What makes this the best WUDC Finals PM Speech world looks like - that is to say we accept that
accept that this
5ever:
1. Rhetorics – god-tier sophistication and use
of imagery. (especially on the intro)
a. although he could’ve toned down
on the figurative rhetoric on the
latter parts of the speech, especially
the comparative analysis, and
instead opt for a more visual and
descriptive world-building
2. Definition – in defining what a Marxist
Revolution is, or describing what their
model is, it was smart to incorporate what
the ultimate goal of the debate is in the
speech (compared to what is traditionally
done by PMs which is to give examples of
what the mechanism would look like on the
ground)
a. This also allowed him to utilize the
value of the examples of the
mechanisms that he did provide
3. asd
Madam chair, The global poor all around the world
and no matter in 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 who 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
questions 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 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: (1) one is it can
happen through internal systems that exist presently -
that is to say that you vote in Marxist governments
who support things like mass redistribution and the
abolishment of private property - or (2) 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
of the model is just a picture of what we think this
attempt at revolution won't succeed in all instances,
that in many instances it'll just lead to the rise of
Marxist party 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 define themselves as
something greater than their labor and their
productive force - that's the kind of world that we
support.
Two things then I'm going to begin this speech with.
(1) First, private property constitutes a fundamental
assault in human dignity in three key aspects:
(i) first, it is found and it has been 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 and 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 the
creation of vastly constrictive intellectual property
rates. That means that individuals don't in the poor
have proper access to things like medication its
refusal to tax properly - we think negligence is just as
morally culpable. The fact that it is unjustly acquired
in and of itself gives the poor a claim to that property
and to the institution that is itself being harmful.
(ii)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 that 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.
(iii)The last thing to say is let's take them at their best
- that is let's wipe the slate clean and accept that
everybody has equal rights to resources. Why then is
property still oppressive and why does it represent an
assault on human dignity?
The (1) first reason is that competition and the
premises on which it is based is artificial. That's to
say it trades or 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 (2) second thing is a question of actors. So
capital still continues to decide what begets it. So you
get to decide as the head of a corporation who you
hire and what kind of skills you have. Principally,
private property assaults dignity. The second leads
to good outcomes. (???) (4:30)
Notice that on the other side, the reason why they
need to defend the status quo is that they don't get the
levers of reforms that you require. There are three
reasons for this:
the (1) first is the democratic system that through
processes of gerrymandering which are almost
irrevocable in very many parts of the world the poor
are systematically disenfranchised. They don't control
hegemonic media, that control media narratives about
what good policy is.
They're usually kept apart by racist rhetoric that
accentuates other script of descriptions preventing
them from coming forward. The fact of the historical
disenfranchisement furthermore means that they're
less likely to turn out the vote in a way that other
people are.
The (2) second reason why you don't get structural
reform is because it's internationally imbalanced on
the considerations of nations. So the Bretton Woods
institutions were largely built by the West, the
institution of human rights which favors civil and
political rights of a socio-economic human rights. We
say that those things mean that the alternative they
need to defend is continued and systematic in action.
What do you get under our side? One, the success
cases. These are the ones in which the revolution
works.
- Closing, I'll take you if you have something.
- Opening, despite this rhetoric, the last two decades
have seen almost a billion people lifted out of poverty
in Asian because private companies have an incentive
to unlock an unskilled and uneducated workforce that
they otherwise wouldn't.
- We refuse that premise. The reason why we were
able to get socio-economic rights in countries like
China is through massive systems of redistribution
and bringing up the poor from the public. So if you
wanna claim literally the communist country for your
side that is to say the people who've put it together
the single biggest program of economic and social
rights - yeah, okay, I think enough said.
So let's say the world in which they succeed. We
think that those communities will succeed for three
reasons.
First, it encompasses the vast majority of the global
population and given that capital is dependent on
labor to get any return from it we think that's
beneficial.
Second is 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 deals with the best case scenario for their side
where you get complete revolution - Fanele will also
talk about why 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.