ASPECTS OF ANARCHISM

Rights
RIGHTS CONSTANTLY CROP up in our lives. Almost all debate and choice about what we can or cannot do is coloured by talk about different rights. Natural Rights, Human Rights, Children's Rights, Animal Rights, the Right to Life, The Right to Die, the Right to Know, the Right to Privacy and endless others. All are appeals for people to get what they deserve and what they are entitled to. Collectively rights amount to a universal fairness, which, if only they were all respected, would leave no one with cause for complaint. All that is needed for any disputes in society to be resolved is for conflicting rights to be weighed against one another and the most equitable solution found.

It will surprise few of our readers that we think this view is utter rubbish and we shall not disappoint those who were expecting the famous quote by saying we agree with the philosopher Jeremy Bentham who said that natural rights were "nonsense upon stilts". The plot of the rest of this article will follow with a very brief look at rights, a longer critique of what's wrong with them and more importantly what anarchists can use as an alternative in political dialogue. Obviously we are not going to say that changing the theoretical framework of political discussion can bring revolutionary change in itself. However we do say there is a reciprocal interchange between ideas and practice which grow from one another. In this instance a rejection of campaigning for our 'rights' when in struggle enables us to see beyond immediate goals within the confines of present society just as actual struggles have shown us the need to go beyond what the bosses can concede in terms of rights.

Are Rights Right On?
As promised there will be no long lecture on the historical and philosophical origins of the concept of rights. While we would not dismiss this topic as pure Kant, it is all Paine for little gain and will be Locke-d away for the moment. Those comrades who find it grist to their John Stuart Mill's will find a plentiful literature on the subject that we have no space for here.

Suffice to say rights became a major political influence with the American and French revolutions and have since expanded to almost all aspects of human interaction. One distinction worth making is between positive and negative rights. The latter are rights which allow individuals freedom from interference from the state. These rights, mostly advocated by ideological liberals, were in general the first to be put forward e.g. the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the American constitution. Positive rights have come later, pushed for by state socialists and Keynesian capitalists. They differ in requiring action by others or the state to ensure their fulfilment. An example is the right to work. To 'enjoy' this right someone must provide a job for you to do. The distinction between these two types of rights is by no means clear cut and they are united by the justification for their existence. All these claims of rights rest on being part of a natural order with which human society should conform. This is the concept of Natural Rights. Human, Animal or any other sets of rights that apply to individuals because they are members of certain groups are subsets of these Natural Rights.

What's Wrong With Rights?
Logically there are gaping holes in the theory of rights. Firstly there is no evidence that rights exist as part of a supposed natural order. Even if they did, to move from what actually is to what ought to be is not necessarily so (naturalistic fallacy if you want to know G.E Moore about it). For example it is natural for people to die of disease but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cure the sick. Secondly, rights accruing to certain groups have problems of demarcation. Do human rights extend to foetuses? Do animal rights extend to non-vertebrates?

However to anarchists these are minor quibbles. Our objection to rights rests on their political content. Rights are only of use if they can be enforced. To which we must ask - who decides what rights there are and who will make sure they are put into effect? This cannot be simply side-stepped by more 'democratic' or anarchist forms of decision making. The idea of rights presupposes that there is a correct answer to be discovered and that makes it an issue for experts. Anarchists do not believe that there are factual answers to how people interact. It effects everyone in a community and everyone should participate in the decision making process. No one is greater expert on you than yourself. Of course if you want to build a house you would be foolish not to consult people with expertise in architecture or bricklaying but they have no greater knowledge than anyone else in the community as to whether a house needs to be built. These types of decision can be blurred on occasion but with rights we can see a definite difference. Rights are the product of a hierarchical society. If you are in dispute with someone over a clash of rights you must appeal to a higher authority. When decisions go against people in British courts they go to the European Court of Human Rights. Regardless of whether they win or lose they have surrendered control of their own lives to someone else. We are not saying that the idea of rights is a manipulative con by capitalism to divert rebellion into acceptable channels but it is product of capitalist, individualistic and authoritarian thinking which cannot serve as the basis for a society of freedom and equality.

Right On!
What can be done about this? Obviously we shouldn't give up what practical rights the bosses have conceded to us in the present. In fact they should get a hearty kicking for even thinking about taking away our rights to pensions, striking, free abortion etc. Unfortunately they've already done most of that if we ever had it anyway. We need somehow to gain power for ourselves that they can't take away. Without speculating overmuch on a future anarchist society we can see some key features of it emerging through the struggles of our own class in the here and now. One of these is the kind of arguments we use in settling points of controversy between us. Anarchism rejects opinions that rely for their justification on what is 'naturally' the case or on someone's judgement simply because of who they are. Instead we aim at a leadership of ideas that convince people because of their own merits. Real decisions about people's lives cannot be resolved fruitfully by recourse to abstract categories, however benign they may appear. To place our faith in rights is to abdicate responsibility for our own decisions and surrender to a tyranny subtler but more all embracing than the cosh.

This is the last in the series Aspects of Anarchism. We start a new series -Myths- on the back page next issue.