Marxists who like human rights like them for the same reason everyone else does. They dislike mass murder and suffering. Obviously I'd rather have rights than not have them. No complex ideological explanation is required for the wide-scale popularity of the concept of human rights.
>>1758030>No complex ideological explanation is required for the wide-scale popularity of the concept of human rights.
Between "equal" rights, force decides.
>/leftypol/ be able to parse any marx quote challenge:
Human rights are simply an expression for how serviceable the population is for the requirements of capital, dumbshit.
>>1758030>Obviously I'd rather have rights than not have them.
Well there's your problem. You don't have material rights.
If you have "rights" you live at the behest of who granted them
I'd rather have autonomy and self-ownership than rights tbh
You're fucking stupid and not a Marxist. Natural rights are not real. Legal rights are only won through struggle and exist only in relation to the state. These things are not compatible with a materialist conception of the world. More crumbs for the working class is meaningless when for the hundredth and thousandth time the state mows down workers who dare to protest.
at least half of that cant happen because socialism wont have a state LOL
Because Marxism is to an extent the completion of liberalism. Many Marxists would agree that liberal institutions such as international law and human rights are good ideas (democracy is a separate subject not exclusive to liberalism) but don't go to a far enough extent and are held hostage by capital due to an insufficient amount of force behind them. >>1758030
is correct. Most people would rather enjoy a set of rights (that could be actually backed by something under socialism) rather than living in Judge Dredd or an ML LARP of a state that had to fight against the political baggage of Tsarist Russia and died partially due to its failure to democratize. Legal guarantees are useful if only as a tool of mass consciousness and an ideal to strive towards. You can kiss your Stalin picture all you want, the people will demand human rights
>>1758334>it explicitly does
Not in real life tho. Most socialist states don't exist anymore or move away from socialism.forgot what Marx said about socialism being irreversible
>>1758353>Not in real life tho. Most socialist states don't exist anymore or move away from socialism.
Wrong. China is Communist and China has a state. The PRC has only been stepping towards socialism since its inception.
democracy isn't categorically desirable, especially not in places where huge swaths of the population harbors reactionary beliefs. like the US>>1758030
I don't dislike mass murder and suffering. I just want them to happen to the right people. Mainly porkies and reactionaries.
>>1758334>implying the transition period is socialism>implying the proletarian dictatorship is socialism
Damn leninhat I didn't know you became an ultra. So the USSR is state capitalist now got it.
Can you please post the source of this?
Didn't Marx also say that "communism is the secret of liberalism/modernity"?
I have trouble finding the exact quote, I think it was in the 18th Brumaire?
Still going on about this? You’re the same poster writing the same thing again in every single thread, doesn’t that get boring?
Okay, so after reading capital i thought a possible interpretation of his critique was a sublation of the means of exchange which still retained commodity production (where commodities to marx are a transhistorical phenomenon).
Capital emerges from the circulation of commodities by the money-form, which converts C-M-C to M-C-M, but if we get rid of money by replacing it with labour vouchers then we still retain commodity production with a new means of exchange, thus M-C-M reverts back to C-M-C as a negation of the negation.
But is marx saying that exchange itself is imminent with capital? And that to end history properly one must abolish exchange itself and so also commodities? Is central planning the only communist vision?
“Marxists” who soyface over the idea of human rights are limp wristed idealists who have no concept of how politics work. In reality “rights” are a complete fiction, what does exist are duties assigned by the state and privileges received from performing said duties, nothing more and nothing less
>>1758475>But is marx saying that exchange itself is imminent with capital?
Exchange exemplifies transformation between the various stages of metamorphosis of capital.>And that to end history properly one must abolish exchange itself and so also commodities?
Never stated this >Is central planning the only communist vision?
Never stated this
Marx in the OP is criticising the french socialists for imagining that exchange can be a tool for freedom. If theres no exchange then production is centrally planned. He's criticising exhange-value, where exchange-value is one of the 2 aspects of a commodity (the other is use-value).
I'll read the whole context later but thats what ive picked up so far.
why are you even bringing up central planning which is decidedly not communist
>>1758325>You can kiss your Stalin picture all you want, the people will demand human rights<if you dont like this you must like the complete opposite strawman i made up
incredibly fucking retarded
You know, it'd be pretty easy to shoot a big muscular guy.
Like a chad wouldn't be hard to miss
>>1758361>I don't dislike mass murder and suffering. I just want them to happen to the right people.
This is why you're never going to have a revolution
You cant have socialism without democracy. Its the only form of rulership that is collectivist and antidemocracy faggots need to be considered class enemies that should end up in mass graves.
>Why do marxists keep upholding values like "democracy" or "human right", treating socialism as an extension of liberalism?
I see people say this all the time, but I wonder exactly what kind of society they want to create? It's one thing to say that human rights and even the integrity of formal democratic institutions will have to be compromised in revolutionary situation. Sure, shoot reactionaries, send them to labour camps, root them out of society, crack down on obstructionist factionalism, purge idealists and adventurists, consolidate the revolution at all costs. There's no value to remaining morally and ideologically pure if it results in defeat. But these are means, not ends. I don't understand the logic of rejecting human rights and proletarian democracy even as long term goals of a socialist society, especially since no AES state ever did this.
Because socialism means the development of productive forces and the perfection of a system of independent and equal nation-states. The desires and vagaries of individual workers are nothing relative to these higher goals.
There are those (reactionaries and ultraleftists) who seek to impede these goals, using moralistic and idealistic arguments about what is "right" or "important". They must be dealt with in the harshest possible manner lest their schemings destroy socialism where it is established.
Because Marxists share the same basic Enlightenment ideals. Social conservatism, liberalism, and leftist thought are all based on a liberal philosophy (the social philosophy not the political tendency). For leftists, the Enlightenment and the French revolution were simply a stage of human progress advanced by the bourgeoisie, but the radical liberals simply didn't go far enough. i.e. the Enlightenment was good, the bourgeoisie just didn't implement it. This is why Marxists are total shills for maximum individual freedom, abolition of religion, destruction of traditional ways of life, sexual experimentation, avant-garde nonsense, maximization of industry and technology. Equality and helping the poor isn't their real aim. The working class are just a means to an end: the ultimate realization of the Enlightenment utopia. The ultimate irony of Marxists is they seek the embourgeoisement of everyone.
This is also why Marxism historically failed. Marxists just adapted existing bourgeois institutions instead of inventing new ones. In a sense, Marxists behave like conservatives constantly sticking to their own tradition without actually changing things in a deep structural way. The French revolution created whole new legal and governmental structures that didn't exist before, all the Soviets did was come and stick "people" and "socialist" on these things and so the degenerate slide back to political liberalism was inevitable. >>1758030
Its not as if there's a black and white choice between human rights and mass murder. Its not as if human societies need fanatic Enlightenment idealism. People have always found interesting ways of solving their problems and living together outside Enlightenment liberal approaches. Sometimes bad, sometimes good.
did you forget classes are supposed to be abolished
>>1758758>socialism is when developmentalist bourgeois nation-states
well for starters communism wont happen when workers decide to follow whichever one of the thousands of irrelevant useless leftoid sect theres out there nor by students waving flags appealing to bourgeois constitutionalism and democracy but by a revolution of the international workers>>1758780
communism is not the realization of any ideal or vision
None of this means that they're going to listen to a guy screaming about how ethics are bourgeois idealism and we should all have boners for murder
no, but it means your analysis wont be dogshit
>we should all have boners for murder
nobody has said this itt
Did you forget about the dictatorship of the proletariat class? Then again you didnt even know about it /pol/ shill.
This but unironically.
the dotp isnt socialism dumbshit
>>1758758>Because socialism means the development of productive forces and the perfection of a system of independent and equal nation-states.
Again, "development of productive forces" is a means to an end, that end being the elimination of human misery and the liberation of mankind's self-creative energies. To treat the expansion of capital as an end in itself is what capitalism does, and it's the source of its worst crimes. >>1758778>The category "human" is an obfuscatory one.
You're just pointing out that conceptions of rights have a class character, which is obvious. That doesn't make their realization undesirable as an end though, provided that they are oriented towards the working class and its liberation. >It obfuscates the line between productive proletarians and peasants vs. unproductive hired workers like office management.
Does your definition of "productive proletarian" refer to the production of physical goods or the production of surplus value? Because Marx definted proletarians according to the latter.
I've never seen a real rejection of human rights as a notion that wasn't a pathetic attempt to promote mass murder and collective punishment and summary execution as rational political action
i dont care about what youve seen or havent seen lol, youre just doing that "without religion wed all be murdering each other" christcuck shit but applied to liberalism
ruthless criticism of all that exists except for liberal ideas that mystify the workings of the capitalist mode of production. i am a serious marxist!
socialism is also the abolition of welfare as we know it and 'equity/social justice' are idealist notions with no real basis, they are mystifications created by bourgeois ideology
who is advocating for killing anybody? can you write a single sentence without strawmanning? are you four years old? coercion, ie, social change will be foisted upon society with force, thats all. nobody advocates shooting anyone purposely for their job, be it you or even a banker or industrialist. its something youve constructed entirely inside your head, communism is about the abolition of class relations and not physically annihilating the rich
>>1758938>'equity/social justice' are idealist notions with no real basis, they are mystifications created by bourgeois ideology
Okay, you can point out that civil and human rights as they are typically conceived of in capitalist societies are bourgeois in character. I don't disagree, but you have to replace them with a set of proletarian rights compatible with socialism. Obviously not because they are "natural rights" or any such idealism, but because without establishing a set of interests which are guaranteed by the state then you can't actually entrench that state's class character. The existence of bourgeois rights and their protection by bourgeois states is a major part of what gives bourgeois states their class character. Proletarian states would need to (and did) adopt a socialist equivalent to guarantee the predominance of proletarian interests. Human/civil rights regimes exist as a core part of a state's superstructure, and to simply neglect them is to neglect one of the core functions of a state, i.e. ensure the dominance of one class over another. If you want a dictatorship of the proletariat then you need a proletarian conception of human and civil rights.
Anon, when somebody plays the edgelord by going>I actually think mass suffering and death is good when it happens to people when I don't like
do you really think people are going to read that charitably
>>1758948>you have to replace them with a set of proletarian rights>a set of interests which are guaranteed by the state
you want something exclusive to liberalism to exist under socialism because you believe socialism will have everything capitalism does but with a coat of red paint, incredible
>one of the core functions of a state, i.e. ensure the dominance of one class over another
how do you fucking type this and then talk about "socialist states". whatever happened to abolishing class division?
>If you want a dictatorship of the proletariat then you need a proletarian conception of human and civil rights.
are we talking about a dotp or socialism now? either way youre actually braindead. also only the dotp needs a programme, not socialism
can you point which posts are doing that that arent unfunny fucks regurgitating tired memes
>>1758955>you want something exclusive to liberalism
It's not exclusive to liberalism. The Soviet constitution included numerous rights guarantees including plenty you would probably dismiss as "bourgeois" if they appeared in a liberal constitution, including freedom of speech, worship, and assembly. Not only that, but civil rights in various forms long predate capitalism and liberalism and existed in antiquity. >whatever happened to abolishing class division?
The abolition of classes is preceded by the dictatorship of the proletariat, wherein the workers are the ruling class and dominate the bourgeoisie.>are we talking about a dotp or socialism now?
Both, the DotP needs a proletarian conception of human and civil rights. The higher stage of socialism wherein class relations are abolished needs a truly universal one. If anything its only under communism that human rights free of class character can exist, so I fail to see the point in denouncing the concept.
>>1758959>stageist conception of socialism
yup youre stupid and not worth talking to lol. communism = socialism. the ussr never went beyond being a dotp for a few years either
That's exactly what they are
That's semantics, Marx spoke of higher and lower stages of socialism, and Lenin simply renamed these as communism and socialism respectively. Conceptually speaking the distinction is the same as that drawn by Marx. However it's a moot point since what I'm saying is applicable to the dictatorship of the proletariat as well.
maybe because thats exactly what he is saying in the quote you screenshotted. hes critiquing the ability of free trade to fulfill the ideals of liberty not liberty itself. its the same as his original critique of hegel.
oh lord not the people being hit with an explicit marx quote and saying "thats not what he meant"
The lower stage of communism is not the DotP. It too is classless and moneyless, which is exactly why it's communism
. Marx explicitly says in the Gothakritik that the lower stage does not have exchange and that labor is 'directly social', meaning that there is no production of value. (Engels states clearly in the 'Socialism' section of Anti-Duhring that directly social labor precludes production of commodities and hence values).
>>1758969>not the people being hit with an explicit marx quote and saying "thats not what he meant"
I didn't say that, I said that the "stageist" conception of socialism preceding communism is conceptually identical to Marx's distinction between the lower and higher stages of socialism. Hence insisting that there is no distinction between socialism and communism but acknowledging the distinction between the lower and higher stage of socialism is a semantic argument. You aren't disputing the concepts, you're simply taking issue with what I'm calling them.
>>1758972>The lower stage of communism is not the DotP.
Okay whatever. The DotP is a necessary component of socialist construction, and it requires the entrenchment of a proletarian concept of human and civil rights. Hence it makes no sense to simply attack the concept of human and civil rights in their bourgeois form without offering a proletarian alternative.
Marx and Engels talked at length on how a moral condemnation of the structuring of society along such abstract lines of 'liberty', 'freedom', etc is a dead-end and does not lead to an actual understanding of how society is constituted, of social relations and their interactions.
Marx had no illusion about democracy and wanted a bloody revolution followed by a political terror and the establishment of condition that would make communism possible.
It's not "the democracy of the proletarian".
>>1758980>wanted a bloody revolution followed by a political terror
uh no, he said it was inevitable
Engels says in "Principles of Communism" that communists would welcome a peaceful revolution, but they don't think its possible. Besides, acknowledging the necessity of revolution and political terror is not a rejection of democracy, certainly not of proletarian democracy.
Freedom is a pretty vague and abstract thing so wasn't really the concern of Marx beyond a few mentions. The term freedom generally endears a static un-analytical view of society; many people in western society today views themselves as free, and Marx would probably see that as a problem that the very notion of freedom and it's utilization has helped created. Marxism isn't liberalism and shouldn't care about freedom as it does.
>>1758991>Freedom is a pretty vague and abstract thing so wasn't really the concern of Marx beyond a few mentions.
Marx was above all else an analyst rather than a moral philosopher. He was interested most in understanding capitalist society and its contradictions, so this isn't surprising. >The term freedom generally endears a static un-analytical view of society
Only if people take it at face value as it is presented in bourgeois notions. This doesn't mean it isn't worth re-conceptualizing it in proletarian terms, the process of which will necessarily require critical analysis of flawed bourgeois conceptions of freedom. >Marxism isn't liberalism and shouldn't care about freedom as it does.
I don't see how that follows. Marxists have pretty much always deployed terms like "emancipation" and "liberation" in reference to what communism will do for workers, and eventually everybody. I would say that certain concepts of freedom are implicit in Marxist critiques of capitalism and socialism as a solution.
Well, we didn't had that at the time. He was referring to the French revolution terror, when everyone deemed an enemy of the revolution -often for the wrong reasons- was killed in public.
he advocated for free trade the same way he advocated for free speech and freedom of the press, youre upholding these as asocial ahistorical universal truths just like liberals
>>1759001>when everyone deemed an enemy of the revolution -often for the wrong reasons
Sounds a lot like what happened with Stalin. Honestly it would truly be difficult to match his brutality against fellow communists.
his critique was against the core of liberalism which is that free enterprise facilitates liberty. that has nothing to do with advocating or not for free trade. >>1758979
it has nothing to do with morals its about how the division of labor makes freedom possible but bourgeois right doesn't go far enough.
The French Revolution’s terror was way more nuanced than that. At one point during Year 2, it even served to break up the property of large manufactory holders as the Robespierriest government courted support of the Parisian Jacobins as it quarreled with members of the CPS.
Couthon, when on mission, famously ordered churches to be demolished so the poor could use them as building materials.
Herbert declared the new French Republic was that of the poor versus the wealthy. This is one of the main reasons his faction was destroyed.
Robespierre imagined a society composed of “small-producers” where the laborer would be held as virtuous.
Saint-Just at the same time was planning how new ministries would look post-war. Including universal ideological education, we’d later see developed further in the Soviet Union.
Terror was and is a transformational process. The destruction of living enemies is the most vulgar outcome of it. Terror is the imposition of a new reality and gives rise to an explosion of human creativity.
The really cool thing about denying human rights is that the decision makers will always agree with me. Right?
so you gonna engage with whats actually being said in the thread or post lame attempt at gotchas devoid of any context like youre on twitter?
Go fuck yourself you genocide supporting donkey lover
What are human rights? Where are they?
Something anybody who has a Democrat flair has absolutely no business talking about since they're all for murdering every last Palestinian
No, Christians believe that if you don't believe in and fear God you will rape and murder
I simply believe that if you have no real personal qualms about rape and murder and openly polemicize against people that do, you're probably willing to commit the act, since you all but directly advocate it (not in literal terms, this is just an example
Unlike the notion that what halts evil is the fear of God, human rights are mostly very explicit and legally outlined by international bodies. The problem isn't mechanisms and notions against incurring suffering onto people, the actual problem is, like with notions of autonomy, secularism, rationalism, and other things capitalist ideologues champion, capitalism materially prevents what it espouses and largely drives mankind back to the mud of bygone eras again and again, only really accomplishing deterritorialization (for lack of a better term) and automation of the productive process
What is the point? If the guys with the guns will always agree with me, as everyone who ridicules the idea of human rights believes, what's there to discuss? The people's justice is always correct and anyone who gets shot deserves it
That's true of every system under the sun - except for the ones half the folks in this thread write fanfic about
>>1759248>thread explicitly and constantly reminding you that its an attack on so-called asocial ahistorical universal truths<repeat everyone you disagree with has no real personal qualms about rape and murder ad nauseam
yeah youre a real fucking idiot arent you. try to rub some neurons together some time
The whole point is that there is no absolute, pure, 'true' etc. democracy. You are asserting the *ideal* of democracy against the real results of democratic rule under capitalism - namely, the supremacy of the bourgeoisie.
When we see that democracy has led to the rule of the bourgeoisie, the answer is not to appeal to some fictitious 'real democracy', but to recognize that democracy itself is just an organizational mechanism, whose content is provided by relations external to it.
Marx makes this point himself in the Conspectus. 'Democracy' does not necessarily imply the rule of any particular class - everything depends upon the conditions within which democracy exists and operates.
Unique IPs: 31