Enhacing human rights in socialism
17/10/17
The
nineteenth century industrial revolution and the growth of the labour movement
opened the gates to previously marginalised individuals, who challenged the
classical liberal economic conception of social justice. Yet, despite the
important socialist contribution to the human rights discourse, the human
rights legacy of the socialist – and especially the Marxist – tradition is
today widely overlooked or dismissed. Bearing in mind the atrocities committed
by communist regimes in the name of human rights, this article attempts to
correct the historical record, by showing that the struggle for universal
suffrage, social justice and worker's rights – principles endorsed in the major
UN documents of human rights – were shaped by socialist ideals.
Though,
socialism had modified the early human rights discourse. The socialist position
also represented the first historical assertion that all humans, regardless of
wealth, gender, race, or age, were entitled to both political and social
rights. All the achievements included different acts, congresses, movements,
socialist thinking, but especially the introduction of the universal human
rights agenda. Socialism brought a fresh breath into the political
system.
It
were not only the socialists who implemented universal human rights. As
mentioned, liberalism had its share in the development of human rights.
Capitalism, a form of economy introduced by liberalists, opened the doors for
the industrialization after a period of monarchies. Out of this actually came
the working class, so the one is the cause of the other. Secondly the 1848
revolutions had a quite liberal character in many European countries. However,
the socialists have had the biggest share in the development of the universal
human rights agenda in the Industrial Age.
Marxists
have never been hostile to human rights doctrines per se.They have,
however, criticized the fetishism of human rights and denied them unique status
as the sole or central arbiter of morality and social justice. They have
disputed their authority for all times and for all places.
Throughout
the twentieth century, Marxists have couched many radical demands in the
language of rights, from unionization campaigns to national self-determination.
Communists have fought for the right to a fair trial for many victims of
prejudice and injustice. They have been prominent among those who have advanced
the cause of the civil rights of racially and nationally oppressed groups. And
they have fought for their own rights to free association, speech, and the
dissemination of ideas.
Most
significantly, Communists have been decisive in enriching human rights
declarations after the Second World War to include positive rights to
employment, shelter, welfare, and the many other rights that are constitutive
of economic justice. Certainly some New Deal liberals and European social
democrats supported these social rights as well, but the Soviet Union and other
socialist countries advocated for the most robust and complete social rights
while representatives of capitalist countries sought to limit rights
declarations to individual rights protective of actions, space, and property.
Socialist
countries also took the lead in pressing the decolonization process through
international agreement on the right of a nation or people to
self-determination, a right not eagerly welcomed by colonial powers and their
allies.
And
since the end of the Cold War, the US and many of its allies have shed the
pretense of bastions of human rights, a tacit admission of their service to Cold
War goals. The creation of a “big brother” state by the Bush administration and
its further development by the Obama administration in the US underscores
official cynicism about human rights to privacy, speech, and association. And
the quiescence of the major human rights organizations to this development
reeks of hypocrisy. The claimed surveillance of civil society by the so-called
“totalitarians” of the past pale in comparison with the technological means
available to and in actual use by the US national security apparatus.
Socialism has been poisoned
by propaganda and false information.
Socialism
is a system based on the idea that everyone should be taken care of. It is the
very basis of the movement that everyone deserves human rights. Socialists do not
always support the true idea of socialism and become corrupted, that is true.
But the very idea of socialism/communism is built upon the idea that everyone
deserves to be taken care of. And that is different than most any other
political ideology which would focus on supremacy of people based on class,
race, gender etc.
Socialism
just advocates the equal distribution of goods, that's all. If someone tells
you that we can't equally distribute the good otherwise we'll end up being in a
dictatorship, he's either a billionaire or an ignorant. In the past socialism
has always been defamed in a dishonest way by the media, specially in western
countries.
Socialism is a way to insure that
basic needs are equally distributed.
Socialism
upholds basic human rights by insuring that everyone's basic needs are met
through equal distribution of government controlled products. Unlike a
capitalistic society, which focuses much more on what people want to attain,
but don't necessarily need and in that way is a very individualistic, self
preserving concept, a socialistic society keeps the focus on the well being and
benefits of society as a whole by insuring that as many people as possible
receive food, shelter, clothing, and the benefits of government social
programs./.
All comments [ 4 ]
I think socialism is more democratic than other capitalisms in the West, it brings more human rights for people.
Capitalism has more violations of human rights than socialism, but they always cry out that socialism violates human rights or democracy. So ironic!
Vietnam has made many achievements in human rights despite of a developing economy and that shows advantages of socialism.
Even socialism has created definition of true human rights and democracy, not capitalism.
Your comments