(Original post by Gremlins)
Capitalism isn't just going to curl up in the corner and die, now, is it
IMO political violence can be legitimate but only in extreme cases.
There have been substantial (but gradual) welfare reforms since Marx's day that have arguably tempered the sort of capitalism that was prevalent in its early days. If this can be achieved, could we not say that progressive measures are attainable through more or less democratic means?
Also, what do you mean by 'extreme cases'? You might define it as explicit self-defence - instinctively hitting someone back if they hit you - but is that the same thing as consciously tearing down an entire set of social relations?
(Original post by tomheppy)
Violence can only be used against those who are violating rights. You may not use violence or the threat of violence to make others use violence against those who are violating rights.
Firstly, what if the language of 'rights' & justice more often than not supports the interests of the dominant class? In being part of the global economy where business can move freely, the UK government has to compete for clients by offering them a business-friendly environment - to wit, our economic survival depends upon how well we do business (and the fact that we have the second lowest rate of corporation tax in the G7 suggests that we want to do it pretty well). Is this a context in which rights can be fairly distributed and accounted for, or can we say that business interests get preferential treatment? Further, our entire legal system, in all its subtlety and complexity favours those who can afford good lawyers that know how to play the game.
Secondly, I'm sure many can argue that fundamental rights are
being violated. For example, in the US poor people who couldn't afford health insurance were basically left to die if they got ill - does this not violate their right to life? More generally, it might be argued that the absence of social mobility suggests that there are substantial barriers to individuals fulfilling their full potential - and that this also constitutes a violation of a particular right.
In summary, it could be seen, with good reason, that our 'rights' framework is both unfair in its abstract, legislative sense as well as in practice.