The first right listed in the European Convention on Human Rights is property. There is no corresponding right to food and shelter.

What human rights ought to be is a contestable thing: under capitalism we’ve put property (literally) at the top of the list. Much of our society is organised around this principle. What if we gave people the right to democracy in organisations that affect their lives? Their workplaces, schools, local hospitals, universities, even shops? The right to habitable shelter, food, and free healthcare? The right to meet their needs through the formation of associations like cooperatives?

Human rights have a dual purpose, insofar as they both express and enforce a social ideal. They’re both cause and effect of hegemony, and they’ll carry hegemonic values within them.

Plus my guess is that most of the people complaining about this are happy to lob big words around on the internet but have never once actually campaigned for the rights of anyone whose rights have been violated.

I’ve had a scroll through and many of the answers seem to relate to the US, which doesn’t show any evidence of undergoing decolonisation any time soon.

A better example is the Chilean constitution that was put to a referendum relatively recently, albeit unsuccessfully: its key features were recognition of Chile’s plurinational status, with added rights for indigenous people and communities. Have a read about it here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Chilean_national_plebiscite

Bolivia has a plurinational system too, but I am not as familiar with it so can’t vouch for it.

In any case, Latin America is where to look. From a brutal experience of colonisation and US/UK backed dictatorship to what is slowly becoming a recognition that justice needs to be done. They’re way ahead of the west.

Their “you use technology” thing is weird too. We’re not Amish. We just want to end the domination of the world by capital, not get rid of all capital goods.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that people can be so reflexively and unthinkingly wrong.

Turns out I didn’t see this reply at the time, but: yes! The focus on individuals blinds us to the processes. I’ve an interest in the splits that occurred that we’re talking about here and I honestly have no idea what forces out there in the world could have led to them: the Great Man approach is blinding.

On that note… any idea what a good not-Great Man book covers this kind of thing?

Yep, based. Anti-nato, anti-imperialist (including French neocolonialism in Africa AIUI), even anti-EU (which he’s right in saying is deeply neolib). Lots of pro-worker policies. Not French but I vaguely follow this guy’s progress.