Human Rights: Class or Universal?

We start by saying that the issue and concept of Human Rights cannot be separated from the social context where it arises. It should not be taken independent of the workings of a particular society. As such, human rights should be viewed in relation to other factors which are more fundamental and exerts great effect on the peoples concept of it: a point of view based on the summation of peoples experiences and not in fragments and abstraction. Our society, as we all know, is composed of different classes, of which the most prominent are the elite landlords and big businessmen on the one hand and the workers and farmers on the other hand. This is of course not an arbitrary decision but owing to their position in production where the former owns the means and the latter has only its labor to speak of. There is also the middle forces whose existence is characterized by self-sufficiency and limited abundance. It is here we students mainly belong. With the fact that our society is divided into social classes, there exists a necessity for a state, or a government in general, to maintain peace and order. As was declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the state is the one primary responsible for guarding the human rights of the people as the most powerful institution it is the only one capable of violating it. Long before us there already existed a state whose main objective is to reduce antagonism among them. But since the position in production and interests of these social classes are in practical contradiction, one way to accomplish this is to preach pacifism or apathy, an assurance at least in paper that it upholds everyones rights and welfare. In this way, it makes itself appear as if it is taking a neutral side and honestly aiming to promote the well-being of all, of humanity. Equality before the law is the governments most attractive faade in its project to create an illusion of neutrality and bear a humanist face. But in a system where everything can be used to justify the rule of the state, the concept of human rights is but another instrument at its disposal necessary to delude the masses into thinking that it is for the peoples welfare. On paper, the toiling masses have a lot of rights sufficient to conclude that at this point in time they could have long ago began to live a humane and decent life. But what is written or thought about does not necessarily translate into reality. Mush less when the people in power has no interest, or its interest in incompatible with the realization of those rights. A law or a right when it is inversely proportional to the interests of the ruling classes can never be truly implemented. For example, the government cannot simply guarantee our rights to a quality education because it uses the money for other reasons, obviously not for the greater number of people.

Furthermore, the workers cannot simply insist on their right to job security when it means lesser profit for the foreign investors and domestic businessmen alike. And wore, the government has formulated laws legalizing eternal casualization and contractualization which it religiously implements now. Simply put, a set of human rights cannot guarantee and satisfy the peoples hunger for a humanly existence. Every day we witness the systematic oppression and widespread violation of human rights. In the factories, Urban Poor communities (or squatter areas as the government and some of us see it) and in the countryside almost all of the declared rights are in the Bills of Rights are transgressed. How then can we say that human rights are inherent and universal? On the contrary, we may postulate in accordance with experience that human rights are inherently denied and universally violated. The struggle for human rights can only take a class-based content if it really aims t achieve a human existence for the poor and oppressed classes. And only the oppressed classes in our society can guarantee its rights as a class and as an individual. But only after a long and arduous struggle against the forces of oppression. It then goes without saying that the struggle of the basic masses, with the support of students and middle forces, for national freedom and democracy is at once a concrete step to achieve these rights without boasting. The oppressed classes cannot hope and wait for the government of landlords and businessmen, foreign and local, to be enlightened and eventually give them to the poor like alms. Yet many have been reduced to living even below that of a beggar but not anymore hoping for that false promise. Not when the movement for liberation is once again gaining ground and painstakingly enjoining the masses for their liberation, both from the universal conception of human rights and from the economic system of society which reduced them into slaves.