the difference between what you call "social rights" and "individual rights" is illusory, as any worthwhile concept of social rights reduces to individual rights. so, health care, for example, is an individual right, as is education. if "social rights" are to have any meaningful concept at all, they reduce to the realm of fascism - rights of nationhood or rights to security - that have no place in any meaningful conception of socialism, and are admittedly not what is usually invoked by the term. but, sometimes it is, especially with indigenous groups. you have to be careful that you don't walk into something rather nasty with this term, "social rights" - it's never gotten us anywhere good, in the past.

socialism is about workers, and so it is about collective struggle, but it is not about collectivism in the hobbesian or "corporatist" sense, and to make the latter suggestion is just a kind of neo-liberal co-option; to reduce socialism to "social rights" is to accept the capitalist paradigm, and ultimately to end up at an authoritarian, fascist state. marx would have forcefully reasserted the axioms of liberalism, explained that socialism is the only way to achieve liberalism in an industrial society and ripped apart your "social rights" as lassallean.

i follow a traditional concept of left/right that comes out of the french revolution, which is the enlightenment revolution that is more pertinent to me, both as a canadian and as an anarchist.

the right is the aristocracy, the old money, and everything that comes with it - the charity work, the noblesse oblige, religion, the university, the right of kings and the obligations of hierarchy. what the right wants is a system of dominance, where everybody lives in harmony by knowing their right place in society, and going about their daily work, for the benefit of the greater good. the right has at times embraced markets, and at times rejected them. parties and institutions of the right include not just the french monarchists, but also the british tories and the american democrats.

on the left, is the people, who want to abolish the state and govern themselves. yet, we don't want to completely abolish the idea of society, even as we wish to tear down the institutions that order it. it's a tricky position, to tear down the structures but maintain the cohesion, and we haven't quite gotten it right yet, but we've tried a number of approaches: liberalism, libertarianism, anarchism, socialism...it is all with the intent of taking power away from the church-state and putting it in the hands of the people. all of our revolutions have failed; reform has been more successful to this point, but in the end we will have our successful revolution, this much we can all be sure of. so, on the left we have liberals and whigs and republicans, but we also have socialists and anarchists and marxists, and we're all really trying to get to the same point, in the end: self-determination, self-ownership and freedom from the ruling class.