to any extent, they exist as a product of historical struggle, historical struggle we have to continue and expand if we want to enhance and deepen these rights.
I don't support natural rights because I am a natural left.
/pun
It is not hard to guess who'll win a fight between ballots and bullets. - Alexander Berkman
I think this person means natural rights as in the right to private property.
In a socialist society, and not some fake one like in Greece, there would be no private property. Property would be public and open to all.
Why is this a bad thing? IMHO private property is bad as it creates or helps create staggering amounts of inequality. Lower, Middle, and Upper class housing is drastically different.
I think the OP is talking about natural rights in the sense of enlightenment political philosophy (Locke etc.). According to Thomas Jefferson, the principal natural rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Communists (materialists) do not necessarily oppose these rights in themselves, but their characterisation as 'natural'.
As DaringMehring said, the concept of natural right has no sound basis; it was largely the result of the religious thinking of the time. These rights can exist, but their basis is social.
woah woah woah slow down, don't get too radical on us
"It is not incumbent upon you to complete the work, but neither are you at liberty to desist from it" - Pirkei Avot
The longer a drought lasts the more likely it is to continue.
I can't help that I was born radical!
What socialist society in Greece?
I dunno, but that line about Greece being fake made me chuckle...
"oh noes they be takin mah surplus value" -Tim Finnegan
"'The' names reached a peak with The The and hence after were obsolete. " -Angry Young Man
"anyone seen blazin saddles? best fucking movie ever." - Red Spartan
If you mean natural rights like "all people are born with inherent rights to xyz" thankfully we have a way of evaluating whether something like this is true or false. It doesn't matter whether people believe in the idea of "natural rights" or not, just whether the claim is compatible with reality. If we consider any particular right that gets elevated to the status of being "natural" (or inherent) and look at whether in fact everyone has that right or humans are born with it and see that in fact people do not and are not. Hopefully one day the idea of a natural right will be in accordance with human social and material reality but now it's just a goofy idea in the sky or worse, a dangerous ideological poison. In the modern context rights are something granted by the state. The UN also claims to give rights I suppose but I don't think that's true in practice.
"Natural rights" as typically defined are implicitly theological. They're usually articulated in such a way as to deny the TRUE character of legal rights (or more primitively, "custom") - that they're the product of SOCIAL CONSENSUS, even if the "consent" involved in said consensus is only implicit and occurs in complete ignorance (the whole idea of "giving away your power".)
Some variant on "natural rights" is necessary to maintain the privilege of "elites". Were the masses to have a clear awareness of the social character of "rights", they'd be highly disinclined to go along with rules that do not serve their interests.
The privilege of the oligarchy of the present MUST hide behind the alleged "naturalness" of the order they inflict upon society at large.
I bring with myself the idea of Communism, so that you may survive when law is lawless.
"Both nationalism and patriotism are the equivalent of an animal exclaiming how much it loves it's cage." - Octavian
Formerly FightTogether.
