What are the common classical liberal assumptions about human rights and how are they criticized by Proudhon, Marx, Engels, and Bebel?

Résumé du document

The United States declaration of rights proclaims three main rights: right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They are perceived as intrinsic to human beings. These principles were built in opposition to the monarchy and were supposed to ensure the people their rights, in the sense of individual and collective rights as well as political and civil rights. However, one century later, criticism emerged from some socialist scholars such as Proudhon, Marx, Bebel and Engels. They argued that the revolutions and declarations of rights were only the outcome of the Bourgeoisie's seizure of power. Its conception of rights is subverted in the view of socialism and cannot fit into actual equality and freedom. In this document, we analyze how these thinkers criticize the common classical liberal assumptions about human rights. By classical liberal assumptions, we mean property, equality and political emancipation reached by political and civil rights.

Extraits

[...] How these thinkers criticize the common classical liberal assumptions about human rights ? By classical liberal assumptions, I mean property, equality and political emancipation reached by political and civil rights. Asking this question first implies to show how property has subverted society, and then how equality was lead astray and so was not perfectly reached. I. “Révolution bourgeoise” or the inalienable right to private property In the DDHC of 1789, the constituents regarded the right to private property as an unalienable right. [...]

[...] For instance, the greatest difference between Enlightenment and modern political discourse is certainly the conception of the right to wage war and the conditions to make peace perpetual. Yet principles of international law from Enlightenment are still the norms in a lot of situations. The only thing which has changed is the establishment of peace and democracy. Grotius, On laws of war and peace (1625) quoted in Ishay, Micheline, (2007) 2nd ed., The Human Rights Reader, London: Routledge p.73. Robespierre, in On property rights (1793) quoted in Ishay, Micheline, (2007) 2nd ed., The Human Rights Reader, London: Routledge, p.158-159. [...]

[...] He considers that if property is a natural right, this natural right cannot be social, rather, anti-social. II. The concepts of equality and political emancipation lead astray by the state The article 1 of DDHC specificies that are born and remain free and equal in rights”, but socialism thinkers argue that the bourgeoisie has set up an exploitation system. Engels shows how French revolution's aim, which was to abolish privileges and feudal society, has merely failed since the bourgeoisie has recreated precisely the same system of oppression. [...]

[...] When there is bourgeoisie, there is necessarily proletariat and when the bourgeoisie claimed for equality, the proletariat claimed for equality. The bourgeoisie wanted the abolition of class privileges whereas the proletariat wanted the abolition of the classes. Equality is possible for proletarian class only by abolishing classes. The very idea of struggle of classes and exploitation of the bourgoisie upon the proletariat emerged in the end of the 19th century after the Industrial revolution revealed its dreadful consequences. This idea of potential equality between classes was gaining ground but women issue was not very popular. [...]

[...] (1840) quoted in Ishay, Micheline, (2007) 2nd ed., The Human Rights Reader, London: Routledge, p.175-184. Engels, The Anti-Dühring (1878) quoted in Ishay, Micheline, (2007) 2nd ed., The Human Rights Reader, London: Routledge, p.212-217. Bebel, Women and socialism (1883) quoted in Ishay, Micheline, (2007) 2nd ed., The Human Rights Reader, London: Routledge, p.226-230. Marx, On the Jewish question (1843) quoted in Ishay, Micheline, (2007) 2nd ed., The Human Rights Reader, London: Routledge, p.193. Marx, On the Jewish question (1843) quoted in Ishay, Micheline, (2007) 2nd ed., The Human Rights Reader, London: Routledge, p.199. [...]