Human rights: two opposing approaches


Many take the existence of civil rights for granted, existing from time immemorial. “All people are born free and equal in their dignity and rights” - sounds so familiar and clear. Now, in general, the so-called legal culture has replaced the scientific and historical understanding of law. Few people think about the essence of law in general and the essence of civil rights in particular.


But at the same time in policy there is no more speculative issue than the issue of human rights in different countries. Journalists, the public, the scientific community and representatives of states, especially in the West, are keenly interested in where, how and why “human rights are being infringed”. True, there are nuances. Firstly, the "world community" makes noise about human rights violations mainly in those countries that do not want to dance to the tune of the United States. Secondly, it annoyingly rarely pays attention to the rights of a “healthy person”, for example, the right to housing, work, rest, education, medicine, cultural development, and a peaceful life. Western foundations, media and governments are more interested in the rights of minorities - racial, national and sexual. I don’t want to mix the first two and the last, because the rights of small peoples and nationalities are indeed infringed upon in some places, but such mixing is used by the guardians of human rights themselves, so all claims are made against them. And the West is interested in the rights of national minorities only insofar as they serve to incite separatism in certain countries they hate, which perfectly demonstrates the silence of these problems, for example, in the Baltic States, Poland, Moldova, and Ukraine.

Recently, the North Korean officialdom issued another rebuke to the hypocrisy of Western countries, pointing out, firstly, that no one asked them to assess the situation in the DPRK with human rights, no one appointed Western countries as an arbiter in this matter, and secondly, that there are many problems with human rights; third, that the foreign policy of the United States and its allies leads to humanitarian disasters in different regions of the world and, consequently, to the notorious violation of human rights. A small but proud country said something that the big and strong keep quiet about, or which they only shamefully hint at in a diplomatic way.

However, it would be an oversimplification to think that "human rights" are just a political device in international squabbles. In fact, this is a whole ideology, which did not arise from scratch, has a certain historical base and stages of development.

What is right


So, as you know, law arose along with the emergence of the state. The state as an institution of society arose as a kind of power, the characteristic differences of which are that it relies on organized violence (squad and dungeon, police / army and prison) and, therefore, has an apparatus of coercion and control standing, as it were, over society. It so happened that the state exercised its power without using or with minimal use of law, but in most cases, if there is a state, then a system of law arises. Law is publicly disclosed norms of behavior and rules of relations between people, which are protected by the force of state coercion.

It is quite obvious that the state can arise only where there is already a deep division of labor and there is private property. The original states were formed to protect the ownership of land and the slaves of the stratum of the most cunning and successful leaders that separated from the primitive community.

Early systems of law were based on the principle of protecting the property and interests of the propertied classes - slave owners, merchants, clergy, and, less often, artisans. In other words, rights were granted only to individual strata, which were protected by the state. Slaves, and later serfs, that is, a significant part of the population, were not subjects of law, were considered essentially as property.

Права человека


At the same time, philosophers, troublemakers and rebels gradually creeped into their heads the idea that all people are equal, at least as people. And what is the easiest way to equalize people in the usual system of social order? Bestow equal rights.

So, during the Great French Revolution, the extremely daring idea of ​​turning all people into citizens endowed with equal rights was realized. This model gradually embraced the whole world, and thanks to the diplomatic activity of the USSR, by the middle of the XNUMXth century, it received a normative consolidation in the so-called international law (which, strictly speaking, is not law, since there is no key element of coercion).

Of course, equality does not and cannot give any real economic, political and cultural equality, if only because it makes the initially unequal equal. Equality looks especially hypocritical under conditions economic polarization of society. It's one thing to have the right when you have a lot of money, and quite another thing if you are a tramp.

Gradually, human rights became the subject of political speculation. The main problem of human rights lies precisely in the fact that their legal essence is so formal that in real life it is practically unable to express itself. Whatever equality is declared, in reality it is always possible to find an infringement of the position of certain people. For example, in market relations, only money gains real value. Money gives the de facto right to live as its owner pleases, despite all the laws. Or another example - if a society is riddled with racial, national or religious prejudices. No matter what fair law the state may issue, its law enforcement practice will always be discriminatory. Because the problem is not in the law, but in the content of social relations and in the culture of people. Highly cultured people do not need laws at all, they are able to act according to their conscience even without laws.

Two polar approaches


At one time, Soviet legal science, as opposed to Western, put forward the thesis that all rights should contain mechanisms for their implementation in their very declaration. For example, the right to work should not hang in the air, and the state is obliged to guarantee everyone a job, and according to the right to housing - to guarantee the use of housing, etc. Later, this concept was developed in other socialist and semi-socialist countries and such a concept appeared as the right of the people.

Now there are countries, including the DPRK, China, Vietnam (and partly Russia), which view human rights not as individualistic in the West, but through the prism of the life of the entire people, and this is more correct and reasonable. In this case, there is a real connection between formal rights and living conditions. The state, having emerged only as an institution for the protection of property, is gradually becoming an instrument for regulating social relations and the development of society. This means that the question of the well-being of people is resolved in the sphere of economics and culture, and not in law.

From a scientific point of view, the people are not the citizens of the country or the population. A people is, first of all, a collective, an objective historical formation, fastened by economic ties, language, culture, community of life and possessing a stable social consciousness. That is, these are not just people, but also objective social ties between them.

What is the point in accusing China of discriminating against sexual minorities if the Chinese people and the Chinese state view homosexuality as a form of deviant behavior? What was the point, for example, to blame the USSR for the compulsory distribution of labor, if thereby the public good of the people was achieved - industrial facilities were erected, the country's defense capability was strengthened.

In other words, two approaches to human rights have emerged - selfish and collectivist, private and popular.

Moreover, the Western approach to human rights has negative historical practice. Western countries fail to achieve harmony and prosperity of the people on its basis. Examples of happy Western countries do not stand up to criticism: firstly, these are microscopic countries of northern Europe, secondly, their "prosperity" is built on more money from an ordinary citizen than in other countries, and thirdly, their economic well-being is built on unequal exchange, i.e. in fact, they rob backward regions and countries in one way or another. It is impossible to turn Russia and the whole world into Denmark or Norway, because the economic models of these countries are not self-sufficient and not even independent.

The historical practice of the collectivist approach to human rights as the realization of the rights and interests of the people is also not flawless, but few would argue that, for example, the “Brezhnev stagnation” was a much happier time for our people than other eras. China has been able to eradicate extreme poverty that no other large country can do. Isn't that an argument?

Here the worldview difference in approaches manifests itself. Some people are ready to argue with foam at the mouth that freedom in the Western understanding is more important than free education, medicine, culture, achievements, etc. What is important is that they are personally given the right to realize their inclinations to enrichment and philistine happiness, and the state does not interfere. Others prefer to think in more patriotic and collectivist categories, arguing about the common good of the people.

The same applies to the essence of the state: either it serves only to protect property with formal equality, or it can act as a means of the development of society.

Therefore, the DPRK claims that they are building “heaven on earth” not for abstract individuals, but for the people. And in the West they cannot even understand this. They are concerned about the rights of sex minorities and dissidents.

What approach is the future - only history will show. But purely methodologically, an individual without society is nothing, and society will not even notice the loss of an individual.

Therefore, when V.V. Putin says that a person should be at the center of all the activities of the state, and a snide question arises: what kind of person? It's another matter if you put the people in the center.
14 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 28 October 2021 22: 51
    0
    Your article is suitable for a scientific journal. You raised such a topic - "without half a liter" can not be solved. While I was reading, I remembered so many things, so many "copies" were broken.

    Highly cultured people do not need laws at all, they are able to act according to their conscience even without laws.

    Absolutely agree. The current power of conscience is not enough, therefore, we have many questions with the rights.
  2. Miffer Offline Miffer
    Miffer (Sam Miffers) 28 October 2021 22: 53
    0
    And the West is interested in the rights of national minorities only insofar as they serve to incite separatism in certain countries they hate, which perfectly demonstrates the silence of these problems, for example, in the Baltic States, Poland, Moldova, and Ukraine.

    1) Baltics - Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. As far as I know, the approach to the problems of minorities is somewhat different there.
    2) I have not heard that the Poles pinched minorities.
    3) And with Moldova, the author hit the sky with his finger.

    In general, it resembles a paragraph from the textbook of social studies for the 8th grade of high school.
    1. Adler77 Offline Adler77
      Adler77 (Denis) 29 October 2021 08: 57
      +1
      Why, the rights of national minorities are violated in the Baltics and in Moldova and Ukraine and Poland, this is the right to speak, receive education in their native language, and many other aspects. Or do you want to say that there are no such problems in the listed countries?
      1. Miffer Offline Miffer
        Miffer (Sam Miffers) 29 October 2021 11: 58
        -1
        Did the deputy politician tell you at the political information that there are such problems there?
        Or did you read this here?
        1. Adler77 Offline Adler77
          Adler77 (Denis) 29 October 2021 15: 34
          +2
          No, my wife is from Transnistria, I go there a lot. The conflict just arose from the unwillingness of the leadership of Moldova to take into account the opinion of the national minorities.
          I have heard from the media about the passports of non-citizens in the Baltic States, is that not true?
          Violent Ukrainization is also a deception?
          Do you actually deny the existence of problems or disagree with something? With what?
          1. Miffer Offline Miffer
            Miffer (Sam Miffers) 29 October 2021 20: 29
            0
            Transnistria is like a country separate from Moldova, although it is legally included in it. It has its own information space, other authorities, laws, etc.
            Now, if you personally, and not your wife, lived in Chisinau, and not in the PMR, then you could say something definite about Moldova here. And in the case you described - span.

            Conflict? What conflict? 1992? The beginning of that conflict on March 2, 2022 will be 30 years old. Over the years, a lot of water has flown under the bridge in the Dniester. Everything flows and changes. And you keep telling me that someone is being oppressed there. Especially idiocy is the ban on speaking in the native language.

            Baltics: in this case, Lithuania + Latvia + Estonia. So?
            Tell me about the passports of non-citizens in Lithuania. I'll listen.
            Non-citizens in Latvia and Estonia have more rights than you, being a citizen of Russia in Russia.
            The 14th mayor of Riga, Nil Ushakov, was mayor for almost 10 years. Someone pinched him somehow? Tell us in detail, I will listen with pleasure.

            Forced Ukrainization? You, again, do not live in Ukraine, you can "hear something from the media" about the state of affairs there. If you read Reporter, Political Review and similar portals, then you have a clearly distorted picture of what is happening there. And I don’t need to rub in here about "'re coming out-fascists "," Jews-Bandera "and so on. Truth is somewhere in between.

            You somehow missed about Poland. Poland is generally beyond your perception ...
            1. Adler77 Offline Adler77
              Adler77 (Denis) 29 October 2021 20: 55
              0
              I don't know anything about Poland.
              About Ukraine, there are many ethnic minorities living there, which in some regions make up the majority of the population, they would like to receive education in their native language, watch TV in their native language, do they have this opportunity? As far as I know, no.
              As for the Baltics, I cannot tell you for sure, since I am not a political scientist, but I know that there are citizens and non-citizens there. This is definitely an inequality. As for the comparison of the rights of non-citizens of Estonia and Latvia in comparison with mine, as a citizen of Russia, I would like to listen and compare.
              Well, about Kishinevo and PMR, I don't see what makes you outraged. The PMR is de jure Moldova and they would not mind ending the conflict, but on condition that their demands are met, but Moldova is against it and the negotiations are at an impasse. If Russia were not there, everything would have ended long ago for the Russian-speaking countries, following the example of the countries of Central Asia and Ukraine. So I don't need to go to Chisinau, it's not about him.
              Where are you from?
              1. Miffer Offline Miffer
                Miffer (Sam Miffers) 29 October 2021 22: 36
                +1
                I don't know anything about Poland.

                You know a little more about Ukraine, the Baltics and Moldova.
                You have the Internet, search, read. Perhaps it will help.
                You also have the right to be delusional.

                Don't be there for Russia everything would have ended long ago for Russian speakers following the example of the countries of Central Asia

                99% of Moldovans know Russian to some extent, so they are also "Russian-speaking".
                1. Adler77 Offline Adler77
                  Adler77 (Denis) 29 October 2021 22: 58
                  -1
                  You got away from answering my questions, the advice to search the Internet is simply ridiculous, you yourself search the Internet for confirmation of my words and find them.
                  Knowing Russian and considering it native are different concepts, Moldovans in Moldova are not Russian-speaking.
                  You are just some kind of not a serious interlocutor, you started so cool, just for your health, but you finished in the style you need and look for wink
                  How is there a comparison of the rights of citizens you and non-citizens of the Baltic republics? Did it really interest me?
                  1. Miffer Offline Miffer
                    Miffer (Sam Miffers) 29 October 2021 23: 53
                    +2
                    Talking to you is like talking to a tree, so I don’t crucify too much.
                    For the gifted, on the fingers: in Lithuania, which is also a Baltic republic, there are NO NON-CITIZENS. Such categories are available only in Latvia and Estonia. If you are not able to understand this, what else can be explained to you? The rules of the Russian language, by the way, of your native language? So you don't really know him either.
                    And I'm not going to look for confirmation of your nonsense on the Internet, I have more important things to do.
                    1. Adler77 Offline Adler77
                      Adler77 (Denis) 30 October 2021 10: 05
                      -1
                      Oh yes, the typical answer. The transition to personal abuse. Ok, let's compare the rights of non-citizens of Estonia and Latvia with the rights of citizens of the Russian Federation, what is the difference about which you so vehemently argued?
                    2. Adler77 Offline Adler77
                      Adler77 (Denis) 1 November 2021 23: 03
                      0
                      I didn’t look for it, but somehow it appeared in the feed.
                      Ethnic Poles are regularly and massively subjected to discriminatory actions in Ukraine regarding freedom of religion, education in their native language and freedom of speech. The publication Msn Wiadomości writes about this, citing the official statement of the Deputy Foreign Minister of Poland Shimon Shinkovsky, made at a meeting of the relevant department.
                      How is it? Are they lying?
                      :))))
                      And where have you disappeared comrade :)
  3. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 30 October 2021 16: 28
    +2
    The 2021 population census is reduced to mailing in the mailboxes of form No. 7 approved by order of Rosstat No. 17.09.2020 dated September 553, XNUMX, in which they ask to take part in the census in one of three ways:
    1. Until November 8, 2021, independently fill out the census forms on the Internet on the State Services portal
    2. Until November 14, 2021, call and agree on the time of arrival of the scribe to you
    3. By November 14, 2021, visit the stationary census site
    Judging by the effectiveness of vaccination against Covid-19, which, despite all campaigning and coercion measures, will never reach the required level, it may happen that as a result of this census, the entire population of the Russian Federation will be comparable to the population of Moscow in view of the formal approach of Rosstat to the population census ...
    Instead of such pieces of paper, they would take information from house management companies and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the result would be much closer to reality.
  4. I will allow myself to add a couple of rubles to the common piggy bank ...

    So:

    Law as the universe covers, envelops the social system, which leads to the need to have - in the field of Reason - more or less uniform rules of action within a (private, individual) system of law serving a specific social system and all types of inherent subjectivity, such as the state, various kinds of institutions and organizations, as well as individuals in their formal and informal relations, both among themselves and with other legal entities.

    It is important to note here that rules (procedures, operations) can only be effective for identical units (groups of units), otherwise they (rules) cannot be operated. For this, such universal units, as an 'individual', 'legal entity', 'human right' and many others, allowing to work with a great real variety, but at the expense of the same operations applied to monotonous units.

    An "individual" is a universal "empty space" or a unit (discrete) of operation, strictly proportionate to some other unit in the legal system, as well as some individual “human right”. And this is not some mysterious quality of these units themselves, especially of people or organizations. The point is that they are the means of the work of the human Reason, which operates with single universals. This is the quality of Reason itself!

    The means / instrumentality, in particular, lies in the fact that words, concepts, expressions and operations with them both in the works of legal scholars and in the texts of legal documents, we are able (because they have been taught) and are obliged relate to real life, with our (and not our) actions in this 'living' reality.