The Deprogram

1881 readers

70 users here now

"As revolutionaries, we don't have the right to say that we're tired of explaining. We must never stop explaining. We also know that when the people understand, they cannot but follow us. In any case, we, the people, have no enemies when it comes to peoples. Our only enemies are the imperialist regimes and organizations." Thomas Sankara, 1985

International Anti-Capitalist podcast run by an American, a Slav and an Arab.

Rules:

No capitalist apologia / anti-communism.
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
Be respectful. This is a safe space where all comrades should feel welcome; this includes a warning against uncritical sectarianism.
No porn or sexually explicit content (even if marked NSFW).
No right-deviationists (patsocs, nazbols, Strasserists, Duginists, etc).
Use c/mutual_aid for mutual aid requests.

Resources:

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

airbusairnet@lemmygrad.ml

Ancient_Egg_57@lemmygrad.ml

What is the Marxist-Leninist perspective/position on Human Rights? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 1 week ago by exeortegarubio@lemmygrad.ml to c/thedeprogram@lemmygrad.ml

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hello, dear comrades.

This is something I've been thinking a lot recently. Since I am Chilean, I am well aware of the violations of Human Rights ordered and carried out by Pinochet and his minions during his narcodictatorship. The so-called opposition to Pinochet that encompased social democrats, opportunists (such as the vile Christian Democratic Party, the organisation that received the most funding from the CIA), and many revisionist organisations essentially took the chance to use Human Rights as a tool to gain political and electoral support.

It is this very revisionist 'left' that is also the first to condemn and dennounce AES because they aim to apply the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. For example, former president Michelle Bachelet, who was allegedly imprisoned, tortured, and exiled during Pinochet's dictatorship, followed the Western psyop about the Uyghur people in Xinjiang by stating that the People's Republic of China was responsible for 'high violations of human rights' when she was the UN High Commissioner. Ironic, given that she violated the Mapuche people's Human Rights during her first presidency.

From what I've seen, what is understood as Human Rights in the zeitgeist is quite 'liberal'. I certainly do not remember mentions of liberation of nor power to the working class or any other concepts related to Marxist theory and practice. Moreover, organisations such as Human Rights Watch are the first to condemn and influence the public opinion on Cuba, the People's Republic of China, the DPRK, etc. even when they are in a constant struggle to protect and help the working class and its many peoples.

Finally, the rise of fascism and the far right worldwide and the abuse of terms such as 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom' in general to spew lies, revisionism, anti-science, anti-communism, etc. show us that they have no qualms in also using Human Rights as a tool. However, if history has taught us anything, it's that this kind of scum who trample over them and also use revisionism for their political ends.

So, how are we as Marxist-Leninists supposed to understand Human Rights and tackle the problem of non-Marxists taking advantage of them?

Cheers

top 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Define "human rights". What rights exactly are we talking about, and more importantly for who, and to do what? Does the bourgeoisie have the "human right" to exploit workers? Do hostile agents of foreign powers have the "human right" to destabilize governments?

Or are we talking about the right to food, housing, healthcare, education, etc.? There are very different conceptions of what "human rights" are, depending on who you ask.

[–] Comprehensive49@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Agree. The West seems to define human rights as "the complete freedom of people to do whatever they want (barring outright torture/murder except in cases where the people murdered are anti-imperialists)". Most importantly, this includes the right to sell off the country to Western capitalists. However, if people are starving and dying because of a lack of social services and infrastructure, that's not a problem of human rights. According to the West, that's just natural law.

The Soviet Union abstained from signing into law the UN Declaration on Human Rights explicitly because its negative rights of political and economic freedom directly opposes the construction of socialism, which requires opposing the economic and political power of the bourgeoisie. The West is perfectly happy to say that they support economic and political rights for all because in practice the bourgeoisie dominates due to their existing wealth.

[–] Ronin_5@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 1 week ago

Rights should be enforced up to the point where they encroach on the rights of others.

For example, the east turkistan independence movement calls for an ethnostate catering to Uyghurs, similar to Israel and Jews.

The East Turkestan independence movement is a political movement that seeks the independence of East Turkestan, a large and sparsely populated region in northwest China, as a nation state for the Uyghur people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Turkestan_independence_movement

Such a movement would put the rights and privileges of Uyghurs above any other minorities that live in the area.

This applies to private property as well. Private property should only exist up to the point where it encroach on the rights and freedoms of others. That’s to say, it shouldn’t.

You’re absolutely right in that the term human rights is applied in a double standard. It’s a blind spot perpetuated by capitalist realism.

[–] cornishon@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I think this graphic by prof. Roland Boer explains it concisely.

[–] exeortegarubio@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 week ago

Thank you, comrade. Most appreciated.