first, while human rights are

commonly held to be important political goals in the public sphere, their philosophical
foundations are by no means secure; secondly, there is the problem of how exactly a
theory of universal human rights could realistically be implemented in various cultural
settings.

There is a certain everydayness about the idea of rights which makes them
particularly difficult to define. The idea of having rights seems to be something that we
take for granted; talk of rights, whether in political or legal contexts, is commonplace on
the internet, television, radio, and within social conversations at work and other places.
And yet, despite the ubiquitous usage and ostensible familiarity with the concept of
rights, it is by no means easy to provide a clear articulation of what precisely rights are.

human rights exist precisely in the

sense that they are rationally justified. We will see that ultimately, even where human
rights do not legally exist, they exist rationally insofar as the very concept of human
consciousness implies a right to the recognition of humanitys freedom.

human rights are moral -- and potentially legal -- claims, possessed

by humans, requiring rational justification for their existence. To these components, one
more should be added. Human rights, because they are human rights and not American
rights or white mens rights, are universal.

Marx

ThelegislaturemadetheFrenchRevolution;infactwheneverithasemergedasthe
dominantfactorithasbroughtforthgreat,organicuniversalrevolutions....In
contrasttothis,theexecutivehasmadeallthepettyrevolutions,theretrograde
revolutions,thereactions...

ThepoliticalemancipationoftheJew,theChristian,thereligiousmaningeneralis
theemancipationofthestatefromJudaism,fromChristianity,fromreligionin
general.Thestateemancipatesitselffromreligionbyemancipatingitselffromstate
religion.

ForMarxrightsofmanandcitizenwereagreatstepforward.Theprivaterighttobe
religious(ornot)inanywayonewishesisthenecessaryfirststeptowardfreedomfrom
religionassuch.Freedomfromreligionpresupposesfreedomofreligion.Byemancipating
thestatefromreligion,itrepresentedthefirststepinturningtheaffairsofthestateinto
theaffairsofthepeople.Nothingcouldbefurtherfromthisargumentthanthenotionthat
Marxwasarightsnihilist,anantinomianwhosoughttotrashtheveryideaofrights.
Thefactthatyoucanbeemancipatedpoliticallywithoutcompletelyandabsolutely
renouncingJudaismshowsthatpoliticalemancipationisbyitselfnothuman
emancipation.

Therightsofmanandcitizen,inotherwordsgavefreereinincivilsocietytoegoism,
competition,thetreatmentofourfellowhumanbeingsasmeanstoourownprivateends.
Inshort,manwasnotfreedfromprivateproperty,hereceivedthefreedomofproperty.
Third,passagesarecitedinwhichMarxcontraststhelimitsofpoliticalemancipationto
socialorhumanemancipation.

WhatisthesecularbasisofJudaism?Practicalneed,selfinterest.Whatisthe
secularcultoftheJew?Haggling.WhatishissecularGod?Money.Wellthen!
Emancipationfromhagglingandfrommoney,i.e.frompractical,realJudaism,
wouldbethesameastheselfemancipationofourage....Theemancipationofthe
JewsisinthelastanalysistheemancipationofhumankindfromJudaism.(MEWpp.
2367)

Marxarguedthatthesocietythatgivesrisetotheideaofrightsisthesameasthatwhich
givesrisetothecommodityform.Theyaretwosidesofthesamemedal.Itisasocietybased
onproductionbyindependentproducerswhosecontactwitheachotherismediated
throughtheexchangeofproductsonthemarket.Theseproducersareformallyfreeto
producewhatandhowmuchtheywish.Theyareformallyequalinthatnoproducercan
forceotherstoproduceagainsttheirwillorexpropriatetheirproductsagainsttheirwill.
Theyareselfinterestedinthattheyareallentitledtopursuetheirownprivateinterests
regardlessofwhatothersthinkordo.

Marxoffersussomethingveryimportant
forourunderstandingofhumanrights:notanewkindofnaturallawtheoryoranewkindof
legalpositivismbutasocialtheoryofrightsastheproductofthedevelopmentofcapitalist
relationsofproduction.
Marxsawthedevelopmentofrightsasagreatstepforwardcomparedwithprecapitalist
formsofproperty.

WhythendoesitoftenappearthatMarxscritiqueofrightsinhismatureworksisnihilist
andnegative?ItisbecauseMarxsfocusoncapitalgivestheimpressionthattheeconomic
formsofcapitalistsociety(commodities,money,capital)arerealwhilstnoneconomic
forms
(rights,law,thestate)areepiphenomenal,inessential,evenillusory. Theindividualisafter
allamoral,juridical,politicalanderoticsubjectas
wellasabearerofeconomicforces.ThedifficultyMarxfacedwashowtomovefromthe
circuitsofcapitaltocapitalismasawhole.

ThereisasenseinwhichMarxwasstill,tousea phraseborrowedfromEdwardThompson,
trappedwithinthecircuitsofcapitalandsucked
intothetheoreticalwhirlpoolofPoliticalEconomywhosecategorieswereinterrogatedand
reinterrogatedbutwhosepremise,thepossibilityofisolatingtheeconomicfromother
fieldsofsocialstudy,wasleftintact(Thompson1978:355).

Marxsfailure,however,to
developacritiqueofthelegalformsofcapitalistsocietyakintohiscritiqueofitseconomic
formsnotsurprisinglyledhimtoconstructthevalueformasarealappearanceandideaof
rightsasameresemblance.