Marxism and Human Rights

Author(s): Leszek Kolakowski

Source: Daedalus, Vol. 112, No. 4, Human Rights (Fall, 1983), pp. 81-92
Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024886
Accessed: 16-04-2015 10:51 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press and American Academy of Arts & Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Daedalus.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.52.0.128 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Leszek Kolakowski

Marxism

German

the

In

and Human Rights

version

of

the

"International,"

the refrain

ends with thewords Internationale erk?mpft das Menschenrecht

wins
(the "International"
written without Marxist

while

human

right). The song,

inspiration, was adopted

to be sure,
as the offi

cial hymn of the Third International, which was supposed to be the

only political embodiment of Marxist doctrine. From this itmight
seem that the idea of human rights was part of the ideology of the
movement.

communist
not

so. The

nor

in other

expression,
translations

on

view, we find that this was

neither
in the French original
appears
seems
to
of the song,
have been inserted into

Alas,
which

closer

theGerman text principally to rhyme with the preceding line (auf das
This is an oddity not only in the history
Gefecht).
as well. Nous
ne sommes
in the history of Marxism
a
more
accurate
tout! is certainly
rendering of Marxist
In inquiring
into the relationships
between Marxism

Letzte
but

of the hymn,
rien, soyons
ideology.
and human

rights theory, itmay be useful to define both terms, a difficult task,

that exist and the contro
given the enormous
variety of definitions
no set of definitions will
versies they generate. While
satisfy everyone,
to its theoretical
ifwe reduce the problem
the many
core?dismissing
variants

peripheral

of Marxism

and

setting

aside

the intricate

ques

tions that relate to what may be included as human rights and the
extent

that

conditions?we
we

When
that we

on
implementation
depends
contingent
some progress.
may be able to make

their

say that we accept human

accept human
rights as valid.

historical

rights, we are saying in effect

But what does that mean?
It

81

This content downloaded from 192.52.0.128 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

82

Leszek Kolakowski
not mean

rights make up, or have always and every

a
where made up,
part of all legal systems. Such a statement would
be false, and in any case irrelevant to what most people believe to be
true about human
these rights would
be valid even if no
rights?that
does

that those

positive law included them, explicitly or implicitly. Conversely, if all

legal systems in theworld guaranteed them, this by itselfwould not
be

sufficient

not

depend

grounds
positively

present.
Nor do those who

for accepting
or negatively

accept
norm which

is an arbitrary

them. Their
on

the concept
they accept

actual
of human
simply

past

legislation,
rights
because

does

then,

validity,

or

claim

that it

they

like it,

and that it achieves validity by the force of their decree. To assert the
a sheer act of commitment
validity of human
rights is not
Itmeans more
the justification
lies in its very performance.

of which
than sim

ply saying that "we (I)decide that everybody ought to be given these
to declaring
that "it is the case that everybody
has
no
in
idea of human
other
has
firm
words,
rights,
in terms of natural
in turn, have
law theory, which may,
or
or transcendentalist
Kantian
Husserlian)
(say,

rights," but rather

these rights." The
basis
a

except

theological

justification.
law theory does indeed imply that it is the case that steal
Natural
are inherent prop
iswrong;
for
rightness or wrongness
example,
ing,
or
to
certain
human
whether
erties of
acts, according
they conform
nature
of man. Those
immanent moral
the rational
conflict with
on divine decrees.
In the tradition
qualities may or may not depend
as well),
in
Cartesian
nominalism
of late medieval
(and
metaphysics
which
free
have
from
God's
been
differ
verdict,
might
they resulted
was.
ent from?indeed,
God decided
it actually
to?what
opposite

that it was wrong

to kill one's father; given the irreversibility of

sinful.
has since been inherently and immutably
law, patricide
law doctrines
Seventeenth
century natural
rejected the "decretalist"
a distinction
made
between
natural
law and
and
instead
theology

God's

the latter resulted from God's

law, arguing that while
was
in the nature of things and
law
inherent
decree alone, natural
even by the Creator himself. Grotius,
for one,
could not be changed,
imma
God
is
that
orders
what
Leibniz
took this position.1
argued
divine

positive

nently good and forbids what

acts

and

things

good

is immanently evil, instead of making

or evil by the force of his own

free decision.2

The very idea of homo, Pufendorf argued, included his inherent dig

This content downloaded from 192.52.0.128 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and Human

Marxism

83

Rights

nity.3 While making the moral order of things independent of our

knowledge

law theory was

natural

of God,

based

on a metaphysical

principle, which stated that the order of nature displayed immutable

and that itwas not only an order of causes and
characteristics,
as
well.
values
of
but
effects,
To the extent that the idea of human
rights was
logically depen
to the
dent on the belief in natural
law, it was clearly unacceptable

moral

adherents of empiricism and of all varieties of historicism, including

Marxism.

on this point is necessary,

includes three characteristics,

A distinction

man

rights concept
for this discussion:
portant
inherent

of being

dignity

first,
human

however.

The

hu

im
among others,
these rights are valid because of the
and they make up part of the natu

ral order, rather than being established by decree or by positive law;

is immutably
valid wherever
human
live
beings
interact with one another;
these
however
third,
rights,

second,

this order

together

and

specified, are rights vested in all individuals and only in individuals,

not

in social

groups,

races,

classes,

nations,

professions,

or other

entities.
that aMarxist's

case against hu
than the one made by an empiri

On

it appears
these assumptions,
man rights would
be much
stronger
not
cist. The
while
latter,
accepting
the notion

dismissing
and the idea of

the first of

of an "objective"

their permanent

order

"validity"?insofar

validity established by specific legislation?might

commit

of

himself

to the

the three premises,

and rights,

of values

as

still, without

fear

rights. He
human
actions

contradiction,
not believe
that God or nature made
certain
or
but
he
could
admit
that there is nothing
wrong
right,
or empirically
forbidden
is
"this
"this
saying,
wrong,"

unsound,

by
qua empiricist
good." An empiricist
nihilism. He may believe,
for example,

idea of human

might

illicit, logically
human
actions

it is not

is not

improper,

in our

reacting to
is noble,"
"this is
to preach moral
bound

that torture

iswrong

and that

we ought to support and fight for a society inwhich all people enjoy
guarantees
against being tortured.
In a limited sense, an empiricist may
ise; he may, without
being inconsistent,

even accept the second prem

state that though no univer

sal validity may be spoken of in a particular case, he himself is ready

to stand up for human rights in all imaginable
conditions.
To be sure,
cannot be defended
since his position
in terms of "validity,"
he is
and must concede
helpless before the challenge of an adversary,
that,

This content downloaded from 192.52.0.128 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

84

Leszek Kolakowski

those who deny the idea of human rights are in a

than he. Barred from committing
himself
intellec
or
to
of
is
the
doctrine
human
he
neverthe
theoretically
rights,
tually
to it.
commitment
less free to abide by his practical

in cognitive
terms,
no worse
position

A historicist

may

find himself

in a somewhat

analogous

position.

While

believing that all values and standards, both cognitive and

moral,

"express"

specific

needs,

aspirations,

and conflicts

of the par

ticular civilization inwhich they happen to arise, he knows that it is

on their ahistorical,
let alone eternal, validity. This,
not
him
from
that as a participant
does
however,
prevent
admitting
and that he is not being
in a particular
culture, he shares its norms,
aware though he may
in those norms,
if he "believes"
inconsistent
to dwell

pointless

also be of their historical relativity.

A Marxist's
framework,

is far more
radical. Within
his conceptual
position
to take the historicist's
he is not only bound
standpoint,

dismissing all the claims of natural law theory, all the beliefs in ever
order or
lasting moral
must positively
oppose

in immutable
the concept

he
rights, but, to be consistent,
even
in
its
of human
his
rights

torically relative form; he is ideologically committed to reject the very

idea.
and human
doctrine
between Marxist
rights theory
than the idea that all values and rights, in
in something more
but the temporary
of particular
Marxist
terms, are nothing
products
but
the
that
of
opinions
particular
nothing
production,
relationships
to give them an illusory
their vested
classes use to express
interests,
both the concept of liberty and
shape. For to the Marxist,
ideological
The

conflict

consists

the idea of human rights, as defined by Enlightenment thinkers and

ideologists

are the specific expressions

of a
Revolution,
on
Marx's
the verge of collapse.
that is
writings,
are
of all
dismissive
onward,
wholly
question"

of the French

society
bourgeois
from the "Jewish
to the lasting validity of "bourgeois
freedom"
and unre
claims made
ex
Marx
individual's
the
idea
of
The
human
movable
rights,
rights.
natu
a society in which
is
the interests of each person
implies
plains,
a society
to
interests
of
the
and
others,
opposed
inevitably
rally
The domi
incurably torn asunder by the clash of private aspirations.
in this society are bound
of human nature?but
result of the corruption

nant motivations
ter of

the economic

system,

which

as a
to be egoistic?not
because of the charac

is inevitably

conflict-laden.

All

rights and liberties in bourgeois society simply assert and codify the

This content downloaded from 192.52.0.128 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and Human

Marxism

Rights

85

simple fact that each individual's aspirations and interests inevitably

conflict with, and are limited by, the interests and aspirations of oth
ers. Since

is a place of incessant and all-pervasive

is possible,
the state steps in to pro
real community
re
to set limits to the conflicts by imposing
unity,

the civil
no

society

war, where
vide an illusory
strictions on hostilities.
liberties, which

restrictions
appear in the form of civil
take on a purely negative
character.
Ideo
to the system by various
contract
social

These

necessarily

is given
logical legitimacy
in its promise
of abolishing
classes and class
theories. Communism,
out
roots
of
the
social
the
conflict, makes
thereby cutting
struggle,
freedom"
"negative
bourgeois
uals isolated from, and hostile

and human

of individ
rights?rights
one
another?useless.
The division
to,
and the state, the distinction
between
the two, is

between

civil society
"real
away with;

life" and spontaneous

community,
having ab
of the government
sorbed the state, law, and other instruments
that
its
with
and
oppres
society,
privileges,
exploitations,
kept bourgeois
done

siveness intact, serving to perpetuate

Communism
ends the clash between

it, has no need of such supports.

the individual and society; each

and spontaneously
identifies himself with the values
and the perfect unity of the social
the "whole,"
a return to the primitive
of the
body is recreated, not by
community
as
a
the Romantics
would
have it, but by movement
savages,
upward
on an "ascending
restores
to
that
human
spiral"
meaning
technologi

person naturally
and aspirations

of

cal progress. Human

the capitalist
system;
irrelevant.
utterly

are simply the facade of

rights, in other words,
in the new, unified
society they have become

Marx
Although
despised
"bourgeois"
the anarchists
did, that it did not matter
in bourgeois
liberal order within

valid

rights, he never argued, as

whether
those rights were
a despotic
between
and a

society. The difference

was an im
the "capitalist mode
of production"
to Marx.
the 1848-49
revolution
and thereafter,
During

portant one
he urged workers'
bourgeoisie

parties
to fight against

against royalists. This,

tactics. While
it was

to ally

themselves

with

tyrants; republicans
was not a matter

however,

the democratic

were

to be
supported
of principle
but of

to Marx,
that no imaginable
true, according
a
a socialist mean
in
could
have
political
changes
capitalist
society
could be obliterat
economy
ing, and that the iron laws of the market
ed only by a revolutionary
in
the
of
upheaval,
resulting
expropriation
the bourgeoisie
and the centralization
of all economic
levers in the

This content downloaded from 192.52.0.128 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

86

Leszek Kolakowski

to participate
in the fight for
needed
of the state, the workers
it
the
of
would
condition
their struggle,
improve
democracy;
political
final
for
the
battle
them
against capitalism.
preparing
behave
when
Marxists,
therefore,
they fight for civil
consistently
nonsocialist
liberties and human
regimes, and then
rights in despotic
hands

those liberties
destroy
Such rights, according
the new
cratic
sessed

conflictless,
regimes and
according

simply rejected
cused of violating

and

rights
to Marxist

unified

upon
seizing power.
are clearly irrelevant to
stated clearly that demo

immediately
socialism,

society.

Trotsky
of the proletariat
the dictatorship
to their own respective
principles;
rules of democracy,
if the bourgeois
order,

the "formal"
them;

it could
on

be as

should
since

the

latter

not be ac

the other

hand,

did not abide by its rules, it could be rightly blamed.4 This standpoint
so long as Marxists
as cynical,
who fight for
in nonsocialist
human
regimes do not pre
despotic
rights guarantees
nor that their moral
of principle
tend that it is a matter
indignation
even be viewed

cannot

has

and furthermore
aroused,
once
they are themselves
rights

been

these

make

no promise
to guarantee
turns
it
out, they
(As

in power.

usually do all three.)

Marx himself did not pretend that capitalist society deserved to be
condemned
was about

it was unjust, or that the revolutionary

the moralistic
He
abandoned
approach
justice.
moment
he
defined
himself
the
and
from
on,
early
because

struggle
to social

in oppo
to
true socialism,
he tried consistently
atti
that
the
convince his readers and followers
proper
(and himself)
not in denouncing
failures
the moral
tude to social changes consisted
that would
the "natural"
tendencies
but in analyzing
of capitalism,
new
In this
cause
to
about
the
and
it
society.
bring
collapse
inevitably

problems
sition to the so-called

German

to develop
their potentialities
have an opportunity
society, all would
to the fullest, asserting
their individuality
not, however,
against the
to its general progress.
There was,
he
society, but in contributing
terms
in
no
reason
to
of
condemn
believed,
exploitation
capitalist
was a commodity;
the
justice or injustice; the labor force itself
an
to
in selling himself
usually does it conform
worker,
employer,
The conflict between
to
of
the
exchange.
equivalent
principle
ably
was
one of right against
to
and
Marx,
workers,
according
capitalists
social

them.5
decide between
right; force alone would
to a large extent, was
of the moralistic
Marx's
dismissal
approach,
are hidden
in all his
Normative
of course a self-deception.
premises

This content downloaded from 192.52.0.128 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Marxism

and Human

87

Rights

in his idea of alienation

and in his theory
concepts,
particularly
restore the
would
of value, as well as in his belief that communism
to
human
He
of
life.
knew
how
human
character
the
achieve
truly
man
with the idea of humanitas,
of the empirical
and that
conformity
Plato's
than
this was no less value-laden
knowledge
acquaintance

basic

men
of ideas. He failed to explain what motivations
in
the
for
for
would
he
communism;
struggle
taking part
might
that they fight for communism
have resisted the proposition
for no
to win by the force of historical
better reason than that it is bound

with

the world
have

laws.

We

while making
allowances
cannot,
however,
to
is
fundamental
Marx's
work?reinsert
ity?which
human

rights

into his

theory,

distilling

for this ambigu

the concept of

the normative

content

from

the hybridlike doctrine thatmelts determinist prejudice with Utopian

into one

were a
IfMarxism
whole.
indistinguishable
purely
not
and
it
would
include
the human
description
prediction,

fantasies
historical
rights

to be

doctrine,

sure,

not

it would

but

actively

doctrine either. The incompatibility between theMarxist

comes

and human

that

oppose

doctrine

clearly when we see Marx

it refused to admit?and

rights concept
through
ism as both a disguised moralism?which
an
to be. To
for political
it explicitly wanted
action, which
appeal
state that civil liberties and human
are
rights principles
simply an
and
institutional
of
the
market
that
economy
expression
ideological
to abolish

is not merely

to press forward with a

the most
"sociological"
description,
predicting
likely out
come of current
social conflicts.
it is to affirm positively,
Rather,
a
to
and
social order where
contribute
civil
encourage,
for,
appeal
are
liberties and human
is
in
This
rights
abrogated.
entirely
keeping
with
the notion of man as a social animal
in its specifically Marxist
In a market
variant.
are victims
individuals
economy, Marx
argued,
of the society
in that their lives are prey to a contingent
historical
communism

intends

neutral

that no one, separately

process
the
trol;
society itself is alienated

or

anonymous
laws;
lost. Communism,

as a consequence

to "associated
create

did not

camp?quite

with

individuality,

can con
others,
and is governed
by
of its isolation,
is

by restoring genuine community,

by turning over
the
re
control
of
social
processes, would
producers"

the conditions

Marx

in alliance

from "real men"

of real

imagine
the contrary.

individual

his new
Yet,

development.
society as a sort of concentration

a number

of penetrating

critics,

even

This content downloaded from 192.52.0.128 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

88

Leszek Kolakowski

in his

lifetime,
noticed

without

for the achievements

waiting
if the Marxist
social program

of "real
ever

social

came

to be
a
ev
produce
highly despotic
regime, making
implemented,
a
state.
of the omnipotent
Com
ery human being
helpless property
a
was
to
to
munism
in
which
Marx,
be,
supposed
according
society
ism,"

that

itwould

the "negative

guarantees?are
fies himself with
principally
had been

or "bourgeois
human
freedom"?the
rights
because
identi
everyone willingly
pointless
precisely
since communism
the community.
is
Furthermore,

freedom"

the abolition

of private

once

property,

neither

successfully
expropriated,
clearly,
human
the institutions
protecting
rights in a bourgeois
be needed.
It is true that many
theorists,
considered
who
International,

especially
themselves

the bourgeoisie
the liberties nor
society would

in the period
full-fledged

of the Second
Marxists

did

not believe that socialism would destroy the rights embodied in the
democratic

institutions

of

"bourgeois

and
society,"
into economic

that

predicted

socialism,
democracy
relationships,
by extending
the scope of human
would
rights. They
enlarge, rather than abolish,
in
Marx's
writ
of the philosophical
took little account
generalities
a
as a moral
as
not
but
scien
doctrine
his
appeal,
ings, interpreting

tific analysis of capitalist society. Karl Kautsky and Rudolf Hilferd

to this company.
It is
belonged
ing are only two of many who
this
kind
of
selective
that
however,
by suggesting
reading,
arguable,
both the spirit and the letter of the canonical
these men betrayed
was a much more
faithful disciple
scriptures. Lenin, by comparison,
as sheer, di
of the proletariat
the dictatorship
of Marx.
By defining
a matter
no rules, disdaining?as
rect violence,
obeying no laws and
of parliamentary
the institutions
of principle?all
democracy?, with
its elections,

freedom

of speech,

and all the rest, and proclaiming

the

abolition of the division of power, he followed Marx completely. By

accepting?not
party,
neither

stating
freedom

would

be

just in fact, but in theory?the

that the Soviet
unambiguously

entirely

nor

democracy,
subordinated

announcing
to political

dictatorship
state would
that
tasks,

of

promise

cultural
and

the

that

activity
terror

would be directly inscribed into the legal system, he showed his fidel
the "fables about ethics" and asserting
By denouncing
ity to Marx.
an
was
to be
instrument
of the class struggle, by sneering
that ethics
at bourgeois
between
inventions
such as the distinction
aggressive
that one should keep internation
and defensive wars or the principle

This content downloaded from 192.52.0.128 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Marxism
al agreements,

by insisting

and Human

89

Rights

that there are no permissible

limits

in po

litical struggle?in all these, Lenin did not depart fromMarxist prin
clarity, he stated
ciples. So, too, did Trotsky when, with praiseworthy
of socialist power;
that all
is the form par excellence
that violence
as a reservoir of the labor force;
human beings are to be considered
of the new society;
labor is a permanent
that compulsory
principle
on moral
to be discarded
if they can
that no means
grounds
ought
never
serve the cause of communist
communists
"were
that
power;
and vegetarian-Quaker
with
the Kantian-priestly
concerned
prattle
the 'sacredness

about

tions of political
any

significance

regimes.
Steven

of human

are ques
life' "; that moral questions
nonsense
to
attribute
tactics; that it is

strategy and
to a distinction

between

democratic

and

fascist

who consistently
admit
argues that the only Marxists
are
or
"revisionists
who
of human
have
discarded
rights
tenets
are
of the Marxist
canon"
in
those central
that

Lukes

the validity
abandoned

sense can those who do

with
such a belief.6 But in what
compatible
or consider
to be such? While
still be seen as Marxists
themselves
socialists who, without
there may be many
are committed
to human
rights principles,

contradicting
this is because

themselves,
there is no

commonly accepted definition of socialism; the idea itself, older than

Marxism,

has a number
the Marxian

patible with
the scientistically

some of them obviously

of varieties,
incom
some
true
variant. Nevertheless,
it is
that
of

to pu
oriented Marxists
mentioned
above wanted
in
its
normative
the
doctrine
of
distorted
elements,
and,
rify
doing so,
Marxists
its sense. The neo-Kantian
tried to supplement
the allegedly
Kantian
of
with
ethics.
Unlike
the
value-free Marxist
society
theory
a
was
to
mixture
whom
such
the
neo-Kant
orthodox,
unimaginable,
ians, though

accepting

that no normative

ideas can be inferred

from

Marxist doctrine, found no logical difficulty in enriching itwith the

Kantian

of practical
reason.71 believe that both the scien
philosophy
were wrong. Marx
Marxists
oriented
and
the
neo-Kantians
tistically
ism is no longer itself once we cut it down to its purely "descriptive"

content and discard its normative background, which is hidden in the

of alienation,
and of the future identity
theory of class consciousness,
of individual
and society. The Marxian
free
critique of "negative
a
dom"
and individual
is
conclusion
from this
necessary
rights
theory.

This content downloaded from 192.52.0.128 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Leszek Kolakowski

9o

to be
of this half-Marxism
abor
proved
historically
current of old, apart from its contribution
to the
to exist, and the social-democratic
Leninist
ceased
move
variant,
a
was
soon
inherited
to lose contact
ment, which
part of its legacy,
Both

variants

tive. The

orthodox

with theMarxist
proponents;
movements

tradition. Neo-Kantian Marxism

to revive

attempts
proved

explanatory
was
Marxism

some

to be short-lived.

pretensions,
virtually

prophetic

of
As

its tenets

died off with

its

in later revisionist

a doctrinal

corpus with all

and prognostic
guidelines,
ideolo
by the Leninist-Stalinist

values,

monopolized

gy and, without being essentially distorted, has become the legitimiz

ing device

of

It solved moral
issues, not by
empire.
in favor of a value-neutral
but
analysis,
by launching

the totalitarian

them

dismissing

the vision of a new mankind, which would achieve its final liberation
by making everything the property of the state, by proclaiming the
irrelevance

of "bourgeois
freedom"
and human
rights.
into their jargon?reluctantly
have assimilated
from the West?some
of the phraseology
pressure

The
der

and un

Soviets

of human

rights. Yet, this hardly suggests that they have embraced human
rights theory; it is only a symptom of their ideological disarray. No
dare to repeat Lenin's
clear and precise
today would
nor
are
about democracy
and freedom,
such judgments
judgments
ever quoted
in the Soviet press. That some Western
was
phraseology
or
of
the
realities
build
course,
adopted?without,
altering
political
Soviet

leader

that might
limit the state despotism?indicates
the
ing any barriers
was
a
Yet
it
force of the human
in
idea.
rights
adopted only
strongly
version: when
Soviet
qualified
speak of human
ideologists
rights,
stress
to
that
chief
human
is
the
the
work,
they invariably
right
right
and

that

this has

been

under

granted

the Soviet

system

only. What

they fail to add is that this has been achieved by a system of compul
at the very beginning
in principle
of
sory labor that was established
Sovietism.
Thus the supreme right of man and his supreme
freedom

arematerialized in the form of slavery.Nor do they dwell on the fact

that this same
and

freedom

has been

achieved

under National

Socialism

fascism.

to be sure, cannot be lightly dismissed.

The right to
a
as
to
in
the
nineteenth
the helpless
response
century
emerged
and exploitation
of workers.
Even ifwe do not consider
ness, misery,
it a human right, to feel useful to other people
is an undeniable
aspea
This

question,

work

of human

dignity.

People

who,

as a result of social processes

beyond

This content downloaded from 192.52.0.128 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Marxism
their
who

and Human

91

Rights

or unemployable
in great numbers,
are injured not only in their welfare,

are unemployed
control,
and useless,
feel redundant

but in their dignity as well. It is possible that absolutely full employ

in which

condition

ment?the

ever

nobody

looks

for a job?is

in

compatible both with the market economy and with technical pro
gress.
slave

For

it is incompatible,
freedom
too, with
a slave
in
be implemented
only

that matter,

it could

labor; perhaps
tells us that the market
economy
Experience
not sufficient,
of political
orders
condition

is a necessary,
that are able

from
state.

although
to institu

and civil rights. Inevitable

economic
are
amount
of unemployment
eco
is temporary. When
tolerable only so long as the unemployment
a large class of
are
nomic fluctuations
instead produce
who
people
and guarantee
that result
fluctuations
tionalize

to live on

permanently
such a class continues

of the increase

feel ready
people
The dilemma
ployment.

many

that traditional

in economic

in a certain

the charity of the state, and when

to grow, society is in danger, not only because
in suffering, frustrations,
and criminality,
but because

doomed

believe

human

affairs

alone?will

to renounce

freedom

for the security of em

There are no reasons to

is real and pressing.

liberal advice?to
abandon

since

efficacious.

these

function

If democratic

state

best when

interventions
they

are

left

societies

prove
prove incapable
coping with mass
unemployment,
they are likely to encourage
totalitarian
into jeopardy the very institution
trends, thereby putting
al framework
which
the
observance
of human
upon
rights depends.

of

It is often

rights is of recent origin,

to timeless validity.
In its
the
doctrine
is
it
is
contemporary
form,
argu
certainly new, though
able that it is a modern
version
of the natural
law theory, whose
origins we can trace back at least to the Stoic philosophers
and, of
to the Judaic
sources of European
and Christian
culture.
course,
is no substantial
There
difference
between
"the right to
proclaiming
stressed

and that this is enough

that the idea of human

to dismiss

its claims

life" and stating that natural law forbids killing.Much as the concept
may have been elaborated in the philosophy of the Enlightenment in
its conflict with Christianity, the notion of the immutable rights of
individuals
tus and
Yet,
vented

goes

back

to the Christian

belief

in the autonomous

sta

value of the human personality.8

irreplaceable
it was not the metaphysical
character of the theory that pre
it from being incorporated
into Marxist
doctrine. And itwas

This content downloaded from 192.52.0.128 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Leszek Kolakowski

92
not
with

spirit of Marxism

the antimetaphysical
the human
rights

principle.

Rather,

it incompatible
it was Marxism's
funda

that made

mentally holistic approach to human life, the belief that progress can
to control the conditions,
only by the ability of mankind
an individ
both natural and social, of its life, and that, consequently,
to
ual's value is not related to his personal
but
his
life,
being a com
On
of
the
collective
"whole."
the
that
is
violence
ponent
assumption
be measured

one should naturally

of progress,
that the ulti
expect
in the coercive
consist
of humanity would
reduction

the midwife
mate

liberation

of individuals to inert tools of the state, thereby robbing them of their

of their status

personality,

as active

This

subjects.

is what

the regimes that base their legitimacy on Marxist

rightswould

ideology try to do;

not as a result of temporary

in principle,
deficien
to
the idea of human
accept human
rights, for

they are incapable

cies, of accepting

indeed demolish their very foundation. What chance of

success

ultimate

in fact all

is there

for this work

human

of aiming
to perfectly

at the extinction

of
units

life, reducing
beings
exchangeable
personal
one that I
That
is a separate
of productive
question,
processes?
to say that its
to leave aside in this essay. Still, it is possible
choose
success would
but in the
result not only in the ruin of civilization,

ruin of humanity as we know it.My bet, however, is that itwill not

that the human

successful,
to resist
enough

prove

totalitarian

spirit will

turn out

to be refractory

pressure.

ENDNOTES
1De

ac pads,
I, i, X-XV.
II.
de m?taphysique,

iure belli

^Discours

3De Of?cio,
4Trotsky,
5Capital,

I, 7, i.

Writings

1932,

I, chapter

8,

p.

336.

1.

6Can aMarxist Believe inHuman Rights? Praxis 1 (4) (January 1982).

7Idiscuss these questions inmore detail inmy Main Currents ofMarxism, especially
vol. 2, the chapters
Lukacs.

on Austromarxists

and on Kautsky,

and

vol.

3, the chapter

on

8On the Christian origin of modern "individualism," cf. Louis Dumont, "AModern
View of Our Origin: The Christian Beginnings of Modern Individualism," Reli
gion 12 (1982).

This content downloaded from 192.52.0.128 on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions