THBT the world’s poor would be justified in pursuing complete Marxist Revolution.
Madame Chair, the global poor all around the world, and no matter what country in which they live, currently live in a system of dictatorship. They live under a dictatorship known as no alternatives, shackled by capital that’s been unjustly acquired, constrained by landed gentry that have no incentives but to pursue their own interests, and chained by the fact that they can’t do anything but to look at the question of their own subsistence. They’re unable to reach out for the right to liberty and to self-determination that we think inheres in the human condition.
How are we going to define a Marxist revolution in this debate. We say that in all its forms, it shares the feature of wanting to break down the system of private property. That’s what a Marxist revolution means. It can take place in one of two ways. One, it can happen through internal systems that exist presently, that is to say you vote in Marxist governments who support things like mass redistribution and the abolishment of private property or it can exist externally in the instance of forcibly bringing down governments that for far too long have tread on these people’s rights. The first thing that I’m going to note just on account out of the model is just a picture of what we think this world looks like. That is to say that we accept that this attempt at revolution won’t succeed in all instances that in many instances it will just lead to the rise of Marxist parties, but in the world in which we do succeed, we encourage you to use your imagination. That is to say, just notice how chronocentric our vision of civilization is. That is, a system of private property emerged out of the enlightenment that is the last 300 years of human existence. Prior to that people lived in sharing economies where they defined themselves as something greater than their labor and their productive force. That’s the kind of world that we support.
Two things then that I’m going to begin this speech on. First, private property constitutes a fundamental assault in human dignity in three key respects.
First, it is found and it is acquired unjustly. In the vast majority of instances the reason why wealthy countries are wealthy is through processes like colonialism, through slavery, through patriarchy. It represents plunder when you refuse to give any representation or resources to whom or from whom you took money. But even if it wasn’t in those direct instances of theft. In many instances it was negligence, that’s to say it was the creation of vastly constrictive intellectual property rates that means that individuals don’t in the poor have proper access to things like medication. It’s refusal to tax properly. We think that negligence is morally culpable. The fact that it is unjustly acquired in and of itself gives the poor a claim to that property and to an institution that is being harmful.
The second thing it enables the poor in terms of a principle, is that it allows them to get redress in opposition to centuries of disenfranchisement. That is to say, theft and negligence represent the stripping of the individual right to assert themselves. We’re going to give you systematic reasons why you don’t get reforms on their side, but notice that this as a principled argument is independent from a consideration of practices. That’s to say compensation, or giving more money, is unlike categorically, what these people require in principle, which is a redress from the fact that they’ve been taken out of the system of moral equality by theft and negligence.
The last thing to say is that let’s take them at their best. That is, let’s wipe the slate clean and accept that everybody has access to resources. Why then is property still oppressive and why does it represent an assault on human dignity. The first reason is that competition and the premises on which it is based is artificial. That is to say, trade on morally insignificant or arbitrary factors. The fact of scarcity, which allows many corporations to succeed. The fact that I was born with certain talents or certain skills that other individuals weren’t, we think those are morally arbitrary from the consideration of dessert and we don’t think that’s just grounds.
The second thing is a question of activist. So capital is to decide what begets it, so you can decide as the head of a corporation, who you hire and what kind of skills you have. Principally, private property assaults dignity. In this second leads to good outcomes. Notice what on the other side, the reason they need to defend the status quo, is that they don’t get the leave of the structural reforms that you require. There are three reasons for this.
The first, is the democratic system. That through processes of gerrymandering which are almost irrevocable in many parts of the world, the poor are systematically disenfranchised. They don’t control hegemonic media that controls the narrative of what good policy is. Their usually kept apart by racist rhetoric that accentuates other ascriptive descriptions, preventing them from coming forward. The fact of historical disenfranchisement, furthermore means they are less likely to turn out the vote in a way that other people are. The second reason you don’t get structural reform, is because it’s internationally imbalanced on the consideration of nations. The Bretton Woods institutions built by the west. The institution of human rights, which favors civil and political rights over socioeconomic human rights. We say that those things mean that the alternative they need to defend is continued and systematic inaction.
What do you get under our side. One, the success cases. These are the ones, in which the revolution works.
POI: Despite this rhetoric the last two decades have seen almost a million people lifted out of poverty in Asia because private companies have an incentive to unlock an unskilled and uneducated workforce they otherwise wouldn’t
Answer: Uh, we refuse that premise. The reason why we were able to get socioeconomic rights in countries like China, is through massive systems of redistribution and bringing up the poor from the public. So if you want to claim, literally the communist country for your side. That is to say, the people who’ve put together the single biggest program of economic and social rights. Yeah, ok I think enough said.
So let’s say the world in which they succeed. We think those communities will succeed for three reasons. First, it encompasses the vast majority of the global population. And given, that capitalists dependent on labor to get any return on it, we think that ‘s beneficial. Second, the location of resources in many parts of the developing world means that they have access to those things. The third thing to say is that you get cross pollination and you get global solidarity across racial lines where currently, capital has the incentive to get them divided. Those deal with the best case scenario for their side where you get complete revolution. Fanele will also talk about how you get structural reforms along the way that are beneficial. What we need from an opposition is a comprehensive account of property, why it’s just, and why it doesn’t, as it has continually done throughout history, assault human dignity. We’re very proud to propose.