[Marxism] Marxists and Human Rights Violations
Waistline2 at aol.com
Waistline2 at aol.com
Wed Apr 7 10:42:11 MDT 2004
>How do you think that Marxists should deal with the issue
of human rights violations? Do you see a baseline
universalist vision of human rights as basic to the Marxist
(and democratic socialist) project? Do you believe that a
non-democratic state can in any sense be an authentically
Marxist one? Recall that Marx himself said "Je ne suis pas
I agree with comrade Walter's description of human rights and would add
"peace," "love" and "human happiness." I try to never forget who I am and have
been. Most revolutionaries over 50 years of age - and many younger, entered the
social struggle on the basis of extreme moral outrageous against real and
perceived injustice. Love and human happiness is no abstraction. Reclaiming our
inherent beauty - "The Great Restoration" to come, and eliminating the social
strife that is a product of class society and class antagonism remains the lofty
essence of the Marxists and communists vision. We are abolitionists on the
side of the proletariat.
The first task of communism in power is the restoration of the earth. When we
set about reconstructing the earth, becoming a living and vibrant part of the
earth again, humanity will achieve and experience an unbounded happiness. It
is the task of communism to clean up the earth, to learn its rhythm and to
wage the thousand year "war" - battle, to become part of that rhythm. An
inconceivable happiness will arise in that process.
Marx said that the end of class society was going to be the beginning of
human history and I came to believe this based on my own experience. The end of
class society means the end of society moving in class antagonism. Human rights
violations - in a communist meaning, describes man alienation from himself and
is the impulse that leads to private property, private wealth and finally
bourgeois property. (See Economic and Philosophic Manuscript of 1844.)
We communists are endlessly questioned about the abolition of the state and
its withering away, by democrats who on the basis of their own confessions and
vision have not a clue as to how and why society must past from one state to
another. An accusing finger is pointed at the former Soviet Union and the
failure to liquidate the state as a state power. The same pointed finger is
directed at tiny Cuba. This failure to liquidate the state - as it moves in class
antagonism, is attributed to the existence of a "one party state."
To begin with a "one party state" means that all the various class striving
and sectional interest in a country appears within the one party state itself.
The "one party state" is not "one party" as such but rather a collection of
various political poles - PARTIES, within one organizational framework. The fact
of the matter is that the so-called "inner party struggle" is in reality a
struggle between parties internal to a singular organizational framework. Who
cannot understand that in China various parties - political grouping with
competing economic and social interest, are in heated contest all under the heading
of the CPC?
Doe it require profound intuition to understand that various parties competed
in the former Soviet Union all within the framework of the CPSU? The
ideology of the one party state compels all the actors to identify themselves as "one
thing," whereas in the American Union two major parties try to present
themselves as different things.
There is no such things as a "Marxists State" or a "Republican or Democrat
State." The universalists vision of Marxists call for the abolition of democracy
and this is misunderstood by our critics. Man's destiny is to overthrow being
ruled by the force of arms and this is the meaning of the abolition of
democracy. Industrial man - no matter what his belief system, is incapable of
ushering in the world of personal freedom for the individual. The freeing of the
individual goes hand in hand with reclaiming the earth. Repression, as it arose
in human history, can be explained but not justified, or rather history
justifies itself as man struggle to leave the last stage of barbarism and his
alienated state of being.
The communists have a practical program for this journey: abolition of all
forms of property and with it the basis of the strife in society. The strife in
human society is based in the brutal impulse to acquire things and taking
something from someone or withholding needed things from others. We communists are
reproached for being "simple minded" and told the question is deeper and more
profound that what we describe.
What then is war if not the abolition of every "universal right"? What then
is bourgeois property if not the abolition of the fundamental right to exist on
earth, unless one sells their labor to another man simple to eat and drink
water? What is fear, if not the fear of not having?
The destruction of the earth and the liquidation of "universal rights" in the
past century cannot be placed at the feet of the Soviet proletariat.
"But the communists in the Soviet Union made mistakes."
Well, . . . yes they did. Not only were mistakes made but the leaders of the
Soviet proletariat were also driven by industrial logic and fear of being
Our bourgeoisie - as a class, is a conscious agent of destruction. He
deliberately destroys the earth in pursuit of profit. Nuclear is no accident of
What of our own bourgeoisie . . . imperial Japan . . . Germany . . . England
and the bourgeois scoundrels that continue to convert mother Africa into a
cesspool of filth? The question of universal human rights and political forms of
democracy are not identical.
Are universal rights - love and happiness, possible?
Love and happiness has its own logic and is rooted in how we reproduce our
life activity as a species. Peace is possible. The back of domination and
dominating one man by another, has to be broken. This is possible in today's world,
but it requires a fight and profound passion.
More information about the Marxism