(bourgeoise human rights should be replaced with a better proletarian form of universal rights)
Universal rights are the epitome of idealism. Legal rights are a useful tool, but they should be recognized as just that, something constructed by social relations rather than inherited from Providence or "nature" (Providence). It's a rhetorical sleight-of-hand to create a system oriented around atomized legal entities (the individuals who have "universal" rights) rather than any sort of democratic principle (which can construct legal rights just fine by itself).
I agree to an extent. I don't think it's a position that you can communicate in a way that would be mass-popular though. Contesting this shit by replacing it with something better is easier than opposing the concept altogether.
In one case we become "the people who want much better rights" vs "the people that oppose human rights".
Part of what makes it difficult is that people have been raised on the notion of "rights" being the unassailable framework of civic existence. I agree that obviously there's a messaging issue, but I suppose I'd say that it should be framed as a matter of "constructing legal rights based on human welfare" rather than "assuming God handed down natural law that dictates that robber barons must be protected by state violence".
The rhetoric of the Declaration is complete bullshit anyway, "unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as a foundational motto of the country with the largest prison population per capita in the world and likely the largest number of summary executions per capita (courtesy of the police) is just a sick joke.
Unrelatedly, I tried to look up the latter figure and noticed a vector of attack on China that we don't see often. The article nebulously says China executes "1000s" of people per year when the next highest is a couple hundred, citing Amnesty USA statistics (when it wasn't just broken links or home pages). I looked through the file and it never substantiates the number that I can see, it merely asserts it while complaining about China not publishing official numbers on the subject. Didn't stop them for asserting "China executed more people than the rest of the world put together" without even the most basic basis for a calculation shown. Fucking "non-political" NGOs.
I agree again. The way I see it however is that this is an issue that can only be solved post-revolution. We should aim for popularity pre-revolution as a means of gaining mass appeal. This means accepting certain conditions exist that we can't magically change, such as "people have been raised on the notion of "rights" being the unassailable framework of civic existence"
Yeah, one time I was watching youtube with my friend and it showed my previously liked videos, including one called "The problem with human rights". The content was the same as discussed above, but my friend looked at me super sus.
only one brief mention at the very bottom of the comments about Assata Shakur, Tupac's godmother/step-aunt and first woman on the FBI's Top 10 Most-Wanted (still looking for her) for killing a cop and fleeing to Cuba after being broken out of prison
Copy pasteable data approach to showing that the Soviet gulag of the 1950s had improved beyond the standards of current US prisons
Copy pasteable response to "the nazis were socialists"
The "Vaush is bad masterpost" which became the basis of all the Vaush Facts bots on reddit
15 minute marxism
Copy pasteable response to "the dprk is fascist"
Navalny is bad facts
Lenin speech on antisemitism
Udham Singh post
Russia not being good, but has an important role in multipolarity
Tupac megathread post
Neoliberalism post I liked and copy from time to time
Valuable sources against "China's BRI is a debt trap"
The most valuable Blackshirts & Reds quote to respond to "tankies" and anticommunists
This post against decimalisation
This comment on "soft holocaust denial" and the constant dangerous misuse of the word "genocide" by liberals
Effort post on Molotov Ribentrop
Use of swastika by Finland
Why libs are demonstrating historical ignorance when they bring up molotov-ribbentrop
Aimixin popping off when a lib says Libya is better off now than under Gaddafi
Dropping the bombs on Japan, another Aimixin post
On the police
Another molotov ribbentrop
Why human rights are bad and are more accurately a bourgeoise concept that protects bourgeoise values while not saving those who are starving (bourgeoise human rights should be replaced with a better proletarian form of universal rights)
On the USSR being blamed for the holocaust
Photo album of the USSR
"US foreign policy is motivated by democracy"
Redpill me on China
South Korean unions being raided by Korean intelligence
Basically everything I've ever saved is something I use in copy paste or edit slightly to use in other conversations fighting or educating.
Universal rights are the epitome of idealism. Legal rights are a useful tool, but they should be recognized as just that, something constructed by social relations rather than inherited from Providence or "nature" (Providence). It's a rhetorical sleight-of-hand to create a system oriented around atomized legal entities (the individuals who have "universal" rights) rather than any sort of democratic principle (which can construct legal rights just fine by itself).
I agree to an extent. I don't think it's a position that you can communicate in a way that would be mass-popular though. Contesting this shit by replacing it with something better is easier than opposing the concept altogether.
In one case we become "the people who want much better rights" vs "the people that oppose human rights".
Part of what makes it difficult is that people have been raised on the notion of "rights" being the unassailable framework of civic existence. I agree that obviously there's a messaging issue, but I suppose I'd say that it should be framed as a matter of "constructing legal rights based on human welfare" rather than "assuming God handed down natural law that dictates that robber barons must be protected by state violence".
The rhetoric of the Declaration is complete bullshit anyway, "unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as a foundational motto of the country with the largest prison population per capita in the world and likely the largest number of summary executions per capita (courtesy of the police) is just a sick joke.
Unrelatedly, I tried to look up the latter figure and noticed a vector of attack on China that we don't see often. The article nebulously says China executes "1000s" of people per year when the next highest is a couple hundred, citing Amnesty USA statistics (when it wasn't just broken links or home pages). I looked through the file and it never substantiates the number that I can see, it merely asserts it while complaining about China not publishing official numbers on the subject. Didn't stop them for asserting "China executed more people than the rest of the world put together" without even the most basic basis for a calculation shown. Fucking "non-political" NGOs.
I agree again. The way I see it however is that this is an issue that can only be solved post-revolution. We should aim for popularity pre-revolution as a means of gaining mass appeal. This means accepting certain conditions exist that we can't magically change, such as "people have been raised on the notion of "rights" being the unassailable framework of civic existence"
Yeah, one time I was watching youtube with my friend and it showed my previously liked videos, including one called "The problem with human rights". The content was the same as discussed above, but my friend looked at me super sus.
Udham Singh was badass. his speech was so fire that the British government kept it secret and suppressed it for like fifty years
Disgusting, I am leaving this terrible website.