Page 1 of 11
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 9, No. 11
Publication Date: November 25, 2022
DOI:10.14738/assrj.911.13437. Vilanculo, A. (2022). From Liberal to Social Vision of Human Rights: The Innovative Contribution of Socialism to Social and Economic
Rights. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(11). 210-220.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
From Liberal to Social Vision of Human Rights: The Innovative
Contribution of Socialism to Social and Economic Rights
Anselmo Vilanculo
Masters candidate in the Peace and Conflict Studies at the
Arthur V. Mauro Centre for Peace and Justice, St. Paul’s College
University of Manitoba
ABSTRACT
Liberalism and Socialism as well as the contribution of Socialism to Social and
Economic Rights (SER) is explored. Enjoyment of Human Rights in different milieus
is a result of differences between Liberal and Social understanding and approaches
of Human Rights. Liberal approaches founds their roots in the Enlightenment
movement and values of nation-state, rights to life, freedom of expression, civil
liberty and property. Socialism has its foundations in the Marxist theories. Social
relativism and relativism of rights challenges the Liberal universalism of rights. In
Socialism, Social and Economic Rights are emphasized. Both Liberalism and
Socialism have strengths and weaknesses. As so, the future of Human Rights
depends on the combination of approaches, complementarities and synergies,
which will result in a multiplicity and plurality of approaches toward Human Rights
protection and promotion.
Keywords: Social and Economic Rights; Liberalism; Socialism; Human Rights;
Universalism and Relativism.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that all human beings as bestowed with
dignity, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights. However, conception and enjoyment
of the aforementioned Human Rights do not depend only on the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Rather, enjoyment and understanding of rights follow the dynamics of time and
space. This research paper explores the understanding, exercitation and satisfaction of Human
Rights in both Liberalism and Socialism, focusing on the contributions made by Socialism to
Social and Economic Rights (SER). Analyzing the foundations of both Liberalism and Socialism
such as rationalism, universalism, relativism, contractualism of rights, social democracy and
dialectic class relations, this article argues that, Socialism made a crucial contribution to Human
Rights theory and practice, especially to the body of Social and Economic Rights, SER through
advocacy of right of property and self-determination. Therefore, in this research paper, Liberal
conception of Human Rights is presented. Second, foundations of Socialism are discussed.
Third, contributions of Socialism to SER is examined. Fourth, strength and weaknesses of
Liberalism and Socialism are analyzed. Fifth, future of Human Rights between Liberalism and
Socialism is predicted and proposed.
LIBERALISM AND LIBERAL CONCEPTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The Liberal vision of Human Rights has its roots in the Enlightenment, which contributed
immensely to the agency of Human Rights, as it is known today. Liberalism consists of
Page 2 of 11
211
Vilanculo, A. (2022). From Liberal to Social Vision of Human Rights: The Innovative Contribution of Socialism to Social and Economic Rights. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(11). 210-220.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.911.13437
“structuring of individual interests in society on the basis of a set of rights that require human
beings to respect each other’s liberty and equality” (Charvet and Kaczynska-Nay, 2008, p. 3). In
this regard, liberal project aims at transforming the structures of modern and international
societies in order to them to express liberal values (p. 5). As far as human rights are concerned,
values of liberalism are as follows: the nation-state, the right to life, freedom of expression, civil
liberty, and property, which can only be spread and protected through commercial enterprises
and republican institutions, define the Enlightenment age and the liberal vision of Human
Rights (Ishay, 2007, pp. 93-94). The aforementioned rights constitute the foundation of the
liberal vision of Human Rights and philosophers such as John Milton (1608-1674), John Locke
(1632-1704), Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794), Gerrard Winstanley (1609-1676), Maximilien
Robespierre (1758-1794), Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
and John Stewart Mill (1806-1873) in the eighteenth and nineteenth made their contribution
to justify the rationale of the rights.
With regard to freedom of expression, John Milton (1608-1674) attests that, “liberty to know,
to utter and argue freely according to conscience” (as cited in Ishay, 2007, p. 95) should be one
of the cornestone of the modern society, given the fact that, man is an image of God. Killing his
reasoning reflected in books and other means of expression, would mean killing the creation of
God, to whom freedom is a liberty (Ishay, 2007, pp. 96-97). Therefore, freedom of expression
should not be restricted. In the same vein, to secure the enjoyment of freedom of expression
and liberal values, liberal democracies should ponder the separation of religion from state and
toleration of different religions. In John Locke (1632-1704), separation of religion and state is
based on the fact that, no man should dictate the faith of another to confirm his own faith
because the power of faith lives within every human being. As such, caring of the souls cannot
be a task of civil magistrate, given the fact that, the power of the civil magistrate has its
efficiency in the outward. The civil power cannot decide about the power of inward (John Locke,
1689, as cited in Ishay, 2007, pp. 96-99). In the wake of Locke (1689), Voltaire (1764) defends
the freedom of religion denouncing the fanaticism through which men would kill each other,
idolatry, superstition and clericalism, which are used to exploit the people of faith and the
believers. Thus, freedom of religion in Voltaire (1764) as in Locke (1689) may consider
toleration as it avoids killing and brings mutual respect (Ishay, 2007, pp. 93-102).
In defense of the right to life, a fundamental principle of liberalism, Thomas Hobbes (1588-
1679) argues that, a social contract made by individuals should respect the right to life to
guarantee peaceful coexistence. The Hobbesian thinking is that, the right to life is equivalent to
the right of nature, which is “liberty each man has to use his own power, as he will himself to
preserve his life” (Hobbes, 1652, as cited in Ishay, 2007, p. 104). In his right to life, man longs
for peace and when he fails to attains it, he seeks help and advantages of war. In this regard,
given the fact that man wishes to defend himself at all costs, he falls into war against others and
only a contract through which he transfers mutually his rights to the state can help to end the
mutual war. Therefore, protection of the right to life is possible through a social contract (pp.
104-107). On the other hand, Beccaria (1738-1794), argues that the right to life should be
protected through abolishment of punishment, which is tyrannous if it does not derive from
absolute necessity (p. 107). Physical force inflicted on man cannot be identified with justice, but
an abuse. In the same way, torture used to make man confess a crime is a cruelty and it is not a
fit mean of discovering the truth (pp. 108-110). Rather, it is a part of war against society and
Page 3 of 11
212
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 11, November-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
citizens, and it comes to destroy them, because there are no basis that justifies the necessity of
the death of a citizen (pp. 110-113).
In the matter of right to property as third cornestone of the liberalism age, land should be not
denied to people, especially the poor. Thus, Winstanley (1649) affirms in confrontation with
the lords of England that, “land/earth was not made purposely for the Lords, nor peoples to be
slaves and servants and beggars of the Lords” (Winstanley, 1649, as cited in Ishay, p. 114).
Rather, land was made to become a common livelihood. Similarly, Locke (1689) claims that,
“man has property in his own person; this means that nobody has any right to, but himself”
(Locke, 1689 as cited in Ishay, 2007, p. 119). According to Locke (1689), man labor on the earth
that he received from God, introduces the concept of private possession, as property is a result
of man’s labor and work (pp. 119). Robespierre (1793), however, argues that although the right
of property may be inviolable it may need to be limited. While exercising the right of property,
one should not jeopardize the security, liberty or the right of property of his neighbor (p. 123).
Robespierre (1793) defines the right to property as the “right each and every citizen has to
enjoy and dispose of the portion of goods that is guaranteed to him by law.” (Robespierre, 1793
as cited in Ishay, 2007, p. 121). The conditions that Robespierre (1793) consider that should be
followed with regard to the enjoyment of the right of property are as follows: it is limited in
other to respect the right of property of others. It cannot be exercised in prejudice to security,
liberty and existence of others. If these conditions are infringed, the right of property is
unlawful and immoral (pp. 121-123).
Another relevant question to Liberalism is related to how the rights that embody the Liberal
system can be exercised and protected to prevent war. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) responds to
this question postulating the doctrine of just war, which would be regulated through the laws
of nations that are different from the laws within state. In other words, international law could
regulate and prevent occurrence of war (Grotius, 1625, as cited in Ishay, 2007, pp. 127-132).
To Rousseau (1756), the idea of general will, cooperation and separation of powers is crucial to
maintain the Liberal system of Human Rights sane. In addition, trade between states should
depend on self-sufficiency and independence to avoid war between states (Rousseau, 1756, as
cited in Ishay, 2007, pp. 139-142). Contrarily, Adam Smith (1723-1790) argues that capitalism
and free trade should be considered. In this regard, Government should not interfere in
economy and competition, and self-interest should characterize the economy. Otherwise,
monopoly would bring inefficiency and injustices (Smith, 1776, as cited in Ishay, 2007, pp. 142-
148). To the same question, Thomas Paine (1737-1809) argues that, peace could be achieved
through life, liberty, and republican governance, separation of powers, property and commerce
(Paine, 1792 as cited in Ishay, 2007, p. 148-153). In the end of the Modern Age, Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804) proposes that a perpetual peace would be possible through a metaphysics of
morals, prevention of aggression, expansion of commerce and Republican governance (Kant,
1797, as cited in Ishay, 2007, pp. 153-160).
With the abovementioned reflection, it is possible to understand that, the main idea behind
Enlightenment and Liberalism was to create a new international order, where equality and
liberty were the basic principles, and welfare rights would be a necessary condition for their
materialization (Charvet and Kaczynska-Nay, 2008, p. 6). In such an order, liberal values would
define and characterize all aspects of life and the international relations between states
following international documents and treaties that in the late stage would have the United