Human Rights and Radical Social Change: Liberalism, Marxism and Progressive Populism in Venezuela
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.9
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.10"
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!11"
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.12 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."
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.14
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.15 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.
Political Ideology and Human Rights
With a grasp of the implicit ideology of liberal and Marxist human rights theory; that of the double blackmail, we can move on towards an analysis of the current discourse in Venezuela. But before moving on, it is important to restate the purpose of this section and identify the logic behind the progression of the next ones. This involves framing the most important claim of this paper; that the key to understanding any human rights discourse is the implied or admitted political ideology and project that is behind it. This is important for two reasons.
The first reason is that it must be admitted that all states are effectively dictatorial because of the fact that they are institutionalized monopolies of the means of the legitimate violence that predicates the legal system.16 This could be said to be waning in the era of globalization, and not an important factor in Third World countries whose states are in effect owned by multinational corporations, but apart from who is controlling the state, and as long as borders differentiate one government from the next, this point holds in theory. Since this is so, it is absolutely imperative to identify the political ideology and project of the state so one can understand the reasoning behind its policies and attempt to predict its future actions.
The second reason is connected to the first. By recognizing the dictatorial nature of the state and identifying its political ideology and project, while analyzing its policies and attempting to predict where it is headed, one must make take the somewhat reluctant, but honest, position that all states are going to violate human rights, in some way, as they are understood today.
When one speaks of liberal human rights theory, one is implying that human rights are to be respected insofar as they are reflections of a certain organization of society. What this amounts to, whether admitted or not, is a universal, global project of liberalism and the institutions it corresponds with. As such, it is a political project. What is important to highlight is that a political project is always proactive. The use of human rights in liberal human rights theory is effectively the right of intervention, whether it be upon the domestic civil population, or a foreign country. When the United States invades Iraq or Afghanistan, it is not based solely and naively on some abstract principle of human rights (human rights are no doubt being violated solely through this act--houses are being bombed, people are being killed and arrested, civil liberties are being suspended, etc. as is a necessary aspect of war). There are also obvious interests involved (why not invade multiple other countries who are equal, if not worse, human rights violators?). The “defense” of human rights by force in these cases is objectively an element of a proactive political project--one which sees the United States as the guaranteer of some sense of global harmony, freedom and liberty with the right to intervene in countries that do not recognize its conception of human rights and do not have the “appropriate” corresponding institutions. As mentioned earlier, this has the effect of in almost every case seeing a country that does not have the institutions associated with liberal human rights theory as an a priori violator of human rights. Thus, liberal human rights theory can stand to block any sort of progressive radical change because it sees itself as the culmination of human being, with all that is necessary being gradual reforms and perfections as opposed to complete overhaul. Moreover, in a sort of ideological cul-de sac, an intervention to stop human rights abuses is allowed to engage in human rights abuses of its own in order to fulfill and institute a certain political ideology and institutions that correspond more favorably with liberal human rights theory--but without actually recognizing or admitting this.
If liberal human rights theory hides its ideology of a proactive political project by claiming to only be unprejudiced and objective in its claim of human rights violations and subsequent intervention, then Marxism is its polar opposite. Unlike liberalism, Marxism is upfront in its commitment to intervening and actively supporting a political ideology and project; the upheaval of capitalism and institution of socialism through the use of the dictatorship of the state in the name of the working class. But this, obviously, does not tell the entire story. Just because a political project is honest about its ideology and direction does not somehow make it justifiable. In fact, this “honesty” has tended to legitimize dictatorship in the eyes of its beholders to the point of ossification and institution instead of a means to an ends. The political ideology of Marxism, in its upfront desire to use dictatorial suppression and terror, is thus a project that not only rejects human rights out of fidelity to an idea or theory of emancipation, but can do so as an opportunity to exercise corruption and abuse of power. To put it in other terms, there is no guarantee that just because a theory is honest that the person who adheres to it will also be, thus bringing into play an observation made earlier that theoretical founding can beget pragmatic corruption and abuse of power or, alternatively, pragmatic corruption and abuse of power can make use of theory. Therefore, Marxist human rights theory can stand to excuse and legitimize any and all abuses of power because it sees is political project as one of necessary radical social change that should be brought about by any means necessary.Continued on Next Page »