Why we should oppose human rights

Supporting them encourages narrow interpretations

The idea of universal human rights has proven to be one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th, and so far, the 21st centuries. 

Embedded in the ideology that capitalism is the ideal path for human progress, human rights were invented by and are presented to publics by political elites and legitimized by “social democratic” institutions. 

The fact of the matter is that human rights are only advanced by Western liberal democracies when they don’t interfere with capitalism, or when their advancement directly serves its purposes.

The institutions and elites from the Western world that have made it possible for the concept to have global reach are the same ones who reap the overwhelmingly disproportionate benefits from capitalist globalization. 

It is telling that although the United Nations – as a global institution – is “supposed to” provide, or at least promote, human rights for all people, it cannot address issues of global economic injustice. 

Freedom, in the sense entailed by human rights, does not equate economic freedom; equality does not mean economic equality; democracy never means economic democracy. Protestors in Greece, Ireland and Wisconsin are seen as out of touch with the logic of capitalism because of their demands for some amount of economic rights and protection.

It is clear that freedom, equality and democracy, as human rights concepts, are embedded in the stiff ideological boundary of capitalism.

Capitalism depends on inequality. At its core, it depends on exploitation of the majority so the ownership class can make profit. 

Even capitalists agree. They’ll probably high five you if you say that to them. 

Capitalism depends on particular rights of its own. These rights are ensured by capitalist nation states through the protection of core rights to expand private enterprise, the ability to generate profit and the right to do so all on private property.

The “rights” required for capitalist economic systems to exist will always be put ahead of what “progressives” tend to think are the core mantras of human rights – freedom, equality and democracy.

All of this is masked through the discourse of human rights – we’re told by our government that we all have freedom of opportunity.

Legally, yes. Structurally, no. 

Those of us in the West who hold the inherent moral belief that all human beings should be equal need to be emancipated from the concept of human rights.

By rallying around the concept, well-meaning individuals reinforce the power structures that advance the self-contradictory concept, because human rights regimes and capitalism are welded together.

We all need to consider why the countries with the most human rights protections also exploit the most people, and why the exploited are growing. 

Structurally, the success of “human rights” in Canada depends on a grossly underpaid worker elsewhere not having them – there is nothing universal about them. 

Being committed to human rights falsely presumes that Canadians would still have so many rights if we didn’t engage in widespread exploitation of other nations that allow us to enjoy the comforts of our standard of living. 

“Progressives” should stop talking about human rights if we’re not willing to challenge power structures. 

But do we actually believe in equality that much? Are we ready to give up the rights that proliferate inequality in exchange for an alternative system?

As it stands, the fair and unambiguous answer is no.

Matt Austman is a politics, human rights and global studies student at the University of Winnipeg.

Published in Volume 65, Number 21 of The Uniter (March 3, 2011)

Related Reads