Oppressorship

[Raphael]

To get really deep into pedantic philosophical nitpicking, I don't believe in inherent rights. But I do believe in rights where it's generally good if a place is run in such a way that people there can usually rely on having those rights. I'm very fond of my right to take part in a discussion like this one, for instance. But I don't think such rights should include to right to own things, except when it comes to stuff like clothes or furniture.

Marx thinks states only give you rights when it fears consequences from not giving them. The noble sentiments are only there as attempts at manipulation to earn more profit.

Well, I'm in favor of a version of rights that can't really be used to help people make more profits, because it doesn't include the right to own a lot of stuff. How does that fit into those theories?

Besides, an anti-Marxist might respond that Marxism itself, with its claim to fighting against oppression, is a noble sentiment serving some people's desire for power, too. As German Band Die Toten Hosen put it in their song Viva la Revolution, "All this Viva la Revolution was unfortunately just opium, too". (Translation mine.)

[rotting bones]

Well, I'm in favor of a version of rights that can't really be used to help people make more profits, because it doesn't include the right to own a lot of stuff. How does that fit into those theories?

Did you see the second part?

Earlier in the article, he says that traditionally, all the rights enjoyed by the poor were "indeterminate" in character. These do not enter into the "conscious organization" of the state:

So he thinks some rights are legitimate. It is the rights conferred by the capitalist state that are distorted by the powerful. I will requote the last sentence from my second quote:

In these customs of the poor class, therefore, there is an instinctive sense of right; their roots are positive and legitimate, and the form of customary right here conforms all the more to nature because up to now the existence of the poor class itself has been a mere custom of civil society, a custom which has not found an appropriate place in the conscious organisation of the state.

Besides, an anti-Marxist might respond that Marxism itself, with its claim to fighting against oppression, is a noble sentiment serving some people's desire for power, too. As German Band Die Toten Hosen put it in their song Viva la Revolution, "All this Viva la Revolution was unfortunately just opium, too". (Translation mine.)

That sounds like someone more familiar with opium than being a worker. Workers still have to literally fight for their rights in the Third World. Even American workers fight the managers tooth and nail these days. I know mainstream newspapers don't report any consequential news. See here: https://www.youtube.com/@positiveleftistnews/videos

Marx denies that he has any noble sentiments or any sense of ethics. (Personally, I think he's wrong about not having any ethics at all, but I digress.) He just wants the dispossessed to organize themselves and take back what is theirs. There is no justice in this, only an assertion of power. In many ways, he is the anti-Nietzsche.

[Travis B.]

One thing to remember is one can formulate rights that support the position of the workers, of the vast majority, that do not serve the interests of the bourgeoisie, such as a right to possession where 'possession' is defined by use rather than title. E.g. houses would be possessed by their occupants rather than landlords or banks, workplaces and the associated capital would be possessed collectively by their workers rather than the capitalists, farms and the associated land, crops, livestock, and equipment would be possessed collectively by the farm workers rather than the ostensible farm owners, and so on. Of course, in many cases petty bourgeoisie would possess their capital, but only in part as they would have to share it with the other workers.

[rotting bones]

One thing to remember is one can formulate rights that support the position of the workers, of the vast majority, that do not serve the interests of the bourgeoisie, such as a right to possession where 'possession' is defined by use rather than title. E.g. houses would be possessed by their occupants rather than landlords or banks, workplaces and the associated capital would be possessed collectively by their workers rather than the capitalists, farms and the associated land, crops, livestock, and equipment would be possessed collectively by the farm workers rather than the ostensible farm owners, and so on. Of course, in many cases petty bourgeoisie would possess their capital, but only in part as they would have to share it with the other workers.

Do you think these are compatible with the "indeterminate rights" mentioned in the article?

Marx thinks the state will only enforce rights when it fears that their transgression will lead to violence. Since the capitalists are more powerful than the dispossessed, any rights conferred by the state will favor the former. The police are ultimately paid for by the capitalists, so the police will look after their interests.

[Raphael]

Marx thinks the state will only enforce rights when it fears that their transgression will lead to violence. Since the capitalists are more powerful than the dispossessed, any rights conferred by the state will favor the former.

That calculation changes once the capitalists have lost their property, however.

[rotting bones]

That calculation changes once the capitalists have lost their property, however.

I think I have reached the limits of my ability to summarize Marx's blathering. For deeper criticism, please quote his article directly: https://marxists.architexturez.net/arch ... /10/25.htm

I feel like this man was getting paid by the number of words. He was a journalist by profession, right?

[Travis B.]

One thing to remember is one can formulate rights that support the position of the workers, of the vast majority, that do not serve the interests of the bourgeoisie, such as a right to possession where 'possession' is defined by use rather than title. E.g. houses would be possessed by their occupants rather than landlords or banks, workplaces and the associated capital would be possessed collectively by their workers rather than the capitalists, farms and the associated land, crops, livestock, and equipment would be possessed collectively by the farm workers rather than the ostensible farm owners, and so on. Of course, in many cases petty bourgeoisie would possess their capital, but only in part as they would have to share it with the other workers.

Do you think these are compatible with the "indeterminate rights" mentioned in the article?

Marx thinks the state will only enforce rights when it fears that their transgression will lead to violence. Since the capitalists are more powerful than the dispossessed, any rights conferred by the state will favor the former. The police are ultimately paid for by the capitalists, so the police will look after their interests.

Of course states under capitalism will not give workers a right to possession ─ but that does not mean that socialism would have to be rights-free, and indeed a right to possession would give socialism a very fundamental basis and would effectively forbid capitalism. Note that petty bourgeoisie would not be entirely stripped of their property but would be made equal with the workers that were formerly under them.

[rotting bones]

Of course states under capitalism will not give workers a right to possession ─ but that does not mean that socialism would have to be rights-free, and indeed a right to possession would give socialism a very fundamental basis and would effectively forbid capitalism. Note that petty bourgeoisie would not be entirely stripped of their property but would be made equal with the workers that were formerly under them.

Personally, I'm an absolute idealist about human rights.

[Travis B.]

Of course states under capitalism will not give workers a right to possession ─ but that does not mean that socialism would have to be rights-free, and indeed a right to possession would give socialism a very fundamental basis and would effectively forbid capitalism. Note that petty bourgeoisie would not be entirely stripped of their property but would be made equal with the workers that were formerly under them.

Personally, I'm an absolute idealist about human rights.

I myself believe that human rights are completely essential, and a major failing of Marxism, especially in its incarnation as Marxism-Leninism, has been a lack of human rights, which regardless of Marx's rhetoric has resulted in the excusing of many crimes committed in the names of Marxism and Marxism-Leninism. Human rights are what stands between us and the gulag, the guillotine, and so on.

[rotting bones]

I myself believe that human rights are completely essential, and a major failing of Marxism, especially in its incarnation as Marxism-Leninism, has been a lack of human rights, which regardless of Marx's rhetoric has resulted in the excusing of many crimes committed in the names of Marxism and Marxism-Leninism. Human rights are what stands between us and the gulag, the guillotine, and so on.

Marx thought if the material conditions of oppression are abolished, the legal fictions called "rights" would be superfluous. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's work shows how rights are themselves a positive feature of the social order, not just legal fictions masking oppression.

[Starbeam]

Just to get this out of the way, please do not get too ornamental with your language, I am trying to understand and life is too short to sift thru a lot of fanciful text. Quoting it from other people i understand, but they shouldn't have been writing in masturbatory registers either

Marx thought people derive meaning from from their work, but workers are exploited and overworked by threatening them with unemployment ("reserve army of labor"). He thought mankind should unite as a community and raise productive capacities so that everyone can afford to be a dilettante. People these days have a hard time believing that Marx promoted any kind of freedom, so I Googled the quote from The German Ideology:

For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

United as a community and with plenty for all to share, he thought there would be no more victims suffering dispossession, so there would be no rational incentive to attack others. He thought the struggle of the working class to abolish the proletariat is the only way to make this happen.

So: attacks should cease once the underlying material conditions have been abolished by sword and hammer. Is this what you are asking about?

No, moreso their position on the ideals, what is the prescriptive deservation an individual has. Things that should never be done to anyone, at least not by default. But also, I don't disagree at all with what they're saying here.

Why not? Royals thought it's normal and natural that the fruits of the land would come to them. The fact that their soldiers were effectively seizing them from the peasants and bringing it to them was conveniently forgotten at the moment.

Well, then fight and stop the seizing. A lot of the benefits aren't just luxuries, but merely not being murdered. While Marx understands they can deserve equality in the end, too many people don't and legimitately think an eternal watch and dispossession is necessary. Exalting a victim status to become forever cops. Others have crab mentality or want retributive slaughter

It was a song for rhetorical effect. LLM translation:

Awaken, Dispossessed

Awake—awake—awake, O dispossessed!
You who starve, who languish in chains.
The workers have sounded the call today;
A new promise of freedom has been raised.

Shatter the ancient, rotting customs of wrong—
Rise up, people, every one!
End this wretched poverty and wail;
Pledge your life and death to the cause.

The final struggle starts today, comrades;
Come, let us march shoulder to shoulder.
Sing “The Internationale,”
For it will knit all humankind together.

Thanks for the translation. That's really nice of you

[rotting bones]

Just to get this out of the way, please do not get too ornamental with your language, I am trying to understand and life is too short to sift thru a lot of fanciful text. Quoting it from other people i understand, but they shouldn't have been writing in masturbatory registers either

English is not my native language. I learned it by reading books. I'm better at math than languages anyway.

Here's a ChatGPT summary of the second quote if it's hard to follow:

In this text, the author critiques how modern civil legislation replaced medieval property arrangements—particularly the mixture of private rights with customary obligations toward the poor—without adequately addressing the resulting loss of support for the most vulnerable. Under feudal or medieval systems, property was often “ambiguous,” meaning it was neither purely private nor strictly common, and thus carried certain customary provisions (like monastery charity, fallen wood collection, or gleaning) from which the poor benefited.
When legislatures “rationalized” these hybrid forms into clear-cut private property rights (often drawing on Roman law), they abolished not only the arbitrary privileges of landowners but also the poor’s longstanding informal rights. These had functioned as a de facto social safety net—albeit accidental and unguaranteed. Because lawmakers only recognized existing “legal rights” and failed to transform customary access for the poor into formal rights, they unintentionally deprived the lower class of basic means of subsistence.
Thus, while abolishing feudal privileges aligned with the principle of equal rights under modern civil law, it overlooked that the poor also possessed a kind of rightful claim rooted in nature, necessity, and longstanding custom. The text highlights examples such as:
* **Monasteries**: Their closure ended both the landowner’s special status and the informal relief the poor received, without any replacement support.
* **Fallen wood and gleaning**: Although these might appear minor or “accidental” uses of property, they were vital for people lacking other resources and had an intuitive legitimacy in the eyes of the poor themselves.
Overall, the argument is that while modern legislation correctly aimed to eliminate privilege and clarify property rights, it wrongly ignored the equally important need to secure legitimate, customary supports for the poor—thereby stripping them of traditional avenues for survival without offering any new legal protections.

I would also add that Marx says medieval custom had these accidental provisions for the poor because there was a niche for the poor in the medieval social order. He ironically says that poverty was a medieval custom.

Well, then fight and stop the seizing. A lot of the benefits aren't just luxuries, but merely not being murdered. While Marx understands they can deserve equality in the end, too many people don't and legimitately think an eternal watch and dispossession is necessary. Exalting a victim status to become forever cops. Others have crab mentality or want retributive slaughter

I think I can with some certainty say that this was not the intended goal of Marxism. I feel like Marx underestimated the insanity of the human race. For example:

1. A lot of people enjoy believing in paranoid conspiracy theories. When these people become Marxists, they see bourgeois conspiracies around every corner.

2. A lot of people enjoy never changing their opinions. Sometimes they are psychologically incapable of taking true statements seriously.

3. Some people would like to be more violent than they allow themselves to be, either from scruples or fear of getting hurt. These people then express their aggression verbally. Seeing others be hurt makes them happy. I have seen liberals do this more often than Marxists, but possibly because Marxists these days are a small and nerdy group.

...