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
Carnegie states that the problem with the administration of wealth is that it tears apart the rich and the poor in society, because the rich keep all their wealth to themselves; he says “…so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship.” The law of competition, is that where no business man lets another man be more successful in their field, he states “…but the advantages of this law are also greater still, for it is to this law that we owe our wonderful material development, which brings improved conditions in its train.” “While the law may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race,…” There are three modes of surplus wealth disposal: Left to the families of the descendants, bequeathed for public purposes, and administered during their lives by its possessors. Carnegie claims that the ‘Duty of the Man of Wealth’ is the third mode of surplus disposal.
John Adams once said, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence”. In Jan Edwards and Molly Morgan’s article, “Abolish Corporate Personhood”, Edwards and Morgan argue that corporate personhood should be abolished since it causes unequal power distribution and is an artificial entity that the courts have allowed to become ‘superhuman’. Although the authors do state a few clear points, Edwards and Morgan do not fully grasp all aspects of corporate personhood and place more focus on constitutional background and the history of social injustices. To begin, Jan Edwards and Molly Morgan
One of the major differences between capitalism and communism is who controls the resources. In a communist environment, the government has full control of resources; in a capitalist country, the resources’ are the owner’s responsibility. In the US “We, the people” have full ownership of our property; in North Korea, however, they have no real ownership of their property, the government owns it. America is a classed society, as most know as being the lower, middle, and upper classes for the poor, middle wealth, and rich, respectively. Since wealth is distributed somewhat equally in a communist economy, this system is nonexistent.
Marxist theory aimed to examine capitalism's trends, workers' liberation, and the potential for revolution through class
INTRODUCTION Man is a being faced with numerous difficulties, problems, foes and so on. Perhaps the worst and the most dreaded of these foes is death. It has been tagged an arch-enemy of man, the destroyer of man, non-respecter of person, and has a host of other negative connotative words and names. Around the world and in many religions and cultures, people have sought to explain and demystify death, but with minute success.
It no longer results from our ability to produce, instead it stems from our ability to prove our greater need, to prove that because of our greater oppression we deserve more benefits. It is a morality of “‘. . . pride in not caring to grant any justice to the able, where mercy to the needy is concerned’” (568). It antagonizes those who are have produced as immoral because they have money. Because money is viewed with suspicion -- if you have money you are either lucky or have cheated -- those who are wealthy are viewed as greedy and
The most powerful element in society is wealth, it has the power to corrupt the human mind and body. Andrew Carnegie the president of a $480 billion steel company believed it is “the duty of the man of wealth” to control all the money that comes to him, and “becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren… Doing for them better they would or could do for themselves” (Doc C). Clearly the immense amount of wealth he possessed has corrupted his mind to make such hostile judgment upon the poor. The mere dream of a laborer is to become successful in their jobs in order to earn the sufficient amount of money to buy a decent home, and raise a healthy family.
The Cold War, a fight against an idea that Americans opposed, and the Salem Witch Trials, a “fight” against an idea people had, share many similarities. To further explain this connection, the understanding of what communism entails is required. The reason behind why we as Americans hated and feared communism. The main reason the fear of communists was such a large thing in America. As well as the connections that can lead between the Cold War and the play The Crucible.
The wealthier one gets, it seems, the more one rationalizes their decisions and actions. The more one stains their morality little by little until they no longer need to choose what’s right and wrong but what benefits them. Whether it’s right or wrong is then irrelevant. From people to companies, wealth is the source of
Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith and “Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels both address selfishness and its effect on society through social and economic means. In Wealth of Nations, Smith defines wealth as the productivity of a nation and the aspects of a commercial society. “The Communist Manifesto” criticizes the idea behind a capitalist society and talks about the class struggle between the working class and the owners of the means of production. Wealth of Nations and “The Communist Manifesto” both analyze how the selfishness of people affects society, however while Wealth of Nations claims selfishness causes increased productivity and increases wages for all, “The Communist Manifesto” argues that selfishness causes injustice
Communism builds on the idea that everyone is the same and should earn the same amount of money regardless of their profession. The most important with communism is that there should not be any class distinctions. China, Laos, Cuba and Vietnam
He argues that with all the pressures of class conflict and the imbalance of capitalism there is no way that this pattern can continue without a major revolution. Marx compares capitalism to anarchy, in the sense that there is no organization within which only causes chaos. The common pattern of capitalism is a boom followed by a bust, and that bust leads to recession and social unrest. This sort of fickle economy, Marx believes, will furthermore contribute to the downfall of capitalism. This socialist revolution would, “abolish private ownership of key elements of economy and change nature of relationships from ones based on marriage and property.”
Because of these issues, society should develop better strategies to help these people in need to eliminate the growing poverty level through the world. These strategies could include
Phones get stolen, and people get desperate. The person stolen from is at a loss – but so is the stealer. Sure, he gains a new gadget that he may have dreamt of, or get a sum of money for something he may truly need, but at the end of the day, if you didn’t acquire it the right way, you know it’s not right. Some people try to rationalize this by saying that if the person’s “rich,” it won’t really affect them so much, backed up by the “Robin Hood” theory, where some people believe that they’re just redistributing riches to the poor.
According to United Nation statistics, until this moment, there are 836 million people whom live in extreme poverty meaning they don’t have the rights they are entitled to in the first point of Article 25 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which clearly states that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his