Madam Chairman, 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 who have no incentives but to persue 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. …show more content…
First: private property constitutes a fundamental assault on human dignity in three key respects. First, it is found and it has been acquired unjustly. In the vast majority of instances, the reasons 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 these direct instances of theft, in many instances it was negligence. That's to say that the creation of vastly constrictive intellectual property rights, that means that individuals don't *in the poor* have proper access to things like medication, its refusal to tax properly. We believe, 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 an institution that in itself has been …show more content…
So the Bretton Woods institutions largely built by the West. The institution of human rights which favor civil and political rights over social and economic 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 billion people lifted out of poverty in Asia, because private companies have an incentive to unlock an unskilled and uneducated work force, that they otherwise wouldn't. 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 system of economic and social rights... I think I've said