If the blackmail against liberal human rights theory is that supporting it is tantamount to imperialism, then the only logical counterpart is the rejection of human rights. The blackmail in this regard can be most succinctly described as being that if one rejects human rights, one is in effect acting to mask injustice or pardon authoritarianism and repression. The rejection of human rights has been used many a time by those seeking to avoid responsibility for their crimes, but these rejections have almost entirely been entirely pragmatic and based on specific situations instead of any sort of theoretical founding (although, as we will see, one can beget the other). The most comprehensive and theoretically sound rejection of human rights has undoubtably come from the canon of Marxism--with its rejection of capitalism, its emphasis on collectivity and its position that the institution of private property is the foundation for exploitation, alienation and the subsequent distance between “formal rights” and real human security and fulfillment.
Liberal human rights theory is individualist and property centered. To Marx, freedoms in liberal democracies are illusory in that the individual value advocated by the liberal regime is market value, not human dignity. For Marx, the fundamental rights capitalism defends are not universal human rights but rather the rights of capitalists to property and legal structures that follow. The Marxist critic of human rights asserts that the rights and freedoms of bourgeois democracies are but illusions, empty of meaning and purely formal, at most procedural. The working class, lacking economic means, consciousness and intellectuals to enforce its rights, is subject to the principles of equality and legality in theory only, masking de facto inequalities that are the result of the struggle between different social classes.
Marx’s criticism of human rights is premised on the distinction between the political man, which due to a propensity for liberal states to highlight tends to be regarded as “natural” man, and man as a member of civil society:
Man as a member of civil society, unpolitical man, inevitably appears, however, as the natural man. The “rights of man” appears as “natural rights,” because conscious activity is concentrated on the political act [...] The political revolution resolves civil life into its component parts, without revolutionizing these components themselves or subjecting them to criticism. It regards civil society, the world of needs, labor, private interests, civil law, as the basis of its existence, as a precondition not requiring further substantiation and therefore as its natural basis. Finally, man as a member of civil society is held to be man in his sensuous, individual, immediate existence, whereas political man is only abstract, artificial man, man as an allegorical, juridical person. The real man is recognized only in the shape of the egoistic individual, the true man is recognized only in the shape of the abstract citizen.
Thus, Marx’s criticism is a global condemnation of liberal regimes generally and the premise through which they were founded as insufficient and able to see man only as a limited political subject whose “civil” needs are to be tended to privately. For him, the state is concerned about the protection of capitalist interests, while ignoring those of workers, because the state is only concerned with equality in the political sense and not with that of sivil society. Therefore, liberal human rights theory and capitalism,
"recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored."
The Marxist critique is relative, recognizing that as a part of historical development the limited protection of human rights in the capitalist system of production is still higher than the previous feudal stage. However, according to Marx, to achieve the next step forward in civilization, proprietary relations must be suppressed and replaced with real, human relations that take into account the conditions of civil society.
Far from being the means by which freedom is exercised, which is the usual liberal conception, Marxism sees private property as the final mechanism of oppression and a source of separation between men. The resolution of these inequalities would occur, for Marx, via a revolution aimed at the implementation of a temporary dictatorship by the proletariat as a step towards the disappearance of the state and its replacement by society. It would be with this act that the formal and procedural logic of human rights would whither away along with the state. With this transitionary phase and subsequent development, the “narrow horizon of bourgeois right” would be “crossed in its entirety:”
"...after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
Marx’s theory of human rights thus coincided with a theory of economic development and the idea that socialism would bring about not only political emancipation of the working class but also the unfettered growth of economic abundance through a new organization of the relations of production. In most situations where Marxists have taken power, this has not been the case.
While seemingly sound in theory, Marxism's historical sore thumb has been the use of its rejection of human rights as “formal” or “bourgeois” when its advocates have been in positions of power. The rejection of human rights as an illusory product of private property relations and the capitalist system has led to situations in which the repression of human beings has been excused in the name of “means to an end.” At the level of practice, a valid liberal criticism of Marxism is that the proletarian dictatorship, which in theory had been intended only to be a temporary transitory phase, were ossified and institutionalized.
As the Russian Revolution was arguably the high water mark for historical Marxism, it is arguably the most important reference to theories of human rights and the policies and practices that the architects of this event adhered to and implemented. When looking at the Russian Revolution, it could be counter-argued that the capitalist countries were the aggressors that forced Russia into authoritarianism. Additionally, it could be argued that all states--especially revolutionary ones--were founded on violence and suppression of dissent, not withstanding the bloody birth of liberalism which, as some authors have pointed out, were not inherently democratic but were made so only after a protracted struggle. But if a closer look is taken, the theories of Marxism, especially after the Russian revolution, are imbued with not only a willingness to use violence and repression, but a willingness to do so brutally and with little to no moral restrictions.
Marxism is rather straightforward in its approach to revolution. Lenin was arguably the first to truly grasp and implement the implications of revolutionary Marxism and the active engagement in terror and suppression of the previous holders power--such as landowners, capitalists and those who had an active interest in taking up armed struggle against the revolution. Writing his classic The State and Revolution, on the eve of the revolution in 1917, Lenin but it quite bluntly when he wrote that,
"the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force.[13]"
While this statement is contextualized with a discussion of increased democracy of the underprivileged and the full realization that it is transitory policy that acknowledges the lack of freedom inherent in it, the implications are obvious and straightforward. His revolutionary counterpart, Leon Trotsky, in a polemic against Karl Kautsky written in 1920 entitled Terrorism and Communism, put it in even more direct terms:
Who aims at the end cannot reject the means. The struggle must be carried on with such intensity as actually to guarantee the supremacy of the proletariat. If the Socialist revolution requires a dictatorship – ”the sole form in which the proletariat can achieve control of the State” [A quote from Kautsky]– it follows that the dictatorship must be guaranteed at all cost.
What Lenin and Trotsky’s quotes point to is an honest admittance of the need to use force at any cost to guarantee the ushering in of the a socialist revolution. It this theory, inscribed into the practical application of Marxist revolution, through which the rejection of human rights and the following authoritarianism and repression is used.
The way in which Marxism treats human rights follows a very distinct ideology of radical social change. The first idea is that liberal human rights are premised on inequality and injustice and should be seen as simply a theory natural to capitalism and therefore open to complete rejection. The second idea is that if a movement has an emancipatory plan and ideology that conforms to the rejection of capitalism and the desired institution of socialism, then terror and abuses to human dignity can be accepted for a certain transitional period in order to suppress those who are opposed to seeing this plan come to fruition. The rejection of human rights is to be tolerated under the guise of necessity and a rejection of “bourgeois morality.”
Marxism’s rejection of human rights has amounted, when in power, to the equivalent of ignoring true political social redresses, suppressing civil and political freedoms while giving a free hand to forces of authoritarianism and indiscriminate terror. It cannot be said that this was the intention, nor can it be said that this was the logical, determined, path of Marxist theory, but there is simply no way to get around the fact that Marxist regimes and movements that have rejected human rights have also been historic failures at using transitory force to bring in radical social change--and that the Marxist theory of human rights played a large role in this disaster.Continued on Next Page »
Books
Berlin, Isaiah. Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford; Oxford University Press, 1958.
Chandler, David. From Kosovo to Kabul. London; Pluto Press, 2002
Conniff, Michael. Populism in Latin America. Tuscaloosa, AL, University Alabama Press, 1999.
Dornbusch, Rudiger and Edwards, Sebastion. The Macroeconomics of Populism in Latin America. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Ellner, Steve. Rethinking Venezuelan Politics. London, Lynne Rienner, 2008.
Laclau, Ernesto. Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory. London, NLB, 1977.
Levine, Adnrew. The General Will: Rousseau, Marx, Communism. London, Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Moore, Barrington. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston, Beacon Press, 1993.
Raby, D.L. Democracy and Revolution. London, Pluto Press 2006.
Rawls, John. Political Liberalism. New York, Columbia University Press, 1993.
Smith, Steven B. Hegel’s Critique of Liberalism. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1989.
Trotsky, Leon. Their Morals and Ours. New York, Pathfinder Press, 1973.
Wilpert, Gregory. Changing Venezuela by Taking Power. London, Verso, 2007.
Zizek, Slavoj. The Parallax View. Boston, The MIT Press, 2006.
Zizek, Slavoj. In Defense of Lost Causes. London, Verso, 2008.
Online Articles/Papers
Grant, Will. “Venezuela mulls tough media law.” BBC news, July 31, 2009 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8177862.stm >
Holland, Alisha, Brett, Sebastian, Taraciuk, Tamara and Wilkinson, Daniel. “A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela.” Human Rights Watch, September 18, 2008. < http://www.hrw.org/en/node/64174/section/1>
Lenin, Vladimir. “The State and Revolution.” Marxists.org, 2009. < http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm>
Marx, Karl. “On The Jewish Question.” Marxists.org, 2009 <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/>
Marx, Karl. “Critique of the Gotha Program.” Marxists.org, 1999. <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm>
Romero, Simon. “Chávez Threatens to Jail Price Control Violators.” New York Time, February 2007 <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/world/americas/17venezuela.html? pagewanted=print>
Teubal, Miguel. “Rise and Collapse of Neoliberalism in Argentina.” Hawaii University, 2004. < http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Rise_and_Collapse_of_Neoliberalism_in_Argentina__The_Role_of_Economic_Groups.pdf>
Trotsky, Leon. “Terrorism an Communism.” Marxists.org, 2006. <http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/ch02.htm>
Weisbrot,Mark,Ray, RebeccaandSandoval, Louis. “Chávez Administration at 10 years: The Economy and Social Indicators.” Center for Economic and Policy Research, February 2009. <http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2009-02.pdf>
Wilpert, Gregory. “Smoke and Mirrors: An Analysis of Human Rights Watch’s Report on Venezuela.” Venezuelanalysis.com, October 17th, 2008 <http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3882#_ftnref>
Zizek, Slavoj. “Against The Double Blackmail.” The European Graduate School, 1999 < http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-against-the-double-blackmail.html>
Zizek, Slavoj. “Human Rights and Its Discontents.” The European Graduate School, 1999. < http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-human-rights-and-its-discontents.html>
Endnotes
1.) See; Against The Double Blackmail by Slavoj Zizek (1999); http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-against-the-double-blackmail.html
2.) Human Rights and Its Discontents by Slavoj Zizek, (1999); http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-human-rights-and-its-discontents.html
3.) “Two Concepts of Liberty” in Four Essays on Liberty by Isaih Berlin (1958, Oxford).
4.) From Kosovo to Kabul by David Chandler (2002, London) pg. 114-115
5.) [5] Hegel’s Critique of Liberalism by Steven B. Smith (1989, Chicago) pg. 99
6.) Hegel’s Critique of Liberalism pg. 69
7.) Political Liberalism by John Rawls (1993, New York) pg. 151 n16
8.) The Parallax View by Slavoj Zizek (2006, London) pg. 339
9.) On The Jewish Question by Karl Marx (2009); http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/
10.) Critique of the Gotha Program by Karl Marx, Section I (1999); http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm
11.) Ibid
12.) See, for instance, Barrington Moore’s Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1967) or Leon Trotsky’s Their Morals and Ours (1938)
13.) The State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin (1999), quoted in the chapter The Transition from Capitalism to Communism; http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm
14.) Terrorism and Communism by Leon Trotsky, Chapter 2 (2006); http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/ch02.htm
15.) It should be duly noted that when out of power, as a resistance movement or political opposition, Marxism has a dutiful history of working for human rights and claiming them in the face of repression. One needs only to look at the history of resistance to Fascism to see Marxism take such a leading role. Additionally, it would not be hard to argue that without a strong labor movement, largely influenced by Marxist theory, the rights that citizens enjoy in Western countries would not exist.
16.) The key difference between this viewpoint and that of Marxism is that Marxism sees the state not just as a dictatorship but as a class dictatorship. For more on this, see The General Will: Rousseau, Marx, Communism by Andrew Levine (1993); specifically Chapter 5, “The last state.”
17.) For an extended look at a history of Latin American populism, see; Populism in Latin America edited by Michael Conniff (1999 London)
18.) This term is largely problematic because of the implications associated with a certain, rigid conception of what economic “discipline” is. For neoliberals and institutions like the IMF it is considered following certain guidelines of what they deem necessary economic policies that may be uncomfortable for broad ranges of the population but necessary to gather revenue to pay off debt; hence the term “discipline.”
19.) Another problematic term. Who decides what “fiscal responsibility” means? Is it “responsible” to cut off social programs to pay off debt, as the IMF sees it, or are some seemingly unsustainable policies necessary for socioeconomic stability with the real fiscal issues laying in other areas, hidden to the ideology of the IMF? Recent history should point to the strength of the latter proposition.
20.) For an in depth look at the crisis and the role of neoliberalism, see Rise and Collapse of Neoliberalism in Argentina by Miguel Teubal (2004). Found here: http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Rise_and_Collapse_of_Neoliberalism_in_Argentina__The_Role_of_Economic_Groups.pdf
21.) For brief looks at the policies of Perón and Vargas, see, again, Conniff pgs. 22-43 and 43-63, respectively.
22.) While this declaration may seem controversial, there is hardly any doubt that the policies put into place by the first populist leaders were largely unsustainable--especially in the case of Perón--despite their good intentions or origins. While the original pretenses for these policies (their necessity, effectivity etc.) are up for debate, there is little controversy that they largely failed in their intentions and paved the way for the debt crisis of the 80s.
23.) For a look at this type of traditional academia, see; The Macroeconomics of Populism in Latin America by Dornbusch and Edwards (1991 Chicago). Dornbusch and Edwards see populism largely in economic terms such as redistribution, popular consumption, fiscal expansion all at the expense of macroeconomic stability.
24.) Conniff pgs. 4-7 (1999 London)
25.) From here forward, when speaking of populism it will be in the sense that it is “progressive” populism--a populism that is associated with electoral democracy and progressive economic policy.
26.) Populism and reform in Latin America by Tortuato Di Tella in Obstacles to Change in Latin America (1970) pgs. 47-74
27.) Ibid pg. 49
28.) Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory by Ernesto Laclau (1977 London), pgs. 143-198
29.) Ibid pgs. 172-173
30.) In Defense of Lost Causes by Slavoj Zizek (2008 London) pg. 277
31.) Ibid pg. 282
32.) Against the Populist Temptation by Slavoj Zizek (2006) pg. 5 http://www.lacan.com/zizpopulism.htm
33.) In Defense of Lost Causes pg. 304
34.) For instance, Perón’s “Justicialismo” was a slogan that simply stood for “economic growth and social justice.” Who is against economic growth and social justice? (Conniff pg. 5)
35.) In Defense of Lost Causes pg. 265
36.) Perón, for instance, was notorious for appointing loyalists to important positions of government, including but not limited to his appointment of a supporter to a previously independent position of party secretary of the largest Argentinean Union in May 1946. (Conniff pgs. 33-35)
37.) One of the most telling example of this coming in the form of the military coup in Brazil against Vargas in August 1954, leading to his suicide. (Conniff pg. 51)
38.) For a more specific look at the history and policies of the Chávez presidency up until 2007-2008, see Changing Venezuela by Taking Power by Gregory Wilpert (London, 2007) and Rethinking Venezuelan Politics by Steve Ellner (London 2008).
39.) Changing Venezuela by Taking Power pgs. 16-17
40.) “Additional measures approximating neoliberalism included austere fiscal policies, overvaluation of the local currency, and the retention of the neoliberal-inspired value added tax with the aim of avoiding inflation and shoring up international reserves.” Ellner pg. 112
41.) Ellner pg. 119
42.) Ellner pg. 121
43.) For instance, in the book Democracy and Revolution (London 2006), D.L. Raby states; “The Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela is still very much a dynamic and unfinished project, but already we can see in Chavez’ discourse the emergence of a coherent ‘foundational project,’ the ‘Socialism of the twenty-first century.” She goes on to write that populism can be revolutionary, but only if it’s social base is an “autonomous movement of the dominated classes and where its leader is a true representative of the movement.” pg. 256. It seems, from this perspective, that the conditions for revolutionary populism are “autonomy” and “true leadership”--two highly ambiguous qualifiers that can be interpreted a number of ways.
44.) Ellner pg. 128
45.) Without changing the logic of the system the oligarchy, the elites and the influences of imperialism will remain. The “oligarchs,” “imperialists” and “elites” are not functioning as evil outsiders intent on destroying Venezuela but instead are simply following the logical coordinates of a capitalist system. To identify them as “negative elements” that need to be purged from the purity of the whole is to exactly employ a populist discourse that, as we will see further on, leads to authoritarian tendencies that employ the use of Marxism’s theory of human rights but without a similar systemic analysis of change to back it up.
46.) “The emphasis [of endogenous development] is on agriculture (50%) and industrial production (30%), paying particular attention to achieving elf-sufficiency with regard to the production of food, clothes and shoes.” Wilpert pg. 79
47.) Ellner pg. 128
48.) Against the Populist Temptation (2006) pg. 7 n4
49.) Wipert pg. 193
“Much of the government’s spending has, in recent years, been carried out directly from PDVSA, the state oil company. For example, in the first three quarters of 2008 (January through September) PDVSA had $13.9 billion, or 6.1 percent of GDP in public expenditures.”
The Chávez Administrationat10Years:TheEconomyandSocialIndicatorsby MarkWeisbrot,RebeccaRayandLuisSandoval (Center for Economic and Policy Research, February 2009) pg. 17
50.) Wilpert pg. 82 (How these “ethical responsibilities” are to be monitored has not been detailed, but one can assume it will be through certain state regulations and inspections that would most likely employ highly ambiguous points of reference on ethical standards thus opening up the possibility of corruption.)
51.) Chávez Threatens to Jail Price Control Violators by Simon Romero, February 2007 in The New York Times; http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/world/americas/17venezuela.html?pagewanted=print
(The institution of price controls is largely populist because of its refusal to address the systemic nature of the problem. A populist in effect shoots the messenger when instituting price controls because its logic emerges out of a rationality that does not know why prices are so high and thus blames the agent of the last step of the production process, distribution and pricing, for corruption and criminal negligence. In effect, the populist says; “We don’t know why rice prices are so high, but they are and you are selling them higher than we told you to. Either fix the problem or we fine/nationalize you.”)
52.) Wilpert pg. 201
53.) Wilpert pg. 203 (Wilpert goes on to describe how Chávez has called ministers in the middle of the night to perform tasks and that, when faced with criticism, Chávez responds sometimes with “I remind you, you are speaking to the president.”)
54.) This is most notably highlighted by the infamous “Tascon List” which was essentially a blacklisting of opposition members from government industries and jobs following the coup and strike. (Wilpert pg. 205)
55.) Ellner pg. 147
56.) Wilpert pg. 49
57.) “Of the 61 ministers that have served in the Chávez government between 1999 and 2004, 16 (or 26%) were military officers. Also, Chávez supported the election of retired officers to numerous governor’s and mayor’s posts. Following the 2004 regional elections, of the country’s 24 governors, 22 belonged to the Chávez camp. Of these, nine (41%) have a military background.” (Wilpert pg. 49)
58.) Wilpert pg. 40
59.) During my trip to Venezuela, one of the most constant voices of concern was found in relation to the upcoming vote that would eliminate term limits for the presidency and other heads of local governments. The complaint was that leading up to the vote, the amount of propaganda related to campaigning distracted from other legitimate problems. People were told to wait until the end of the vote to voice their concerns and to focus on winning the “voting battle.” Additionally, many people I encountered sympathetic to Chávez mentioned that while they might be opposed to indefinite re-election, they could see no real alternative to Chávez and thus felt obligated to vote for the passage of the new law.
60.) Ellner pg. 111
61.) Wilpert pg. 21
62.) A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela by Human Rights Watch (September 18, 2008); http://www.hrw.org/en/node/64174/section/1
63.) Ibid pg. 2
64.) Ibid pg. 134
65.) Ibid pg. 137
66.) Ibid pg. 38-64
67.) This should not be read as the original intention of Marx in any sense. I use the term Marxist here to refer to, as discussed earlier, the historical record of Marxists when they have taken power with the Soviet Union obviously in the forefront of such a record.
68.) Smoke and Mirrors: An Analysis of Human Rights Watch’s Report on Venezuela by Gregory Wilpert (October 17th, 2008); http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3882#_ftnref
69.) Ibid
70.) A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela pg. 15
71.) Ibid pg. 99
72.) Venezuela mulls tough media law, BBC news (July 31, 2009); http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8177862.stm
73.) A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela pg. 134-197
74.) Changing Venezuela by Taking Power pgs. 53-64
75.) Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory pgs. 196-197
76.) Against the Populist Temptation pg. 17
77.) In Defense of Lost Causes pg. 304
