Does capitalism lead to greater human rights?

Question

China recently proposed a law that would give their people private property rights for the first time since communism became the official form of government in the country.
The critical key to this equation seems to be that capitalism is replacing the old tired beliefs of Communism/socialism with free market capitalism.
Few could deny, although some still try, that private property rights (the basis of our own American Republic) guaranteed by our constitution indeed give the people greater say in their lives and government.
The old style communist/socialist thinkers, many in the Chinese university system (boy this sounds familiar, doesn't it?) are currently balking on giving individuals this right.

Will this law come to fruition, or will property rights always be denied in a nation that still calls itself Communist, while becoming the world's formost Capitalism?

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009422.php#comments

Answer 1

The recently released Human Development Report 2000 (HDR 2000) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has as its theme human rights and human development. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations in 1948. The need to make conscious efforts for development, initially thought of as development of countries, was also recognized around that time. Once national governments, especially in what were then referred to as underdeveloped countries, began to take concrete steps to stimulate growth, development became a much talked about theme. It continued to get national and international attention till the early 1980s or so, by which time it began to decline because of overexposure and a kind of weariness set in.

By contrast, human right issues remained largely dormant for a while although the emergence of the women's rights movements in the 1970s brought it to the forefront, partially at least. But, as HDR 2000 points out human rights and human development remained on parallel tracks, the former dealing with personal freedoms in a legal and political sense while the latter concentrated on the material aspects of production and the societal aspects of the distribution of the produce. A powerful section of those who considered the latter as their professional concern held the view that poor countries could not afford the luxury of human rights which could come on to the agenda only after a certain level of material progress was achieved. In the 1990s this position was challenged and corrected and the notion of the complementary relationship of human rights and human development at all levels began to gain currency. The writings of Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen contributed to this realization. Influenced by them and strongly pushed through the UNDP by his friend and fellow economist the late Mahbub-ul-Haq, the creator of the Human Development Report, the link between human rights and human development has become a matter of intellectual enquiry on the one hand and a focal point to elicit popular participation on the other.

It is, therefore, appropriate that HDR 2000 has raised the question whether "the two concepts can be viewed together in a more integrated way, gaining something through being combined in a more comprehensive vision". Chapter 1 of HDR 2000 deals with this issue in a historical and philosophical sense. The position taken is that "the ideas of human development and those of human rights are linked in a compatible and complementary way. If human development focuses on the enhancement of the capabilities and freedoms that the members of a community enjoy, human rights represent the claims that individuals have on the conduct of individual and collective agents and on the design of social arrangements to facilitate or secure these capabilities and freedoms."

A good part of the Report is a critical evaluation of the social arrangements necessary for the realization of the human rights - human development combine. Every country, it is stated, needs to strengthen its social arrangements for securing human freedoms - with norms, institutions, legal frameworks and enabling economic environment. A strong pro-democracy position is taken on the ground that "democracy is the only form of political regime compatible with respecting all five categories of rights - economic, social, political, civil and cultural". However, it is immediately pointed out that the essential feature of democracy is not elections, even on the basis of universal franchise, and not a mere majoritarian regime which is what elections usually result in, but a fully participatory, "inclusive" democracy strictly adhering to the rule of law. While by the end of the twentieth century democracy has emerged as the dominant regime among the nations of the world - a great achievement in itself - there is not a single one that will pass the test of inclusiveness that HDR 2000 portrays.

To take another example, the family is a crucial social institution and can be decisive on matters relating to gender equality and the rights of children. And yet not all forms of family are conducive to human rights and gender equality. Many family patterns, indeed, turn out to be oppressive.

During the days of the cold war, discussions relating to social institutions and social arrangements were carried on under the rubric of "social systems". A social system is a set or network of institutions compatible with an objective or vision and contributing towards its realization. The social systems identified were primarily capitalism and socialism. The labeling had its limitations in that it facilitated emotional, ideological discussions and propaganda. But it also kept the need for institutional evaluation in the forefront. With the collapse of many socialist regimes in the 1980s and 1990s and the apparent universalization of capitalism subsequently, an impression has been created that it is no longer necessary to have critical evaluation of social systems.

On the contrary, if the need to combine human rights and human development is a new vision for the twenty-first century, systems' evaluation is imperative. In particular, for a variety of reasons the credentials of capitalism need to be carefully assessed. Because human rights concerns were initially championed by capitalist countries and the failure to protect individual liberties was one of the reasons for the collapse of socialist regimes, capitalism may appear to be compatible with the new global thrust on human rights. Capitalism's demonstrated capacity to contribute to material production and the new concern that capitalist countries and agencies show to reduce poverty may further support that claim.

HDR 2000 does not make such claims. But its silence on some crucial capitalist arrangements amounts to giving tacit support to the system that has survived and appears to be gaining acceptance. Hence it is necessary to point out some basic features of capitalism that go against the new vision of the combination of human rights and human development that HDR 2000 projects.

Capitalism, even capitalist opulence, it may be noted, has not eliminated poverty and marginalization of people even in affluent capitalist nations. Indeed, past history and contemporary evidence that HDR 2000 highlights shows that it is a basic feature of capitalism that it simultaneously generates affluence for the few and deprivation for the many. In this sense as an economic system it is not and cannot be inclusive. Also even where it reduces poverty in an absolute sense, it tends to increase inequalities. Generating inequalities is part of its dynamics.

Capitalist organization of production also has innate features that are not compatible with human rights and human development. In capitalist production ownership of resources is the decisive factor. Owners or their agents decide, on the basis of the desires of other owners expressed through the market, what gets produced. In the organization of production workers constitute essentially a cost item, again, determined in the final analysis by the strength of ownership. if a residue is left after costs are met, that again goes to owners in proportion to ownership, not to workers or on the basis of their contribution. Indeed, the rationale of production in the capitalist system is the quest for this surplus. An economic system whose essential feature is of this kind, surely, is not compatible with human rights, human development or human dignity. The rapidly spreading global capitalism is exactly of this kind with the difference that the ownership of resources frequently changes and so owners remain as the invisible hands behind the show. Hence the uncritical endorsement that HDR 2000 gives to "globalization" is rather strange.

This is not a call to return to socialism as it was, but to suggest that one of the human struggles necessary for the realization of human rights and human development is to move towards new social arrangements beyond apparently triumphant capitalism.

atp

Answer 2

The problem with college professors in any university is they work on theories all their lives and never put anything into real practice because they got a cushy job and late model car.

Old systems die hard I see Cuba as the last hold out. I think once the old leaders die the countries new leadership will bring the country into a more capitalistic lean. Socialism wont' bring any rights to people, it almost makes the entire population lazy and dull, it's hard to have your own business under that system, too.

Answer 3

Human rights doesn´t depend on economic systems, they depend on values...
the US are the base of capitalism, but human rights are violated at every corner... from death penalty, the exclusion of wide parts of the society from democratic procedures, the cover of "raid against terrorism" for kidnapping people all around the world, the tolerance of torture, the redifinition of prisoners of war to illegal combatants and so on...
there is no question that some kinds of capitalism can push human rights - as the german social-capitalism, what is absolutely no socilism - but in general the question whether human rights are wanted or not...

Never forget: human rights are a development of the democratic states... the human rights charta is respected in 46 countries in the world.... but we have somewhat 160 of them... we are the minority.... and sometime you get the feeling we wanna join the majority

Answer 4

Easy answer.

Compare governments based on Capitalism to governments based on Socialism, or any other economic theory.

Which countries fare better with regard to human rights?

Answer 5

No. It leads to greater fiscal opportunity and provides methods to achieve and succeed igf someone is determined and willing to work hard.

Answer 6

i think they are and will continue to follow russias lead but more gradually.