Date: Mar 19th, 2017
Motion: THB that the Left still know how to (re)distribute wealth in the future
Role: Secretary (opp.)
Dear Ladies, Gentlemen, Chair and Assemblage,
As the secretary to the opposition, I speak against the motion. I think that political parties may function in two ways. First of all, their voters can think that they do a better job at handling people’s affairs, and therefore they vote for them. Alternatively, people identify with the members of the parties, their professions, image, children, livelihoods etc. and therefore they vote for them. Historically, parties have gotten landslide victories at elections benefiting from both of these viewpoints and voting channels.
The Left has been a potent force in European countries for a long time. They have been seen as good ”managers” of people’s affairs, but more importantly, they have been identified with. Any wage-earner or salaryman identifies with someone who does NOT get capital gains from or own the workplace (s)he is working for. As a utopian goal, some people may have meditated if the Left could be gotten rid of completely, given that it is notoriously strapped for new ideas. In that case, the premise would need to be the fact that most people were capitalists, in other words, people who owned their businesses and enjoyed full control over its profits (and losses). Then, the temptation to vote for the Left would be infinitesimal, as the Left does not care for the ”plight” of the Owning classes. When one owns one’s own business, all the ideas of the Right begin to make sense. Monetarism, night-watchman states, ”there is no society as such”, ”taxation is theft”; all of that begins to make sense once one is part of the extended meaning of being bourgeois.
How would this be attained in practise?
Well, first of all there should be a muster of all of those who can produce something. The core of Capitalism is producing, not consuming. The product may be an object, a copyright, a patent, a service, a disservice; lots of things. Then, this productive person should be taught how to commodify this thing of his or hers properly. This falls under the purview of production economics & engineering. There is always a ”best way” to produce something from scratch, on the cheap, and also to be able to scale the production up, if and when the demand for the product rose considerably. And it should, as people would be in this for the profit rather than the labour. Finally, the product should be able to be spread all over the world using different mechanisms and methods. This is the part that is called logistics. The product would be spread all over the world under the aegis and the three tenets of Globalisation:
- The sender and the receiver are allowed to be a world apart (literally)
- All aspects of age, gender, race and religion and so on are to be overlooked
- English (language) and the Internet are the platforms that enable the (trans)action reliably enough
This way, anyone could spread his or her wares around the world efficiently enough, without being dependent on some shady deal with a mega-distributor, who would exact an exorbitant sum for its services. The idea would be to get enough profit under the belt to be able to survive, pay off the mortgage/rent, pay taxes, pay for a pension, and maybe raise a family, if the business was high-flying enough.
In the end, it would turn out that not everyone has it in him or her to act as a business(wo)man. Also, there would be a need for extra pairs of hands once the business began to flourish. Then, the owner would have the grateful task of employing someone to do the nitty-gritty jobs for a compensation. That is the role all Leftists everywhere have most often seen themselves and their constituents in. Consequently, in a world rife with owners, there would still be room for workers, the working classes, manual labour, menial tasks and everything else that the Left has held Guardianship over.
And this matters. If there has so far been (in the economic structure) a ratio of 20 % of owners to 40 % of workers and, maybe, 40 % of people who register themselves as ”something else”, the ratio could change to 50 % of owners to 30 % of ”something else” to 20 % of workers. That would change the dynamics considerably and make a future reality better correspond to the present trends and attitudes.
I am bringing this up, because politics is about choices, but it is also about life choices. You may ask yourself: Who am I a) able and b) entitled to vote for? The ambit of voting would be more interesting if more people in the real world realised their entire, full potential.
Arvio: Puhe on tarkoitettu sisällykkäämmäksi pariksi sitä edeltävälle, todennäköisesti tunteikkaammalle oppositiojohtajapuheelle. Tarkoitus on osoittaa, että 1-oppositio tekee hommansa tehokkaasti kyllä. 2-tiimi voi sitten kinastella sydämensä kyllyydestä. Puhe on pitkä, eikä sen ajalle mahdu kysymyksiä. Siinä on lyhentämisenkin varaa, mikä on makuasia kohtansa suhteen.