WUDC 2016 FINALS

THBT the world’s poor would be justified in pursuing complete Marxist Revolution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys0Sgicnjz4&t=259s

PRIME MINISTER (BO SEO)

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.
1. 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...
2. 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.

1. First, it is found and it is acquired unjustly.

1. In the vast majority of instances the reason why wealthy countries are wealthy
is through processes like colonialism, through slavery, through patriarchy.
2. It represents plunder when you refuse to give any representation or resources
to whom or from whom you took money.
3. 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.
4. It’s refusal to tax properly. We think that negligence is morally culpable.
5. 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.
2. 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.
 1. That is to say, theft and negligence represent the stripping of the individual
right to assert themselves.
2. 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.
3. 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.

3. The last thing to say is that let’s take them at their best.
1. 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.
2. The first reason is that competition and the premises on which it is based is
artificial.
3. That is to say, trade on morally insignificant or arbitrary factors. The fact of
scarcity, which allows many corporations to succeed.
4. 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.
5. 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;

1. 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.
2. They don’t control hegemonic media that controls the narrative of what good policy
is. They are usually kept apart by racist rhetoric that accentuates other ascriptive
descriptions, preventing them from coming forward.
3. The fact of historical disenfranchisement, furthermore means they are less likely to
turn out the vote in a way that other people are.
4. 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.
5. The institution of human rights, which favors civil and political rights over
socioeconomic human rights.
6. 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 (Oxford): 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.
1. 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.
2. Second, the location of resources in many parts of the developing world means that
they have access to those things.
3. 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.