DDI09-GT-Capitalism-Revised

DDI09-GT-Capitalism-Revised - GT Capitalism Alex Blank...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 1 Capitalism Kritik Capitalism Kritik...................................................................................................................................................................1 Notes.....................................................................................................................................................................................5 1NC Short Shell (1)...............................................................................................................................................................6 1NC Short Shell (2)...............................................................................................................................................................7 1NC Short Shell (3)...............................................................................................................................................................9 1NC Long Shell (1).............................................................................................................................................................10 1NC Long Shell (2).............................................................................................................................................................11 1NC Long Shell (3).............................................................................................................................................................12 1NC Long Shell (4).............................................................................................................................................................14 1NC Long Shell (5).............................................................................................................................................................15 1NC Long Shell (6).............................................................................................................................................................16 1NC Long Shell (7).............................................................................................................................................................17 1NC Long Shell (8).............................................................................................................................................................19 Link – Hegemony (1)..........................................................................................................................................................20 Link – K Aff: AT Turn........................................................................................................................................................21 Link – K Affs......................................................................................................................................................................22 Link – Welfare (1)...............................................................................................................................................................23 Link – Welfare (2)...............................................................................................................................................................25 Link – State intervention.....................................................................................................................................................26 Link – Immigration.............................................................................................................................................................27 Link – Natives.....................................................................................................................................................................29 Link – Identity Politics........................................................................................................................................................30 Link – Gender......................................................................................................................................................................31 Link – Feminism: AT Turn.................................................................................................................................................32 Link – Democracy (1).........................................................................................................................................................33 Link – Democracy (2).........................................................................................................................................................35 Link – Public Health Care...................................................................................................................................................37 Link – Ethical/Moral Obligation.........................................................................................................................................38 Link – Moral Obligation......................................................................................................................................................40 Link – “Help Them”............................................................................................................................................................41 Link – Multiculturalism.......................................................................................................................................................43 Link – Abortion...................................................................................................................................................................44 Link - Environment.............................................................................................................................................................45 Link - Health Care...............................................................................................................................................................46 Links – Prisons (1)..............................................................................................................................................................47 Link – Prisons (2)................................................................................................................................................................48 Links - HUD........................................................................................................................................................................49 Link - Postal Service (1)......................................................................................................................................................50 Link – Postal Service (2).....................................................................................................................................................51 Link – Assets Discourse (1).................................................................................................................................................52 Link - Assets Discourse (2).................................................................................................................................................53 Links - Competitiveness Discourse.....................................................................................................................................55 Link – Law..........................................................................................................................................................................56 ...........................................................................................................................................................................................56 Link – Environmental sustainability....................................................................................................................................57 Link – Environmental justice (1).........................................................................................................................................58 Link - Environmental justice – Alt solves (3)......................................................................................................................59 Impacts – War.....................................................................................................................................................................60 Impacts – Environment........................................................................................................................................................62 Last printed 1 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 2 Impacts – Democracy..........................................................................................................................................................63 Impacts – Laundry List........................................................................................................................................................64 Impacts – Extinction............................................................................................................................................................65 Impacts – Poverty (1) .........................................................................................................................................................66 Impact – Poverty.................................................................................................................................................................68 Impacts – Value to Life (1)..................................................................................................................................................69 Impacts – Value to Life (2)..................................................................................................................................................70 Impacts – Genocide/Racism................................................................................................................................................71 Impacts – Economy.............................................................................................................................................................75 Impacts – Ethics..................................................................................................................................................................76 Impacts – Social Services (1)..............................................................................................................................................78 Impacts – Social Services (2)..............................................................................................................................................79 Alt – Zizek...........................................................................................................................................................................80 Alt – Herod..........................................................................................................................................................................82 Alt – Chryssostalis...............................................................................................................................................................83 Alt – Harmen.......................................................................................................................................................................85 Alt solvency – rejection (1).................................................................................................................................................86 Alt solvency – rejection (2).................................................................................................................................................87 Alt solvency – rejection (3).................................................................................................................................................88 Alt solvency – debate..........................................................................................................................................................89 Alt solvency – discourse (1)................................................................................................................................................90 Alt solvency – action now...................................................................................................................................................91 Alt solvency – moral obligation..........................................................................................................................................92 Alt solves poverty................................................................................................................................................................94 Alt solves violence..............................................................................................................................................................95 Alt Solves – Feminism........................................................................................................................................................96 AT: Cap Inevitable (1).........................................................................................................................................................97 AT: Cap Inevitable (2).........................................................................................................................................................98 AT: Cap Inevitable (3).........................................................................................................................................................99 AT: Cap decreases poverty (1)..........................................................................................................................................100 AT: Cap Key to Space.......................................................................................................................................................101 AT: Pragmatism................................................................................................................................................................103 AT: Perm (1).....................................................................................................................................................................104 AT: Perm (2).....................................................................................................................................................................106 AT: Perm (3).....................................................................................................................................................................107 AT: Perm (4).....................................................................................................................................................................108 AT: Perm (5).....................................................................................................................................................................109 AT: Perm (6).....................................................................................................................................................................110 AT: Plan is good cap.........................................................................................................................................................111 AT: Gibson-Graham (1)....................................................................................................................................................112 AT: Gibson-Graham (2)....................................................................................................................................................113 AT: Gibson-Graham (3)....................................................................................................................................................114 AT: Howard-Hassmann.....................................................................................................................................................115 AT: Cap Sustainable (1)....................................................................................................................................................116 AT: Cap Good...................................................................................................................................................................117 AT: Case outweighs (1).....................................................................................................................................................118 Affirmative - Cap inevitable (1)........................................................................................................................................119 Affirmative - Cap inevitable (2)........................................................................................................................................120 Affirmative - Cap inevitable (3)........................................................................................................................................121 Affirmative - Gibson-Graham (1)......................................................................................................................................122 Affirmative - Gibson- Graham (2).....................................................................................................................................123 Last printed 2 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 3 Affirmative - Perm solvency (1)........................................................................................................................................124 Affirmative - Perm solvency (2)........................................................................................................................................125 Affirmative - Perm Solvency (3).......................................................................................................................................126 Affirmative – Alternative Fails..........................................................................................................................................127 Affirmative - Democracy turn...........................................................................................................................................129 Affirmative - Poverty Turn (1/2).......................................................................................................................................131 Affirmative - Poverty Turn (2/2).......................................................................................................................................132 Affirmative - Cap solves poverty (1).................................................................................................................................133 Affirmative - Cap prevents poverty (2).............................................................................................................................134 Affirmative - Cap prevents poverty (3).............................................................................................................................135 Affirmative - Cap prevents poverty (4).............................................................................................................................136 Affirmative – Cap leads to peace.......................................................................................................................................137 Affirmative - Value to Life turn........................................................................................................................................138 Affirmative - Human rights turn........................................................................................................................................139 Affirmative – Environment turn (1/2)................................................................................................................................140 Affirmative - Environment turn (2/2)................................................................................................................................141 Affirmative - A2: Cap not moral.......................................................................................................................................142 Affirmative - A2: Root Cause............................................................................................................................................143 Affirmative: Cap Good – Environment.............................................................................................................................144 Affirmative: Cap Good – Military Readiness....................................................................................................................146 Affirmative: Cap Good – Environment/Quality of Life.....................................................................................................148 Affirmative: Cap Good - Environment..............................................................................................................................150 Affirmative: Capitalism is Inevitable.................................................................................................................................151 Affirmative: Cap is Only Alt.............................................................................................................................................155 Affirmative: Alt Leads to Totalitarianism.........................................................................................................................156 Affirmative: Cap Good - Peace.........................................................................................................................................157 Affirmative: Broad Alts Fail..............................................................................................................................................158 Affirmative: Cap Inevitable – Must Work Within System................................................................................................159 Affirmative: Cap Good – Decreases Wars.........................................................................................................................160 Affirmaitve: A/T: Zizek.....................................................................................................................................................161 Affirmative: A/T: Zizek.....................................................................................................................................................162 Affirmative: A/T: Zizek.....................................................................................................................................................163 Affirmative: Cap Inevitable...............................................................................................................................................164 Affirmative: Cap Good – Predictions About Collapse of Cap Bad....................................................................................166 Affirmative: Alt Kills Millions..........................................................................................................................................167 Affirmative: Revolution Alts Fail......................................................................................................................................168 Affirmative: Cap Good - Peace.........................................................................................................................................169 Affirmative: Cap Good – Free Trade.................................................................................................................................170 Affirmative: Alt Can’t Solve.............................................................................................................................................173 Affirmative: Alternative Can’t Solve.................................................................................................................................174 Affirmative: Alt = Totalitarianism.....................................................................................................................................175 Affirmative: Alt Can’t Solve.............................................................................................................................................176 Affirmative: Alt Can’t Solve.............................................................................................................................................177 Affirmative: Alt Can’t Solve.............................................................................................................................................178 2NC Overview...................................................................................................................................................................179 2NC Link Wall – Abortion................................................................................................................................................180 2NC Link Wall – Healthcare.............................................................................................................................................181 2NC Link Wall – Education (SS)......................................................................................................................................183 2NC Link Wall – Education (CJ)......................................................................................................................................187 2NC Link Wall – Levinas..................................................................................................................................................188 2NC Link Wall – Military.................................................................................................................................................189 Last printed 3 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 4 2NC Link Wall – Legal Services.......................................................................................................................................191 .........................................................................................................................................................................................191 2NC Link Wall – Immigration..........................................................................................................................................192 2NC Link Wall – Postal Service........................................................................................................................................194 2NC Link Wall – Census...................................................................................................................................................196 2NC Link Wall – Needle Exchange...................................................................................................................................198 2NC Link Wall – Prostitution............................................................................................................................................199 2NC Link Wall – Welfare.................................................................................................................................................201 2NC Link Wall – Prisons...................................................................................................................................................203 2NC Link Wall – Guantanamo..........................................................................................................................................205 2NC Link Wall – Food Stamps.........................................................................................................................................206 2NC Link Wall – Puerto Rico...........................................................................................................................................207 2NC Link Wall – Full Employment..................................................................................................................................208 2NC Impact Overview Vs. Gender Impacts......................................................................................................................209 2NC Impact Overview – Econ/Heg Impacts......................................................................................................................210 2NC Impact Overview – Poverty.......................................................................................................................................212 2NC Alternative Overview................................................................................................................................................214 Last printed 4 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 5 Notes This file is a condensed down version of the capitalism generic with affirmative answers and 2nc blocks added into it. My suggestion is to read through the file before you debate it and maybe even create your own blocks, because that will help you get to know the argument better. The alternative in this 1NC is rejection through means of revolutionary persuasion, which is basically just reject the aff and use the debate round as a means of resisting capitalism. If you want, you could insert other alternatives, such as the Zizek one. Some teams may try to read the Zizek alt, and if they do, the Robinson and Tormey cards are pretty good. This kritik links to every alt and I even if there isn’t a card in the file specific to the aff, analytic arguments can easily be made. Good luck and see me if you have questions. Last printed 5 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 6 1NC Short Shell (1) A. Link – Social services legitimize capitalism – this turns case by recreating the labor force and replacing one social problem with many others. Hall, prof @ University College London, 89 Peter Hall Prof. Planning and Regeneration at The Bartlett, University College London. 1989. Cities of Tomorrow. Pgs. 335-341 At the same time, a specifically Marxian view of planning emerged in the English-speaking world. To describe it adequately would require a course in Marxist theory. But, in inadequate summary, it states that the structure of the capitalist city itself, including its land-use and activity patterns, is the result of capital in pursuit of profit. Because capitalism is doomed to recurrent crises, which deepen in the current stage of late capitalism, capital calls upon the state, as its agent, to assist it by remedying disorganization in commodity production, and by aiding the reproduction of the labour force. It thus tries to achieve certain necessary objectives: to facilitate continued capital accumulation, by ensuring rational allocation of resources; by assisting the reproduction of the labour force through the provision of social services, thus maintaining a delicate balance between labour and capital and preventing social disintegration; and by guaranteeing and legitimating capitalist social and property relations. As Dear and Scott put it: 'In summary, planning is an historically-specific and socially-necessary response to the self-disorganizing tendencies of privatized capitalist social and property relations as these appear in urban space.'° In particular, it seeks to guarantee collective provision of necessary infrastructure and certain basic urban services, and to reduce negative externalities whereby certain activities of capital cause losses to other parts of the system.59 But, since capitalism also wishes to circumscribe state planning as far as possible, there is an inbuilt contradiction: planning, because of this inherent inadequacy, always solves one problem only by creating another.60 Thus, say the Marxists, nineteenth-century clearances in Paris created a working-class housing problem; American zoning limited the powers of industrialists to locate at the most profitable locations." And planning can never do more than modify some parameters of the land development process; it cannot change its intrinsic logic, and so cannot remove the contradiction between private accumulation and collective action." Further, the *capitalist class is by no means homogenous; different fractions of capital may have divergent, even contradictory interests, and complex alliances may be formed in consequence; thus, latter-day Marxist explanations come close to being pluralist, albeit with a strong structural element.' But in the process, 'the more that the State intervenes in the urban system, the greater is the likelihood that different social groups and fractions will contest the legitimacy of its decisions. Urban life as a whole becomes progressively invaded by political controversies and dilemmas'. Last printed 6 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 7 1NC Short Shell (2) B. Impact – Capitalism’s drive for material makes crisis and extinction inevitable. Meszaros, prof Philosophy & Political Theory, 95 Istvan Meszaros, 1995, Professor at University of Sussex, England, “Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition” With regard to its innermost determination the capital system is expansion oriented and accumulationdriven. Such a determination constitutes both a formerly unimaginable dynamism and a fateful deficiency. In this sense, as a system of social metabolic control capital is quite irresistible for as long as it can successfully extract and accumulate surplus-labour-whether in directly economic or in primarily political form- in the course of the given society’s expandoed reproduction. Once, however, this dynamic process of expansion and accumulation gets stuck (for whatever reason) the consequences must be quite devastating. For even under the ‘normality’ of relatively limited cyclic disturbances and blockages the destruction that goes with the ensuing socioeconomic and political crises can be enormous, as the annals of the twentieth century reveal it, including two world wars (not to mention numerous smaller conflagrations). It is therefore not too difficult to imagine the implications of a systemic, truly structural crisis; i.e. one that affects the global capital system not simply under one if its aspects-the financial/monetary one, for instance-but in all its fundamental dimensions, questioning its viability altogether as a social reproductive system. Under the conditions of capital's structural crisis its destructive constituents come to the fore with a vengeance, activating the spectre of total uncontrollability in a form that foreshadows self-destruction both for this unique social reproductive system itself and for humanity in general. As we shall see in Chapter 3, capital was near amenable to proper and durable control or rational self-restraint. For it was compatible only with limited adjustments, and even those only for as long as it could continue to pursue in one form or another the dynamics of self-expansion and the process of accumulation. Such adjustments consisted in side-stepping, as it were, the encountered obstacles and resistances when capital was unable to frontally demolish them. This characteristic of uncontrollability was in fact one of the most important factors that secured capitals irresistible advancement and ultimate victory, which it had to accomplish despite the earlier mentioned fact that capital's mode of metabolic control constituted the exception and not the rule in history. After all, capital at first appeared as a strictly subordinate force in the course of historical development. And worse still, on account of necessarily subordinating 'use-value' - that is, production for human need - to the requirements of self-expansion and accumulation, capital in all of its forms had to overcome also the odium of being considered for a long time the most 'unnatural' way of controlling the production of wealth. According to the ideological confrontations of medieval times, capital was fatefully implicated in 'mortal sin' in more ways than one, and therefore had to be outlawed as 'heretic' by the highest religious authorities: the Papacy and its Synods. It could not become the dominant force of the social metabolic process before sweeping out of the way the absolute - and religiously sanctified -prohibition on 'usury' (contested under the category of 'profit upon alienation', which really meant: retaining control over the monetary/financial capital of the age, in the interest of the accumulation process, and at the same time securing profit by lending money) and winning the battle over the 'alienability of land' (again, the subject of absolute and religiously sanctified prohibition under the feudal system) without which the emergence of capitalist agriculture -a vital condition for the triumph of the capital system in general would have been quite inconceivable." Thanks to a very large extent to its uncontrollability, capital succeeded in overcoming all odds - no matter how powerful Last printed 7 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 8 materially and how absolutized in terms of the prevailing value system of society - against itself, elevating its mode of metabolic control to the power of absolute dominance as a fully extended global system. However, it is one thing to overcome and subdue problematical (even obscurantist) constraints and obstacles, and quite another to institute the positive principles of sustainable social development, guided by the criteria of humanly fulfilling objectives, as opposed to the blind pursuit of capital's selfexpansion. Thus the implications of the selfsame power of uncontrollability which in its time secured the victory of the capital system are far from reassuring today when the need for restraints is conceded - at least in the form of the elusive desideratum of 'self-regulation' - even by the system's most uncritical defenders. Last printed 8 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 9 1NC Short Shell (3) C. The Alternative – Reject the affirmative in order to radically resist capitalism through a process of revolutionary persuasion. The “realistic proposals” of the 1ac cannot provide a systemic alternative to the capitalist political framework inherent in the plan. This debate is the key cite of resistance – our ability to use persuasion and show the “antagonism between capitalism and the environment” is unique to starting a revolution. Wallis, Professor at UC Berkeley, PhD. at Columbia U., 08 (Victor Wallis, Liberal Arts Professor at UC Berkeley, PhD. at Columbia U, November 2008: The Monthly Review “Capitalist and Socialist Responses to the Ecological Crisis” http://monthlyreview.org/081103wallis.php) A. Where the private and the civic dimensions would merge would be in developing a full-scale class analysis of responsibility for the current crisis and, with it, a movement which could pose a systemic alternative. The steps so far taken in this direction have been limited. Exposés like Gore’s have called attention, for example, to the role of particular oil companies in sponsoring attacks on scientific findings related to climate change, but the idea that there could be an antagonism between capitalism and the environment as such has not yet made its way into general public debate. Until this happens, the inertial impact of the prevailing ideology will severely limit the scope of any concrete recuperative measures.37 The situation is comparable to that surrounding any prospective revolution: until a certain critical point has been reached, the only demands that appear to have a chance of acceptance are the “moderate” ones. But what makes the situation revolutionary is the very fact that the moderate or “realistic” proposals will not provide a solution. What gives these proposals a veneer of reasonableness is no more than their acceptability to political forces which, while unable to design a response commensurate with the scale of the problem, have not yet been displaced from their positions of power. But this very inability on the part of those forces is also an expression of their weakness. They sit precariously atop a process they do not understand, whose scope they cannot imagine, and over which they can have no control. (Or, if they do sense the gravity of the situation, they view it with a siege mentality, seeking above all to assure their own survival.38) At this point, it is clear that the purchase on “realism” has changed hands. The “moderates,” with their relentless insistence on coaxing an ecological cure out of a system inherently committed to trampling everything in its path, have lost all sense of reality. The question now becomes whether the hitherto misgoverned populace will be prepared to push through the radical measures (by now clearly the only realistic ones) or whether its members will have remained so encased within the capitalist paradigm that the only thing they can do is to try—following the cue of those who plunged us all into this fix—to fend individually for themselves. This is the conjuncture that all our efforts have been building for; it will provide the ultimate test of how well we have done our work. In order for the scope of the needed measures to be grasped by sufficient numbers of people, an intense level of grassroots organizing will already have to be underway. However, the measures themselves, if they are to accomplish their purpose, will have to advance further the very process that put them on the agenda to begin with. A characteristically revolutionary mix of persuasion and coercion will necessarily apply—the balance of these two methods depending partly on the effectiveness of prior consciousness-raising and partly on the window of time available for the required steps. No dimension of life will be untouched. From our present vantage point we can only begin to envisage the specific changes, which will primarily involve a reversal or undoing of the more wasteful and harmful structures bequeathed by prior development. Fortunately, however, it will not be a matter of starting from scratch. Many historical lessons have already been learned, and not all of them are of things to avoid. There are positive models as well. Last printed 9 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 10 1NC Long Shell (1) A. Links 1. Social services legitimize capitalism – this turns case by recreating the labor force and replacing one social problem with many others. Hall, prof @ University College London, 89 Peter Hall Prof. Planning and Regeneration at The Bartlett, University College London. 1989. Cities of Tomorrow. Pgs. 335-341 At the same time, a specifically Marxian view of planning emerged in the English-speaking world. To describe it adequately would require a course in Marxist theory. But, in inadequate summary, it states that the structure of the capitalist city itself, including its land-use and activity patterns, is the result of capital in pursuit of profit. Because capitalism is doomed to recurrent crises, which deepen in the current stage of late capitalism, capital calls upon the state, as its agent, to assist it by remedying disorganization in commodity production, and by aiding the reproduction of the labour force. It thus tries to achieve certain necessary objectives: to facilitate continued capital accumulation, by ensuring rational allocation of resources; by assisting the reproduction of the labour force through the provision of social services, thus maintaining a delicate balance between labour and capital and preventing social disintegration; and by guaranteeing and legitimating capitalist social and property relations. As Dear and Scott put it: 'In summary, planning is an historically-specific and socially-necessary response to the self-disorganizing tendencies of privatized capitalist social and property relations as these appear in urban space.'° In particular, it seeks to guarantee collective provision of necessary infrastructure and certain basic urban services, and to reduce negative externalities whereby certain activities of capital cause losses to other parts of the system.59 But, since capitalism also wishes to circumscribe state planning as far as possible, there is an inbuilt contradiction: planning, because of this inherent inadequacy, always solves one problem only by creating another.60 Thus, say the Marxists, nineteenth-century clearances in Paris created a working-class housing problem; American zoning limited the powers of industrialists to locate at the most profitable locations." And planning can never do more than modify some parameters of the land development process; it cannot change its intrinsic logic, and so cannot remove the contradiction between private accumulation and collective action." Further, the *capitalist class is by no means homogenous; different fractions of capital may have divergent, even contradictory interests, and complex alliances may be formed in consequence; thus, latter-day Marxist explanations come close to being pluralist, albeit with a strong structural element.' But in the process, 'the more that the State intervenes in the urban system, the greater is the likelihood that different social groups and fractions will contest the legitimacy of its decisions. Urban life as a whole becomes progressively invaded by political controversies and dilemmas'. Last printed 10 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 11 1NC Long Shell (2) 2. The current structure of social services for impoverished people commodifies their service and extends the capitalist social order Davies and Leonard, profs @ McGill University, 04 Linda Davies and Peter Leonard, professors in the School of Social Work @ McGill University, 2004 Introduction; in Social Work in a Coporate Era: Practices of Power and Resistance edited by Linda Davies and Peter Leonard, Pg x par 1 – par 2 A striking feature of the objectives and organization of social services in many Western countries at the present time is the extent to which market relations and the commodification of social care 'packages' has permeated social welfare systems. New technologies are being introduced into the management of services that objectify and make more measurable the relationship between state service providers and those who use these services. Risk management increasingly dominates conceptions of how parents and children living in a milieu of poverty, racism and exclusion are to be defined and responded to. Increasing bureaucratic control, together with reductions in resources, furnish the ideological and material spaces within which social workers are expected to practice as risk assessors and case managers. The role of the social worker as one who engages with the client in a supportive, nurturing encounter appears, at least officially, to be dying. Regrettably, there are also professional discourses within social work that appear to be eager to adapt to this technocratic managerialism and to the claims to scientific and objective knowledge which accompany it. Within this view, the future of social work is tied to 'masteing' scientific knowledge and new technical skills, those latest and most glamorous forms of expertise that provide the grounds on which, in a world of uncertainty and occupational competition, social work can stake its claim to professional competence. Social work can best defend itself, it is suggested, by claiming to be a science-based profession with an important role in the monitoring and control of problematic populations at risk - the bad, the mad, and the difficult. The classification of 'client problems' becomes a major tool within this scientisric conception of social work. It is a mechanism of objectification and often parallels the reification and stereotyping of 'cultural communities.' Although all social workers and social work educators, including those who practice from a critical position, are daily confronted with their complicity in structures of domination, the perspective that celebrates social work as a socially useful scientific practice proclaims, in effect, its unambiguous and unreflective contribution to the reproduction of the existing capitalist social order. Last printed 11 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 12 1NC Long Shell (3) B. Impacts – 1. Capitalism’s drive for material makes crisis and extinction inevitable Meszaros, prof Philosophy & Political Theory, 95 Istvan Meszaros, 1995, Professor at University of Sussex, England, “Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition” With regard to its innermost determination the capital system is expansion oriented and accumulationdriven. Such a determination constitutes both a formerly unimaginable dynamism and a fateful deficiency. In this sense, as a system of social metabolic control capital is quite irresistible for as long as it can successfully extract and accumulate surplus-labour-whether in directly economic or in primarily political form- in the course of the given society’s expandoed reproduction. Once, however, this dynamic process of expansion and accumulation gets stuck (for whatever reason) the consequences must be quite devastating. For even under the ‘normality’ of relatively limited cyclic disturbances and blockages the destruction that goes with the ensuing socioeconomic and political crises can be enormous, as the annals of the twentieth century reveal it, including two world wars (not to mention numerous smaller conflagrations). It is therefore not too difficult to imagine the implications of a systemic, truly structural crisis; i.e. one that affects the global capital system not simply under one if its aspects-the financial/monetary one, for instance-but in all its fundamental dimensions, questioning its viability altogether as a social reproductive system. Under the conditions of capital's structural crisis its destructive constituents come to the fore with a vengeance, activating the spectre of total uncontrollability in a form that foreshadows self-destruction both for this unique social reproductive system itself and for humanity in general. As we shall see in Chapter 3, capital was near amenable to proper and durable control or rational self-restraint. For it was compatible only with limited adjustments, and even those only for as long as it could continue to pursue in one form or another the dynamics of self-expansion and the process of accumulation. Such adjustments consisted in side-stepping, as it were, the encountered obstacles and resistances when capital was unable to frontally demolish them. This characteristic of uncontrollability was in fact one of the most important factors that secured capitals irresistible advancement and ultimate victory, which it had to accomplish despite the earlier mentioned fact that capital's mode of metabolic control constituted the exception and not the rule in history. After all, capital at first appeared as a strictly subordinate force in the course of historical development. And worse still, on account of necessarily subordinating 'use-value' - that is, production for human need - to the requirements of self-expansion and accumulation, capital in all of its forms had to overcome also the odium of being considered for a long time the most 'unnatural' way of controlling the production of wealth. According to the ideological confrontations of medieval times, capital was fatefully implicated in 'mortal sin' in more ways than one, and therefore had to be outlawed as 'heretic' by the highest religious authorities: the Papacy and its Synods. It could not become the dominant force of the social metabolic process before sweeping out of the way the absolute - and religiously sanctified -prohibition on 'usury' (contested under the category of 'profit upon alienation', which really meant: retaining control over the monetary/financial capital of the age, in the interest of the accumulation process, and at the same time securing profit by lending money) and winning the battle over the 'alienability of land' (again, the subject of absolute and religiously sanctified prohibition under the feudal system) without which the emergence of capitalist agriculture -a vital condition for the triumph of the capital system in general would have been quite inconceivable." Thanks to a very large extent to its uncontrollability, capital succeeded in overcoming Last printed 12 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 13 all odds - no matter how powerful materially and how absolutized in terms of the prevailing value system of society - against itself, elevating its mode of metabolic control to the power of absolute dominance as a fully extended global system. However, it is one thing to overcome and subdue problematical (even obscurantist) constraints and obstacles, and quite another to institute the positive principles of sustainable social development, guided by the criteria of humanly fulfilling objectives, as opposed to the blind pursuit of capital's self-expansion. Thus the implications of the selfsame power of uncontrollability which in its time secured the victory of the capital system are far from reassuring today when the need for restraints is conceded - at least in the form of the elusive desideratum of 'self-regulation' - even by the system's most uncritical defenders. Last printed 13 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 14 1NC Long Shell (4) 2. Capitalism subordinates human values and produces every conceivable impact. Sanbonmatsu, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, ‘09 (John Sanbonmatsu, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, May/June 2009, Tikkun “Why Capitalism Shouldn’t Be Saved” http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail? vid=2&hid=104&sid=1131528e-c63b-4785-8caa-66c8c156fe8a %40sessionmgr10&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=39753533) In 1997, a group of European academics published a book called The Black Book of Communism, in which they documented the brutality and mass killings committed by totalitarian Communist regimes in the course of the twentieth century. Perhaps a group of academics will one day publish a Black Book of Capitalism. They should. For when a mode of life that subordinates all human and spiritual values to the pursuit of private wealth persists for centuries, there is a lengthy accounting to be made. Among the innumerable sins that have followed in capitalism's long train, we might mention, for example, the hidden indignities and daily humiliations of the working class and the poor; the strangulation of daily life by corporate bureaucracies such as the HMOs, the telecom companies, and the computer giants; the corruption of art and culture by money; the destruction of eroticism by pornography; the corruption of higher education by corporatization; the ceaseless pitching of harmful products to our children and infants; the obliteration of the natural landscape by strip malls, highways, and toxic dumps; the abuse of elderly men and women by low-paid workers in squalid for-profit institutions; the fact that millions of poor children are sold into sexual slavery, and millions of others are orphaned by AIDS; the fact that tens of millions of women turn to prostitution to pay their bills; and the suffering of the 50 million to 100 million vertebrates that die in scientific laboratories each year. We might also highlight the dozens of wars and civil conflicts that are directly or indirectly rooted in the gross material disparities of the capitalist system — the bloody conflicts that simmer along from month to month, year to year, as though as natural and immutable as the waxing and waning of the moon — in places like Darfur, Rwanda, Congo, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Iraq, where millions of wretchedly poor people die either at the hands of other wretchedly poor people, or from the bombs dropped from the automated battle platforms of the last surviving superpower. Capitalism is responsible for all this, and more besides. Yet perhaps its most destructive feature — the one that in many ways stands as the greatest single impediment to our own efforts to find a practical and creative solution to the present crisis — is capitalism's fundamental antagonism toward democracy. Last printed 14 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 15 1NC Long Shell (5) C. The Alternative – Reject the affirmative in order to radically resist capitalism through a process of revolutionary persuasion. The “realistic proposals” of the 1ac cannot provide a systemic alternative to the capitalist political framework inherent in the plan. This debate is the key cite of resistance – our ability to use persuasion and show the “antagonism between capitalism and the environment” is unique to starting a revolution. Wallis, Professor at UC Berkeley, PhD. at Columbia U., 08 (Victor Wallis, Liberal Arts Professor at UC Berkeley, PhD. at Columbia U, November 2008: The Monthly Review “Capitalist and Socialist Responses to the Ecological Crisis” http://monthlyreview.org/081103wallis.php) B. Where the private and the civic dimensions would merge would be in developing a full-scale class analysis of responsibility for the current crisis and, with it, a movement which could pose a systemic alternative. The steps so far taken in this direction have been limited. Exposés like Gore’s have called attention, for example, to the role of particular oil companies in sponsoring attacks on scientific findings related to climate change, but the idea that there could be an antagonism between capitalism and the environment as such has not yet made its way into general public debate. Until this happens, the inertial impact of the prevailing ideology will severely limit the scope of any concrete recuperative measures.37 The situation is comparable to that surrounding any prospective revolution: until a certain critical point has been reached, the only demands that appear to have a chance of acceptance are the “moderate” ones. But what makes the situation revolutionary is the very fact that the moderate or “realistic” proposals will not provide a solution. What gives these proposals a veneer of reasonableness is no more than their acceptability to political forces which, while unable to design a response commensurate with the scale of the problem, have not yet been displaced from their positions of power. But this very inability on the part of those forces is also an expression of their weakness. They sit precariously atop a process they do not understand, whose scope they cannot imagine, and over which they can have no control. (Or, if they do sense the gravity of the situation, they view it with a siege mentality, seeking above all to assure their own survival.38) At this point, it is clear that the purchase on “realism” has changed hands. The “moderates,” with their relentless insistence on coaxing an ecological cure out of a system inherently committed to trampling everything in its path, have lost all sense of reality. The question now becomes whether the hitherto misgoverned populace will be prepared to push through the radical measures (by now clearly the only realistic ones) or whether its members will have remained so encased within the capitalist paradigm that the only thing they can do is to try—following the cue of those who plunged us all into this fix—to fend individually for themselves. This is the conjuncture that all our efforts have been building for; it will provide the ultimate test of how well we have done our work. In order for the scope of the needed measures to be grasped by sufficient numbers of people, an intense level of grassroots organizing will already have to be underway. However, the measures themselves, if they are to accomplish their purpose, will have to advance further the very process that put them on the agenda to begin with. A characteristically revolutionary mix of persuasion and coercion will necessarily apply—the balance of these two methods depending partly on the effectiveness of prior consciousness-raising and partly on the window of time available for the required steps. No dimension of life will be untouched. From our present vantage point we can only begin to envisage the specific changes, which will primarily involve a reversal or undoing of the more wasteful and harmful structures bequeathed by prior development. Fortunately, however, it will not be a matter of starting from scratch. Many historical lessons have already been learned, and not all of them are of things to avoid. There are positive models as well. Last printed 15 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 16 1NC Long Shell (6) 3. Reform is impossible - capitalism is structured to make alternatives seem taboo. There is no chance of escaping from within the system. Meszaros, Professor at University of Sussex, England, 95 Istvan Meszaros, 1995, Professor at University of Sussex, England, “Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition” It is always incomparably easier to say ‘no’ than to draw even the bare outlines of-a positive alternative to the negated object. Only on the basis of a coherent strategic view or the overall social complex can even a partial negation of the existent be considered plausible and legitimate For, the alternative advancewhether explicitly or by implication-by any serious negation of the given conditions must be sustainable within it own framework of a social whole, if it is to have any hope of success against the ‘’incorporating’ power of the potentially always ‘hybrid’ established world into which the forces of a critiue want to make an inroad. The point of the socialist project, as originally conceived, was precisely to counterpose such a strategic overall alternative to the existent, and not to remedy, in an integrable way, some if its most glaring defects. For the latter could only facilitate-as indeed varieties of reformism did-the continued operation of cpaital’s mode of metabolic control within the new ’hybrid’ system, notwithstanding its crisis. As time went by, the socialist political adversaries of commodity society became hopelessly fragmented by the rewards which the ruling order could offer, and the capital system as such successfully adapted itself to all partial criticism coming from the socialdemocratic parties, undermining at the same time the original socialist vision as a strategic alternative. The ruling ideology-understandably from its own standpoint-declared that ‘Wholism’ was the odeiological enemy, assured in the knowledge that even the sharpest partial criticism becomes quite impotent if it totalizing framework of intelligibility (and potential legitimacy) is categorically ruled ‘out of court’, with the help of the exorcizing pseudo-philosophical swearword of ‘Wholism’ (or of its several equivalents). Thus, the positive approval of the overall framework and command structure of capital became the absolute premiss of all legitimate political discourse in the capitalist countries, and was willingly accepted as the common frame of reference by the socialdemocratic/labourite interlocutors. At the same time, and notwithstanding its verbal radicalism, the Stalinist system closely mirrored capital's command structure in its own way, liquidating, together with countless militants who tried to remain faithful to the originally envisaged quest for emancipation, even the memory of the genuine socialist objectives. Understandably, therefore, these two principal practical perversions of the international working class movement, emanating from very different sociohistorical circumstances, fatefully undermined all belief in the viability of the socialist alternative with which they were for a long time falsely identified. In reality; far from being coherent and comprehensive socialist negations of the established order, they both represented the line of least resistance under their specific historical conditions, accommodating themselves as modes of social control to the inner demands of the incorrigibly hierarchical capital system. Thus, on the one hand, the failure of the socialdemocratic strategy (given its willing acceptance of the constraints imposed by the parameters of 'self-reforming capitalism') had to take the form of totally abandoning in the end the once held socialist aims. And on the other hand, all efforts at ‘restructuring’ the Stalinist system, from Khruschev’s ‘de-Stalinization’ to Gorbachev’s ‘perestroika’-brought about when running society by means of artificial states of emergency and the corresponding labour camps became both economically and politically untenable- had to founder because the hierarchical command structure of the postrevolutionary social order, with its authoritarian political extraction of surplus-labour (which should have been, instead, the object of a sustained attack) was always retained by the would-be reformers. They could not contemplate restructuring the established structure except by preserving its overall character as a hierarchical structure, since they themselves occupied, as if it was their birth-right, the top echelons. And through their self-contradictory enterprise of ‘restructuring’ without changing the structure itself as the embodiment of the hierarchical social division of labour-just like spcial democracy wanted to reforming capitalism without altering its capitalist substance-they condemned the Soviet system to staggering from one crisis to another. Last printed 16 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 17 1NC Long Shell (7) 4. Framework - We believe the question in this debate should be one of competing political strategies. The performance of criticizing the limitations implicit in the 1AC’s representations both undermines the stability of static epistemological claims and opens the terrain for a transformative self-relationship, thereby enabling alternative visions of politics and social relations to appear. Challenging the affirmative’s assumptions is the only attempt at solvency with a possibility of success. Chryssostalis, principal lecturer at Westminster school of Law, 05 (Julia H. Chryssostalis, lecturer at the Westminster school of law, “The Critical Instance ‘After’ The Critique of the Subject,” Law and Critique 16, 2005, pg. 16-21, http://www.springerlink.com/content/k4n26t73tu63415j/fulltext.pdf) So far, we have looked at some of the ways in which the question of the question is being re-situated in a philosophical terrain that has been radically _re-marked’ by the critical discourses associated with the deconstruction of subjectivity in French contemporary thought. However, the critical instance involves not only questioning but also judgment as one of its basic tropes. How? To begin with, judgment is found intimately implicated in the semantic economy of the critical: critique, criticism, criterion, critic; they all derive from krisis, the Greek word for judgment; yet, in addition, and more importantly, the very operation of the critical instance seems dominated by judgmental figures, grammars and logics.78 After all, is not the figure of the Tribunal of Reason at the centre of Kant’s critical project?79 And is not the role of critique therein precisely _that of defining the conditions under which the use of reason is legitimate in order to determine what can be known [connaıˆtre], what must be done, and what may be hoped’?80 Moreover, from the Enlightenment onwards, is not the critical practised _in the search for formal structures with universal value’81 that would firmly ground our knowledge, action, and aspirations, and provide the criteria for the evaluation of all claims to authority?82 And does not the critical instance, in this respect, necessarily turn around a _quaestio juris, the juridical question, [which asks] with what right one possesses this concept and uses it’?83 Finally, does not the critical moment itself – whether found operating in terms of fault-finding (epi-krisis),84 of drawing distinctions (dia-krisis),85 or of drawing comparisons (syn-krisis) – seem always to rely on the basic _logic’ of judgement: namely, the operation through which the particular is subsumed (and thus also thought and known) under the rule of an already constituted category?86 What is interesting to note about these judgemental grammars and logics organising the operation of the critical instance,87 is that the subjective forms they deploy involve two well-known _types’ of the figure of the judge. On the one hand, there is the _judge’ as a sovereign figure whose capacity to pass judgements on our received wisdom, draw distinctions in the field of our knowledge, and set the limits of what can be known, means the capacity to invest the world with a meaning drawn from a more profound knowledge. On the other hand, there is the _judge’ as a normalising, technocratic figure, a mere functionary of the criteria, which regulate and organise the conceptual gestures of our thought and knowledge. These two _types’ can be easily seen as antithetical. On the one hand, the figure of the critic in all its dignity, autonomy and sovereignty; on the other, the figure of the critic in, what Adorno calls, the _thing like form of the object’.88 However, what should not be missed is how much both rely on the philosophemes that organise the _classical’ configuration of the subject: rationality, mastery, self-presence, identity , consciousness, intentionality, autonomy, the radical difference between subject and object. For does not critical judgement involve in this instance an operation of thinking, where an already given subject takes the initiative of applying an already established category to, say, an object, a text, an event? Is not this _initiative’ marked not only by the distance between the _judge’ and the _judged’, but also by the instrumentality of a masterful, rational and rationalising subject? Moreover, is not the submission of the functionary compensated by the mastery s/he has over the material under his/her authority? And does not the very form of subsumption, with its reliance on already established categories, involve a technique, which assimilates and neutralises the singularity of the particular and forecloses the possibility of thinking something new?89 To return to our initial what happens to the critical when reinscribed and re-situated in a philosophical terrain which has been _requestion, if the critical instance is ruled by judgemental grammars and logics, which in turn rely on _classical’ configurations of subjectivity, Last printed 17 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 18 marked’ by the critique or deconstruction of subjectivity, a philosophical terrain without transcendental guarantees? Following what was said earlier in connection with the question of the question, the critical is also being re-thought and re-worked. Three gestures mark this re-thinking: first, an abandonment Last printed 18 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 19 1NC Long Shell (8) [Chryssostalis 05 continued – no text removed] of judgemental grammars and logics; second, a re-casting of the critical in terms of the question of the limit; and third, the emergence of an ethic of encounter (with the limit ). Let us briefly consider what is involved in the last two gestures. One of the clearest statements of what is at stake in the re-casting of the critical in terms of the question of the limit, the limit as a question, is to be found in Foucault’s two essays, _What Is Critique?’ 90 and _What is Enlightenment?’91 Without going into the detail of the argument developed there, I want to focus at a point in the Enlightenment essay, which I think is crucial. This is a point where, to begin with, Foucault affirms that _[c]riticism indeed consists of analyzing and reflecting upon limits’, thus seemingly locating himself within the basic parameters of the Kantian formulation of the critical. Then, though, he continues: But if the Kantian question was that of knowing [savoir] what limits knowledge [connaissance] must renounce exceeding, it seems to me that the critical question today must be turned back into a positive one: In what is given to us as universal, necessary, obligatory, what place is occupied by whatever is singular, contingent, and the product of arbitrary constraints? The point in brief is to transform the critique conducted in the form of necessary limitation into a practical critique that takes the form of a possible crossing over [franchissment].92 In other words, Foucault’s re-working of the critical involves a notion of the limit not as necessary limitation, as in the Kantian critical project, but as a point of _a possible crossing over’. For posing the question of the limits of our knowledge, or _showing the limits of the constitution of objectivity’,93 involves also a dimension of opening up, of transformation and becoming. As such the type of _work done at the limits of ourselves must’, according to Foucault, _on the one hand, open up a realm of historical inquiry, and on the other, put itself to the test of reality, of contemporary reality, both to grasp the points where change is possible and desirable, and to determine the precise form this change should take.’94 In other words, the critical instance rethought in terms of the limit as question does not merely involve a negative moment of transgression. For at the point of this work on the limits (of ourselves), the ethico-political promise/possibility of transformation opens up – which is also why, at this point, the critical instance, for Foucault, becomes intimately linked with virtue.95 Let us now turn to the last gesture involved in the re-thinking of the critical: namely, the displacement of judgemental logics and the emergence of an ethics of encounter – that is to say, an encounter with the question of the one does not drive to the limits for a thrill experience, or because limits are dangerous and sexy, or because it brings us into tintillating proximity with evil. One asks about the limits of knowing because one has already run up against a crisis within the epistemological field in which one lives. The categories by which social life is ordered produce a certain incoherence or entire realm of unspeakability. And it is from this condition, the tear in the fabric of our epistemological field, that the practice of critique emerges, with the awareness that no discourse is adequate here or that our reigning discourses have produced an impasse.96 Which is to say that the critical instance, as the exposure of the _limits of the constitution of objectivity’, also involves the experience of the dislocation of our sedimented positivities, in other words, the experience of crisis. Such a recognition is important here because it reinscribes crisis, which is actually another meaning of the Greek word krisis, into the critical, which is thus re-connected with the notion of negativity – negativity in the ontological sense. This negativity, as Stavrakakis notes, has both a disruptive dimension that _refers to the horizon of impossibility and unrepresentability, which punctuates the life of linguistic creatures’,97 and at the same time a productive one: _[b]y inscribing a lack in our dislocated positivities, it fuels the desire for new social and political constructions.’98 As such, this negativity is _neither an object nor its negation: it is the condition of possibility/ impossibility of objects’,99 of objectivity more generally, indeed of all transformative action.100 And it is precisely here that an ethics of the encounter with the limit is located in that such an encounter is a moment, which ought to be acknowledged rather than covered over by quickly _patching the cracks’ of our universe. It is a moment which should not be foreclosed or assimilated: For at stake in this encounter with the limit, _is a matter of showing how the space of the possible is larger than the one we are assigned – that something else is possible, but not that it is precisely here, at the moment when the site of the pre-thetic and the pre-judicative is glimpsed, that the thrust and the promise of a re-marked’ critical instance is to be found.everything is possible.’101 limit. Let us move with caution, though. To begin with, it is important to understand that Last printed 19 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 20 Link – Hegemony (1) US hegemony is a tool to sustain capitalist growth through endless genocidal wars Meszaros, prof @ U. Sussex, 7 (Professor Emeritus(Istvan Meszaros, Hungarian Marxist philosopher and Professor Emeritus at U. Sussex. “The Only Viable Economy,” Monthly Review, http://www.monthlyreview.org/0407meszaros.htm) The quixotic advocacy of freezing production at the level attained in the early 1970s was trying to camouflage, with vacuous pseudo-scientific model-mongering pioneered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the ruthlessly enforced actual power relations of U.S. dominated postwar imperialism. That variety of imperialism was, of course, very different from its earlier form known to Lenin. For in Lenin's lifetime at least half a dozen significant imperialist powers were competing for the rewards of their real and/or hoped for conquests. And even in the 1930s Hitler was still willing to share the fruits of violently redefined imperialism with Japan and Mussolini's Italy. In our time, by contrast, we have to face up to the reality -- and the lethal dangers -- arising from global hegemonic imperialism, with the United States as its overwhelmingly dominant power.7 In contrast to even Hitler, the United States as the single hegemon is quite unwilling to share global domination with any rival. And that is not simply on account of political/military contingencies. The problems are much deeper. They assert themselves through the ever-aggravating contradictions of the capital system's deepening structural crisis. U.S. dominated global hegemonic imperialism is an -- ultimately futile -- attempt to devise a solution to that crisis through the most brutal and violent rule over the rest of the world, enforced with or without the help of slavishly "willing allies," now through a succession of genocidal wars. Ever since the 1970s the United States has been sinking ever deeper into catastrophic indebtedness. The fantasy solution publicly proclaimed by several U.S. presidents was "to grow out of it." And the result: the diametrical opposite, in the form of astronomical and still growing indebtedness. Accordingly, the United States must grab to itself, by any means at its disposal, including the most violent military aggression, whenever required for this purpose, everything it can, through the transfer of the fruits of capitalist growth -- thanks to the global socioeconomic and political/military domination of the United States -- from everywhere in the world. Could then any sane person imagine, no matter how well armored by his or her callous contempt for "the shibboleth of equality," that U.S. dominated global hegemonic imperialism would take seriously even for a moment the panacea of "no growth"? Only the worst kind of bad faith could suggest such ideas, no matter how pretentiously packaged in the hypocritical concern over "the Predicament of Mankind." For a variety of reasons there can be no question about the importance of growth both in the present and in the future. But to say so must go with a proper examination of the concept of growth not only as we know it up to the present, but also as we can envisage its sustainability in the future. Our siding with the need for growth cannot be in favor of unqualified growth. The tendentiously avoided real question is: what kind of growth is both feasible today, in contrast to dangerously wasteful and even crippling capitalist growth visible all around us? For growth must be also positively sustainable in the future on a long-term basis. Last printed 20 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 21 Link – K Aff: AT Turn The aff’s attempts to reformulate politics fail to address the root cause of capitalism. Zizek 99 (Slavoj Zizek, The Ticklish Subject pp 343-44) The big news of today's post-political age of the 'end of ideology' is thus the radical 'depoliticization of the sphere of the economy: the way the economy functions (the need to cut social welfare, etc.) is accepted as a simple insight into the objective state of things. However, as long as this fundamental depoliticization of the economic sphere is accepted, all the talk about active citizenship, about public discussion leading to responsible collective decisions, and so on, will remain limited to the 'cultural' issues of religious, sexual, ethnic and other way-of-life differences, without actually encroaching upon the level at which long-term decisions that affect us all are made. In short, the only way effectively to bring about a society in which risky long-term decisions would ensue from public debate involving all concerned is some kind of radical limitation of Capital's freedom, the subordination of the process of production to social control - the radical repoliticization of the economy'. That is to say: if the problem with today's post-politics ('administration of social affairs') is that it increasingly undermines the possibility of a proper political act, this undermining is directly due to the depoliticization of economics, to the common acceptance of Capital and market mechanisms as neutral tools/ procedures to be exploited. We can now see why today's post-politics cannot attain the properly political dimension of universality: because it silently precludes the sphere of economy from politicization . The domain of global capitalist market relations is the Other Scene of the so-called repoliticization of civil society advocated by the partisans of 'identity politics' and other postmodern forms of politicization: all the talk about new forms of politics bursting out all over, focused on particular issues (gay rights, ecology, ethnic minorities ... ), all this incessant activity of fluid, shifting identities, of building multiple ad hoc coalitions, and so on, has something inauthentic about it, and ultimately resembles the obsessional neurotic who talks all the time and is otherwise frantically active precisely in order to ensure that something - what really matters - will not be disturbed, that it will remain immobilized .35 So, instead of celebrating the new freedoms and responsibilities brought about by the 'second modernity', it is much more crucial to focus on what remains the same in this global fluidity and reflexivity, on what serves as the very motor of this fluidity: the inexorable logic of Capital. The spectral presence of Capital is the figure of the big Other which not only remains operative when all the traditional embodiments of the symbolic big Other disintegrate, but even directly causes this disintegration: far from being confronted with the abyss of their freedom - that is, laden with the burden of responsibility that cannot be alleviated by the helping hand of Tradition or Nature - today's subject is perhaps more than ever caught in an inexorable compulsion that effectively runs his life. Last printed 21 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 22 Link – K Affs Capitalism structures our daily life and what actions we can take. This forecloses our ability to think outside the system. Even advocacies that seem radical will be co-opted back into the system Zizek 08 (Slavoj Zizek prof phil/sociology/psyche @ European grad institute and the debate community’s own Britney Spears, “censorsip today: Violence or Ecology as a new Opium for the masses” 2008 http://www.lacan.com/zizecology1.htm) In spite of the infinite adaptability of capitalism which, in the case of an acute ecological catastrophe or crisis, can easily turn ecology into a new field of capitalist investment and competition, the very nature of the risk involved fundamentally precludes a market solution - why? Capitalism only works in precise social conditions: it implies the trust into the objectivized/"reified" mechanism of the market's "invisible hand" which, as a kind of Cunning of Reason, guarantees that the competition of individual egotisms works for the common good. However, we are in the midst of a radical change. Till now, historical Substance played its role as the medium and foundation of all subjective interventions: whatever social and political subjects did, it was mediated and ultimately dominated, overdetermined, by the historical Substance. What looms on the horizon today is the unheard-of possibility that a subjective intervention will intervene directly into the historical Substance, catastrophically disturbing its run by way of triggering an ecological catastrophe, a fateful biogenetic mutation, a nuclear or similar military-social catastrophe, etc. No longer can we rely on the safeguarding role of the limited scope of our acts: it no longer holds that, whatever we do, history will go on . For the first time in human history, the act of a single socio-political agent effectively can alter and even interrupt the global historical process, so that, ironically, it is only today that we can say that the historical process should effectively be conceived "not only as Substance, but also as Subject." This is why, when confronted with singular catastrophic prospects (say, a political group which intends to attack its enemy with nuclear or biological weapons), we no longer can rely on the standard logic of the "Cunning of Reason" which, precisely, presupposes the primacy of the historical Substance over acting subjects: we no longer can adopt the stance of "let the enemy who threatens us deploy its potentials and thereby self-destruct himself" - the price for letting the historical Reason do its work is too high since, in the meantime, we may all perish together with the enemy. Recall a frightening detail from the Cuban missile crisis: only later did we learn how close to nuclear war we were during a naval skirmish between an American destroyer and a Soviet B-59 submarine off Cuba on October 27 1962. The destroyer dropped depth charges near the submarine to try to force it to surface, not knowing it had a nuclear-tipped torpedo. Vadim Orlov, a member of the submarine crew, told the conference in Havana that the submarine was authorized to fire it if three officers agreed. The officers began a fierce, shouting debate over whether to sink the ship. Two of them said yes and the other said no. "A guy named Arkhipov saved the world," was a bitter comment of a historian on this accident. Last printed 22 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 23 Link – Welfare (1) Welfare manipulates the workforce to further capitalism Gough, prof @ University of Bath, 79 Ian Gough Prof. of Social Policy at the University of Bath. 1979. “The Political Economy of the Welfare State” Macmillan Press LTD What then are the defining features of social policy or the welfare activities of the modern state? For the purposes of this work we shall characterise the welfare state as the use of state power to modify the reproduction of labour power and to maintain the non-working population in capitalist societies. The remainder of this section elaborates this approach. The major means available to the state were discussed in Chapter 5: the direct provision of benefits and services, the parallel use of the taxation system, and state regulation over the private activities of individuals and corporate bodies. The welfare state or social policy does not here refer to benefits with similar characteristics that are provided by other agencies, such as occupational welfare provision, insofar as they are completely independent of state control. However, as we noted in Chapter 1 there has been a continual tendency for the public domain to encroach on the private, and there must be few occupational, charitable or voluntary forms of welfare provision in contemporary Britain, say, that are financially independent of and totally unregulated by the state. Social services are necessary for the functioning of capitalism. Gough, prof @ University of Bath, 79 Ian Gough Prof. of Social Policy at the University of Bath. 1979. “The Political Economy of the Welfare State” Macmillan Press LTD In all these ways the welfare state increasingly controls the level, distribution and pattern of consumption in contemporary capitalist society. (These matters are further developed in Chapter 6.) But the role of the state in the reproduction of labour power extends beyond these quantitative aspects. The type of labour power required in the 1970s differs from that required in the 1870s. Work in modern capitalist society requires certain kinds of abilities, motivation, self-discipline and so forth. So the reproduction of labour power also involves a qualitative element-specific patterns of socialisation, behaviour, specific capacities and personality structures. Among the social services, education, social work and manpower programmes are perhaps most specifically directed to this end. Family allowances and insurance benefits of various kinds, housing policies and health services are perhaps more concerned with the quantitative aspects. Furthermore, the reproduction of labour power clearly involves not only daily reproduction but generational reproduction; that is, the rearing and socialisation of children. Here the family and the labour of housewives is still all-important, but again it is increasingly augmented and regulated by the welfare state. Almost all social policies have a bearing on the capacity of the family to bring up children and many are specifically directed at the minority of families that at any given time are doing so: not only education, but specific health services for example; and within maintenance and housing policies special regard is given to those families with children. Children form the workforce of the next generation and this is one reason for the growth of state intervention in this process. In the rapidly changing society of contemporary capitalism their productive capacities must be adapted to changing requirements, such as the changing division of labour (see Chapter 2). In all these ways the contemporary welfare state modifies the reproduction of labour power within capitalism. But this does not exhaust its functions, for the population also contains individuals that are not part of the workforce. The second arm of the welfare state serves to maintain non-working groups in society. All societies contain groups that are unable to work for their Last printed 23 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 24 living (aside from those who, in class societies, do not need to): children, the elderly, the sick and disabled, the mentally handicapped and so forth. Of course the boundaries between working and nonworking groups are not fixed; they will predominantly be determined by the prevailing mode of production. The sharp boundaries separating working life from childhood on the one side and old-age retirement on the other are in fact specific to capitalism. Last printed 24 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 25 Link – Welfare (2) Welfare is a tool to manage labor. Gough, prof @ University of Bath, 79 Ian Gough Prof. of Social Policy at the University of Bath. 1979. “The Political Economy of the Welfare State” Macmillan Press LTD Nevertheless, if we accept that all societies contain non-working individuals, it follows that all societies must develop mechanisms for transferring part of the social product from the direct producers to these groups. Again, family and kinship structures play a key role in this transfer in all societies and even today they continue to do so, beyond as well as within the nuclear family.' ° But this is increasingly being supplanted or regulated by a variety of state measures, and this constitutes the second major area of activity of today's welfare state. Pensions and other social-security benefits are of growing importance in transferring purchasing power to these groups , alongside personal and occupational provision via insurance and superannuation schemes. A variety of health and welfare services provide numerous forms of support in kind for the elderly or the sick, gradually usurping the role of kinship and community in the past, and of charitable and voluntary bodies in the more recent past. In fact this second role of the welfare state cannot be sharply distinguished from the first, for several reasons. Most important is the fact that children are an unproductive group but one which form the future working population. Here the process of their maintenance becomes fused with that of reproducing future labour power. Moreover, in present-day capitalist society the transfer of resources to this particular dependent group is still basically the responsibility of individual families (though increasingly hedged around by intervention from the state). Secondly, many other non-working groups are still potentially part of the workforce, the working-age sick or unemployed for example, so that the form of transfer required is rather different to that for, say, the chronically sick. In Marxist terms these groups constitute the reserve army of labour, hence their maintenance can also be included under the heading of labour power reproduction. Nevertheless the two basic activities of the welfare state correspond to two basic activities in all human societies: the reproduction of the working population and the maintenance of the non-working population. The welfare state is the institutional response within advanced capitalist countries to these two requirements of all human societies. However, it is far from being the only social institution to perform this role. As we have noted, the family and wider kinship structures continue to play a part, and a few words are required on the interrelationship between the capitalist mode of production, the family and the welfare state.'' Last printed 25 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 26 Link – State intervention State intervention in poverty leads to more poverty and fuels the Capitalist deception. Lepage, French Economist, ‘82 (Henri Lepage, French Economist, 1982, Tomorrow, Capitalism: The Economics of Economic Freedom, 123) The War on Poverty Suppression of the ghettos and reconstruction of urban centers was one of the great projects of the 1960s' War on Poverty. What is its balance sheet? This question is a favorite of libertarian economists in disputing the benefits of the welfare state. Martin Anderson's 1978 study of urban renewal estimates that it destroyed "four homes, most of them occupied by blacks, for every home it built—most of them to be occupied by middle-and upper-income whites Former residents had to move away. In Free to Choose, Milton and Rose Friedman discuss federal housing projects and point out that not only were more dwelling units destroyed than built, but the chief beneficiaries of urban renewal have not been poor people, but the owners of the property purchased by public programs, middle- and upper-class fatnilies.25 Is this coming to the aid of the poor? The six young authors of The Incredible Bread Machine reveal the consequences of trying to make poverty go away by throwing billions of dollars at it: In New York City alone there were 328,000 welfare recipients in 1960. In 1972 that number had grown to 1,275,000. . . . In the country as a whole, the number of people on welfare has grown from 6,052,000 in 1950 to 15,069,000 in 1972.26 We are forced to conclude, they argue, that the more the state intervenes to remedy poverty, the more poverty increases. With one additional result: the bankruptcy of large American cities. Last printed 26 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 27 Link – Immigration Racism towards immigrants is a necessary product of the capitalist nation state. Castles and Kosack, Institute of Race Relations, 72 Stephen Castles and Godula Kosack, Professor of Migration and Refugee Studies and Institute of Race Relations, 1972, New Left Review, The Function of Labour Immigration in Western European Capitalism, Stephen Castles and Godula Kosack, http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=800 Discrimination against immigrants is a reflection of widespread hostility towards them. In Britain, this is regarded as ‘colour prejudice’ or ‘racialism’, and indeed there can be no doubt that the hostility of large sections of the population is at present directed against black people. Race relations theorists attribute the problems connected with immigration partly to the immigrants’ difficulties in adapting to the prevailing norms of the ‘host society’, and partly to the indigenous population’s inbred distrust of the newcomers who can be distinguished by their skin colour. The problems are abstracted from the socio-economic structure and reduced to the level of attitudes. Solutions are to be sought not through political action, but through psychological and educational strategies. 45 But a comparison of surveys carried out in different countries shows that hostility towards immigrants is everywhere as great as in Britain, even where the immigrants are white. 46 The Italian who moves to the neighbouring country of Switzerland is as unpopular as the Asian in Britain. This indicates that hostility is based on the position of immigrants in society and not on the colour of their skin. Racialism and xenophobia are products of the capitalist national state and of its imperialist expansion. 47 Their principal historical function was to split the working class on the international level, and to motivate one section to help exploit another in the interests of the ruling class. Today such ideologies help to deepen the split within the working class in West Europe. Many indigenous workers do not perceive that they share a common class position and class interests with immigrant workers. The basic fact of having the same relationship to the means of production is obscured by the local workers’ marginal advantages with regard to material conditions and status. The immigrants are regarded not as class comrades, but as alien intruders who pose an economic and social threat. It is feared that they will take away the jobs of local labour, that they will be used by the employers to force down wages and to break strikes. 48 Whatever the behaviour of the immigrant workers—and in fact they almost invariably show solidarity with their fears are not without a basis. It is indeed the strategy of the employers to use immigration to put pressure on wages and to weaken the labour movement. 49 The very social and legal weakness of the immigrants is a weapon in the hands of the employers. Other points of competition are to be found outside work, particularly on the housing market. The presence of immigrants is often regarded as the cause of rising rents and increased overcrowding in the cities. By making immigrants the scapegoats for the insecurity and inadequate conditions which the capitalist system inevitably provides for workers, attention is diverted from the real causes. Workers often adopt racialism as a defence mechanism against a real or apparent threat to their conditions. It is an incorrect response to a real problem. By preventing working-class unity, racialism assists the capitalists in their strategy of ‘divide and rule’. The function of racialism in the capitalist system is often obscured by the fact that racialist campaigns usually have petty-bourgeois leadership and direct their slogans against the big industrialists. The Schwarzenbach Initiative in Switzerland—which called for the deportation of a large proportion of the immigrant population—is an example, 50 as are Enoch Powell’s campaigns for repatriation. Such demands are opposed by the dominant sections of the ruling class. The reason is clear: a complete acceptance of racialism would prevent the use of immigrants as an industrial reserve army. But despite this, racialist campaigns serve the interests of the ruling class: they increase tension between indigenous and immigrant workers and weaken the labour movement. The large workingclass following gained by Powell in his racialist campaigns demonstrates how dangerous they are. Paradoxically, their value for capitalism lies in their very failure to achieve their declared aims. The presence of immigrant workers is one of the principal factors contributing to the lack of class indigenous colleagues—such Last printed 27 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 28 consciousness among large sections of the working class. The existence of a new lower stratum of immigrants changes the worker’s perception of his own position in society. Instead of a dichotomic view of society, in which the working masses confront a small capitalist ruling class, many workers now see themselves as belonging to an intermediate stratum, superior to the unskilled immigrant workers. Such a consciousness is typified by an hierarchical view of society and by orientation towards advancement through individual achievement and competition, rather than through solidarity and collective action. This is the mentality of the labour aristocracy and leads to opportunism and the temporary decay of the working-class movement. Last printed 28 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 29 Link – Natives Multiculturalism as a way of respecting indigenous cultures makes distancing and cultural imperialism inevitable Zizek 97 Slavoj Zizek, Senior Researcher, Institute for Social Studies, Ljubljana, 1997, “Multiculturalism, or, the Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism.” How, then, does the universe of Capital relate to the form of Nation-State in our era of global capitalism? Perhaps, this relationship is best designated as ‘auto-colonization’: with the direct multinational functioning of Capital, we are no longer dealing with the standard opposition between metropolis and colonized countries; a global company as it were cuts its umbilical cord with its mother-nation and treats its country of origins as simply another territory to be colonized. This is what disturbs so much the patriotically oriented right-wing populists, from Le Pen to Buchanan: the fact that the new multinationals have towards the French or American local population exactly the same attitude as towards the population of Mexico, Brazil or Taiwan. Is there not a kind of poetic justice in this selfreferential turn? Today’s global capitalism is thus again a kind of ‘negation of negation’, after national capitalism and its internationalist/colonialist phase. At the beginning (ideally, of course), there is capitalism within the confines of a Nation-State, with the accompanying international trade (exchange between sovereign Nation-States); what follows is the relationship of colonization in which the colonizing country subordinates and exploits (economically, politically, culturally) the colonized country; the final moment of this process is the paradox of colonization in which there are only colonies, no colonizing countries—the colonizing power is no longer a Nation-State but directly the global company. In the long term, we shall all not only wear Banana Republic shirts but also live in banana republics. And, of course, the ideal form of ideology of this global capitalism is multiculturalism, the attitude which, from a kind of empty global position, treats each local culture the way the colonizer treats colonized people—as ‘natives’ whose mores are to be carefully studied and ‘respected’. That is to say, the relationship between traditional imperialist colonialism and global capitalist self-colonization is exactly the same as the relationship between Western cultural imperialism and multiculturalism: in the same way that global capitalism involves the paradox of colonization without the colonizing Nation-State metropole, multi-culturalism involves patronizing Eurocentrist distance and/or respect for local cultures without roots in one’s own particular culture. In other words, multiculturalism is a disavowed, inverted, self-referential form of racism, a ‘racism with a distance’—it ‘respects’ the Other’s identity, conceiving the Other as a self-enclosed ‘authentic’ community towards which he, the multiculturalist, maintains a distance rendered possible by his privileged universal position. Multiculturalism is a racism which empties its own position of all positive content (the multiculturalist is not a direct racist, he doesn’t oppose to the Other the particular values of his own culture), but nonetheless retains this position as the privileged empty point of universality from which one is able to appreciate (and depreciate) properly other particular cultures— the multiculturalist respect for the Other’s specificity is the very form of asserting one’s own superiority. Last printed 29 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 30 Link – Identity Politics Focus on identity politics legitimizes capital by removing superstructural contradictions while leaving the primary contradiction in place. Wexler, prof @ California State Northride, 08 Steven Wexler prof. English at Cal State Northride. 2008. “(I’m) Material Labor in the Digital Age” http://cust.educ.ubc.ca/workplace/issue15/html/wexler.html As I argued at 2007’s MLA, to suggest that rhetoric masks class relations and surplus value is not the same thing as saying rhetoric is the cause. I am interested in the way that knowledge economy rhetorics (e.g., “information society”) shift our attention from class to nationalism, racism, genderism, and more recently posthumanism. Stephen Tumino has stated convincingly that to explain social inequality in these identarian terms is to “legitimate capitalism” since capitalism is cleansed of its superstructural contradictions while the primary contradiction between owners and workers endures. We then “accept economic inequality as an integral part of human societies.” Tumino is responding to new Marxisms that augment class to a matrix of floating, discursive power struggles. These Marxisms speak of hybridity, information, difference, and multitude but rarely the labor theory of value, even though such relations are aspects and outcomes of exploitable labor. Consider, for example, the weight given to “open articulation” in Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s postmodern radicalism, a radicalism that turns its back on Marxist teleology and base/superstructure naturalism: “If the worker is no longer a proletarian but also a citizen, consumer, and participant in a plurality of positions within the country’s cultural and institutional apparatus [. . .] then the relations between them become an open articulation which offers no a priori guarantee that it will adopt a given form” (36). This ontology stands in stark contrast to Marx’s: “The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life” (Contribution 20). And no one to my mind levels the former’s privilege and paradox like David Harvey. I would like to quote him at length: The rhetoric of postmodernism is dangerous for it avoids confronting realities of political economy and the circumstances of global power. The silliness of Lyotard’s “radical proposal” that opening up data banks to everyone as a prologue to radical reform (as if we would all have equal power to use that opportunity) is instructive, because it indicates how even the most resolute of postmodernists is faced in the end with either making some universalizing gesture (like Lyotard’s appeal to some pristine concept of justice) or lapsing, like Derrida, into total political silence. (117)5 So while there is work beyond wage labor—and nationality, race, and gender could be kinds of work— there are only owners and workers, and this contradiction remains the principal source of value. Last printed 30 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 31 Link – Gender Discourses of sexuality promote capitalism. Lowe, editor of Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique, 95 Donald M. Lowe. Ed. Of positions: east asia cultures critique. 1995 The Body in Late Capitalist USA. The new discourse and semiotics of sexual pleasure took off in late capitalism because, with such commodities as the oral contraceptive pill (introduced in 1960), and then the IUD, we can, for the first time ever, have sex without worrying about natal reproduction. The obverse side of this is natal reproduction without sex, i.e., in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and ovum transfers. Freed from social reproduction, the new sexuality came to be exploited for the sake of late-capitalist consumption. This is what distinguishes the new sexuality of late capitalism from the bourgeois sexual regulations of industrial capitalism studied by Foucault. It publicizes the promise of sexual pleasure, contradicting the repressive. disciplinary sexuality. The new sexuality is not only discursive and semiotic, but also consumptuary. Quite aptly, the successful sex manual, Alex Comfort's The Joy of Sex (1972), was subtitled "A Cordon Bleu Guide to love-making," and its contents were organized into "Starters" "Main Courses," and Sauces & Pickles." New commodities are packaged and produced specifically for the new sexuality. Pat Califia has said, “S/M is not about pain, but about power." (quoted in Ehrenreich, Hess, and Jacobs 1986, p. 130) But sadomasochism 353 ritual of dominance and submission, a theater of fantasy, requires such paraphernalia as handcuffs, straps, whips, leathers, etc. Thus, Ehrenreich, Hess, and Jacobs report that S1M theater, previously the practice of a few, is now available to even the midwestern housewife through mail-order catalogues. From a strictly capitalist viewpoint, it is the ideal sexual practice .... S/M owes its entrance into the sexual mainstream to its paraphernalia: The symbols arid gear precede the actual practice into the homes and imaginations of millions. (p. ia-s) Besides the direct consumption of sexual implements. late-capitalist production/consumption is able to tap the reservoir of sexual fantasy which the new semiotics of sexuality stimulate. A Lou Harris study reports that sixty-five thousand sexual references a year arc broadcast during the prime afternoon and evening hours on television alone. "'That's an average of 27 an hour. . including 9 kisses, hugs, 10 sexual innuendos and between i and a references each to sexual intercourse and to deviant or discouraged sexual practices.'" Thus a typical American viewer sees nearly fourteen thousand instances of sexual material during the popular time slots each year. (New York Times, January 27, 1988) I propose that the technologies of the look and the relay of juxtaposed images and signs (cf., supra, chapter a. sec. Li) are at the center of this semiotics of sexuality. The two techniques, together with the design and production of commodities as packages of changing product characteristics, contribute to the construction of sexual lifestyle as a signifier for late capitalist production and accumulation of exchange value. The look in the modern West is sexual It is an aspect of the primacy of sight in the modern Western hierarchy of sensing. (Lowc toz) This primacy of sight is culturally arid historically specific not universal. Nor does sex have to be visual in orientation, since seeing is the most distancing of the five human senses. Specific to the modern West is the look constituted as the male gaze-visually subjugating and territorializing the female body. Underneath this look are all the binary oppositions in bourgeois culture which construct the power of male over female. Twcntieth-centurv visuality is very much a masculinist one. Photography, cinematography, and television are the technologies of the look, working to enhance the visualization of sexuality. But technologies are not neutral. Their applications depend on the assumptions and purposes of the addressers Photography, cinematography, and television do not simply extend the male gaze. With their different techniques of shots, montage, and narrativity, they repackage and transform the hegemony of the mate gaze in late capitalism. Last printed 31 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 32 Link – Feminism: AT Turn Feminist movements fail to solve the primary contraction of capitalism. Lowe, editor of Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique, 95 Donald M. Lowe. Ed. Of positions: east asia cultures critique. 1995 The Body in Late Capitalist USA. The 1950s reinforced traditional gender attribution. But in the 1960s, middle-class women, trained to fill dichotomous gender roles, found themselves in new positions of production and social reproduction, and yet they were still expected to maintain their internalized gender attributes The second feminist movement responded to the resulting contradiction between traditional gender construction and the changing position of women in production consumption and social reproduction. Equal-rights feminism and radical feminism were two such responses. Equal-rights feminism derives from a liberal tradition stretching all the way back to Mary Wollstonecraft, and is concerned with the problem of gender discrimination in the public sphere. it promotes such reforms as affirmative action, special protection for women in the workplace, reproduction rights, and welfare. More recently, equalrights feminists are arguing for equal pay for comparable work, However, the discourse of equal rights clots not directly confront the problems between traditional gender roles and new positions in production and social reproduction, which many women face- Equal-rights feminism, in upholding the ideal of equality does not challenge gender construction outside the public sphere. In that sense, it is a customary liberal response to a new problem. Last printed 32 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 33 Link – Democracy (1) Democracy is key to the sustainability of capitalism-welfare masks the true evil of the system and quells dissent. Almond, prof emeritus Stanford, 1991 Gabriel Almond, former professor at Stanford and Yale, formerly in Office of War Information, since deceased, 9/2001, http://www.jstor.org/stable/420091 My fourth theme, democracy as fostering and sustaining capitalism, is not as straightforward as the first three. Historically there can be little doubt that as the suffrage was extended in the last century, and as mass political parties developed, democratic development impinged significantly on capitalist institutions and practices. Since successful capitalism requires risk-taking entrepreneurs with access to investment capital, the democratic propensity for redistributive and regulative policy tends to reduce the incentives and the resources available for risk-taking and creativity. Thus it can be argued that propensities inevitably resulting from democratic politics, as Friedman, Olson and many others argue, tend to reduce productivity, and hence welfare. But precisely the opposite argument can be made on the basis of the historical experience of literally all of the advanced capitalist democracies in existence. All of them without exception are now welfare states with some form and degree of social insurance, health and welfare nets, and regulatory frameworks designed to mitigate the harmful impacts and shortfalls of capitalism. Indeed, the welfare state is accepted all across the political spectrum. Controversy takes place around the edges. One might make the argument that had capitalism not been modified in this welfare direction, it is doubtful that it would have survived. This history of the interplay between democracy and capitalism is clearly laid out in a major study involving European and American scholars, entitled The Development. This history of the interplay between democracy and capitalism is clearly laid out in a major study involving European and American scholars, entitled The Development of Welfare States in Western Europe and America and America (Flora and Heidenheimer 1981). The book lays out the relationship between the development and spread of capitalist industry, democratization in the sense of an parties, and the gradual introduction of the institutions and practices of the welfare state. The early adoption of the institutions of the welfare state in Bismarck Germany, Sweden, and Great Britain were all associated with the rise of trade unions and socialist parties in those countries. The decisions made by the upper and middle class leaders and political movements to introduce welfare measures such as accident, old age, and unemployment insurance, were strategic decisions. They were increasingly confronted by trade union movements with the capacity of bringing industrial production to a halt, and by political parties with growing parliamentary representation favoring fundamental modifications in, or the abolition of capitalism. As the calculations of the upper and middle class leaders led them to conclude that the costs of suppression exceeded the costs of concession, the various parts of the welfare state began to be put in place-accident, sickness, unemployment insurance, old age insurance, and the link. The problem of maintaining the loyalty of the working classes through two world wars resulted in additional concessions to working class demands: the filling out of the social security system, free public education to higher levels, family allowances, housing benefits, and the like. Social conditions, historical factors, political processes and decisions produced different versions of the welfare state. In the United States, manhood suffrage came quite early, the later bargaining process emphasized free land and free education to the secondary level, an equality of opportunity version of the welfare state. The Disraeli bargain in Britain resulted in relatively early manhood suffrage and the full attainment of parliamentary government, while the Lloyd George bargain on the eve of World War I brought the beginnings of a welfare system to Britain. The Bismarck bargain in Germany produced an early welfare state, a postponement of electoral equality and parliamentary government. While there were all of these differences in historical encounters with democratization and “welfarization,” the important expanding suffrage and the emergence of trade unions and left-wing political Last printed 33 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 34 outcome was that little more than a century after the process began all of the advanced capitalist democracies had similar versions of the welfare state, smaller in scale in the case of the United States and Japan, more substantial in Britain and the continental European countries. We can consequently make out a strong case for the argument that democracy has been supportive of capitalism in this strategic sense. Without this welfare adaptation it is doubtful that capitalism would have survived, or rather, its survival, “unwelfarized,” would have required a substantial repressive apparatus. The choice then would seem to have been between democratic welfare capitalism, and repressive undemocratic capitalism. I am inclined to believe that capitalism as such thrives more with the democratic welfare adaptation than with the repressive one. It is in that sense that we can argue that there is a clear positive impact of democracy on capitalism. Last printed 34 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 35 Link – Democracy (2) Democracy reform is pressed upon third world countries to mask capital expansion and create marketsthis takes out any reason democracy is good Wallerstein, research scholar at Yale, 2001 Immanuel Wallerstein, research scholar at Yale College, 3/16/2001, “Democracy, Capitalism, and Transformation” http://66.102.1.104/scholar?q=cache:xMRfjwZh3GwJ:scholar.google.com/+democracy %2Bcapitalism&hl=en The new rhetoric would not have worked if there were not some empirical bases to these claims. What were they? To appreciate this, we have to reflect on the fundamental difference between a capitalist and a pre-capitalist system in terms of social stratification. In a pre- capitalist structure, the upper stratum holds power because it controls the means of violence. It thereby lays claim to a disproportionate share of the wealth. Those who acquire wealth otherwise than by military appropriation, say via the market, are not defined as part of the upper stratum and therefore live in the eternal fear of confiscation. They seek to avoid this fate by buying their way into the aristocracy, which took time, sometimes as much as four generations to complete. The capitalist world-economy is just as deeply stratified as the precapitalist systems, but the relations of the strata are different. The upper stratum holds its rank not because of its past military prowess but because of its past economic prowess. Those who are not at the top but have skills, those we are calling the cadres or middle strata of the system, are not living in fear of confiscation. On the contrary, they are in effect being constantly solicited and appeased by the upper strata, who need their assistance to maintain the political equilibrium of the overall world-system, that is, to hold in check the dangerous classes. The extension of the suffrage, the benefits of the welfare state, the recognition of particularist identities, is all part of the program of appeasing these cadres, of securing their loyalty to the overall system, and most of all of obtaining their assistance in maintaining in their place the majority of the world's population. Let us think of the capitalist world-system as socially a tripartite system divided (symbolically) into 1% at the top, 19% who are cadres, and 80% at the bottom. Then let us add the spatial element to which we have already referred. Within the bounds of the singular system that is the capitalist world-economy, the 19% are not spread out evenly among all the political units, but rather concentrated in a few of them. If we make these two assumptions - a tripartite stratification system, with geographical lumpiness - then it seems obvious that the slogan of "democracy" has had enormous meaning for the 19%, since it implies a real improvement in their political, economic, and social situation. But we can also see that it has had very little meaning for the 80%, since they have received very little of the presumed benefits, whether political, or economic, or social. And the fact that a small group of countries has more wealth, and a more liberal state, and multiparty systems that function more or less - in short, the fact that a few countries are civilized - is not the cause but precisely the consequence of the deep inequalities in the world-system as a whole. And this is why the rhetoric rings true in some parts of the world- system and seems so hollow in other parts, the larger parts. So, democracy unrealized? Of course. One doesn't even need to demonstrate, which can be done, that democracy, however defined, is constrained and limping even in the so-called liberal states. It is enough to note that it is not functioning to any significant degree at all in most of the world. When a Western leader preaches the virtues of democracy to a Third World state, and they do this quite regularly, he is either being willfully blind to the realities of the world-system or cynical or asserting his country's moral superiority. I am in no way defending or justifying the dictatorships of the world. Repression is not a virtue anywhere, not to speak of mass slaughters. It is simply to note that these phenomena are neither accidental, nor the result of the fact that certain countries have uncivilized cultures, nor certainly the result of the insufficient openness of such countries to the flows of capital. Last printed 35 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 36 Two-thirds of the world do not have liberal states because of the structure of the capitalist worldeconomy which makes it impossible for them to have such political regimes. Last printed 36 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 37 Link – Public Health Care New public health still locked into the motivation to support the capitalist system by creating productive workers Lupton, lecturer @ University Western Sydney, 95 Deborah Lupton, Social Sciences Lecturer- University Western Sydney, 1995, The Imperative of Health: public health and the regulated body, p. 28 An attempt to draw a distinction between the “old” and the “new” public health is thus somewhat difficult to justify, as the “new” public health continues to be characterized by some approaches that date back centuries as well as those that can be more readily identified with contemporary concerns. Just as the early public health movement was mobilized by economic concerns, the objective of health promotion in ensuring productive citizens still dominates public health discourse. The bottom-line of the logic of all these “preventive” actions is not simply human happiness achieved through the minimization of illness and pain, by preserving and redirecting the limited resources available for health care. For example, Ashton and Seymour quote the goal of the World Health Organization’s Health for All by the Year 2000 report issued in 1981, which stated that “the main social target of governments and WHO in the coming decades should be the attainment by all citizens of the world by the year 2000 or a level of health that will permit them to lead a socially and economically productive life.” Public health program driven by state economic needs Lupton, lecturer @ University Western Sydney, 95 Deborah Lupton, Social Sciences Lecturer- University Western Sydney, 1995, The Imperative of Health: public health and the regulated body, p. 28 Like other caring professions associated with liberalism and the welfare state (for example, social work and health care visiting), the ideologies and practices of health promotion are strongly underpinned by economic rationalities. Such activities involve techniques of alignment, where “governmental strategies try to link individual aspirations with collective goals.” This is particularly evident in health promotion. Health promotion is legitimized both by its idealistic search after improved health for all and its promise of reducing the amount of resources spent by the state for medical treatment and the loss of human power due to days spent off work because of illness. Public health movement created to serve the needs of capitalism and divert attention from halting industrialization Lupton, lecturer @ University Western Sydney, 95 Deborah Lupton, Social Sciences Lecturer- University Western Sydney, 1995, The Imperative of Health: public health and the regulated body, p. 28 The aim of Chadwick and his like-minded reformers was “to rationalize the principles of government, to remove waste, inefficiency and corruption” in order to make the free market more effective and to maintain and improve national prosperity. Jones describes this approach as “health care as a form of wise housekeeping;” it was argued that “a little expenditure to prevent ill-health would lead, eventually, to a greater saving of money”. This argument promoted widespread support for public health measures, particularly among the newly prosperous industrialists. There was no suggestion that industrialization should be halted or scaled down; on the contrary it was argued by the reformers that industrialization was beneficial in the long run in raising the standard of living for all. Last printed 37 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 38 Link – Ethical/Moral Obligation The Aff’s claims of ethical/moral obligation are not based in some selfless, respect for life. They are merely a self-serving protection of the power, safety and humanitarian righteousness that these claims give to their plan. These roles rigidly enforces us as protectors and them as weak limiting out any alternative dialogues. Campbell, professor at durham university, 02 Campbell, professor at durham university, 2002 David Campbell, professor at durham university, 2002 “Violence, Justice, and Identity in the Bosnian Conflict” Sovereignty and Subjectivity Assorted victimhoods is the only universal ideology in the post–cold war world according to Jean Baudrillard. An extreme assessment, perhaps, but many of the current developments in international politics point in that direction. The "failed state as international victim has become a preeminent security issue, establishing the limit case of concern when the power of the global media is there to gaze upon the plight of its devastated peoples. Whether the site is Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, (Rwanda) or Chechnya the sight is familiar-"generalities of bodies—dead, wounded, starving, diseased, and homeless—are pressed against the television screen as mass articles." The effect can be strangely comforting for the viewing population: "in their pervasive depersonalisation, this anonymous corporeality functions as an allegory of the elephantine, 'archaic,' and violent histories of external and internal subalterns." Through a peculiar trade, a pitiful eye is cast over the victims, consuming their image as a source for compassion. In return, through a process of "cultural anaesthesia," which banishes "disconcerting, discordant, and anarchic sensory presences and agents that undermine the normalising and often silent premises of everyday life," we are reassured that the horrors evident over there are safely confined and our resultant superiority confirmed This is the strange morality of pity that Friedrich Nietzsche warned against. In questioning morality so as establish the possibility for a revaluation of values, Nietzsche paid particular attention to "unegoistic" instincts such as pity. Nietzsche regarded the morality of pity as a danger to all right-thinking persons, for it represented a constraint upon the sovereignty of the individual through the transmission of pain from the victim to the observer. But Nietzsche argued the danger was greater than that, for he saw that some "good" persons sought objects of pity as a means to increase their own position and contro1. The objects of pity would remain victims regardless of the amount of attention directed their way, whereas the pitiers would markedly increase their feeling of superiority. In few places has this productive complex of pity been more evident than the Bosnian conflict. The international community has focused on the abnormality of the conflict through an oft-repeated parade of pathetic images while finding it difficult to confront the normality of life lived in the context of violence . As Slavoj zizek argues, what disturbs us most is not the sense that there is something perversely unique about Bosnia in general and Sarajevo in particular, though most assessments attempt to make that case: The unbearable is not the difference. The unbearable is the fact that in a sense there is no difference: there are no bloodthirsty "Balkanians" in Sarajevo, just normal citizens like us. The moment we take full note of this fact, the frontier that separates "us" from "them" is exposed in all its arbitrariness, and we are forced to renounce the safe distance of external observers. To maintain the distance, therefore, we emphasize compassion for the victim. Zizek, like Baudrillard, believes something global has emerged: "Sarajevo is but the special case of what is perhaps the key feature of the ideological constellation that characterises our epoch of worldwide triumph of liberal democracy: the universalisation of the notion of victim." To say as much is not to degrade the evident suffering or downplay the abundant horrors of the violence that has consumed the Bosnian capital (among other areas) since early 1992. To the contrary, in order to come to terms with the violence, it is necessary to highlight the function of compas sion and what it conceals if we are Last printed 38 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 39 to respond more effectively. In this context it might be said, as zizek argues, that "our compassion, precisely in so far as it is 'sincere,' presupposes that in it, we perceive ourselves in the form that we find likeable: the victim is presented so that we like to see ourselves in the position from which we stare at her." In our empathy toward Bosnian victims, we have, especially through the emphasis upon humanitarian aid and intervention, thought of ourselves in a manner that we find congenial—the humanitarians giving charity to the helpless This desirable sense of our self more often than not does little for the other. Moreover, the victims, who are neither so weak nor easily indulged as we think, can plainly see this. Indeed, the "justifiable contempt" held by many Sarajevans toward both their enemy and those Europeans who, with their "hypocritical contrition . . . bronze their good conscience in the sun of solidarity," pierces the phantasm of the pitiful victim and exposes the political deficit of compassion. For what our surfeit of concern conceals is the "immobilising power of fascination . . . [which] thwarts our ability to act" and prevents a political analysis of the conflict in Bosnia. The "ethics of compassion with the victim legitimises the avoidance, the endless postponement, of the act. All 'humanitarian' activity of aiding victims, all food, clothes and medicine for Bosnians, are there to obfuscate the urgency of the act." This is certainly the view of Rony Brauman, a former president of Medecins sans Frontieres, who has charged the international community with hiding' behind compassion in-the face of genocide. Last printed 39 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 40 Link – Moral Obligation The Affirmative’s moral imperative constitutes a totalitarian paralysis and continuity of conservative politics which replicate your case harms. Stavrakakis, Prof Psychoanalysis @ U Essex, 03 Yannis Stavrakakis, Prof Psychoanalysis @ U Essex, 03 parallax, 2003, vol. 9, no. 2, 56–71 Re-Activating the Democratic Revolution: The Politics of Transformation Beyond Reoccupation and Conformism This brings us to the whole discussion around the ethical turn in contemporary political philosophy. Even if one concludes that radical democracy can be a viable and fruitful project for a politics of transformation, what about the prioritization of ethics within recent radical democratic discourse? For example, at a fairly superficial level, it seems as if Zizek questions the importance of ethics in this field, and thus would also seem to question the deployment of the radical democratic attitude at the ethical level. Consider, for example, his outright condemnation of the ethical turn in political philosophy: ‘The ‘‘return to ethics’’ in today’s political philosophy shamefully exploits the horrors of Gulag or Holocaust as the ultimate bogey for blackmailing us into renouncing all serious radical engagement’.60 Surely, however, this cannot be a rejection of ethics in toto. Even if only because Zizek himself has devoted a considerable part of his work elaborating the ethics of psychoanalysis in the Lacanian tradition.61 It follows then that it must be a particular form of ethical discourse that constitutes his target. The same is true of Alain Badiou’s argument, to which we will now turn. Badiou’s target is a particular type of ethics, of ethical ideology, which uses a discourse of ‘human rights’ and ‘humanitarianism’ in order to silence alternative thought and politics and legitimize the capitalist order. This is an ethics premised on the principle that ‘good is what intervenes visibly against an Evil that is identifiable a priori’.62 What Badiou points to here, is what appears as a strange inversion; here the Good is derived from the Evil and not the other way round.63 The result of such an inversion is significant for the theory and politics of transformation: If the ethical ‘‘consensus’’ is founded on the recognition of Evil, it follows that every effort to unite people around a positive idea of the Good, let alone identify Man with projects of this kind, becomes in fact the real source of evil itself. Such is the accusation so often repeated over the last fifteen years: every revolutionary project stigmatized as ‘‘utopian’’ turns, we are told, into totalitarian nightmare. Every will to inscribe an idea of justice or equality turns bad. Every collective will to the Good creates Evil […] In reality, the price paid by ethics is a stodgy conservatism.64 This ethic, which is revealed as nothing but a mindless catechism, a miserable moralism,65 is an ethics that can have no relation to a transformative political agenda. 66 This ethics is presented in Badiou’s argument as a distortion of a real ethic of truths, which attempts to restore the logical priority of Good over Evil. Badiou’s ethic of truths is an ethics related to the idea of the event, a category central for his whole philosophical and political apparatus. To put it briefly, the event here refers to a real break which destabilizes a given discursive articulation, a preexisting order. Last printed 40 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 41 Link – “Help Them” The aff’s compassionate benevolence toward the other is a means of assuaging guilt. The plan’s dispensation of charity only makes us all more comfortable and complacent in our continual participation in the socio-economic processes that guarantee the third world’s emiseration. Zizek 06 Slavoj, Zizek, Prof. of Sociology at Univ. Ljubljana, 2006 “Nobody Has to be Vile,” London Review of Books, Vol. 28 No. 7] Liberal communists are pragmatic; they hate a doctrinaire approach. There is no exploited working class today, only concrete problems to be solved: starvation in Africa, the plight of Muslim women, religious fundamentalist violence. When there is a humanitarian crisis in Africa (liberal communists love a humanitarian crisis; it brings out the best in them), instead of engaging in anti-imperialist rhetoric, we should get together and work out the best way of solving the problem, engage people, governments and business in a common enterprise, start moving things instead of relying on centralised state help, approach the crisis in a creative and unconventional way. Liberal apartheid in South Africa. communists like to point out that the decision of some large international corporations to ignore apartheid rules within their companies was as important as the direct political struggle against Abolishing segregation within the company, paying blacks and whites the same salary for the same job etc: this was a perfect instance of the overlap between the struggle for political freedom and business interests, since the same companies can now thrive in post-apartheid South Africa. Liberal communists love May 1968. What an explosion of youthful energy and creativity! How it shattered the bureaucratic order! What an impetus it gave to economic and social life after the political illusions dropped away! Those who were old enough were themselves protesting and fighting on the streets: now they have changed in order to change the world, to revolutionise our lives for real. Didn’t Marx say that all political upheavals were unimportant compared to the invention of the steam engine? And would Marx not have said today: what are all the protests against global capitalism in comparison with the internet? Above all, liberal communists are true citizens of the world – good people who worry. They worry about populist fundamentalism and irresponsible greedy capitalist corporations. They see the ‘deeper causes’ of today’s problems: mass poverty and hopelessness breed fundamentalist terror. Their goal is not to earn money, but to change the world (and, as a by-product, make even more money). Bill Gates is already the single greatest benefactor in the history of humanity, displaying his love for his neighbours by giving hundreds of millions of dollars for education, the fight against hunger and malaria etc. The catch is that before you can give all this away you have to take it (or, as the liberal communists would put it, create it). In order to help people, the justification goes, you must have the means to do so, and experience – that is, recognition of the dismal failure of all centralised statist and collectivist approaches – teaches us that private enterprise is by far the most effective way. By regulating their business, taxing them excessively, the state is undermining the official goal of its own activity (to make life better for the majority, to help those in need). Liberal communists do not want to be mere profit-machines: they want their lives to have deeper meaning. They are against old-fashioned religion and for spirituality, for non-confessional meditation (everybody knows that Buddhism foreshadows brain science, that the power of meditation can be measured scientifically). Their motto is social responsibility and gratitude: they are the first to admit that society has been incredibly good to them, allowing them to deploy their talents and amass wealth, so they feel that it is their duty to give something back to society and help people. This beneficence is what makes business success worthwhile. This isn’t an entirely new phenomenon. Remember Andrew Carnegie, who employed a private army to suppress organised labour in his steelworks and then distributed large parts of his wealth for educational, cultural and humanitarian causes, proving that, although a man of steel, he had a heart of gold? In the same way, today’s liberal communists give away with one hand what they grabbed with the other. There is a chocolate- flavoured laxative available on the shelves of US stores which is publicised with the paradoxical injunction: Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate! – i.e. eat more of something that itself causes constipation. The structure of the chocolate laxative can be discerned throughout today’s ideological landscape; it is what makes a figure like Soros so objectionable. He stands for ruthless financial exploitation combined with its counter-agent, humanitarian worry about the catastrophic social consequences of the unbridled market economy. Soros’s daily routine is a lie embodied: half of his Last printed 41 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 42 working time is devoted to financial speculation, the other half to ‘humanitarian’ activities (financing cultural and democratic activities in post-Communist countries, writing essays and books) which work against the effects of his own speculations. The two faces of Bill Gates are exactly like the two faces of Soros: on the one hand, a cruel businessman, destroying or buying out competitors, aiming at a virtual monopoly; on the other, the great philanthropist who makes a point of saying: ‘What does it serve to have computers if people do not have enough to eat?’ According to liberal communist ethics, the ruthless pursuit of profit is counteracted by charity: charity is part of the game, a humanitarian mask hiding the underlying economic exploitation. Developed countries are constantly ‘helping’ undeveloped ones (with aid, credits etc), and so avoiding the key issue: their complicity in and responsibility for the miserable situation of the Third World. As for the opposition between ‘smart’ and ‘nonsmart’, outsourcing is the key notion. You export the (necessary) dark side of production – disciplined, hierarchical labour, ecological pollution – to ‘non-smart’ Third World locations (or invisible ones in the First World). The ultimate liberal communist dream is to export the entire working class to invisible Third World sweat shops. Last printed 42 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 43 Link – Multiculturalism Their calls of equality under the democratic system are false democracy reinforces the binaries that capitalism created by only including those who are of the social class to participate the exclude have not vote in the democracy and are extorted Zizek, University of Ljubljana, 04 Slavoj, Žižek, Institute for Social Sciences at the University of Ljubljana, 2004 Appendix I: canis a non canendo, iraq the borrowed kettle pg.86-87 However, are things really that simple? First, direct democracy is not only still alive in many places, such as the favelas , it is even being 'reinvented' and given a new boost by the rise the 'post industrial' digital culture (do not the descriptions of the new `tribal' communities of computer-hackers often evoke the logic of conciliarly democracy?). Secondly, the awareness that politics is a complex game in which a certain level of institutional alienation is irreducible should not lead us to ignore the fact that there is still a line of separation which divides those who are 'in' from those who are 'out', excluded from the space of the polis — there are citizens, and then there is the spectre of the excluded homo sacer haunting them all. In other words, even 'complex' contemporary societies still rely on the basic divide between included and excluded. The fashionable notion of the 'multitude' is insufficient precisely in so far as it cuts across this divide: there is a multitude within the system and a multitude of those excluded, and simply to encompass them both within the scope of the same notion amounts to the same obscenity as equating starvation with dieting. The excluded do not simply dwell in a psychotic non-structured Outside: they have (and are forced into) their own self-organization (or, rather, they are forced into organizing themselves) — and one of the names (and practices) of this selfor organization was precisely 'conciliary democracy). Capitalism needs multiculturalism – allowing different lifestyles to develop is key to globalized capital Zizek, University of Ljubljana, 08 slovajo Zizek, Slovene sociologist, philosopher, and cultural critic, 2008 IJŽS Vol 2.0 (2008),"If God doesn’t exist, everything is prohibited”, page 3, 2008 What is the conclusion then? There’s no conflict between multiculturalism and global capitalism? Or – to say it in Stalin’s language, which you like so much – multiculturalism is an objective ally of capitalism. That’s absolutely clear. Today’s capitalism develops thanks to differences, not due to the homogenization of society based on some cultural and patriarchal model. In order to constantly be reborn, to meet expectations of consumer society and keep up with the dynamics of market, capitalism can’t do without multiculturalism. The latter is not only an objective ally, but also the main ideology of a globalized capitalism. My friends, leftists, have completely missed that fact. It’s all about creating a world in which every, even the most specific, lifestyle can fully develop. Last printed 43 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 44 Link – Abortion Abortion and the language of choice forces everything to revolve around the accumulation of capital McCarraher, teaches humanities at Villanova University, 2001, (Eugene McCarraher http://vox-nova.com/2008/08/22/eugene-mccarraher-on-abortion-and-capitalism/, Vox Nova, Eugene McCarraher on abortion and capitalism) This political economy of death is the precondition for the emergence of “choice” as the holy grail of our moral culture. It’s neither coincidental nor unironical that the word so decisive in the legitimation of corporate hegemony is also pivotal to the defense of abortion. First, both abortion and corporate capitalism are justified in the liberal individualist language of self-ownership and autonomous will. Second, the language of choice obscures and even nullifies the moral substance of the choices made. And third, the alacrity with which “choice” is now invoked is, I suspect, an indication of how meaningless — and therefore how few –our choices have really become. Abortion becomes more conceivable as a practice, not only when sex is utterly divorced from pregnancy, but when the organization of work hampers or precludes the reproductive practices of sex, birth, and child-rearing. If we are going to combat abortion, then I would suggest that we appropriate and transform the language of choice, and argue that abortion is the hallmark of a culture that forces everything to pivot around the accumulation of capital. We must tie abortion to a political economy that controls our work, warps our practices of love, and compensates with the perverse but beguiling enchantments of commodified freedom. The Pro Choice movement masks capitalism, the only way to achieve reproductive justice is through changing the system Smith, Assistant Professor of American Culture and Women’s Studies at the University of Michigan, 05 (Andrea Smith, interim coordinator for the Boarding School Healing Project, a co-founder of Incite! Women of Color Against Violence, 1/1/05, “Beyond Pro-Choice Versus Pro-Life: Women of Color and Reproductive” Justice Cassettari) This paper argues that the pro-life versus pro-choice paradigm for understanding reproductive rights is a model that marginalizes women of color, poor women, women with disabilities, and women from other marginalized communities. The pro-life versus pro-choice paradigm serves to both reify and mask the structures of white supremacy and capitalism that undergird the reproductive choices that women make. While both camps of the pro-choice and pro-life debate give lip service to addressing the concerns of women of color, in the end the manner in which both articulate the issues at stake contributes to their support of political positions that are racist and sexist and which do nothing to support either life or real choice for women of color. Instead, women of color activists should develop alternative paradigms for articulating reproductive justice that make critiques of capitalism and criminalization central to the analysis rather than simply expand either pro-choice or pro-life frameworks. Last printed 44 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 45 Link - Environment Natural Capitalism is coming – Mass Media Stewart, Director of the Global Policy Innovations program at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 09 (Devin Stewart, “is Ethical Capitalism Possible?” 1-25-2009. http://vcr.csrwire.com/node/13160) Today there are promising signs of a more ethically minded business culture. Many businesses are shifting away from narrow, profit-driven models to models with a greater focus on environmental and social issues. Corporate social responsibility, although not a new concept, is gaining currency in the mainstream marketplace, as governments, consumers, and shareholders demand better products and conduct from companies. Corporate social responsibility and its financial counterpart socially responsible investing have risen substantially as a concern for global executives. These two fields, devoted to the creation of an ethical and sustainable business mode, encompass within them everything from funding local community projects to securing employee benefits in the workplace, reducing poverty, and preserving the health of the environment. Part of the reason for this shift is that companies are being held to account by their constituents. The reach of the Internet has produced ready access to information and a new means of voicing objections and suggestions. With the ease of new technology and a more resolute brand of activism, stakeholders are better able to create open lines of communication to corporate management circles, forming the grassroots campaigns of the new millennia. These concerns about redirecting capitalism toward the public good are perennial . In 1909, Herbert Croly, one of the founders of the New Republic, published The Promise of American Life. His book, which influenced Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt, pointed to the need for a stronger central government to check greed, corruption, and unfair distribution of wealth. In the interconnected global community of today, organizations and individuals are banding together across cultural and geographic divides to solve common problems. They are voicing the need for a renewed and moderate normative framework that will define the way humans live and interact in the 21st century. Last printed 45 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 46 Link - Health Care For-profit health care is the root cause the U.S. health care crisis Dean, contributing author to Dissident voice, 09, (Paul Dean Dissident Voice, June 19th, 2009, Health Care Reform And Carburetor Tweaking, http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/06/health-care-reform/) But regardless of whether we are in the process of creating, operating, maintaining, or “reforming” our health care system, what does not make sense is to retain the one design element that contains within it a terminal conflict of interest that no tinkering can ever resolve. A for-profit system assumes that we can somehow make people rich as a result of caring for the sick, but what we really do is make people sick by caring for the rich. One thing is clear: despite spending tens of millions of dollars worth of their ill-gotten profits to buy off our politicians and deform public opinion on the issues, Americans are not buying the traditional array of industry excuses any more. Even absent any substantial support for the idea in Washington or in the corporate mass media, about two- thirds of our citizens want to switch to a single-payer system now. What is there really to argue or debate? Healthcare industry executives, some of the best paid people on the planet, seem less than eager to appear before the public in front of a banner that reads, “We’re number thirty seven — and that’s good enough!” So they and their politicians and media outlets spread fairy dust. Virtually all of the current “reform” plans being tossed about by our politicians, including the much-touted “public option,” leave in place a network of forprofit private insurance companies to administer the system. This arrangement fails completely to address our systemic defect. For-profit healthcare is the problem. It cannot possibly be the solution. The current health care system is inefficient; reform makes it more compatible with the free market Vladeck et al; served for four years in the mid-1990s as the Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration where he directed Medicare and Medicaid, 08 (Bruce C. PhD Office of the President, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Divino, Celia M. MD; Klotman, Paul E. MD, Sarpel, Umut MD, April 2008, Fact and Fiction Debunking Myths in the US Healthcare System, Annals of Surgery Cassettari) Competition for goods and services generates maximum quality for minimal price. Policy makers often refer to this tenet when defending the multipayer system that exists in the United States. However, a free market only works when the consumer can use buying power to influence the price and quality of goods. In the current healthcare system, insurance is usually purchased by third parties (ie, employers), not by the consumer directly. Also, healthcare is not a discretionary desire; patients cannot delay purchase until prices drop. As a result, the consumer is not in charge of directing the market and thus there is no feedback loop to increase quality or reduce cost. The current system is not a free-market but is instead a for-profit system driven by private insurance providers who are immune to the checks and balances associated with the free-market ideal. This system, which has been in place for decades, has led to increases in healthcare expenditures, poorer health outcomes, and less choice in providers. Last printed 46 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 47 Links – Prisons (1) Prisons manage the social discontent caused by capitalism and inhibit the communist revolution. Lynd & Lynd, Political Activist, Historian, Lawyer, Professor at Spellman College & Yale University, ‘01 (Lynd, Staughton, Lynd, Alice, Political Activist, Historian, Lawyer, Professor at Spellman College & Yale University, July/August 2001, Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine, 00270520, Jul/Aug2001, Vol. 53, Issue 3) The words "prison-industrial complex," then, have by implication the same meaning. The message is: "Don't believe the proffered rationale that society has a need to put criminals behind bars in more and more restrictive and expensive facilities. What is really going on is that the capitalist system, having exhausted other opportunities for profit-making, is trying to make a buck on building and operating prisons. Watch the growth of prison production of goods and prison performance of services for profit. Notice the efflorescence of so-called private prisons which, laying aside the mask, make clear that their primary purpose is to maximize profits. (When the authors toured the first private prison in Ohio, on the occasion of its opening in spring 1997, the first words to be seen inside the prison doors were on a wall display entitled, "The price of our stock on the New York Stock Exchange yesterday," or words to that effect.) We think the implicit analysis encoded in the term prison-industrial complex is inaccurate. We believe that the prison boom derives primarily from capitalist society's need to control a labor force that is no longer economically required. It seems to us that prisons are explained less by a desire to accumulate profit than by a concern to manage the social discontent engendered by capital flight and disinvestment: in a word, by disaccumlulation. Last printed 47 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 48 Link – Prisons (2) Capitalism allows the rich to gain up on the poor and confine the poor to prisons. Jackson, Black Panther, 70 George Jackson, member of the Black Panthers who wrote about his and others experiences with the prison system and capitalism, 1970 http://www.haroldhthompson.uwclub.net/role_of_prisons_in_the_scheme_of.htm Politicians have a self-serving field day whipping up public hysteria in the mainstream media about the 'crime crisis' in America, perpetrating the great lie in order to enhance their images to concerned voters of being tough on crime. "The prisons are full of dangerous criminals, keep them there! Three strikes and your out! We have to build more prisons to hold them all! We need the prisons to control these animals!.." they rant and rage while lying through their pearl white teeth. The truth is easily discovered by anyone willing to do some preliminary research on the crime and prisons. Their great lie is merely just another vote grabbing fabrication which social vermin like politicians are known for coming up with in desperation to seize public office to fleece the flock! The national population has increased since the fifties and sixties where most comparison statistics are drawn from to match with the 90's crime rates. Crime has risen comparatively with the population increase. Almost at the same rate of growth during the fifties and sixties. Some categories of violent crime have increased a bit but only because of the increased availability of automatic weapons during the 90's era. The simple concrete fact remains, the vast majority of people imprisoned today in the united states of America's state and federal gulags are incarcerated for economic crimes relating to survival. The largest percentage of these people are poor, unemployed, working class and/or members ethnic minorities. Prisons are racist, sexist environments, designed to dehumanise those within them, strip people of their identities to be replaced with numbers like warehoused spare parts. Prisons provide no treatment to solve any problems which led a person to prison. The only treatment provided is to control conduct or behavior of a person while in prison, if any treatment is offered at all. It is meant to isolate the prisoner from family and friends, break down their personalities to force them, through varying degrees of brain washing techniques, into becoming another obedient robot for capitalism. Prisons are being utilized increasingly to simply warehouse people, society's throwaway segments; the homeless, unemployed, those seeking to bring political change through methods unacceptable to the elite few, the 'unwashed' or perpetrating class, defined as us. Prisons are violent institutions by design and teach lessons of violence through abuse to those confined within them. This taught violence is often, later misdirected and unleashed upon society in general after the person is released. Bitterness, pent-up rage, anger has to go somewhere so it explodes, most often at unexpected times and often in self destructive ways to the individual, sending them back for a second drink at the well of the gulags. The victims of the prison's institutionalised brutality create new victims of the system, thus ensuring the vicious cycle continues after their release to gentler society to send them back for a rerun of the original dehumanising penal experience. Prison neither deters crime nor protects anybody from crime. Prison perpetuates crime. Prisons provide no realistic rehabilitation and the person is often a worse threat to society when they leave prison than when they entered it in the first place .So why are people continued to be dehumanised in these steel and concrete gulags? Why are people still locked away for years in these tombs of the undead. Why? Because prisons are a booming growth industry and as with other large capitalist ventures are propped up with dollars taken from the working class in the form of taxes Last printed 48 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 49 Links - HUD Regulating the market leads to big problems. The aff’s HUD plan is fueled by bureaucratic Capitalism that is not in the interests of the people. Lepage, French Economist, ’82 (Henri Lepage, French Economist, 1982, Tomorrow, Capitalism: The Economics of Economic Freedom, 123126-127) Urban Planning) To continue our survey of the inefficiencies of contemporary social policies, let us look at a study of urban and regional planning by Bernard H. Siegan (School of Law, University of California, San Diego) entitled Land Use Without Zoning, which disputes the benefits of bureaucratic intervention in urban planning. Siegan takes the example of Houston, the only American city of over a million inhabitants that in land use has remained free-enterprise. Using a variety of indicators gathered locally on lot prices, rents, and so on, Siegan compares the Houston experience with what has happened in Dallas, where the planning powers of local authorities are used extremely restrictively. He shows, and provides statistics to prove, that: 1. As concerns the quality of the urban environment, Houston has no reason to envy "betterregulated" Dallas—on the contrary. 2. The rents paid by low-income families in Houston are lower than those in Dallas, with a greater proportion of single-family or semidetached dwellings for the least well-off. Siegan concludes by confronting, with these results, the general belief that bureaucratic intervention is the only way to safeguard the urban environment and democratize housing Even in urban planning, he contends, voluntary exchange and market mechanisms are socially more efficient than bureaucratic intervention. To put it bluntly, regulating the market on the pretext of improving its functioning means quotas, and quotas mean "favors," black markets, excessive profits, and, in the end, more inequalities than a free market would have produced. Their conceptualization of homelessness is grounded in capitalism Arnold, prof @ University of Texas, 04; Kathleen R. Arnold, prof of political science @ University of Texas, 2004, Homelessness, citizenship, and identity pg. 57 I will develop what appears to be a paradoxical argument below: the homeless need homes and yet, it is our notion of home in liberal capitalism, on the one hand, and the modern nation-state, on the other, that makes homelessness inevitable. The homeless - and everyone else - need homes, but not just any homes. Rather, they need homes that are relatively stable (as discussed in the Introduction). Second, a homeless notion of home will, in fact, allow more people to be at home whether this is a question of housing, public space, or politicoeconomic identity and activity. Thus, the advocacy of a more homeless conception of home/homeland is not giving up on the idea of home altogether (as Iris Marion Young charges) but rather reconceptualizing the idea of home in such a way that what formerly defined home has been radically revised in order to become more inclusive. Homelessness furthers the reserve army of labor – this furthers capitalism Magdoff, former member of FDR’s administration, and Magdoff, prof @ University of Vermont, 05 Harry Magdoff, prominent American socialist commentator, held several administrative positions in government during the presidency of FDR and later became co-editor of Monthly Review, and Fred Magdoff, professor at University of Vermont, 2005, Approaching Socialism; in the Monthly Review http://www.monthlyreview.org/0705magdoffs1.htm The difficult situation of so much of humanity partly occurs because the economic system does not produce full employment. Instead, capitalism develops and maintains what Marx called the reserve army of labor—a large sector of the population that lives precariously, sometimes working, sometimes not. These workers might be needed seasonally, at irregular times, when there is a temporary economic boom, for the military, or not at all. In the wealthy countries, members of the reserve army of the unemployed and underemployed are generally the poorest, living under difficult conditions including homelessness. Their very existence maintains a downward pressure on wages for the lower echelons of workers. Last printed 49 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 50 Link - Postal Service (1) The Postal Service is inherently capitalist and only fuels unequal and oppressive competition. It exploits society. Lepage, French Economist, ’82 (Henri Lepage, French Economist, 1982, Tomorrow, Capitalism: The Economics of Economic Freedom, 116-119) The U.S. Postal Service) As in other Western nations, the Postal Service in the United States is a public monopoly and has been for more than 175 years. However, Congress transformed the former Post Office Department into a government corporation making its own operating decisions (though its rates are regulated). John Haldi (educated at Stanford, currently president of his own consulting firm in New York) wrote a critical study of the postal monopoly that presents three important ideas. First Haldi points out that despite the monopoly the Postal Service is currently confronting competition in certain areas , which makes it possible to test its performance empirically. Congress prohibits private delivery of letters (with some exemptions). Only a “mailman” has the monopoly does not extend to small packages and advertising material. In this way, the Postal Service is currently being compelled to withstand competition in three fronts: (1) private firms that deliver packages (Greyhound Package Service, REA Express, United Parcel Service, and over 80,000 truckers, special carriers, and delivery services); (2) firms that specialize in delivering unaddressed advertising circulars to homes (a dozen, perhaps, of which one of the largest, Independent Postal Service of America, founded in 1968, in 1971 employed 18,000 people in nineteen states); and (3) companies that deliver their own bills using their own employees, such as utility companies. Moreover, with the development of electronic communications, the Postal Service is increasingly having to compete with computers. It has been suggested, for example, that from 1985 on the greater part of inter-firm mail will pass directly through the long-distance electronic communication networks. Second, Haldi’s study shows that where comparisons are possible, the right to put mail into mailboxes of Americans. However, privately operated delivery companies provide higher-quality service, in terms of speed and reliability, at lower cost. The greater efficiency of private delivery companies provide higher-quality service, in terms of speed and reliability, at lower cost. The greater efficiency of private delivery companies explains why the number of small packages sent via the Postal Service fell from 800 million to 498 million between 1962 and 1972, whereas the volume of UPS deliveries quadrupled to 600 million in the same period. In 1972, Avon Products calculated that UPS cost an average of 7 to 7.5 cents per pound, the Postal Service damaged five times more packages than UPS, whose greater use of mechanization and better containerization has reduced handling costs and breakage. Finally, Haldi’s study reveals that the postal monopoly involves regressive social transfers. Cities (where there is a greater concentration of low-income households) subsidize suburbs (where the average living standard is higher), because delivery to apartment buildings is cheaper and cities have a high proportion of apartment buildings. First-class mail subsidizes the delivery of newspapers and magazines. The Postal Service replies to such criticisms by pointing out that private firms can "skim the cream," or concentrate on the most profitable kinds of mail. They defend their monopoly by arguing that they need excess profits on some mail to compensate for losses on other mail, such as rural routes. The Postal Service thinks it has a "public duty" to citizens (such as dwellers in remote rural areas) whose postal requirements cost more than the average. Haldi replies to this classic "public duty" defense of public monopolies with two arguments: 1. Typical users of a public service should not have to subsidize the Postal Service's higher costs in serving certain special categories of the population. If anyone should subsidize these higher costs—and Haldi does not argue that whereas the Postal Service cost 9 cents per pound. Also anyone should—then it should be society as a whole, i.e., the taxpayer. In other words, according to Haldi, resources are misallocated when additional service costs are paid by accumulating additional profits. Haldi explains that the absence of competition for most mail services hampers the modernization of the Postal Service. In the end the consumer is swindled, not because he subsidizes other citizens, but because the chosen system of subsidization retards progress in this sector. 2. The Postal Service should not need legal protection of its monop oly. The postal monopoly cannot have it both ways, argues John Haldi: either there exist economies of scale that accord the Postal Service a nat ural monopoly, in which case it does not need legislative protection; or these economies of scale do not exist and it is in the public interest to allow competition to lower postal prices: . even if the postal system does constitute a natural monopoly, this in no way provides any economic justification for "sanctifying" the situation by statute. . . . a natural monopolist can by definition operate at such low cost as to preclude competition without further assistance from the government. ... a natural monopolist does not need a legal monopoly. Conferring a statutory monopoly on a natural monopoly serves only to exaggerate monopoly power. The policy issue created by the existence of a natural monop oly is not how to protect the monopolist, but how to protect the public from being exploited by the monopolist. Last printed 50 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 51 Link – Postal Service (2) Capitalism restores space to facilitate dynamics. The 1AC embarks of a centralized and authoritarian model of city-planning, making the post service tailored to the needs of capital which treats individuals as economic production. Their attempt creates a state of collective isolation and consumerist pseudocommunity that allows the smooth functioning of capitalism and the social forces that make nuclear war possible. Debord, wrote the book “Society of the Spectacle”, 1967 (Guy Debord, Marxist theorist, wrote “Society of the Spectacle,” 172-180, 1967, http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/ debord/7.htm) The society that reshapes its entire surroundings has evolved its own special technique for molding its own territory, which constitutes the material underpinning for all the facets of this project. Urbanism — “city planning” — is capitalism’s method for taking over the natural and human environment. Following its logical development toward total domination, capitalism now can and must refashion the totality of space into its own particular decor. The capitalist need that is satisfied by urbanism’s conspicuous petrification of life can be described in Hegelian terms as a total predominance of a “peaceful coexistence within space” over “the restless becoming that takes place in the progression of time.” While all the technical forces of capitalism contribute toward various forms of separation, urbanism provides the material foundation for those forces and prepares the ground for their deployment. It is the very technology of separation. Urbanism is the modern method for solving the ongoing problem of safeguarding class power by atomizing the workers who have been dangerously brought together by the conditions of urban production. The constant struggle that has had to be waged against anything that might lead to such coming together has found urbanism to be its most effective field of operation. The efforts of all the established powers since the French Revolution to increase the means of maintaining law and order in the streets have finally culminated in the suppression of the street itself. Describing what he terms “a one-way system,” Lewis Mumford points out that “with the present means of long-distance mass communication, sprawling isolation has proved an even more effective method of keeping a population under control” (The City in History). But the general trend toward isolation, which is the underlying essence of urbanism, must also include a controlled reintegration of the workers base d on the planned needs of production and consumption. This reintegration into the system means bringing isolated individuals together as isolated individuals. Factories, cultural centers, tourist resorts and housing developments are specifically designed to foster this type of pseudocommunity. The same collective isolation prevails even within the family cell, where the om nipresent receivers of spectacular messages fill the isolation with the ruling images — images that derive their full power precisely from that isolation. In all previous periods architectural innovations were designed exclusively for the ruling classes. Now for the first time a new architecture has been specifically designed for the poor. The aesthetic poverty and vast proliferation of this new experience in habitation stem from its mass character, which character in turn stems both from its function and from the modern conditions of construction. The obvious core of these conditions is the authoritarian decisionmaking which abstractly converts the environment into an environment of abstraction. The same architecture appears everywhere as soon as industrialization has begun, even in the countries that are furthest behind in this regard, as an essential foundation for implanting the new type of social existence. The contradiction between the growth of society’s material powers and the continued lack of progress toward any conscious control of those powers is revealed as glaringly by the developments of urbanism as by the issues of thermonuclear weapons or of birth control (where the possibility of manipulating heredity is already on the horizon). Last printed 51 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 52 Link – Assets Discourse (1) Asset-building discourse commodifies social life through the implementation of social capital and turns case by forcing the poor to try to compete in a market-based society that they will inevitably lose in Schram, prof @ Bryn Mawr College, 06; Sanford F. Schram, teaches social theory and social policy in the Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research at Bryn Mawr College, 2006 Chapter Five; in Welfare Discipline: Discourse, Governance, and Globalization Pg 114 par 2 – pg 116 par 1 Asset-building policy discourse is not there yet. Instead, it is still best seen as a child of the contemporary social capital discourse that commodifies social life so as to imagine social relations, social networks, social community membership, etc., as possessing resources that the individual can tap into to extract benefit for themselves on the basis of who they know, how they are connected, what memberships they possess, etc.12 Assets themselves are seen in this discourse as providing a way to better connect to sources of social capital as in purchasing a home increasing your likelihood of living in a better neighborhood of other homeowners who are, com¬ pared with renters, not just better off financially but more invested in their community and more committed to that community serving as a resource center for its member families. The circular reasoning of asset-building policy discourse promises a road out of poverty by accessing social capital that comes with possessing greater assets. Asset-building discourse reinforces the commodifying orientation of social capital and does so by way of promising more access to such social capital. As such, asset-building discourse becomes its own self-fulfilling prophecy: you need economic assets to get social capital that gets you more economic assets. It may well be, as Farr suggests, that in the current period, when the hegemony of the market is unchallenged, the idea of commodifying social relations is looked upon less critically and, relatedly, the idea that low- income hegemony of the market leads to both an increasing interest in commodifying social life and an increased willingness to assume that lowincome individuals ought to be expected to act like those in the middle class and to compete with everyone in acquiring wealth. With the hegemony of the market, asset-building becomes a capital idea not to be dismissed as positioning the poor to lose out in an economic competition that is rigged against them . Yet, an asset-building discourse that risks intensifying the commodfying effects of social capital is a problem for the poor at a profoundly political level. Such an individualistic discourse that looks at resources as things to be acquired and consumed exclusively by individuals and their families makes it more difficult to build over time a public philosophy oriented toward collective solidarity that is committed to ensuring we do not blame the poor for the poverty they were let by our individualistic, capitalistic society. In the long run, asset-building discourse makes it harder to develop policies that counter market principles and prevent the poverty that a market-centered society creates in the first place. One long-run consequence of assets-building policy discourse is that it is individuals can compete in the competition to extract wealth rom assets is also treated less skeptically. Today, the corrosive to the idea that we need to act collectively through the state to counteract the commodifying practices of the market that leave out so many lowincome individuals in the rush to find the greatest sources of profit. In such a market-centered society, the relatively less attractive personal assets of the Once everyone is expected to be able to acquire appreciable assets, the risk grows in a market-centered society that the poor will once again be blamed for their poverty.13 This time they will be blamed for bad investment decisions, bad economic planning, bad capital management, etc. With a strong emphasis on the poor being able to be expected to compete in capital markets, we risk reinscribing the old culture of poverty arguments that the poor are different; that they lack middle-class values of discipline, hard work, savings, and delaying gratification ; and that poor will go begging, while others with more attractive homes or bighter, shinier credentials will see their assets appreciate. instead they are too impulsive, too present oriented, and too fixated on gratifying immediate wants to save, plan ahead, invest, and watch their assets Expecting the poor to compete in housing markets and in efforts to improve their human capital through schooling are primary instances of what we can call the "assets trap." Investing in homes that most people will not want to buy appreciate. risks saddling the poor with housing costs they cannot cover rather than increasing their families' wealth. And getting young people to borrow extensive amounts of money for community college coursework that often does not make them competitive in the various occupational fields and career paths they are pursuing just saddles them with debt they may never be able to pay off, leaving them with a bad credit rating and less disposable income to meet basic The idea that asset investments are the road out of poverty risks not only failing but also, when it fails, being turned back against the poor so that we end up blaming them all over again for their own poverty. needs. Last printed 52 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 53 Link - Assets Discourse (2) Asset-building discourse otherizes the poor by rooting itself in psychological theory of the poor Schram, prof @ Bryn Mawr College, 06 Sanford F. Schram, teaches social theory and social policy in the Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research at Bryn Mawr College, 2006 Chapter Five; in Welfare Discipline: Discourse, Governance, and Globalization Pg 117 par 1 – pg 120 par 1 As much asset-building discourse involves resisting what George Bush called the "sot bigotry of low expectations" about the ability of the poor to act middle class, there is much to suggest that regardless of intentions, asset-building discourse ends up being too easily assimilated into the old culture of poverty arguments that William Ryan forcefully challenged years ago. Asset-building discourse asserts an insistence that it is emphasizing how the poor are no different than everyone else, but then it ends up founding and justifying its approach on a psychological theory of the poor that sees them as trapped in an orientation to life that robs them of the motivation to save, plan for the future, and be interested in acquiring assets. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in Eu¬ rope (OECD) has emphasized this in documents extolling the virtues of asset-based approach in helping the poor think in more middle-class ways so that they will be better able to compete in vaious markets to get better jobs, start their own business, own their own property, etc. The OECD summarizes Sherraden's rationale for the asset-building approach in ways that highlight its focus on the psychology of the poor: • Assets improve household stability. In the first instance, they function as precautionary savings to cushion income shocks that might otherwise throw people into income poverty. • Assets create an orientation toward the future. A few assets create hope, and hope leads to future-oriented behaviour as opposed to entirely present-oriented survival strategies. • Assets promote development of human capital and other assets. With a few means, people will begin to think about improving themselves. If they have physical assets, they will take care of them and try to improve them. • Assets enable focus and specialisation. [Specialisation and the division of labour [are] the essence of participation in an organised social economy. Such behavior... would change with the end of exclusion and with focus and specialisation. • Assets provide a foundation for risk-taking., ..With more assets, the ability to take risks with a safety net is increased. The assertion also applies to entrepreneurship. ■ Assets increase personal eicacy. To use a currently popular word, they become a source of empowerment. • Assets increase social influence.,.. This point does not concern being rich. It concerns having enough to merit peer recognition. Assets increase political participation. With assets to protect, people pay attention to where their leaders lead them. They can no longer afford to live in "exclusion" They join the system. This increases social cohesion. Assets increase the welfare of offspring. Children raised in households with sufficient assets to end preoccupation with immediate survival gain in myriad ways that provide them with human assets—beginning with better nutrition and health and ending with acculturation and education.18 "Improve household stability," "create an orientation to the future," "provide a foundation for risk-taking," "increase personal efficacy," and so on all underscore an approach to public policy that is firmly rooted in changing the psychology of the poor as the main way to attack poverty. It promotes the idea that asset building is an adjunct of clinical social work, requiring intensive counseling. Clinical social work's orientation, so pop¬ ular in the United States, is to medicalize social problems and treat them as personal pathologies , and it is increasingly spreading around the developed world as part of globalization and the campaign to regiment populations to the new world order of low-wage work. Asset-building counseling is following in this clinical path. Disclaimers aside, this is a discourse that is deeply indebted to previous ideas about the culture of poverty. It risks setting the poor up to be blamed all over again for their own Last printed 53 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 54 poverty. Whether we intend it or not, we may end up being asked, once again, to "assume the worst" about the poor, this time when they fail to convert assets into wealth.l9 Even when we do not mean it, such a vicious cycle is created when we get caught up in this conspiracy of discourse. Then again, the psychology of asset-based discourse is anything but unintentional. The focus on whether the poor will save is actually quite disturbing, given that what is appealing about asset-building discourse for progressives is that it supposedly would be a more politically feasible way to transfer wealth to the poor so as to overcome the inequities associated with the current socioeconomic structure and the way market-centered society works to marginalize low-income individuals living in poor neighborhoods, working in dead-end low-wage jobs, and going without access to the educational opportunities that would enable them and their children to escape poverty. Instead, Sherraden, with Ray Boshara, emphasizes the way in which asset policy will change the outlook of the poor more than the structure of society. In summarizing the developments in the field, Sherraden and Boshara emphasize research that shows that the poor can be taught to save: Perhaps most significantly, research (from both primary and secondary sources) suggests that (1) the poor can save and accumulate assets and (2) assets have positive social, psychological, and civic effects independent of the effects of income. Most notably, the "American Dream" Individual Development Account (IDA) Demonstration in the U.S. (organized by the Corporaion for Enterprise Development and the Center for Social Development) and the Savings Gateway Pilot Project in the U.K. (sponsored by HM Treasury) produced evidence that participants could save in structured accounts. The idea that the poor should accumulate assets is now almost common, language such as "asset-based policy" is now mainstream, and research of many aspects of asset accumulation, distribution, and impacts is increasing. In 2003, OECD published Asset Building and the Escape from Poverty, probably the best report on the state of asset building worldwide. While directed primarily at a Western European audience, this report argues that asset policies hold the potential to transform "passive welfare states" into "active social investment states," through (a) the act of saving and the reciprocity it implies, and (b) the "asset effects" along with the greater return on scarce public dollars and better ciizenship they may promote. Finally, other asset building, projects and research are being pioneered around the world. In addition to primary and secondary research efforts connected to policies and projects in the U.S. and U.K., asset building projects and/or research efforts are underway by researchers in Hong Kong, Australia, Sweden, Taiwan, China, Singapore, Canada, Uganda, and Mexico, and re¬ search continues as well through various programs of the OECD. In other words, the emphasis of asset-building discourse on changing the psychology of the poor is helping it become part of the globalization of a new discourse of dependency, spreading around the world to buttress welfare state rollbacks with the shift toward labor activation policies that give priority to moving the poor into low-wage labor markets. So, then, we see here quite clearly that this is how one discourse trades on another, lf making each complicit in a conspiracy of discourse that reinscribes the Otherness of the poor and intensifies the interest in studying, surveying, treating the poor to become more active participants in the global order ... even if it means their continued subordination at the bottom competitive markets for housing, schooling, jobs, and the sources of well-being more generally. So it goes with the globalization of discourse in the emerging ownership society. Last printed 54 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 55 Links - Competitiveness Discourse Globalization discourse structures their policy decisions and entrenches them in capitalism that is selflegitimating Schram, prof @ Bryn Mawr College, 06; Sanford F. Schram, teaches social theory and social policy in the Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research at Bryn Mawr College, 2006 Chapter One; in Welfare Discipline: Discourse, Governance, and Globalization Pg 10 par 3 – pg 12 par 1 The problem is simply more complicated than conventional analyses would allow. Failing to account for the pervasive role of globalization discourse in structuring how policymakers choose to respond to internal demographic and economic changes is a serious oversight in ways that involve both an impersonal determining structure and the volition that comes with having personal agency. In one sense, failing to account for globalization discourse overlooks how it facilitates making the policy choices that lead to making welfare state cutbacks seem inevitable when instead the choice of how to respond to internal pressures is much more open-ended than the neoliberal discourse of capitalist welfare states would allow. Therefore, the emphasis on internal pressures over the external forces of globalization overlooks that globalization as a politically convenient discourse is pervasively and readily available to structure debate about what to do about internal demographic and economic changes. As a result, globalization as a discourse, more so than as an inexorable, objective economic force, can help create the conditions under which welfare cutbacks seem to be the only logical response, especially for political and economic elites who see opportunities to be exploited by restructuring their welfare states so that their economies can be more competitive in the global economy, not because they have to but because they want to. Globalization discourse structures policy choices, making them seem to be the logical and even inevitable ones. Globalization discourse was , therefore, arguably a story the United States told about the rest of the world to itself and which ended up fueling welfare state retrenchment back at home in America. It is distinctly possible that U.S. corporate leaders could champion globalization so successfully because they did not confront much resistance from a debilitated labor movement, further distinguishing them from their European counterparts, who have often had to elaborate social welfare policy changes in ways that supported workers rather than simply pushing them into low-wage jobs. In any case, globalization discourse helped also frame European responses to what were taken to be deterministic economic, social, and demographic forces. Colin Hay and Matthew Watson capture this role of globalization discourse in framing welfare retrenchment deliberaions in the United Kingdom when they write: [Globalisation acts as so pronounced a constraint upon the autonomy of government precisely because the government believes that it does; the merely contingent is rendered necessary only through the discourse and politics of globalisation. An image of inexorable economic forces is often summoned in order to explain the emergence of globalisation's logic of inevitability. Once a more dialectical understanding of the relationship between the material and the ideational is emphasised, however, a rather different picture emerges. Political try outcomes are not structurally-determined by a globalisation process for which there is, in any case, only superficial evidence. The political is far more than merely residual to a determining economic essence. Indeed, in the absence of decisive, facilitating political interventions, the material processes of globalisation would be unsustainable. Consequently, we argue that it is necessary to focus not only on empirical measures of the extent to which economic relations have, or have not, been globalised.29 As this quotaion suggests, globalization is more than an empirical question. Further, globalization discourse is, like any discourse, self- fulilling, making itself real by iteration. In the case of welfare state retrenchment, it is as if the United States conveniently created its own foreign threat that it then convinced itself it had to fear, producing the desired economic insecurity at home and abroad, and eventually making itself real and becoming its own self-fulfilling prophecy, in the U. S. and then in Europe as well. Globalization discourse is in this sense self-legitimating. It is also a conspiracy of its own special sort. Last printed 55 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 56 Link – Law Law is an avenue by which the rich are always placed above the poor. Parenti, received his Ph.D. in political science from Yale University, 84 Michael Parenti, he was awarded a Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition serves on the advisory boards of Independent Progressive Politics Network, Education Without Borders, and the Jasenovic Foundation as a Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C, The law in its majestic equality, Anatole France once observed, prohibits rich and poor alike from stealing bread and begging in the streets. And in so doing the law becomes something of a farce, a fiction that allows us to speak of the “rights of all” divorced from the class conditions that often place the rich above the law and the poor below it. In the absence of certain substantive conditions, formal rights are of little value to millions who lack the time, money and opportunity to make a reality of their rights. Take the “right of every citizen to be heard.” In its majestic equality, the law allows both the rich and the poor to raise high their political voices: both are free to hire the best-placed lobbyists and Washington lawyers to pressure public officeholders; both are free to shape public opinion by owning a newspaper or television station; and both rich and poor have the right to engage in multimilliondollar election campaigns in order to pick the right persons for office or win office themselves. But again, this formal political equality is something of a fiction as we shall see in the pages ahead. Of what good are the rules for those millions who are excluded from the game? Under capitalism, law is a “means of manipulation and control” Quinney, prof. of sociology at Northern Illinois U and founder of critical criminology, and Shelden, prof. of criminal justice at UNLV, 01 (Richard Quinney, Randall G. Shelden, “Critique of legal order,” 2001, http://books.google.com/books? id=yGGj8V9ABMAC&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=%22capitalist+legal %22&source=bl&ots=okjdakaLnR&sig=sbVW8X4IIxKgLfk84_Kq6KdrJeE&hl=en&ei=6tBpSsCLHI2cMOawnNAM&sa=X&oi=bo ok_result&ct=result&resnum=10) As students of law and crime, and as socialists, our task is to consider the alternative to the capitalist legal order. Further study of the American legal system must be devoted to the contradictions of the existing legal order. At this advanced stage of capitalist development, law is little more than a rigid and repressive means of manipulation and control. We must make others aware of the current meaning of law and crime control in capitalist society. The objective is to move beyond the existing legal order. And this means ultimately that we are engaged in a socialist revolution. Last printed 56 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 57 Link – Environmental sustainability Capitalism relies on ideologies that contradict sustainable practices. It’s impossible to address problems of the environment within capitalism Li, professor of economics at University of Utah, 08 (Minqi Li teaches economics at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, “Climate Change, Limits to Growth, and the Imperative for Socialism,” Monthly Review, July-August 2008. http://monthlyreview.org/080721li.php) However, the laws of motion of capitalism will keep operating so long as the capitalist system remains intact, independent of the individual wills and against the best wishes of the upper-middle-class environmentalists. Sooner or later, those truly conscientious environmentalists will have to choose between the commitment to ecological sustainability and the commitment to an exploitative and oppressive social system. Furthermore, with the deepening of the global ecological crisis and the crisis of global capitalism in general, it may soon become increasingly difficult for the capitalist system to accommodate the material privileges of the upper middle class while simultaneously meeting the requirements of production for profit and accumulation. As I discussed earlier, there are many technical obstacles to the de-carbonization of the world’s energy system. Brown and Lovins have greatly exaggerated the potentials of technical change. But even if many of the proposed highly efficient energy technologies using renewables become available right away, their application will be delayed by the inherent obstacles to technological diffusion in the capitalist system. In an economic system based on production for profit, a new technology is “intellectual property.” People or countries that cannot afford to pay are denied access. Even today hundreds of millions of people in the world have no access to electricity. How many decades would it take before they start to have access to solarpowered electric cars? Moreover, unlike consumer novelties such as cell phones or lap tops, which can be readily manufactured by the existing industrial system, the de-carbonization of the world’s energy system requires fundamental transformation of the world’s economic infrastructure. This basically means that the pace of de-carbonization, even under the most ideal conditions, cannot really be faster than the rate of depreciation of long-lasting fixed assets. Considering that many buildings and other long-lasting structures will stand for half a century or even longer, the assumed rates of decarbonization presented in tables 1 and 2 must be seen as extremely optimistic. From a purely technical point of view, the most simple and straightforward solution to the crisis of climate change is immediately to stop all economic growth and start to downsize world material consumption in an orderly manner until the greenhouse gases emissions fall to reasonable levels . This can obviously be accomplished with the existing technology. If all the current and potentially available de-carbonization technologies are introduced to all parts of the world as rapidly as possible, the world should still have the material production capacity to meet the basic needs of the entire world’s population even with a much smaller world economy (scenarios 1 to 3 in table 2 would roughly correspond to a return to the 1960s material living standards). However, under a capitalist system, so long as the means of production and surplus value are owned by the capitalists, there are both incentives and pressures for the capitalists to use a substantial portion of the surplus value for capital accumulation. Unless surplus value is placed under social control, there is no way for capital accumulation (and therefore economic growth) not to take place. Moreover, given the enormous inequality in income and wealth distribution under capitalism, how could a global capitalist economy manage an orderly downsizing while meeting the basic needs of billions of people? Economic growth is indispensable for capitalism to alleviate its inherent social contradictions. Last printed 57 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 58 Link – Environmental justice (1) Attempts at environmental justice cannot possibly threaten the capitalist system, and these policies always come up short – resulting in ecological devastation. Capitalists will backlash against the plan and reify capital Sweezy, founder of the Monthly Review, 89 (Paul Sweezy is founder of the monthly review/economist, “Capitalism and the Environment” 1989 http://www.monthlyreview.org/1004pms3.htm) Since there is no way to increase the capacity of the environment to bear the burdens placed on it, it follows that the adjustment must come entirely from the other side of the equation. And since the disequilibrium has already reached dangerous proportions, it also follows that what is essential for success is a reversal, not merely a slowing down, of the underlying trends of the last few centuries. We have seen that at the heart of these trends is an economic system driven by the energy and inventiveness of entities—individuals, partnerships, in the last hundred years corporations—out to advance their own economic interests with little thought and less concern for the effects on either society as a whole or the natural environment which it draws on for the essentials of its existence. Already a century and a half ago Marx and Engels, in a memorable passage from the Communist Manifesto, paid a remarkable tribute to the energy and achievements of the then young capitalist mode of production: The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of nature’s forces to man’s machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground—what earlier century had even a presentiment that such forces slumbered in the lap of social labor? Actually, when this was written in 1847 the rule of the bourgeoisie extended to only a small part of the earth’s surface, and the new sciences and technologies harnessing the forces of nature to human purposes were still in their infancy. Since then capitalism has spread to become a truly global system, and the development and application of science and technology to industry and agriculture have progressed beyond anyone’s wildest dreams a hundred and fifty years ago. Despite all the dramatic changes, however, the system remains in essence what it was at its birth, a juggernaut driven by the concentrated energy of individuals and small groups single-mindedly pursuing their own interests, checked only by their mutual competition, and controlled in the short run by the impersonal forces of the market and in the longer run, when the market fails, by devastating crises. Implicit in the very concept of this system are interlocked and enormously powerful drives to both creation and destruction . On the plus side, the creative drive relates to what humankind can get out of nature for its own uses; on the negative side, the destructive drive bears most heavily on nature’s capacity to respond to the demands placed on it.* Sooner or later, of course, these two drives are contradictory and incompatible. And since, as argued above, the adjustment must come from the side of the demands imposed on nature rather than from the side of nature’s capacity to respond to these demands, we have to ask whether there is anything about capitalism as it has developed over recent Last printed 58 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 59 Link - Environmental justice – Alt solves (3) Capitalism is the root cause of the social and environmental problems fought by the environmental justice movement Pellow, Professor of Ethnic Studies, and Director of California Cultures in Comparative Perspective UCSD, and Brulle, Professor of Sociology and Environmental Science at Drexel University, 05 (David N. Pellow and Robert J. Brulle, “Power, Justice, and the Environment: Toward Critical Environmental Justice Studies, MIT Press, 2005, http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262661934chap1.pdf) The first step toward understanding the origins of and prospects for the environmental justice struggle is to situate the EJ movement within a larger social dynamic of the social production of inequality and environmental degradation. We agree with Ulrich Beck that “environmental problems are fundamentally based in how human society is organized” (1986: 81). Thus, exploitation of the environment and exploitation of human populations are linked. In order to understand and develop meaningful measures to mitigate ecological degradation, this analysis begins with the development of a theoretical perspective on the social processes by which these problems originate. A well-developed literature locates the origin of environmental problems in the political economy of advanced capitalist economies (Schnaiberg 1980; Schnaiberg and Gould 1994; O’Connor 1973, 1984, 1987). This perspective maintains that the capitalist economy forms a “treadmill of production” that continues to create ecological problems through a self-reinforcing mechanism of ever more production and consumption. The logic of the treadmill of production is an ever-growing need for capital investment in order to generate goods for sale on the market. From the environment, it requires growing inputs of energy and material. When resources are constrained, the treadmill of production searches for alternative sources rather than conserving resources and restructuring production. The tread-mill operates in this way to maintain a positive rate of return on investments. In theory, the state is responsible for reconciling disparities between the treadmill and society’s social needs. In practice the state has often acted to accelerate the treadmill in the hope of avoiding political conflict (Schnaiberg 1980: 418). The ecological result of this process is that the use of natural resources continues to increase, regardless of the consequences on the sustainability of the ecosystem. The social result is that inequalities increase and working-class populations receive less and less material benefit from their labor. Thus, both ecological disorganization and race and class inequalities are inherent by-products of the social order. Last printed 59 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 60 Impacts – War Capitalism is the cause of every single war in history. Bordiga, founder of Italy’s communist party , 1991 Amadeo Bordiga, writer for an Italian newspaper and economics, founder of Italy’s communist party. 1991 (appeared in 1991 but was written in the 60’s) http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/intpap/piso/pisohbiboe.html According to marxism, not only it is true that in the capitalist era wars are a necessary and inevitable product of the ruling mode of production, and proletarian revolution alone can prevent its outbreak or violently interrupt its course. It's also true that, in given periods (when the mechanism of capital accumulation is in crisis), war is the one extreme remedy to which bourgeoisie can resort in order to safeguard its own rule: through the mass distruction of capital, goods, and work-force - of men, in short, and of their hands' products. This does not mean the bourgeoisie goes to war on the basis of carefully considered calculations or of free decisions on part of their legislative or executive organisms. It is the existence itself of capitalism, its own life requirements, that set off the mechanism of confrontation - first the preliminaries, then a formal declaration of war, and finally its practical (ideological and material) carrying out. War does not break out «by chance», nor «by the will» of individuals or groups. It is the final outlet of an objective situation, which little by little develops in different sectors and finally explodes where and when the power relationships among the economies of the countries involved reach the breaking point. Once invested, the capital's first aim is to reproduce itself with a profit. Accumulation thus rules capitalism's working cycle and forces to enlarge production and the related areas of sale beyond all limits. It is competition, in each phase of the accumulation process, that selects and then places one against the other first the individual capitals (to put it simply, the single capitalists) and then, as the needs of accumulation become tighter, the collective agents of production, the Ltds, the trusts, the multinationals. In a word: those enterprises which are actual or tendential monopolies and whose interests, in general, go well beyond national boundaries, but find both their political expression and their interests' upholder in the national state - the great machine of organised force in their defence. Now, while -from the technical point of view - the production process restlessly and limitlessly grows, receiving impetus from the volcanic character of commodity production, what on the contrary tends to shrink is the possibility of placing products on such conditions of «profitability» as to assure the carrying on of the accumulation process without interruptions and at the given conditions. In this way, to what we called «the volcano of production» more and more is opposed what we called «the swamp» of a market which, instead of widening, stagnates. Here is then the outbreak, within the capitalist economy, of the most violent among its contradictions. And the system in crisis resorts to extreme solutions on the ground of strength. In the industrially most advanced countries, the entrepreneur class faces severe limits to the investment of accumulated capital either in the lack (or scarcity) of raw materials of local origin or of indigenous workforce, or of markets able to buy produced goods. Now, the supplying of nonlocal raw materials, the engagement of foreign workforce, the conquest of foreign markets are today processes that cannot be simply achieved by purely economic means or by the mere play of competition. They imply the constant effort to regulate and control the sale and purchase prices, and the gradually gained privileges, through state measures or interstate agreements. Economic expansionism thus tends to turn from commercial to monopolistic, and finds its most typical expression in its financial form, supported - if need be - by powerful military means. Be it the control of greatmining fields, or of masses to be proletarised, or of outlet markets able to absorb the products of capitalist industrialism, it is strength that decides the outcome of such rush towards profiteering, towards the control of the rule over wider and wider sectors of world economy. And the global expression of the crises and confrontations that follow is imperialism, which on the economic level manifests itself in the accumulation process (whose end is the monopolistic organisation of production and exchanges). Last printed 60 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 61 Through finance capital, the powers of the US, of Japan, Germany and other European and non-European countries rule today unopposed on the world economic scenario, ready to plunge into this or that adventure, to make this or that form of agreement, or, vice versa, to menace and finally assail each other, in order to react to the tendential (and, in times of crisis, real) fall of the profit rate. But this only happens if it is possible to conquer and maintain a position of strength against national and international competitors. And when two or more imperialist countries, with incompatible vital interests, collide, then the mechanism of military confrontation, so typical of capitalism and to it inevitable, gets moving. Its aim is not only the at least temporary overcoming of the crisis at the opponent's expenses, and thanks to the conquest of more advantageous positions in the exploitation of resources and work of the defeated country or countries. Its aim is also (and above all) the revival of capital's accumulation cycle, through the destruction on a large scale of commodities and workforce and the ensuing reconstruction orgy. And this aim is (this being the crucial point) common to friends and enemies, winners and losers Last printed 61 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 62 Impacts – Environment Capitalism is and will destroy the environment causing extinction. Ostapiak, writer at Northland College, 2008, (Mark OStapiak, writer at Northland College, 2008, http://www.geocities.com/youth4sa/siegel2.html) In 1987 the World Commission on Environment and Development, established by the United Nations General Assembly, issued a report, "Our Common Future," after a three-year study. It concluded its report with the sober statement that the continued existence of the human race is threatened by the interaction of poverty and environmental degradation on each other. Rich countries contribute by far the most to pollution and toxic waste, but poor countries suffer most from the resulting environmental effects. Depleting their resources in order to survive, they in turn contribute to deforestation, soil degradation, desertification, and the loss of biodiversity. No nation, no matter how rich and powerful, can escape the resulting damage to the planet. The final words of the report were, "We are unanimous in our conviction that the security, well-being, and very survival of the planet depend on such changes [in 'attitudes and reorientation of policies and institutions'] now."1 But these solemn words were not acted upon. Capitalism by its nature is concerned with maximum profit at any cost, whether that cost is human misery or environmental degradation. It seeks quick returns and is opposed to long-range social planning. Talk about international cooperation for the benefit of all can only be unheeded exhortations in a global economy in which competitiveness is the name of the game. How capitalism stands in the way of the solution of the environmental crisis can perhaps be most clearly seen in what many regard as the most pressing environment issue, that of global warming. The 2500 leading climate scientists of the world, brought together by the United Nations in a body called the IPCC, announced in a series of reports beginning in 1990 that the earth is heating up at a faster rate than at any time in the last 10,000 years. This, it said, was primarily as a result of the "greenhouse" effect caused by the trapping of the sun's heat by the emissions from coal and oil burning. The panel stated that, unless in very short order fossil fuel emissions are reduced by from 50 percent to 70 percent from 1990 levels, there will be "extreme high temperature events, floods [caused by melting glaciers and ice caps], and drought, with resultant consequences for fire, pest outbreaks, and ecosystem[s]." These would be "likely to cause widespread economic, social, and environmental dislocation." In response to these warnings, governments engaged in negotiations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, each seeking agreements that would be advantageous to them as against their competitors. However, despite all the palaver and bickering, carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 to 1999 went up, not down. Japan's emissions increased by 14 percent, the U.S. emissions increased by 12 percent, and the European Union emissions increased by 1 percent. The comparatively small increase of the European Union was largely due to the North Sea discoveries that made natural gas available to Great Britain and to the absorption of the much less industrialized East Germany into the Federal Republic of Germany. This resulted in a sharp drop of more than 5 percent in the early 1990s, but there was a strong rise thereafter. It is not that countries lack the knowledge to switch from fossil fuel energy to other forms of energy such as solar power, wind power, and natural gas. Such a change to renewable, clean energy, however, requires confronting the power of the trillion-dollar-a-year global coal and oil industries that taken together form the biggest enterprise in history. The Bush administration rejected the Kyoto Protocol, an entirely inadequate agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent below 1990, on the grounds that it would have a negative impact on the U.S. economy and that it was unfair in excluding the developing countries in the initial stage of the reductions. The urgent threat of climate change was thus subordinated to the interests of the dominant U.S. coal and oil industries, which block a restructuring of the economy that would use alternate means of energy. The plea that the exclusion of the unindustrialized and the semi-industrialized countries from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol was unfair is absurd. The advanced capitalist countries have achieved their dominance by having polluted the atmosphere for the past 200 years. They are responsible today for 80 percent of the world's atmospheric pollution, with the United States itself being responsible for 25 percent of it. It is true, however, that such heavily populated countries as China and India desperately need to grow economically and that if they follow the European-American route in doing so they will add immensely to global emissions. As Pulitzer Prize-winning science reporter Ross Gelbspan says,"The issue of global economic inequity is as critical as the carbon balance to the stability of the planet's atmosphere. A transfer of wealth-in the form of clean energy technologies-will be necessary to help the poor countries leap-frog over the archaic and destructive type of industrialization that is powered by coal and oil and use energy from the sun, the wind, and the rivers to develop their economies." This would require the international planning that is incompatible with capitalism. Last printed 62 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 63 Impacts – Democracy Capitalism is naturally undemocratic, but makes people identify with their rulers Sanbonmatsu, prof philosophy, 09 (John Sanbonmatsu, Professor of Philosophy at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, May/June 09, Tikkun Vol. 24 Issue 3pg 21-72 http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=106&sid=604527a1-7a4d-41a0842a-34a6cf71d67b%40sessionmgr111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d %3d#db=aph&AN=39753533 Cassettari) CAPITALISM'S ANTAGONISM TOWARD POPULAR RULE IS STRUCTURAL — IT IS BUILT INTO THE political DNA of capitalism itself By nature, if not by design, capitalism is a system in which a small minority of individuals controls the wealth, labor, production, political power, and cultural expression of the whole of society. Under capitalism, the demos is permitted to exert only the mildest, most indirect of influences on the direction of state and society. All of the truly important decisions — the ones that concern what kinds of technologies and commodities get produced, what kinds of laws will be passed, and which wars should be fought (or whether any should be fought at all) — are effectively left in the hands of a small clique whose members are drawn from the ranks of what C. Wright Mills famously called "the power elite." No matter how many finance reform laws are passed in Congress, the enactment of new laws alone will never be sufficient to neutralize the tremendous discrepancy in power between the wealthy few and the ordinary many. Secretly, we all know this. None among us is so naive as to believe that an ordinary plumber, teacher, or transit worker commands the same respect or influence on Capitol Hill, or in the Bundestag or the Knesset, as the chief executive officer of Siemens or Bechtel. And while we may profess to be "shocked" upon learning that this or that politician (or presidential appointee) engaged in corrupt activities at the publics expense, in truth we are seldom surprised at all. Plato warned 2,500 years ago that "in proportion as riches and rich men are honored in the State, virtue and the virtuous are dishonored," an observation that holds as true today as it did then. The rich will always be with us .… That phrase, rather than the more familiar one from Matthew 26, is the one that haunts us deep inside, the one we truly heed. The rich may not be like you and me, as F. Scott Fitzgerald put it, but that doesn't keep us from identifying with them, or from feeling strangely grateful for remaining forever at their mercy. The steel worker is grateful "to have any job at all." The waitress smiles at having received a tip. The university president is so relieved that her fawning attentions to a wealthy patron have paid off that she doesn't mind naming the new science building after him. Like hostages taken prisoner by anonymous masked figures, we thus come to identify with our own kidnappers. Capitalism is the Stockholm Syndrome made into a universal condition of humanity. Last printed 63 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 64 Impacts – Laundry List Capitalism contributes to every major societal problem Sanbonmatsu, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, ‘09 (John Sanbonmatsu, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, May/June 2009, Tikkun “Why Capitalism Shouldn’t Be Saved” http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail? vid=2&hid=104&sid=1131528e-c63b-4785-8caa-66c8c156fe8a %40sessionmgr10&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=39753533) In 1997, a group of European academics published a book called The Black Book of Communism, in which they documented the brutality and mass killings committed by totalitarian Communist regimes in the course of the twentieth century. Perhaps a group of academics will one day publish a Black Book of Capitalism. They should. For when a mode of life that subordinates all human and spiritual values to the pursuit of private wealth persists for centuries, there is a lengthy accounting to be made. Among the innumerable sins that have followed in capitalism's long train, we might mention, for example, the hidden indignities and daily humiliations of the working class and the poor; the strangulation of daily life by corporate bureaucracies such as the HMOs, the telecom companies, and the computer giants; the corruption of art and culture by money; the destruction of eroticism by pornography; the corruption of higher education by corporatization; the ceaseless pitching of harmful products to our children and infants; the obliteration of the natural landscape by strip malls, highways, and toxic dumps; the abuse of elderly men and women by low-paid workers in squalid for-profit institutions; the fact that millions of poor children are sold into sexual slavery, and millions of others are orphaned by AIDS; the fact that tens of millions of women turn to prostitution to pay their bills; and the suffering of the 50 million to 100 million vertebrates that die in scientific laboratories each year. We might also highlight the dozens of wars and civil conflicts that are directly or indirectly rooted in the gross material disparities of the capitalist system — the bloody conflicts that simmer along from month to month, year to year, as though as natural and immutable as the waxing and waning of the moon — in places like Darfur, Rwanda, Congo, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Iraq, where millions of wretchedly poor people die either at the hands of other wretchedly poor people, or from the bombs dropped from the automated battle platforms of the last surviving superpower. Capitalism is responsible for all this, and more besides. Yet perhaps its most destructive feature — the one that in many ways stands as the greatest single impediment to our own efforts to find a practical and creative solution to the present crisis — is capitalism's fundamental antagonism toward democracy. Last printed 64 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 65 Impacts – Extinction Capitalism’s drive for material makes crisis and extinction inevitable Meszaros, prof Philosophy & Political Theory, 95 Istvan Meszaros, 1995, Professor at University of Sussex, England, “Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition” With regard to its innermost determination the capital system is expansion oriented and accumulationdriven. Such a determination constitutes both a formerly unimaginable dynamism and a fateful deficiency. In this sense, as a system of social metabolic control capital is quite irresistible for as long as it can successfully extract and accumulate surplus-labour-whether in directly economic or in primarily political form- in the course of the given society’s expandoed reproduction. Once, however, this dynamic process of expansion and accumulation gets stuck (for whatever reason) the consequences must be quite devastating. For even under the ‘normality’ of relatively limited cyclic disturbances and blockages the destruction that goes with the ensuing socioeconomic and political crises can be enormous, as the annals of the twentieth century reveal it, including two world wars (not to mention numerous smaller conflagrations). It is therefore not too difficult to imagine the implications of a systemic, truly structural crisis; i.e. one that affects the global capital system not simply under one if its aspects-the financial/monetary one, for instance-but in all its fundamental dimensions, questioning its viability altogether as a social reproductive system. Under the conditions of capital's structural crisis its destructive constituents come to the fore with a vengeance, activating the spectre of total uncontrollability in a form that foreshadows selfdestruction both for this unique social reproductive system itself and for humanity in general. As we shall see in Chapter 3, capital was near amenable to proper and durable control or rational self-restraint. For it was compatible only with limited adjustments, and even those only for as long as it could continue to pursue in one form or another the dynamics of self-expansion and the process of accumulation. Such adjustments consisted in side-stepping, as it were, the encountered obstacles and resistances when capital was unable to frontally demolish them. This characteristic of uncontrollability was in fact one of the most important factors that secured capitals irresistible advancement and ultimate victory, which it had to accomplish despite the earlier mentioned fact that capital's mode of metabolic control constituted the exception and not the rule in history. After all, capital at first appeared as a strictly subordinate force in the course of historical development. And worse still, on account of necessarily subordinating 'use-value' - that is, production for human need - to the requirements of self-expansion and accumulation, capital in all of its forms had to overcome also the odium of being considered for a long time the most 'unnatural' way of controlling the production of wealth. According to the ideological confrontations of medieval times, capital was fatefully implicated in 'mortal sin' in more ways than one, and therefore had to be outlawed as 'heretic' by the highest religious authorities: the Papacy and its Synods. It could not become the dominant force of the social metabolic process before sweeping out of the way the absolute - and religiously sanctified -prohibition on 'usury' (contested under the category of 'profit upon alienation', which really meant: retaining control over the monetary/financial capital of the age, in the interest of the accumulation process, and at the same time securing profit by lending money) and winning the battle over the 'alienability of land' (again, the subject of absolute and religiously sanctified prohibition under the feudal system) without which the emergence of capitalist agriculture -a vital condition for the triumph of the capital system in general would have been quite inconceivable." Thanks to a very large extent to its uncontrollability, capital succeeded in overcoming all odds - no matter how powerful materially and how absolutized in terms of the prevailing value system of society - against itself, elevating its mode of metabolic control to the power of absolute dominance as a fully extended global system. However, it is one thing to overcome and subdue problematical (even obscurantist) constraints and obstacles, and quite another to institute the positive principles of sustainable social development, guided by the criteria of humanly fulfilling objectives, as opposed to the blind pursuit of capital's self-expansion. Thus the implications of the selfsame power of uncontrollability which in its time secured the victory of the capital system are far from reassuring today when the need for restraints is conceded - at least in the form of the elusive desideratum of 'self-regulation' - even by the system's most uncritical defenders. Last printed 65 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 66 Impacts – Poverty (1) Capitalism is the root cause of poverty. Ostapiak, writer at Northland College, 2008, Mark OStapiak, writer at Northland College, 2008, http://www.geocities.com/youth4sa/hunger.html We all know that world hunger and world poverty are paramount problems for our young generation to address. What could be more problematic than the systematic denial of basic needs such as food, shelter, clothing and clean drinking water? What’s irking is that these basic needs could be provided for all, yet still there are billions of people in this world who continue to suffer from poverty and malnutrition. In my talk this evening I hope to convey to you, number one, the seriousness of these problems; two, to explain from a class conscious perspective explain why these problems exist, and three, what can be done, since yes, there is a solution.First, I’d like to elaborate on the seriousness of poverty today. Right now there are more than 3.1 billion people in the world living on less than $2 a day. Another telling fact is that the net worth of the 358 richest billionaires is equal to the combined income of the poorest 45% of the world’s population. 45% translates into 2.3 billion people! Nearly a billion people in just the Third World are landless or have too little land available to them to feed their households. In the advanced countries, 100 million people live below the poverty line, 5 million of them without homes. Closer to home, here in the United States, the income disparity is now the widest it has been since the 1929 stock market crash and it is continuing to grow. These previous examples illustrate the unequal distribution of wealth, an irreversible symptom of the ailing capitalist system. Capitalism is characterized by perpetuated poverty that results from, among other attacks on the working class, workers’ wage cuts, an increase in the cost of living without an increase in minimum wage and layoffs, all motivated by capitalism’s drive for profit profit. Remember, the income disparity continues to grow, so it’s true that, as the old saying goes, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.But, one may ask, doesn’t the government provide poor and hungry people with social programs such as welfare and health care? Yes and no. Programs exist, but they were never adequate and the capitalists cutting federal funding for these benefits and this makes many people feel hopeless and angry. Yet, their sentiment is quickly pacified when a somber and seemingly sincere politician is quoted, “that there isn’t enough in the budget to cover these benefits for the poor.”This is entirely false. Did you know that “wealthfare” for the rich costs us about 3.5 times as much as the $130 billion we spend each year on welfare for the poor? And since the publication of that figure, the 1996 welfare “reform” bill has cut that amount of money given out for welfare dramatically. We weren’t able to end poverty before the welfare reform bill, so how does one expect the poor to feed themselves and get out of poverty when there is even less money and less social programs spent than before?So where are the priorities of the United States, the wealthiest, and supposedly, the most benevolent and free of nations? Taking a look at where the majority of U.S. subsidies end up we can see a telling reflection of those priorities. A total of $327 billion a year is spent on the military for example. Of course the argument goes that the military provides semi-decent jobs, but let’s look at what $1 billion can do when spent on the military compared to more socially beneficial purposes. $1 billion to the military created 25,000 jobs. If that same figure were spent on social programs it could create 30,000 jobs in mass transit, 36,000 jobs in housing, 41,000 jobs in education or 47,000 jobs in health care.U.S. military spending is far from the best solution for the Third World as well. And while countries that are made are made subordinate to the U.S. by having their cities and coutnrysides bombed and destroyed end up needing their infrastructure rebuilt, this is a very double edged sword in terms of creating jobs to say the least. But the U.S. doesn’t just utilize the weapons they make; they sell them and are in fact the largest seller of weapons in the world. These weapons are used by U.S. puppet governments in other countries to ensure the poor are kept poor, subordinate, landless and hungry.Let me give you a good example of what I mean. During the 1950s in Nicaragua there was a cotton bonanza. Campesinos who worked the land to grow crops and feed their families were forced off their land. When they resisted, the Somoza dictatorship’s National Guard burned their homes and crops. None other than the U.S. Marines set up the Nicaraguan National Guard. Why? In order to secure a highly profitable market at the expense of land that provided Campesinos both with life giving food and some money from the corps they grew to sell. This, once again, is the nature of capitalism, folks. They compromise the meeting of basic human needs to ensure an increased profit.Another product of capitalism that sinks countries further into poverty is the policies of the IMF and World Bank. These institutions are intended to smooth world commerce by reducing foreign exchange restrictions and tariffs, among other things. By using its funds to bail out governments that are confronting problems these bastions of capitalism ensure that trade can continue with minimum interruption. Last printed 66 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 67 Basically, money is lent to these bankrupt countries, which are already deeply in debt, and place as conditions for these loans economic restructuring that involves cutting or eliminating food and social programs for the poor and hungry.I hope I’ve shown that the system of capitalism is exploitative and oppressive. That only the rich benefit from this system while the poor are further trampled under its heel. From all of this we can surely deduce that it is, above all, not a democratic system. It does not represent the interests of the majority, because the majority are the poor and hungry. This is just is. According to Joseph Collins of Food First, the root cause of hunger isn’t scarcity of food or land; rather, it’s a scarcity of democracy! Democracy has everything to do with hunger because democracy carries with it the principle of accountability. Democratic structures are those in which people have a say in decisions that affect their well being. Leadership can be kept accountable to the needs of the majority. The U.S., the world’s self-appointed policeman, has lacked the fundamentals of democracy from the beginning. Alexander Hamilton, one of our founding fathers, went so far as to say “the mass of people seldom judge or determine right,” and therefore “a permanent body composed of the rich and well-born should check the imprudent of democracy.”There are examples, though of how this unfair and unjust state of affairs has been overcome to benefit the poor and huddled masses of hungry and homeless. Here is how a revolution overcame poverty and hunger. In 1959, the Cubans defeated the U.S. backed Batista dictatorship. And afterward, they threw off the chains of capitalism with a socialist revolution. After the revolution, Cuba is still considerably less wealthy than its neighbor 90 miles north, but through a planned socialist economy, according to a Food First report, all citizens are guaranteed enough rice, pulses, oil, sugar, meat and other food to provide them with 1,900 calories a day. And this is the face of the ongoing U.S. embargo against Cuba. Listen, the world today produces enough grain to provide every human being on the planet with 3,600 calories a day, but the U.S. still has upwards of 1 million homeless and hungry. Last printed 67 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 68 Impact – Poverty Capitalism turns the case – it subordinates the poor to where they are caught in a cycle of poverty Leonard, prof @ McGill University, 04 Peter Leonard, professor in the School of Social Work @ McGill University, 2004 Chapter 1; in Social Work in a Coporate Era: Practices of Power and Resistance edited by Linda Davies and Peter Leonard, Pg 12 par 1 – par 3 The Welfare Recipient as a Class Subject From the abstraction of the global economy and the dynamic of class exploitation we can turn now to a more concrete example of how class subjects are constructed. The subject position of what might be called the welfare dependent, dependent, that is, on state resources, is of course problematic for the subject - it invariably involves many kinds of deprivations and abuses, material, social and psychological. The welfare dependent is the object of state monitoring, surveillance and control. But welfare dependency is also a problem for capital. The welfare recipient is dependent on the state and not on the labour market, directly. Being outside the process of exchanging labour for wages - the fundamental dynamic of capitalist appropriation weakens (it is feared) the subject's allegiance to the moral necessity, and not just the material necessity, of paid work, and allows the subject to escape from the social discipline involved in daily paid labour. For most workers in capitalist societies, paid work is, in other words, experienced as a moral obligation, although this dependency on the labour market is re-defined by capital as independence. Through identification with the dominant discourse on work, the subject tends to believe that the ethical imperative to engage in paid labour is autonomously and freely chosen, a belief which we might call a primary ideological effect. One way of managing people's dependence on state welfare payments and legitimating increases in poverty as the price to be paid for increases in the rate of exploitation is to develop an appropriate subordinate social category to which subjects can be consigned, subjects who comprise the segment of the population most likely to be the clients of social workers. This category, variously called the underclass or the culture of poverty, classifies and contextualizes subjects described as welfare dependents, the chronic poor, or often 'bad mothers'. These categories may be seen as a discursive weapon of class struggle ; like the nineteenth century categoies of the Residium, the pauper, and the deserving/undeserving, they serve the same or similar purposes. These purposes include directing attention away from the structural forces which determine the distribution of economic and social advantages, avoiding the contemplation of how the State reproduces these distributive mechanisms (by supporting capital's exploitative dynamic), and pathologizing those most injured by shits in the balance of class forces. Last printed 68 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 69 Impacts – Value to Life (1) Capitalism leads to people making a maximum profit leading to no value of life Morgareidge, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, 1998 Clayton Morgareidge, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Lewis & Clark College. August 22, 1998 http://legacy.lclark.edu/~clayton/commentaries/evil.html To show why this is the case, let me turn to capital's greatest critic, Karl Marx. Under capitalism, Marx writes, everything in nature and everything that human beings are and can do becomes an object: a resource for, or an obstacle, to the expansion of production, the development of technology, the growth of markets, and the circulation of money. For those who manage and live from capital, nothing has value of its own. Mountain streams, clean air, human lives -- all mean nothing in themselves, but are valuable only if they can be used to turn a profit.[1] If capital looks at (not into) the human face, it sees there only eyes through which brand names and advertising can enter and mouths that can demand and consume food, drink, and tobacco products. If human faces express needs, then either products can be manufactured to meet, or seem to meet, those needs, or else, if the needs are incompatible with the growth of capital, then the faces expressing them must be unrepresented or silenced. Obviously what capitalist enterprises do have consequences for the well being of human beings and the planet we live on. Capital profits from the production of food, shelter, and all the necessities of life. The production of all these things uses human lives in the shape of labor, as well as the resources of the earth. If we care about life, if we see our obligations in each others faces, then we have to want all the things capital does to be governed by that care, to be directed by the ethical concern for life. But feeding people is not the aim of the food industry, or shelter the purpose of the housing industry. In medicine, making profits is becoming a more important goal than caring for sick people. As capitalist enterprises these activities aim single-mindedly at the accumulation of capital, and such purposes as caring for the sick or feeding the hungry becomes a mere means to an end, an instrument of corporate growth. Therefore ethics, the overriding commitment to meeting human need, is left out of deliberations about what the heavyweight institutions of our society are going to do. Moral convictions are expressed in churches, in living rooms, in letters to the editor, sometimes even by politicians and widely read commentators, but almost always with an attitude of resignation to the inevitable. People no longer say, "You can't stop progress," but only because they have learned not to call economic growth progress. They still think they can't stop it. And they are right -- as long as the production of all our needs and the organization of our labor is carried out under private ownership. Only a minority ("idealists") can take seriously a way of thinking that counts for nothing in real world decision making. Only when the end of capitalism is on the table will ethics have a seat at the table. Last printed 69 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 70 Impacts – Value to Life (2) The methodology of the capitalist system creates prisons of oppression that deny value to life and make the actions like “final solutions” possible – only through the complete rejection of this mode of thought is liberation possible Deleuze and Guattari, prof philosophy @ University of Paris & psychoanalyst, 72 (Gilles Deleuze AND Felix Guattari, professor of philosophy at the University of Paris and psychoanalyst, worked at La Borde. Anti-Oedipus 1972 pg 373) "There is not one of these aspects---not the least operation, the least industrial or financial mechanism-that does not reveal the insanity of the capitalist machine and the pathological character of its rationality: not at all a false rationality, but a true rationality of this pathological state, this insanity, "the machine works too, believe me". The capitalist machine does not run the risk of becoming mad, it is mad from one end to the other and from the beginning, and this is the source of its rationality, Marx's black humor, the source of Capital, is his fascination with such a machine: how it came to be assembled, on what foundation of decoding and deterritorialization; how it works, always more decoded, always more deterritorialized; how its operation grows more relentless with the development of the axiomatic, the combination of the flows; how it produces the terrible single class of gray gentlemen who keep up the machine; how it does not run the risk of dying all alone, but rather of making us die, by provoking to the very end investements of desire that do not even go by way of a deceptive and subjective ideology, and that lead us to cry out to the very end, Long live capital in all its reality, in all its objective dissimulation! Except in ideology, there has never been a humane, liberal, paternal, etc., capitalism. Capitalism is defined by a cruelty having no parallel in the despotic regime of terror. Wage increases and improvements in the standard of living are realities, but realities that derive from a given supplementary axiom that capitalism is always capable of adding to its axiomatic in terms of an enlargement of its limits: let's create the New Deal; let's cultivate and recognize strong unions; let's promote participation, the single class; let's take a step toward Russia, which is taking so many toward us; etc. But within the enlarged reality that conditions these islands, exploitation grows constantly harsher, lack is arranged in the most scientific of ways, final solutions of the "Jewish problem" variety are prepared down to the last detail, and the Thrid World is orgainized as an integral part of capitalism. the reproduction of the interior limits of capitalism on an always wider scale has several consequences: it permits increases and improvements of standards at the center, it displaces the harshest forms of exploitation from the center to the peripher, but also multiplies enclaves of overpopulation in the center itself, and easilty tolerates the so-called socialist formations. (It is not kibbutz-style socialism that troubles the Zionist state, just as it is not Russian socialism that troubles world capitalism.) There is no metaphor here: the factories are prisons, they do not resemble prisons, they are prisons. Last printed 70 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 71 Impacts – Genocide/Racism Capitalism makes genocide and extinction inevitable. Internationalist Perspective 2K (Internationalist Perspective #36, spring 2000, http://www.geocities.com/wageslavex/capandgen.html) Mass death, and genocide, the deliberate and systematic extermination of whole groups of human beings, have become an integral part of the social landscape of capitalism in its phase of decadence. Auschwitz, Kolyma, and Hiroshima are not merely the names of discrete sites where human beings have been subjected to forms of industrialized mass death, but synecdoches for the death-world that is a component of the capitalist mode of production in this epoch. In that sense, I want to argue that the Holocaust, for example, was not a Jewish catastrophe, nor an atavistic reversion to the barbarism of a past epoch, but rather an event produced by the unfolding of the logic of capitalism itself. Moreover, Auschwitz, Kolyma, and Hiroshima are not "past", but rather futural events, objective-real possibilities on the Front of history, to use concepts first articulated by the Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch. The ethnic cleansing which has been unleashed in Bosnia and Kosovo, the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda, the mass death to which Chechnya has been subjected, the prospect for a nuclear war on the Indian sub-continent, are so many examples of the future which awaits the human species as the capitalist mode of production enters a new millenium. Indeed, it is just such a death-world that constitutes the meaning of one pole of the historic alternative which Rosa Luxemburg first posed in the midst of the slaughter inflicted on masses of conscripts during World War I: socialism or barbarism! Yet, confronted by the horror of Auschwitz, Kolyma, and Hiroshima, Marxist theory has been silent or uncomprehending. While I am convinced that there can be no adequate theory of mass death and genocide which does not link these phenomena to the unfolding of the logic of capital, revolutionary Marxists have so far failed to offer one. Worse, the few efforts of revolutionary Marxists to grapple with the Holocaust, for example, as I will briefly explain, have either degenerated into a crude economism, which is one of the hallmarks of so-called orthodox Marxism, or led to a fatal embrace of Holocaust denial; the former being an expression of theoretical bankruptcy, and the latter a quite literal crossing of the class line into the camp of capital itself. Economism, which is based on a crude base-superstructure model (or travesty) of Marxist theory, in which politics, for example, can only be conceived as a direct and immediate reflection of the economic base, in which events can only be conceived as a manifestation of the direct economic needs of a social class, and in the case of the capitalist class, the immediate need to extract a profit, shaped Amadeo Bordiga's attempt to "explain" the Holocaust. Thus, in his "Auschwitz ou le Grand Alibi" Bordiga explained the extermination of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis, as the reaction of one part of the petty bourgeoisie to its historical demise at the hands of capital by "sacrificing" its other -- Jewish -- part so as to save the rest, an undertaking welcomed by big capital, which could thereby liquidate a part of the petty bourgeoisie with the support of the rest of that same class. Quite apart from an economism which simply ignores the dialectic between the economy on the one hand, and the political and ideological on the other (about which more later), such an "explanation" asks us to conceive of genocide not as the complex outcome of the unfolding of the operation of the law of value in the diverse spheres of social life, but as the direct outcome of the utilitarian calculation of segments of the petty bourgeoisie and big capital. Auschwitz, the veritable hallmark of the fundamental irrationality of late capital, is transformed by Bordiga into a rational calculation of its direct profit interests on the part of the capitalists. However, an undertaking which fatally diverted the scarce resources (material and financial) of Nazi Germany from the battlefields of the imperialist world war, simply cannot, in my view, be comprehended on the basis of a purely economic calculus of profit and loss on the part of "big capital." While Bordiga's reaction to Auschwitz fails to provide even the minimal bases for its adequate theorization, the reaction of the militants of La Vieille Taupe, such as Pierre Guillaume, constitutes a political betrayal of the struggle for communist revolution by its incorporation into the politics of Holocaust denial. For Guillaume, Auschwitz can only be a myth, a fabrication of the allies, that is, of one of the imperialist blocs in the inter-imperialist world war, because it so clearly serves their interests in mobilizing the working class to die in the service of democracy; on the alter of anti-fascism. Hence, La Vieille Taupe's "fervor to contest the evidence of its [the Holocaust's] reality by every means possible, including the most fraudulent. For the evidence of genocide is just so many deceptions, so many traps laid for anticapitalist radicality, designed to force it into dishonest compromise and eventual loss of resolve." It is quite true that capital has utilized antifascism to assure its ideological hegemony over the working class, and that the Holocaust has been routinely wielded for more than a generation by the organs of mass manipulation in the service of the myth of "democracy" in the West (and by the state of Israel on behalf of its own imperialist aims in the Middle-East). And just as surely the ideology of antifascism and its functionality for capital must be exposed by revolutionaries. Nonetheless, this does not justify the claims of Holocaust denial, which not only cannot be dissociated from anti-Semitism, but which constitutes a denial of the most lethal tendencies inherent in the capitalist mode of production, of the very barbarism of capitalism, and thereby serves as a screen behind which the death-world wrought by capital can be safely hidden from its potential victims. This latter, in its own small way, is the despicable contribution of La Vieille Taupe, and the basis for my conviction that it must be politically located in the camp of capital. Marxism is in need of a theory of mass death and genocide as immanent tendencies of capital, a way of comprehending the link (still obsure) between the death-world symbolized by the smokestacks of Auschwitz or the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima and the unfolding of the logic of a mode of production based on the capitalist law of value. I want to argue that we can best grasp the link between capitalism and genocide by focusing on two dialectically inter-related strands in the social fabric of late capitalism: first, are a series of phenomena linked to the actual unfolding of the law of value, and more specifically to the completion of the transition from the formal to the real domination of capital; second, are a series of phenomena linked to the political and ideological (this latter understood in a non-reductionist sense, as having a material existence) moments of the rule of capital, specifically to the forms of capitalist hegemony. It is through an analysis of the coalescence of vital elements of these two strands in the development of capital, that I hope to expose the bases for the death-world and Last printed 71 GT Capitalism Alex Blank genocide as integral features of capitalism in the present epoch. Dartmouth 2k9 72 The real domination of capital is characterized by the penetration of the law of value into every segment of social existence. As Georg Lukács put it in his History and Class Consciousness, this means that the commodity ceases to be "one form among many regulating the metabolism of human society," to become its "universal structuring principle." From its original locus at the point of production, in the capitalist factory, which is the hallmark of the formal domination of capital, the law of value has systematically spread its tentacles to incorporate not just the production of commodities, but their circulation and consumption. Moreover, the law of value also penetrates and then comes to preside over the spheres of the political and ideological, including science and technology themselves. This latter occurs not just through the transformation of the fruits of technology and science into commodities, not just through the transformation of technological and scientific research itself (and the institutions in which it takes place) into commodities, but also, and especially, through what Lukács designates as the infiltration of thought itself by the purely technical, the very quantification of rationality, the instrumentalization of reason; and, I would argue, the reduction of all beings (including human beings) to mere objects of manipulation and control. As Lukács could clearly see even in the age of Taylorism, "this rational mechanisation extends right into the worker's `soul'." In short, it affects not only his outward behavior, but her very internal, psychological, makeup. The phenomenon of reification, inherent in the commodity-form, and its tendential penetration into the whole of social existence, which Lukács was one of the first to analyze, is a hallmark of the real domination of capital: "Its basis is that a relation between people takes on the character of a thing and thus acquires a `phantom objectivity', an autonomy that seems so strictly rational and all-embracing as to conceal every trace of its fundamental nature: the relation between people." Reification, the seeming transformation of social relations into relations between things, has as one of its outcomes what the German- when human beings are administered, they are treated as things, thereby clearing the way for their removal or elimination by genocide. The outcome of such a process can be seen in the bureaucractic administration of the Final Solution, in which the organization of genocide was the responsibility of desk killers like Adolf Eichmann who could zealously administer a system of mass murder while displaying no particular hatred for his victims, no great ideological passion for his project, and no sense that those who went to the gas chambers were human beings and not things. The features of the Jewish thinker H.G.Adler designated as "the administered man" [Der verwaltete Mensch]. For Adler, desk killer, in the person of Eichmann, have been clearly delineated by Hannah Arendt. He is the high-level functionary in a vast bureaucratic organization who does his killing from behind a desk, from which he rationally plans and organizes mass murder; treating it as simply a technical task, no different than the problem of transporting scrap metal. The desk killer is the quintessential bureaucrat functioning according to the imperatives of the death-world. As a human type, the desk killer, that embodiment of the triumph of instrumental reason, has become a vital part of the state apparatus of late capitalism. Here, the Lukácsian concept of reification, the Adlerian concept of the administered man, and the Arendtian portrait of the desk killer, can be joined to Martin Heidegger's concept of das Gestell, enframing, in which humans, are treated as so much Bestand, standing-reserve or raw material, to be manipulated at will. This reduction of humans to a raw material is the antechamber to a world in which they can become so many waste products to be discarded or turned into ashes in the gas chambers of Auschwitz or at ground zero at Hiroshima. While the reification which attains its culminating point in the real domination of capital may contain within itself the everything real, all beings, including possibility of mass murder and its death-world, it does not in and of itself explain the actual unleashing of the genocidal potential which, because of it, is now firmly ensconced within the interstices of the capitalist mode of production. To confront that issue, I want to elucidate two concepts which, while not directly linked by their authors to the unfolding of the capitalist law of value, can be refunctioned to forge such a link, and have already been effectively wielded in the effort to explain genocide: the concept of the obsolescence of man [Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen], articulated by the German-Jewish philosopher Günther Anders, and the concept of bio-politics, articulated by Michel Foucault. For Anders, the first industrial revolution introduced the machine with its own source of power as a means of production, while the second industrial revolution saw the extension of commodity production to the whole of society, and the subordination of man to the machine. According to Anders, the third industrial revolution, in the epoch of which humanity now lives, has made humans obsolete, preparing the way for their replacement by machines, and the end of history (Endzeit). For Anders, the Holocaust marked the first attempt at the systematic extermination of a whole group of people by industrial means, opening the way for the extension of the process of extermination to virtually the whole of the human species; a stage which he designates as "post-civilized cannibalism" [postzivilisatorischen Kannibalismus], in which the world is "overmanned", and in which Hiroshima marks the point at which "humanity as a whole is eliminatable"[tötbar]. Anders's philosophy of technology is unabashedly pessimistic, leaving virtually no room for Marxist hope (communist revolution). Nonetheless, his vision of a totally reified world, and technology as the subject of history, culminating in an Endzeit, corresponds to one side of the dialectic of socialism or barbarism which presides over the present epoch. Moreover, Anders's concept of an overmanned world can be fruitfully linked to the immanent tendency of the law of value to generate an ever higher organic composition of capital, culminating in the present stage of automation, robotics, computers, and information technology, on the bases of which ever larger masses of living labor are ejected from the process of production, and, indeed, from the cycle of accumulation as a whole, ceasing to be -even potentially -- a productive force, a source of exchange-value, in order to become an insuperable burden for capital, a dead weight, which, so long as it lives and breathes, threatens its profitability. This "obsolescence of man" can at the level of total capital thereby create the necessity for mass murder; inserting the industrial extermination of whole groups of people into the very logic of capital: genocide as the apotheosis of instrumental reason! Reason transmogrified into the nihilistic engine of destruction which shapes the late capitalist world. Michel Foucault's concept of bio-power can also be refunctioned to explicitly link it to the basic tendencies of the development of capitalism, in which case it provides a point of intersection between the triumph of the real domination of capital economically, and the political and ideological transformation of capitalist rule, while at the same time making it possible to grasp those features of capital which propel it in the direction of genocide. The extension of the law of value into every sphere of human existence, the culminating point of the real domination of capital, is marked by the Last printed 72 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 73 subordination of the biological realm itself to the logic of capital. This stage corresponds to what Foucault designates as bio-politics, which encapsulates both the "statification of the biological", and the "birth of state racism". Bio-politics entails the positive power to administer, manage, and regulate the intimate details of the life -- and death -- of whole populations in the form of technologies of domination: "In concrete terms ... this power over life evolved in two basic forms ... they constituted ... two poles of development linked together by a whole intermediary cluster of relations. One of these poles ... centered on the body as a machine: its disciplining, the optimization of its capabilities, the extortion of its forces, the parallel increase of its usefulness and its docility, its integration into systems of efficient and economic controls, all this was ensured by the procedures of power that characterized the disciplines: an anatomo-politics of the human body. The second ... focused on the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes: propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity, with all the conditions that can cause these to vary. Their supervision was effected through an entire series of interventions and regulatory controls: a bio-politics of the population." Such a bio-politics represents the subjugation of biological life in its diverse human forms to the imperatives of the law of value. It allows capital to mobilize all the human resources of the nation in the service of its expansion and aggrandizement, economic and military. The other side of bio-politics, of this power over life, for Foucault, is what he terms "thanatopolitics," entailing an awesome power to inflict mass death, both on the population of one's enemy, and on one's own population: "the power to expose a whole population to death is the underside of the power to guarantee an individual's continued existence. .... If genocide is indeed the dream of modern powers ... it is because power is situated at the level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of population." Nuclear, chemical, and biological, weapons make it possible to wield this power to condemn whole populations to death. Bio-politics, for Foucault, also necessarily entails racism, by which he means making a cut in the biological continuum of human life, designating the very existence of a determinate group as a danger to the population, to its health and well-being, and even to its very life. Such a group, I would argue, then, becomes a biological (in the case of Nazism) or class enemy (in the case of Stalinism, though the latter also claimed that biological and hereditary characteristics were linked to one's class origins). And the danger represented by such an enemy race can necessitate its elimination through physical removal (ethnic cleansing) or extermination (genocide). The Foucauldian concept of bio-politics allows us to see how, on the basis of technologies of domination, it is possible to subject biological life itself to a formidable degree of control, and to be able to inflict mass death on populations or races designated as a biological threat. Moreover, by linking this concept to the real domination of capital, we are able to see how the value-form invades even the biological realm in the phase of the real domination of capital. However, while bio-power entails the horrific possibility of genocide, it is Foucault's ruminations on the binary division of a population into a "pure community" and its Other, which allows us to better grasp its necessity. Such a perspective, however, intersects with the transformations at the level of the political and ideological moment of capital, and it is to these, and what I see as vital contributions to their theorization by Antonio Gramsci and Ernst Bloch, that I now want to turn in an effort to better elucidate the factors that propel capital in the direction of mass death and genocide. What is at issue here is not Gramsci's politics, his political practice, his interventions in the debates on strategy and tactics within the Italian Communist Party, where he followed the counter-revolutionary line of the Stalinist Comintern, but rather his theorization of the political and ideological moment of capital, and in particular his concept of the "integral state", his understanding of the state as incorporating both political and civil society, his concept of hegemony, and his understanding of ideology as inscribed in practices and materialized in institutions, which exploded the crude base-superstructure model of orthodox Marxism and its vision of ideology as simply false consciousness, all of which have enriched Marxist theory, and which revolutionaries ignore at their peril. In contrast to orthodox Marxism which has equated the state with coercion, Gramsci's insistence that the state incorporates both political and civil society, and that class rule is instanciated both by domination (coercion) and hegemony (leadership) allows us to better grasp the complex and crisscrossing strands that coalesce in capitalist class rule, especially in the phase of the real domination of capital and the epoch of state capitalism. For Gramsci, hegemony is the way in which a dominant class installs its rule over society through the intermediary of ideology, establishing its intellectual and cultural leadership over other classes, and thereby reducing its dependence on coercion. Ideology, for Gramsci, is not mere false consciousness, but rather is the form in which humans acquire consciousness, become subjects and act, constituting what he terms a "collective will". Moreover, for him, ideology is no mere superstructure, but has a material existence, is materialized in praxis. The state which rests on a combination of coercion and hegemony is what Gramsci designates as an integral state. It seems to me, that one major weakness of the Gramscian concept of hegemony is that he does not seem to apply it to the control exercised over an antagonistic class. Thus, Gramsci asserts that one dominates, coerces, antagonistic classes, but leads only allied classes. Gramsci's seeming exclusion of antagonistic classes from the ideological hegemony of the dominant class seems to me to be misplaced, especially in the epoch of state capitalism, when the capitalist class, the functionaries of capital, acquire hegemony, cultural and intellectual leadership and control, not just of allied classes and strata (e.g. the middle classes, petty bourgeoisie, etc.), but also over broad strata of the antagonistic class, the working class itself. Indeed, such hegemony, though never total, and always subject to reversal (revolution), is the veritable key to capitalist class rule in this epoch. One way in which this ideological hegemony of capital is established over broad strata of the population, including sectors of the working class, is by channeling the disatisfaction and discontent of the mass of the population with the monstrous impact of capitalism upon their lives (subjection to the machine, reduction to the status of a "thing", at the point of production, insecurity and poverty as features of daily life, the overall social process of atomization and massification, etc.), away from any struggle to establish a human Gemeinwesen, communism. Capitalist hegemony entails the ability to divert that very disatisfaction into the quest for a "pure community", based on hatred and rage directed not at capital, but at the Other, at One of the most dramatic effects of the inexorable penetration of the law of value into every pore of social life, and geographically across the face of the whole planet, has been the destruction of all primitive, organic, and pre-capitalist communities. Capitalism, as Marx and Engels pointed out in the Communist Manifesto, shatters the bonds of immemorial custom and tradition, replacing them with its exchange mechanism and contract. While Marx and Engels stressed the positive alterity itself, at those marginal social groups which are designated a danger to the life of the nation, and its population. features of this development in the Manifesto, we cannot ignore its negative side, particularly in light of the fact that the path to a human Gemeinwesen has so far been successfully blocked by capital, with disastrous consequences for the human species. The negative side of that development includes the relentless process of atomization, leaving in its wake an ever growing mass of rootless individuals, for whom the only human contact is by way of the cash nexus. Those who have been uprooted geographically, economically, politically, and culturally, are frequently left with a powerful longing for their lost communities (even where those communities were hierarchically organized and based on inequality), for the certainties and "truths" of the past, which are idealized the more frustrating, unsatisfying, and insecure, the world of capital becomes. Such longings are most powerfully felt within what Ernst Bloch has termed non-synchronous strata and classes. These are stata and classes whose material or mental conditions of life are linked to a past mode of production, who exist economically or culturally in the past, even as they chronologically dwell in the present. In contrast to the two historic classes in the capitalist mode of production, the bourgeoisie and Last printed 73 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 74 proletariat, which are synchronous, the products of the capitalist present, these non-synchronous strata include the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie, and -- by virtue of their mental or cultural state -- youth and white-collar workers. In my view, Bloch's understanding of non-synchronicity needs to be extended to segments of the working class, in particular those strata of the blue-collar proletariat which are no longer materially synchronous with the high-tech production process upon which late capitalism rests, and the mass of workers ejected from the production process by the rising organic composition of capital and its comcomitant down-sizing. In addition, the even greater mass of peasants streaming into the shanty towns around the great commercial and industrial metropolitan centers of the world, are also characterized by their non-synchronicity, their inability to be incorporated into the hyper-modern cycle of capital accumulation. Moreover, all of these strata too are subject to a growing nostalgia for the past, a longing for community, including the blue-collar communities and their institutional networks which were one of the features of the social landscape of capitalism earlier in the twentieth century. However, no matter how powerful this nostalgia for past community becomes, it cannot be satisfied. The organic communities of the past cannot be recreated; their destruction by capital is irreversible. At the same time, the path to a future Gemeinwesen, to which the cultural material and longings embodied in the non-synchronous classes and strata can make a signal contribution, according to Bloch, remains obstructed by the power of capital. So long as this is the case, the genuine longing for community of masses of people, and especially the nostalgia for past communities especially felt by the non-synchronous strata and classes, including the newly non-synchronous elements which I have just argued must be added to them, leaves them exposed to the lure of a "pure community" ideologically constructed by capital itself. In place of real organic and communal bonds, in such an ideologically constructed pure community, a racial, ethnic, or religious identification is merely superimposed on the existing condition of atomization in which the mass of the population finds itself. In addition to providing some gratification for the longing for community animating broad strata of the population, such a pure community can also provide an ideological bond which ties the bulk of the population to the capitalist state on the basis of a race, ethnicity, or religion which it shares with the ruling class. This latter is extremely important to capital, because the atomization which it has brought about not only leaves the mass of humanity bereft, but also leaves the ruling class itself vulnerable because it lacks any basis upon which it can mobilize the population, physically or ideologically.The basis upon which such a pure community is constituted, race, nationality, religion, even a categorization by "class" in the Stalinist world, necessarily means the exclusion of those categories of the population which do not conform to the criteria for inclusion, the embodiments of alterity, even while they inhabit the same geographical space as the members of the pure community. Those excluded, the "races" on the other side of the biological continuum, to use Foucauldian terminology, the Other, become alien elements within an otherwise homogeneous world of the pure community. As a threat to its very existence, the role of this Other is to become the scapegoat for the inability of the pure community to provide authentic communal bonds between people, for its abject failure to overcome the alienation that is a hallmark of a reified world. The Jew in Nazi Germany, the Kulak in Stalinist Russia, the Tutsi in Rwanda, Muslims in Bosnia, blacks in the US, the Albanian or the Serb in Kosovo, the Arab in France, the Turk in contemporary Germany, the Bahai in Iran, for example, become the embodiment of alterity, and the target against which the hatred of the members of the pure community is directed. The more crisis ridden a society becomes, the greater the need to find an appropriate scapegoat; the more urgent the need for mass mobilization behind the integra l state, the more imperious the need to focus rage against the Other. In an extreme situation of social crisis and political turmoil, the demonization and victimization of the Other can lead to his (mass) murder. In the absence of a working class conscious of its historic task and possibilities, this hatred of alterity which permits capital to mobilize the population in defense of the pure community, can become its own impetus to genocide. The immanent tendencies of the capitalist mode of production which propel it towards a catastrophic economic crisis, also drive it towards mass murder and genocide. In that sense, the death-world, and the prospect of an Endzeit cannot be separated from the continued existence of humanity's subordination to the law of value. Reification, the overmanned world, bio-politics, state racism, the constitution of a pure community directed against alterity, each of them features of the economic and ideological the survival of capitalism into this new millenium will entail more and more frequent recourse to mass murder. topography of the real domination of capital, create the possibility and the need for genocide. We should have no doubt that Last printed 74 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 75 Impacts – Economy Capitalism division of labor creates a proletariat and consumer-based economy that will eventually fall back into Great Depression era economic conditions Peet, prof. of economics @ London School of Economics, 75 (Richard Peet, prof of economics @ London School of Economics, 1975, “Inequality and Poverty: A MarxistGeographic Theory”) Marx also explained how the normal operation of capitalism necessarily produces a more-or-less permanent constantly to reduce costs of production through a greater division of labor and the introduction and improvement of machinery. Mechanization raises the surplus exploitable by the owners of the means of production by increasing the productivity of labor, and thus increases the capital available for reinvestment in more machinery, facilities, and raw materials. Production costs are moreand-more the costs of depreciating machinery, and less-and-less the costs of hiring labor as capitalism develops and as machines increasingly are used. Marx called this a change in the organic composition of capital concomitant with the growth of social wealth: constant capital (money used to acquire and depreciate machinery, buildings, and raw materials) is increased relative to variable capital (money used to purchase labor- power).8 Thus the relative demand for labor falls as capitalist economic development takes place. Faster and faster rates of economic, growth are needed to absorb new entrants to the job market, or even to keep existing workers employed. Increasingly a relative surplus population arises .° The growth of a surplus, unwanted, unneeded labor force may be postponed by extremely rapid economic development, such as was made possible by the expansion of the North American frontier in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, or the period of suburbanization and mass purchase of consumer goods that immediately followed World War II, but reliance on the frantic buying of consumer goods to keep the economy going has the built-in dangers that people will eventually become bored with consuming, or that pressure on the available natural resource base will become too great, and growth will collapse. There is abundant recent evidence of the latter, and the Marxist economist Paul Sweezy claims that the former has been happening for some years; without enormous military spending, the United States economy would be “as profoundly depressed as it was during the great Depression."*° Marxist theory thus forecasts that the unfettered growth of capitalism generates a mass of unemployed workers, and will eventually lead to widespread detachment of workers from the mechanized means of producing income, an event which will create the necessary conditions for social revolution. Last printed 75 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 76 Impacts – Ethics Capitalism precludes ethics because it undermines every single ethical framework Morgareidge, prof phil @ Lewis & clark college 1998 (Clayton Morgareidge, Professor of Philosophy at Lewis and Clark College, 1998, “Why capitalism is evil” http://www.lclark.edu/~clayton/commentaries/evil.html) In recent commentaries for the Old Mole I have been trying to make capitalism look bad -- as bad as it really is. I have argued that capitalism is war, and that those of us who do not own capital suffer from it just as do civilian populations caught between opposing armies, or as foot soldiers conscripted into armies fighting for interests that are not our own. I've tried to show that capitalism is the violent negation of democracy, for it is the interests of those who own capital that determine how we live: their jobs, products, services, manufactured culture, and propaganda shape our lives and our minds. Today I'd like to point to the ways in which capital undermines the foundation of moral life. Well, what is the foundation of moral life? What makes it possible for human beings to recognize that they have responsibilities to each other and to their communities? For example: What could possibly make anyone willing to pay living wages to workers in Indonesia or Haiti if you can get them to work for less? The 18th Century philosopher David Hume asks, What reason can anyone give me to not to prefer the annihilation of all mankind to a scratch on my finger? Hume is one of many philosophers who argue that no such reason can be given. This means that the foundation of ethics lies not in reason, but rather in our passion s or our hearts. For Hume it is part of our nature that we feel sympathy for each other, and this sympathy counters our narrow self-interest. Other philosophers have taken similar positions. Josiah Royce an American philosopher of the last century argued that you do not really understand another person if you do not understand her aspirations, fears, and needs. But to understand someone's feelings is, in part, to share them. And you cannot share an aspiration or a need without wanting to see it fulfilled, nor can you share a fear without hoping that it will not come to pass. So the mere recognition of what other human beings are involves us in wanting to see them live and prosper. The French-Jewish philosopher Emmanual Levinás whose major work appeared in 1961 claims that ethics arises in the experience of the face of the other. The human face reveals its capacity for suffering, a suffering we are capable of either inflicting or opposing. So to look into the face of another human being is to see the commandment, Thou shalt not kill. Another American philosopher, Nel Noddings, in her 1984 book Caring, argues that the ethical commitment arises out of the caring response that most of us feel towards those who, like children, are in need. Most parents encourage this caring response in their children, with the result that we grow up with an interest in cultivating our own capacity to care for others. Now none of these philosophers are naive: none of them thinks that sympathy, love, or caring determines all, or even most, human behavior. The 20th century proves otherwise. What they do offer, though, is the hope that human beings have the capacity to want the best for each other. So now we must ask, What forces are at work in our world to block or cripple the ethical response ? This question, of course, brings me back to capitalism. But before I go there, I want to acknowledge that capitalism is not the only thing that blocks our ability to care. Exploitation and cruelty were around long before the economic system of capitalism came to be, and the temptation to use and abuse others will probably survive in any future society that might supersede capitalism. Nevertheless, I want to claim, that putting the world at the disposal of those with capital has done more damage to the ethical life than any thing else. To put it in religious terms, capital is the devil. To show why this is the case, let me turn to capital's greatest critic, Karl Marx. Under capitalism, Marx writes, everything in nature and everything that human beings are and can do becomes an object: a resource for, or an obstacle, to the expansion of production, the development of technology, the growth of markets, and the circulation of money. For those who manage and live from capital, nothing has value of its own. Mountain streams, clean air, human lives -- all mean nothing in themselves, but are valuable only if they can be used to turn a profit. If capital looks at (not into) the human face, it sees there only eyes through which brand names and advertising can enter and mouths that can demand and consume food, drink, and Last printed 76 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 77 tobacco products. If human faces express needs, then either products can be manufactured to meet, or seem to meet, those needs, or else, if the needs are incompatible with the growth of capital, then the faces expressing them must be unrepresented or silenced. Obviously what capitalist enterprises do have consequences for the well being of human beings and the planet we live on. Capital profits from the production of food, shelter, and all the necessities of life. The production of all these things uses human lives in the shape of labor, as well as the resources of the earth. If we care about life, if we see our obligations in each others faces, then we have to want all the things capital does to be governed by that care, to be directed by the ethical concern for life. But feeding people is not the aim of the food industry, or shelter the purpose of the housing industry. In medicine, making profits is becoming a more important goal than As capitalist enterprises these activities aim single-mindedly at the accumulation of capital, and such purposes as caring for the sick or feeding the hungry becomes a mere means to an end, an instrument of corporate growth. Therefore ethics, the overriding commitment to meeting human need, is left out of deliberations about what the heavyweight institutions of our society are going to do. Moral convictions are expressed in churches, in living rooms, in letters to the editor, sometimes even by politicians and widely read caring for sick people. commentators, but almost always with an attitude of resignation to the inevitable. People no longer say, "You can't stop progress," but only because they have learned not to call economic growth progress. They still think they can't stop it. And they are right -- as long as the production of all our needs and the organization of our labor is carried out under private ownership. Only a minority ("idealists") can take seriously a way of thinking that counts for nothing in real world decision making. Only when the end of capitalism is on the table will ethics have a seat at the table. Last printed 77 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 78 Impacts – Social Services (1) Globalization discourse leads to less social services – turns case Schram, prof @ Bryn Mawr College, 06 (Sanford F. Schram, teaches social theory and social policy in the Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research at Bryn Mawr College, 2006, Chapter One; in Welfare Discipline: Discourse, Governance, and Globalization Pg 5 par 2) My argument is that welfare reform was legitimated in part by politically questionable concerns about economic globalization. I do not deny that economic globalization was occuring; instead I am arguing that what I am calling globalization discourse helped make it seem in the United States that economic globalization of necessity required scaling back the welfare state in the name of being able to compete internationally. Welfare state retrenchment was made possible in no small part because the issue was framed in the United States in terms of a "crisis narrative" on the necessity of welfare policy retrenchment in the face of growing international economic competition , making it seem unavoidable that the United States retrench welfare provision.15 U.S. globalization discourse had created its own specter of a debilitating global economic competition that required welfare state retrenchment as part of the necessary response. Asset-building discourse turns case – it forces the poor to compete in markets that are structured for them to fail and leads to them being blamed for societal error Schram, prof @ Bryn Mawr College, 06 (Sanford F. Schram, teaches social theory and social policy in the Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research at Bryn Mawr College, 2006, Chapter One; in Welfare Discipline: Discourse, Governance, and Globalization Pg 5 par 2) In this chapter, I offer a critique of asset-building antipoverty policy but with an eye toward separating the wheat from the chaff, retaining what would be good while jettisoning the bad. My argument is that what is particularly bad about asset-building policy is its cramped commodifying discourse that reinforces limiting social welfare policy initiatives to only those who are consistent with the imperatives of the market system and thus assumed to be more palatable to a broader audience. Assetbuilding policy discourse dooms social welfare policy to being limited to getting low income families to try to succeed in capital markets that are systematically designed to ensure their failure. Such policies can only succeed if they were to supplement low-income families' savings at rates high enough for them to acquire appreciable assets like the nonpoor. Yet that would make asset policies redistributive policies, which is what they are not supposed to be. Therefore some folks will be able to make the most of the more limited support they gain from assets policies to the point that they may indeed be able to escape a life of poverty. Yet, for most others, the emphasis on assets will lead them to be left behind or let out in markets that will not enable them to translate their asset-building efforts into improved social and economic well-being, only to be blamed for this failure. Last printed 78 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 79 Impacts – Social Services (2) Social services in the current capitalist social order turns case making the services inhumane – changing the social order is a necessity Leonard, prof @ McGill University, 04 Peter Leonard, professor in the School of Social Work @ McGill University, 2004 Chapter 1; in Social Work in a Coporate Era: Practices of Power and Resistance edited by Linda Davies and Peter Leonard, Pg 6 par 4 – pg 7 par1 A major threat to the very existence of the welfare state had profound effects on Left critics. Previously, we had an antagonistic relationship to the social democratic ideology which ruled the welfare state and towards the remote, bureaucratic and controlling nature of its services. We had attacked the welfare state: now we found that we were forced to defend it. Even the social democratic welfare state was certainly better than no welfare state. This did not mean that we stopped being critical or engaging in theoretical work. Theory, I argued, enabled us to contextualize attacks on the living standards of a population which included the most vulnerable sections of the working class. But, I pointed out, if we looked further back to the 1960s and early 1970s, we would be able to see, through a Marxist analysis, how naive was the assumption that it was possible to develop humane, universalist and non-stigmatizing social services within the structures of capitalism . This was intended as a challenge to the social democratic orthodoxy of social work education of the day - that if we could get id of conservative influences in the Labour Party we could return to the old Keynesian welfare state. So my argument for critical theory rested, as it always does, on a negation of the existing social order, on strengthening resistance at the level of ideology, a resistance, which emerges most strongly , perhaps, when political defeats are experienced and pessimism is likely to be growing . More generally, we could see critical theory as primarily reactive to wider social and economic shits and dependent on the prior existence of that dominant system which it opposed. Thus Marxism developed as a reaction to capitalism, and feminism as a reaction to patriarchy; without capitalism, there would have been no Marxism, and without patriarchy, no feminism. As the characteristics of these dynamic social systems change over time a discursive space is created for new social theory which can attempt to explain political defeats and so, at least at the ideological level, counteract the pessimism which frequently appears at these historical junctures. Last printed 79 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 80 Alt – Zizek The alternative is to reject participation in capitalism. Capitalism structures actions and forecloses our ability to change the system from within. A refusal to play the game will bankrupt the system Zizek 01 (Slavoj Žižek is a professor of philosophy and psychoanalysis at the Euro Grad institute, “Repeating Lenin” 2001 http://www.lacan.com/replenin) One is therefore tempted to turn around Marx's thesis 11: the first task today is precisely NOT to succumb to the temptation to act, to directly intervene and change things (which then inevitably ends in a cul de sac of debilitating impossibility: "what can one do against the global capital?"), but to question the hegemonic ideological coordinates. If, today, one follows a direct call to act, this act will not be performed in an empty space - it will be an act WITHIN the hegemonic ideological coordinates: those who "really want to do something to help people" get involved in (undoubtedly honorable) exploits like Medecins sans frontiere, Greenpeace, feminist and anti-racist campaigns, which are all not only tolerated, but even supported by the media, even if they seemingly enter the economic territory (say, denouncing and boycotting companies which do not respect ecological conditions or which use child labor) - they are tolerated and supported as long as they do not get too close to a certain limit. This kind of activity provides the perfect example of interpassivity2: of doing things not to achieve something, but to PREVENT from something really happening, really changing. All the frenetic humanitarian, politically correct, etc., activity fits the formula of "Let's go on changing something all the time so that, globally, things will remain the same!" Let us take two predominant topics of today's American radical academia: postcolonial and queer (gay) studies. The problem of postcolonialism is undoubtedly crucial; however, "postcolonial studies" tend to translate it into the multiculturalist problematic of the colonized minorities' "right to narrate" their victimizing experience, of the power mechanisms which repress "otherness," so that, at the end of the day, we learn that the root of the postcolonial exploitation is our intolerance towards the Other, and, furthermore, that this intolerance itself is rooted in our intolerance towards the "Stranger in Ourselves," in our inability to confront what we repressed in and of ourselves - the politico-economic struggle is thus imperceptibly transformed into a pseudo-psychoanalytic drama of the subject unable to confront its inner traumas... The true corruption of the American academia is not primarily financial, it is not only that they are able to buy many European critical intellectuals (myself included - up to a point), but conceptual: notions of the "European" critical theory are imperceptibly translated into the benign universe of the Cultural Studies chic. My personal experience is that practically all of the "radical" academics silently count on the longterm stability of the American capitalist model, with the secure tenured position as their ultimate professional goal (a surprising number of them even play on the stock market). If there is a thing they are genuinely horrified of, it is a radical shattering of the (relatively) safe life environment of the "symbolic classes" in the developed Western societies. Their excessive Politically Correct zeal when dealing with sexism, racism, Third World sweatshops, etc., is thus ultimately a defense against their own innermost identification, a kind of compulsive ritual whose hidden logic is: "Let's talk as much as possible about the necessity of a radical change to make it sure that nothing will really change!" Symptomatic is here the journal October: when you ask one of the editors to what the title refers, they will half-confidentially signal that it is, of course, THAT October - in this way, one can indulge in the jargonistic analyses of the modern art, with the hidden assurance that one is somehow retaining the link with the radical revolutionary past... With regard to this radical chic, the first gesture towards the Third Way ideologists and practitioners should be that of praise: they at least play their game in a straight way, and are honest in their acceptance of the global capitalist coordinates, in contrast to the pseudo-radical academic Leftists who adopt towards the Third Way the attitude of utter disdain, while their own radicality ultimately amounts to an empty gesture which obliges no one to anything determinate. It is true that, today, it is the radical populist Right which is usually breaking the (still) predominant liberal-democratic consensus, gradually rendering acceptable the hitherto excluded topics (the partial justification of Fascism, the need to constrain abstract citizenship on behalf of ethnic identity, etc.). However, the hegemonic liberal democracy is using this fact to blackmail the Left radicals: "we shouldn't play with fire: against the new Rightist onslaught, one should more than ever insist on the democratic consensus - any criticism of it willingly or unwillingly helps the new Right!" This is the key line of separation: one should Last printed 80 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 81 [Zizek 01 continued – no text removed] reject this blackmail, taking the risk of disturbing the liberal consensus, up to questioning the very notion of democracy. So how are we to respond to the eternal dilemma of the radical Left: should one strategical support center-Left figures like Bill Clinton against the conservatives, or should one adopt the stance of "it doesn't matter, we shouldn't get involved in these fights - in a way, it is even better if the Right is directly in power, since, in this way, it will be easier for the people to see the truth of the situation"? The answer is the variation of old Stalin's answer to the question "Which deviation is worse, the Rightist or the Leftist one?": THEY ARE BOTH WORSE. What one should do is to adopt the stance of the proper dialectical paradox: in principle, of course, one should be indifferent towards the struggle between the liberal and conservative pole of today's official politics - however, one can only afford to be indifferent if the liberal option is in power. Otherwise, the price to be paid may appear much too high - recall the catastrophic consequences of the decision of the German Communist Party in the early 30s NOT to focus on the struggle against the Nazis, with the justification that the Nazi dictatorship is the last desperate stage of the capitalist domination, which will open eyes to the working class, shattering their belief in the "bourgeois" democratic institutions. Along these lines, Claude Lefort himself, whom no one can accuse of communist sympathies, recently made a crucial point in his answer to Francois Furet: today's liberal consensus is the result of 150 years of the Leftist workers' struggle and pressure upon the State, it incorporated demands which were 100 or even less years ago dismissed by liberals as horror.3 As a proof, one should just look at the list of the demands at the end of the Communist Manifesto: apart from 2 or 3 of them (which, of course, are the key one), all others are today part of the consensus (at least the disintegrating Welfare State one): the universal vote, the right to free education, universal healthcare and care for the retired, limitation of child labor... Last printed 81 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 82 Alt – Herod The alternative is to reject the affirmative. The only way to destroy capitalism is “an inside attack” which necessitates total rejection of all capitalist relations. This ensures we destroy the system at its source and do not merely reform it in the short term Herod, Columbia graduate and political activist, 07 (James Herod, “Getting Free: Creating an Association of Democratic Autonomous Neighborhoods,” Boston, 2007, http://www.jamesherod.info/?sec=book&id=1) It is time to try to describe, at first abstractly and later concretely, a strategy for destroying capitalism. At its most basic, this strategy calls for pulling time, energy, and resources out of capitalist civilization and putting them into building a new civilization. The image, then, is one of emptying out capitalist structures, hollowing them out, by draining wealth, power, and meaning from them until there is nothing left but shells. This is definitely an aggressive strategy. It requires great militancy and constitutes an attack on the existing order. The strategy clearly recognizes that capitalism is the enemy and must be destroyed, but it is not a frontal attack aimed at overthrowing the system; it is an inside attack aimed at gutting it, while simultaneously replacing it with something better , something we want. Thus, capitalist structures (corporations, governments, banks, schools, etc.) are not seized so much as simply abandoned. Capitalist relations are not fought so much as they are simply rejected. We stop participating in activities that support (finance, condone) the capitalist world and start participating in activities that build a new world while simultaneously undermining the old. We create a new pattern of social relations alongside capitalist ones, and then continually build and strengthen our new pattern while doing everything we can to weaken capitalist relations. In this way our new democratic, nonhierarchical, noncommodified relations can eventually overwhelm the capitalist relations and force them out of existence. This is how it has to be done. This is a plausible, realistic strategy. To think that we could create a whole new world of decent social arrangements overnight, in the midst of a crisis, during a so -called revolution or the collapse of capitalism, is foolhardy. Our new social world must grow within the old, and in opposition to it, until it is strong enough to dismantle and abolish capitalist relations. Such a revolution will never happen automatically, blindly, determinably, because of the inexorable materialist laws of history. It will happen, and only happen, because we want it to, and because we know what we’re doing and how we want to live, what obstacles have to be overcome before we can live that way, and how to distinguish between our social patterns and theirs. But we must not think that the capitalist world can simply be ignored, in a live-and-let-live attitude, while we try to build new lives elsewhere. (As mentioned earlier, there is no elsewhere.) There is at least one thing, wage slavery, that we can’t simply stop participating in (but even here there are ways we can chip away at it). Capitalism must be explicitly refused and replaced by something else. This constitutes war, but it is not a war in the traditional sense of armies and tanks; it is a war fought on a daily basis, on the level of everyday life, by millions of people. It is a war nevertheless because the accumulators of capital will use coercion, brutality, and murder, as they have always done in the past, to try to block any rejection of the system. They have always had to force compliance; they will not hesitate to continue to do so. Still, there are many concrete ways that individuals, groups, and neighborhoods can gut capitalism, which I will enumerate shortly. We must always keep in mind how we became slaves; then we can see more clearly how we can cease being slaves. We were forced into wage slavery because the ruling class slowly, systematically, and brutally destroyed our ability to live autonomously. By driving us off the land, changing the property laws, dismantling community rights, destroying our tools, imposing taxes, gutting our local markets, and so forth, we were forced onto the labor market in order to survive, our only remaining option being to sell our ability to work for a wage. It’s quite clear, then, how we can overthrow slavery: we must reverse this process. We must begin to reacquire the ability to live without working for a wage or buying the products made by wage slaves (that is, we must free ourselves from the labor market and the way of living based on it), and This strategy does not call for reforming capitalism, for changing capitalism into something else. It calls for totally replacing capitalism with a new civilization. This is an important distinction because capitalism has proved impervious to reforms as a system. We can sometimes, in some places, win certain concessions from it (usually only temporary ones) and some embed ourselves instead in cooperative labor and cooperatively produced goods. Another clarification is needed. (usually short-lived) improvements in our lives as its victims, but we cannot reform it piecemeal. Hence, our strategy of gutting and destroying capitalism requires at a minimum a totalizing image, an awareness that we are attacking an entire way of life and replacing it with another, and not merely reforming one way of life into something else. Many people may not be accustomed to thinking about entire systems and social orders, but eventually everyone knows what a lifestyle is, or a way of life, and that is the way we should approach it. Last printed 82 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 83 Alt – Chryssostalis Our alternative is to vote negative. We believe the question in this debate should be one of competing political strategies. The performance of criticizing the limitations implicit in the 1AC’s representations both undermines the stability of static epistemological claims and opens the terrain for a transformative self-relationship, thereby enabling alternative visions of politics and social relations to appear. Challenging the affirmative’s assumptions is the only attempt at solvency with a possibility of success Chryssostalis, principal lecturer at Westminster school of Law, 05 (Julia H. Chryssostalis, lecturer at the Westminster school of law, “The Critical Instance ‘After’ The Critique of the Subject,” Law and Critique 16, 2005, pg. 16-21, http://www.springerlink.com/content/k4n26t73tu63415j/fulltext.pdf) So far, we have looked at some of the ways in which the question of the question is being re-situated in a philosophical terrain that has been radically _re-marked’ by the critical discourses associated with the deconstruction of subjectivity in French contemporary thought. However, the critical instance involves not only questioning but also judgment as one of its basic tropes. How? To begin with, judgment is found intimately implicated in the semantic economy of the critical: critique, criticism, criterion, critic; they all derive from krisis, the Greek word for judgment; yet, in addition, and more importantly, the very operation of the critical instance seems dominated by judgmental figures, grammars and logics.78 After all, is not the figure of the Tribunal of Reason at the centre of Kant’s critical project?79 And is not the role of critique therein precisely _that of defining the conditions under which the use of reason is legitimate in order to determine what can be known [connaıˆtre], what must be done, and what may be hoped’?80 Moreover, from the Enlightenment onwards, is not the critical practised _in the search for formal structures with universal value’81 that would firmly ground our knowledge, action, and aspirations, and provide the criteria for the evaluation of all claims to authority?82 And does not the critical instance, in this respect, necessarily turn around a _quaestio juris, the juridical question, [which asks] with what right one possesses this concept and uses it’?83 Finally, does not the critical moment itself – whether found operating in terms of fault-finding (epi-krisis),84 of drawing distinctions (dia-krisis),85 or of drawing comparisons (syn-krisis) – seem always to rely on the basic _logic’ of judgement: namely, the operation through which the particular is subsumed (and thus also thought and known) under the rule of an already constituted category?86 What is interesting to note about these judgemental grammars and logics organising the operation of the critical instance,87 is that the subjective forms they deploy involve two well-known _types’ of the figure of the judge. On the one hand, there is the _judge’ as a sovereign figure whose capacity to pass judgements on our received wisdom, draw distinctions in the field of our knowledge, and set the limits of what can be known, means the capacity to invest the world with a meaning drawn from a more profound knowledge. On the other hand, there is the _judge’ as a normalising, technocratic figure, a mere functionary of the criteria, which regulate and organise the conceptual gestures of our thought and knowledge. These two _types’ can be easily seen as antithetical. On the one hand, the figure of the critic in all its dignity, autonomy and sovereignty; on the other, the figure of the critic in, what Adorno calls, the _thing like form of the object’.88 However, what should not be missed is how much both rely on the philosophemes that organise the _classical’ configuration of the subject: rationality, mastery, self-presence, identity, consciousness, intentionality, autonomy, the radical difference between subject and object. For does not critical judgement involve in this instance an operation of thinking, where an already given subject takes the initiative of applying an already established category to, say, an object, a text, an event? Is not this _initiative’ marked not only by the distance between the _judge’ and the _judged’, but also by the instrumentality of a masterful, rational and rationalising subject? Moreover, is not the submission of the functionary compensated by the mastery s/he has over the material under his/her authority? And does not the very form of subsumption, with its reliance on already established categories, involve a technique, which assimilates and neutralises the singularity of the particular and forecloses the possibility of thinking something new?89 To return to our initial question, if the critical instance is ruled by judgemental what happens to the critical when reinscribed and re-situated in a philosophical terrain which has been _re-marked’ by the critique or deconstruction of subjectivity, a philosophical terrain without transcendental guarantees? Following what was said earlier in connection with the question of the question, the critical is also being re-thought and reworked. Three gestures mark this re-thinking: first, an abandonment of judgemental grammars and grammars and logics, which in turn rely on _classical’ configurations of subjectivity, Last printed 83 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 84 logics; second, a re-casting of the critical in terms of the question of the limit; and third, the emergence of an ethic of encounter (with the limit). Let us briefly consider what is involved in the last two gestures. One of the clearest statements of what is at stake in the re-casting of the critical in terms of the question of the limit, the limit as a question, is to be found in Foucault’s two essays, _What Is Critique?’ 90 and _What is Enlightenment?’91 Without going into the detail of the argument developed there, I want to focus at a point in the Enlightenment essay, which I think is crucial. This is a point where, to begin with, Foucault affirms that _[c]riticism indeed consists of analyzing and reflecting upon limits’, thus seemingly locating himself within the basic parameters of the Kantian formulation of the critical. Then, though, he continues: But if the Kantian question was that of knowing [savoir] what limits knowledge [connaissance] must renounce exceeding, it seems to me that the critical question today must be turned back into a positive one: In what is given to us as universal, necessary, obligatory, what place is occupied by whatever is singular, contingent, and the product of arbitrary constraints? The point in brief is to transform the critique conducted in the form of necessary limitation into a practical critique that takes the form of a possible crossing over [franchissment].92 In other words, Foucault’s re-working of the critical involves a notion of the limit not as necessary limitation, as in the Kantian critical project, but as a point of _a possible crossing over’. For posing the question of the limits of our knowledge, or _showing the limits of the constitution of objectivity’,93 involves also a dimension of opening up, of transformation and becoming. As such the type of _work done at the limits of ourselves must’, according to Foucault, _on the one hand, open up a realm of historical inquiry, and on the other, put itself to the test of reality, of contemporary reality, both to grasp the points where change is possible and desirable, and to determine the precise form this change should take.’94 In other words, the critical instance rethought in terms of the limit as question does not merely involve a negative moment of transgression. For at the point of this work on the limits (of ourselves), the ethico-political promise/possibility of transformation opens up – which is also why, at this point, the critical instance, for Foucault, becomes intimately linked with virtue.95 Let us now turn to the last gesture involved in the re-thinking of the critical: namely, the displacement of judgemental logics and the emergence of an ethics of encounter – that is to say, an encounter with the question of the limit. Let us move with caution, though. To begin with, it is one does not drive to the limits for a thrill experience, or because limits are dangerous and sexy, or because it brings us into tintillating proximity with evil. One asks about the limits of knowing because one has already run up against a crisis within the epistemological field in which one lives. The categories by which social life is ordered produce a certain incoherence or entire realm of unspeakability. And it is from this condition, the tear in the fabric of our epistemological field, that the practice of critique emerges, with the awareness that no discourse is adequate here or that our reigning discourses have produced an impasse.96 Which is to say that the critical instance, as the exposure of the _limits of the constitution of objectivity’, also involves the experience of the dislocation of our sedimented positivities, in other words, the experience of crisis. Such a recognition is important here because it reinscribes crisis, which is actually another meaning of the Greek word krisis, into the critical, which is thus re-connected with the notion of negativity – negativity in the ontological sense. This negativity, as Stavrakakis notes, has both a disruptive dimension that _refers to the horizon of impossibility and unrepresentability, which punctuates the life of linguistic creatures’,97 and at the same time a productive one: _[b]y inscribing a lack in our dislocated positivities, it fuels the desire for new social and political constructions.’98 As such, this negativity is _neither an object nor its negation: it is the condition of possibility/ impossibility of objects’,99 of objectivity more generally, indeed of all transformative action.100 And it is precisely here that an ethics of the encounter with the limit is located in that such an encounter is a moment, which ought to be acknowledged rather than covered over by quickly _patching the cracks’ of our universe. It is a moment which should not be foreclosed or important to understand that assimilated: For at stake in this encounter with the limit, _is a matter of showing how the space of the possible is larger than the one we are assigned – that it is precisely here, at the moment when the site of the pre-thetic and the prejudicative is glimpsed, that the thrust and the promise of a re-marked’ critical instance is to be found.everything is possible.’101 something else is possible, but not that Last printed 84 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 85 Alt – Harmen Capitalism will cause extinction- the alternative is not to work within the system, but to push against it. Harmen, editor of International Socialism, 95 (Chris Harmen, Editor of International Socialism, 1995, “Economics of the madhouse” 1995 pg 99100) ‘A reprise in the early 21st century of the conditions in the early part of this century. Such is the danger that confronts the world if we cannot deal with the present crisis concludes Will Hutton in his book The State We’re In. Those conditions included two world wars, the rise of Nazism, the collapse o democracy across most of Europe, the victory of Stalinism, the death camps and the gulag. If they were to be repeated in a few years time there is no doubt it would be on a much more horrific scale that even Hitler could not imagine. We would indeed be facing a future of barbarism, if not the destruction of the whole of humanity. Warnings of such a future are not to be treated lightly. Already the crisis of the 1990’s has begun to unleash the same barbaric forces we saw in the 1930’s. In one country after another political adventurers who support the existing system are making careers for themselves by trying to scapegoat ethnic or religious minorities. In the Russia, the Hitler admirer, racist, and proponent of nuclear war, Zhirinovsky got 24 percent of the vote in the November 1993 poll. In Bombay, another Hitler admirer, Bal Thackercey, runs the state government, threatening to wage war against the Muslim minority. In turkey the government and the military wage a war against the Kurdish fifth of the population, while the fascists try to incite Sunni Muslims to murder Alawi Muslims. In Rwanda the former dictator unleashed a horrific slaughter of Tutsis by Hutus, while in neighboring Burundi there is the threat of slaughter of Hutus by Tutsis. All this horrors has its origins in the failure of market capitalism to provide even minimally satisfactory lives for the mass of people. Instead it leaves a fifth of the worlds’ population under nourished and most of the rest doubting whether they will be able to enjoy tomorrow the small comforts that allowed to them today Both the out and out defenders of ruling class power and today’s timid cowed reformists tell us there is no alternative to this system. But if that is true then there is no hope for humanity. Politics becomes merely about rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic while making sure no one disturbs the rich and privileged as they dine at the captain’s table. But there is an alternative. The whole crazy system of alienated labor is a product of what we do. Human beings have the power to seize control of the ways of creating wealth and to subordinate them to our decisions, to our values. We do not have to leave them to the blind caprice of the market to the mad rush of the rival owners of wealth in their race to keep ahead of each other. The new technologies that are available today, far from making our lives worse have the potential to make this control easier. Automated work processes could provide us with more leisure, with more time for creativity and more change to deliberate where the world is going. Computerism could provide us with the unparalleled information about the recourses available to satisfy our needs and how to deploy them effectively. But this alternative cannot come from working within the system, from accepting the insane logic of the market, of competitive accumulation, of working harder in order to force someone else to worker harder or lose their job. The alternative can only come from fighting against the system and the disastrous effect its logic has on the lives of the mass of people. Last printed 85 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 86 Alt solvency – rejection (1) Capitalism has reached a legitimacy crisis that makes it vulnerable to rejection Sanbonmatsu, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 09 (John Sanbonmatsu, Professor of Philosophy, May/June 09, Tikkun Vol. 24 Issue 3pg 21-72 http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail? vid=1&hid=106&sid=604527a1-7a4d-41a0-842a-34a6cf71d67b%40sessionmgr111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d %3d#db=aph&AN=39753533 Cassettari) ALAS, THE DISAPPEARANCE OF VIBRANT social movements from the field of history could not come at a more tragic time: for the first time in seventy years, after decades of unquestioned supremacy over every aspect of human and natural life, capitalism is beginning to suffer its own "legitimacy crisis." The German philosopher Georg Hegel famously wrote that the Owl of Minerva would only take wing at dusk. That is, only at the end of history would Reason and divine Spirit at last come to be reconciled, in human self-consciousness, human self-knowledge. Today, however, as the Marxist James O'Connor has ironically remarked, the Owl of Minerva folds its wings at day-break — closing up shop, as it were, just when things at last start to get interesting. Antonio Gramsci, the great Italian theorist, observed that severe economic disruptions can "lead in the long run to a widespread skepticism" toward the existing order as a whole. When that happens, even the most seemingly entrenched political and social arrangements can disappear overnight. In 1997, when foreign traders suddenly pulled the plug on the "Asian miracle," devaluing currencies such as the Thai bhat and Indonesian rupiah, mass protests and riots spread through the region overnight. Within a year, the democracy movement had toppled the authoritarian government of President Suharto in Indonesia, a nation of over 200 million. A year after that, the East Timorese at last overcame decades of repression by the Suharto regime by declaring their national independence . The traumatic economic dislocations of the 1920s and 1930s, by contrast, prepared the ground for even more intensive and extensive social upheavals. When Gramsci spoke of popular "skepticism" toward an older regime, he knew of what he spoke, having himself been thrown in jail by the fascist leader, Benito Mussolini. If fascism and world war were the products of the last depression, what will the next one bring? As the world economy deteriorates, as hundreds of millions of people lose their jobs, and as the state scales back on social welfare and public services, we may see a widening crisis of confidence in the economic and social order as such. That worry seems to have been on the mind of George W. Bush last autumn, when he felt compelled to defend the capitalist system by name. ("The crisis [is] not a failure of the free-market system," he insisted, "and the answer is not to reinvent that system.") Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, offered up similarly fervent demonstrations of his faith in capitalism. But Germany's finance minister, Peer Steinbrück, struck a more ominous tone. In a revealing interview with Der Spiegel, Steinbrück warned that the corporate and banking scandals that had plagued Europe and the United States in recent years had threatened to undermine faith in the system as a whole: We have to be careful not to allow enlightened capitalism to become tainted with questions of This isn't merely an issue of excessive salary developments in some areas. I'm talking about tax evasion and corruption. I'm talking about scandals and affairs of the sort we have recently experienced, although one shouldn't generalize these occurrences. But they are the sort of thing the general public understands all too well. And when they are allowed to continue for too long, the public gets the impression that "those people at the top" no longer have to play by the rules . There have legitimacy, acceptance, or credibility. been times in Germany when these elites were closer to the general population. Some things have gotten out of control in this respect. Steinbrück, a leading light of the conservative Christian Democratic Union party, stunned his interviewer by invoking the spirit of Marxism to explain what was occurring in the international markets. "Overall," he said, "we have to conclude that certain elements of Marxist theory are not all that incorrect." The reporter from Der Spiegel objected, "And you, of all people, are saying this?" Steinbrück replied: "Every exaggeration creates, in a dialectic sense, its If capitalism is indeed beginning to consume itself, the same way it devoured the minds, bodies, and labor of countless human and nonhuman beings over the course of centuries, then for the first time in generations, perhaps ever, we may have a brief opening, a caesura in the long, breathless tale of capitalism and its violence, in which to imagine and to set the terms for a new way of organizing human society and economy. In 1940, not long before he was driven to his death by the Gestapo, the Jewish philosopher Walter Benjamin wrote: It is well-known that counter-part-an antithesis. In the end, unbridled capitalism with all of its greed, as we have seen happening here, consumes itself." the Jews were forbidden to look into the future. The Torah and the prayers instructed them, by contrast, in remembrance. This disenchanted those who fell prey to the future, who sought advice from the soothsayers. For that reason the future did not, however, turn into a homogenous and empty time for the Jews. For in it every second was the narrow gate, through which the Messiah could enter. Benjamin was reflecting on the temporality of socialist systemic crises open up unexpected Utopian fissures in the seemingly impenetrable rockface of modernity. Such a historic rupture, a "narrow gate" through which those who envision a better world might suddenly pass, may be opening up beneath our own feet today. If so, we have come to the threshold of Hope. revolution — on the way that Last printed 86 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 87 Alt solvency – rejection (2) Breaking down cap requires a complete rejection-only the alt can save us from a repeat of the horrors of the 20th century Callinicos, prof of politics at University of York, 01 Alex Callinicos, 2001, Professor of Politics at the University of York, "Against the Third Way" Thesis 9 Transcending capitalism requires a revolutionary transformation of society . LI Even granted the argument of Thesis 8, there is an ambiguity in the current stance of the anti-capitalist movement that must be confronted. Naturally criticism is focused on one particular variant of capitalism - the Anglo-American model that neoliberalism is trying to generalize. This leaves open the question of whether the alternative should be another, more humane and democratic form of capitalism - for example, what is sometimes called the Rhineland model of regulated capitalism associated with continental Europe and Japan - or whether we should seek to replace capitalism altogether. Some of those critical of the Third Way, for example Bourdieu and Lafontaine, seem to advocate an international version of Rhineland capitalism, in which the European Union provides the regulation that the nation-state can no longer supply. In part for reasons touched on in S4.1 above, this does not seem to me a realistic strategy.43 In my view the problem lies deeper than the particular version of capitalism that currently confronts us. It is inherent in the logic of capital accumulation to treat both human beings and120 Alternatives the planet itself as mere raw materials to be used and, if necessary, destroyed. The systematic removal over the past twenty years of the restraints that were imposed on capitalism in the mid-twentieth century has brought this into sharp relief. What is needed is a break with the very logic of capital, and its replacement by a different one - one that, at the minimum, gives priority to human needs and subjects the allocation of resources to democratic control. Traditionally a society meeting these conditions has been called 'socialism'. Whatever may be required to gain admittance to the White House, I see nothing wrong in continuing to use this word and seeking to achieve the society that it names. Bringing such a 'society into existence will be an arduous task. It will mean a revolution - in other words, a systemic transformation of society, the replacement of one social logic with another. The idea of the Third Way is attractive to those who believe that such an upheaval is not feasible, and indeed is undesirable and unnecessary. But, as we have seen, the Third Way is but an ideological façade behind which capitalism continues on its brutal and destructive way. Addressing the real ills of the world as currently constituted means taking a path that, having been abandoned by most, has fallen into neglect. But it is, I believe, the only way through which we can hope to avoid repeating in the twenty-first century some new version of the horrors that made the twentieth century so terrible a nightmare. Last printed 87 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 88 Alt solvency – rejection (3) Capitalism can’t be ended all at once, but through a series of refusals to follow capitalism’s dictates can we break it down Holloway, has a Ph.D in Political Science from the University of Edinburgh, a professor in the Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, member of the Conference of Socialist Economists, 05 (John Holloway, 8/16/05, “Can We Change The World Without Taking Power?”, http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5616 Cassettari) But it is unlikely that world revolution can be achieved in one single blow. This means that the only way in which we can conceive of revolution is as interstitial revolution, as a revolution that takes place in the interstices of capitalism, a revolution that occupies spaces in the world while capitalism still exists. The question is how we conceive of these interstices, whether we think of them as states or in other ways. In thinking about this, we have to start from where we are, from the many rebellions and insubordinations that have brought us to Porto Alegre. The world is full of such rebellions, of people saying NO to capitalism : NO, we shall not live our lives according to the dictates of capitalism, we shall do what we consider necessary or desirable and not what capital tells us to do. Sometimes we just see capitalism as an allencompassing system of domination and forget that such rebellions exist everywhere. At times they are so small that even those involved do not perceive them as refusals , but often they are collective projects searching for an alternative way forward and sometimes they are as big as the Lacandon Jungle or the Argentinazo of three years ago or the revolt in Bolivia just over a year ago. All of these insubordinations are characterised by a drive towards self-determination, an impulse that says, ‪ No, you will not tell us what to do, we shall decide for ourselves what we must do.' These refusals can be seen as fissures, as cracks in the system of capitalist domination. Capitalism is not (in the first place) an economic system, but a system of command. Capitalists, through money, command us, telling us what to do. To refuse to obey is to break the command of capital. The question for us, then, i how do we multiply and expand these refusals, these cracks in the texture of domination? Last printed 88 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 89 Alt solvency – debate Debaters acting as political agents can revive democracy to end the capitalist system Giroux received his Doctorate from Carnegie-Mellon. served as Director at the Center for Education and Cultural Studies at The University of Miami Ohio, served as the Director of the Waterbury Forum in Education and Cultural Studies at Penn State 05 (Henry A. Giroux, Winter 2005, The Terror of Neoliberalism: Rethinking the Significance of Cultural Politics, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=07-22-2014&FMT=7&DID=791640891&RQT=309 Cassettari) Fortunately, the corporate capitalist fairytale of neoliberalism has been challenged all over the globe by students, labor organizers, intellectuals, community activists, and a host of individuals and groups unwilling to allow democracy to be bought and sold by multinational corporations, corporate swindlers, international political institutions, and those government politicians who willingly align themselves with multinational, corporate interests and rapacious profits. From Seattle to Genoa, people engaged in popular resistance are collectively taking up the challenge of neoliberalism and reviving both the meaning of resistance and the sites where it takes place. Political culture is now global and resistance is amorphous, connecting students with workers, schoolteachers with parents, and intellectuals with artists. Groups protesting the attack on farmers in India whose land is being destroyed by the government in order to build dams now find themselves in alliance with young people resisting sweatshop labor in New York City. Environmental activists are joining up with key sections of organized labor as well as groups protesting Third World debt. The collapse of the neoliberal showcase, Argentina, along with numerous corporate bankruptcies and scandals (notably including Enron), reveals the cracks in neoliberal hegemony and domination. In addition, the multiple forms of resistance against neoliberal capitalism are not limited by a version of identity politics focused exclusively on particularized rights and interests. On the contrary, identity politics is affirmed within a broader crisis of political culture and democracy that connects the militarization of public life with the collapse of the welfare state and the attack on civil liberties . Central to these new movements is the notion that neoliberalism has to be understood within a larger crisis of vision, meaning, education, and political agency. Democracy in this view is not limited to the struggle over economic resources and power; indeed, it also includes the creation of public spheres where individuals can be educated as political agents equipped with the skills, capacities, and knowledge they need to perform as autonomous political agents. I want to expand the reaches of this debate by arguing that any struggle against neoliberalism must address the discourse of political agency, civic education, and cultural politics as part of a broader struggle over the relationship between democratization (the ongoing struggle for a substantive and inclusive democracy) and the global public sphere. Last printed 89 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 90 Alt solvency – discourse (1) Their discourse of globalization must be challenged – without challenge we doom the poor to a cycle of blame Schram, prof @ Bryn Mawr College, 06 Sanford F. Schram, teaches social theory and social policy in the Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research at Bryn Mawr College, 2006 Chapter Seven; in Welfare Discipline: Discourse, Governance, and Globalization Pg 152 par 1 – pg 154 par 1 The discourse of globalization creates new ways of reinscribing privilege and subordination by calling forth new forms of governance for regimenting populations into the emerging social order.1 How should people respond to the implicit understandings of self and other embedded in the globalization discourse's preoccupation with welfare dependency? They need to identify those embedded biases, call them out publicly, and propose alternative understandings about how they should practice relating each other, one-to-one and collectively. In so doing, they can make the welfare state less exclusionary and tap its latent possibilities for more compassionate policies. Failing to challenge the discourse of dependency means failing to challenge the disciplinary practices of the new forms of governance. Without the critical distance needed to question that discourse, people risk continuing to be caught in a vicious cycle that alternates from episodic charitable responses to poverty to cracking down on the poor as deviants who need to be punished for their poverty,2 The U.S. response to the Katrina hurricane disaster is but one prominent example. Thanks to a long pre-Katrina ride to the beach with my wife, the title of this chapter ended up being titled Compassionate Liberalism. President George Bush, relying on the writings of Marvin Olasky, has championed the idea that public policies should reflect a "compassionate conservatism," where social welfare provision is provided on the basis of concern for helping the less privileged develop the self-discipline to be able to adhere to moral standards.3 Compassionate conservatism practices "tough love." My point in this chapter is that the president's compassionate conservatism is by no means the only or best way to express that sort of emotional commitment to helping those who are let behind by the changes wrought by the globalizing market-centered society. In fact, I will argue that compassionate conservatism is but a convenient discursive practice for rationalizing the discipline meted out by the new forms of governance emerging with the global order. I like the idea that public policy should be compassionate. Liberalism, with its emphasis on a social contract and rational-legal logic, emphasizes rights to entitlement. Yet, it is just such a discourse that has led people away from thinking about compassion as a basis of social policy.4 Legalistic rights discourse puts in the background alternative ways in which those who have been marginalized or subordinated have claims on other members of the political community. Yet, as is often the case, those let behind socially and economically have in any actually-existing liberal order less than the full complement of legal rights to entitlements to address all their needs. Therefore, insisting that legal rights to entitlement be the sole basis for their getting to make claims on collective resources can doom many families to life of poverty. Western liberal individualistic culture, especially as experienced in the United States, has led people away from recognizing the critical roles of emotion, caring, and loving compassion in structuring people's relationships to each other. People need to recognize that they have emotional bonds to each other as members of a human, if politically constructed, community, whether they choose to act on those emotions through public or private actions, via the national welfare state or the local community.5 While it is indeed very important to think about the role of compassion in social welfare policy as a way of getting beyond the limitations of the existing social welfare state, it is important to understand the varieties of compassion. And when we do, we may find compassionate conservatism to not be the best way to introduce more compassion into the welfare state. To understand what I mean by this, we need to take a short trip through some issues of political philosophy. When done, we may come out in a very different place than did the person in the White House. It might not make everyone a practitioner of compassionate liberalism, but it might help create resources for resisting the disciplinary practices of the new forms of govenance. Last printed 90 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 91 Alt solvency – action now The world’s leaders are still committed to saving capitalism- this unique time in history has created an opening in which to get rid of capitalism – we need to act now Sanbonmatsu, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, ‘09 (John Sanbonmatsu, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, May/June 2009, Tikkun “Why Capitalism Shouldn’t Be Saved” http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=2&hid=104&sid=1131528e-c63b-4785-8caa66c8c156fe8a%40sessionmgr10&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=39753533) ALAS, THE DISAPPEARANCE OF VIBRANT social movements from the field of history could not come at a more tragic time: for the first time in seventy years, after decades of unquestioned supremacy over every aspect of human and natural life, capitalism is beginning to suffer its own "legitimacy crisis." The German philosopher Georg Hegel famously wrote that the Owl of Minerva would only take wing at dusk. That is, only at the end of history would Reason and divine Spirit at last come to be reconciled, in human self-consciousness, human self-knowledge. Today, however, as the Marxist James O'Connor has ironically remarked, the Owl of Minerva folds its wings at day-break — closing up shop, as it were, just when things at last start to get interesting. Antonio Gramsci, the great Italian theorist, observed that severe economic disruptions can "lead in the long run to a widespread skepticism" toward the existing order as a whole. When that happens, even the most seemingly entrenched political and social arrangements can disappear overnight. In 1997, when foreign traders suddenly pulled the plug on the "Asian miracle," devaluing currencies such as the Thai bhat and Indonesian rupiah, mass protests and riots spread through the region overnight. Within a year, the democracy movement had toppled the authoritarian government of President Suharto in Indonesia, a nation of over 200 million. A year after that, the East Timorese at last overcame decades of repression by the Suharto regime by declaring their national independence. The traumatic economic dislocations of the 1920s and 1930s, by contrast, prepared the ground for even more intensive and extensive social upheavals. When Gramsci spoke of popular "skepticism" toward an older regime, he knew of what he spoke, having himself been thrown in jail by As the world economy deteriorates, as hundreds of millions of people lose their jobs, and as the state scales back on social welfare and public services, we may see a widening crisis of confidence in the economic and social order as such. That worry seems to have been on the mind of George W. Bush last autumn, when he felt compelled to defend the capitalist system by name. ("The crisis [is] not a failure of the free-market system," he insisted, "and the answer is not to reinvent that system.") Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, offered up similarly fervent demonstrations of his faith in capitalism. But Germany's finance minister, Peer Steinbrück, struck a more ominous tone. In a revealing interview with Der Spiegel, Steinbrück warned that the corporate and banking scandals that had plagued Europe and the United States in recent years had threatened to undermine faith in the system as a whole : We have to be careful not to the fascist leader, Benito Mussolini. If fascism and world war were the products of the last depression, what will the next one bring? allow enlightened capitalism to become tainted with questions of legitimacy, acceptance, or credibility. This isn't merely an issue of excessive salary developments in some areas. I'm talking about tax evasion and corruption. I'm talking about scandals and affairs of the sort we have recently experienced, although one shouldn't generalize these occurrences. But they are the sort of thing the general public understands all too well. And when they are allowed to continue for too long, the public gets the impression that "those people at the top" no longer have to play by the rules. There have been times in Germany when these elites were closer to the general population. Some things have gotten out of control in this respect. Steinbrück, a leading light of the conservative Christian Democratic Union party, stunned his interviewer by invoking the spirit of Marxism to explain what was occurring in the international markets. "Overall," he said, "we have to conclude that certain elements of Marxist theory are not all that incorrect." The reporter from Der Spiegel objected, "And you, of all people, are saying this?" Steinbrück replied: "Every exaggeration creates, in a dialectic sense, its counter-part-an antithesis. In the end, unbridled capitalism with all of its greed, as we have seen happening here, consumes itself." If capitalism is indeed beginning to consume itself, the same way it devoured the minds, bodies, and labor of countless human and nonhuman beings over the course of centuries, then for the first time in generations, perhaps ever, we may have a brief opening, a caesura in the long, breathless tale of capitalism and its violence, in which to imagine and to set the terms for a new way of organizing human society and economy. In 1940, not long before he was driven to his death by the Gestapo, the Jewish philosopher Walter Benjamin wrote: It is well-known that the Jews were forbidden to look into the future. The Torah and the prayers instructed them, by contrast, in remembrance. This disenchanted those who fell prey to the future, who sought advice from the soothsayers. For that reason the future did not, however, turn into a homogenous and empty time for the Jews. For in it every second was the narrow gate, through which the Messiah could enter. Benjamin was systemic crises open up unexpected Utopian fissures in the seemingly impenetrable rockface of modernity. Such a historic rupture, a "narrow gate" through which those who envision a better world might suddenly pass, may be opening up beneath our own feet today. If so, we have come to the threshold of Hope. But we cannot wait to find out. The dangers are incalculable. Should we squander this historical moment through inaction or despair, it may soon be too late for us to do anything, except to watch from the sidelines as world events spiral out of control. reflecting on the temporality of socialist revolution — on the way that Last printed 91 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 92 Alt solvency – moral obligation We have a moral obligation to break down capitalism. Utopian thinking is essential. Marsh 95 (JAMES L, CRITIQUE, ACTION, AND LIBERATION P. 334-335) The basic question concerning the possibility of socialism, then, is the rationality of utopian thinking. If scientism and positivism or some of their offshoots such as the postmodern pragmatism of Rorty exhaust the definition of reason, then utopian thinking is irrational and the human mind must confine itself to the straight jacket of empirical , then the thinking of utopia is not only legitimate but necessary. Reflection and freedom and praxis are essentially utopian in their full, unfolding life. Denial of utopia mutilates freedom and reason.6 We can appreciate this point more deeply by focusing phenomenologically on my experience of myself as an incarnate subject in the world. First of all, questioning is essential to fact. If, on the other hand, my dialectical phenomenological definition of reason is correct the life of reason, and any questioning points beyond the data to a future answer arrived at in a future insight and judgment. A scientist hit on the head by an apple asks questions that point toward a future answer. Any question negates the given set of facts and anticipates a new future.7> Next, on the level of insight and conceptualization we arrive at a universal that is not exhausted by any particular manifestation or instance. ''Triangle'' is not exhausted by this particular triangular thing, "justice" by this particular example of justice, "beauty" by this particular painting. Moreover, no particular, sensible incarnation matches the perfection of the ideal. These on a reflective, ethical level I constitute through reflection and choice myself as an end in a community of ends. This ethical norm has the same inexhaustibility and perfection as any universal, but in addition is the ethical obligation to realize the ideal. If, therefore, I am essentially and instances of "triangle," "justice," "beauty," respectively, are not perfect; they have cracks, blemishes, and impurities.8 Further, eidetically an experiencing, understanding, judging, and choosing subject and the current social situation is irrational and unjust in not respecting that reality, I have three choices. I can capitulate to the situation and in so doing reduce or renounce my humanity, or I can live a double life in thinking utopian thoughts and pursuing a nonutopian life, or I can pursue the utopia of a full economic, social, and political democracy that is worthy of we may affirm a threefold exteriority to the irrational, exploitative capitalist system: exteriority as past, present, and future. Exteriority as past is the laborer initially confronting capital as deprived of means of production, land, and means of consumption; as present exteriority is labor confronting capital as nothing, poor, more and more deprived of skill, surplus value, and even of employment; and as future exteriority is the utopia of liberation that is suggested by, demanded by, and called for by the alienated present. Such utopia as norm and goal calls into question our alienated bourgeois present. "Exteriority" or "the other" in this book has at least five moments or stages of articulation: as such a rational, free subject and incarnates in its institutions full respect for such a subject. Only the last option is fully consistent with the life of incarnate reason and freedom. Finally, phenomenologically described, as ethically evaluated, as hermeneutically interpreted, as critically judged, and as anticipated in an utopian manner. Our affirmation of rationality. A rationality and freedom and ethics and hermeneutics and critique and praxis not open to exteriority are incomplete, truncated, mutilated. Exteriority is the positive ground enabling us to go fully beyond a merely negative dialectic. 9 We affirm, then, the ethical necessity of pursuing ethical community and democratic socialism as the rational embodiment of that vision. Here it is important to be clear about the difference between acquisitive, empirical reason and constitutive, ethical reason. Ethical community as utopia is not primarily something I stand back and predict objectively and scientifically; it is something to which I commit myself ethically and politically.An example from the sphere of personal morality should make the difference clear. When a friend, relative, teacher, or minister counsels an alcoholic to confront her habit, she is not making a prediction. Indeed, it may seem unlikely, given this particular person's past history, that she will lick her habit. Nonetheless, the moral obligation to get over her habit remains. Similarly, an obligation exists to get over our capitalism as a social equivalent of drunkenness. If the argument of this chapter is correct, we cannot renounce such an attempt at transcendence without giving up on the ethical project or curtailing that project by confining it to the sphere of intimate, interpersonal relations. I am a good father or husband or lover in my private life, but I remain exploitative, cruel, and inhumane in my public, capitalistic life. Such ethical renunciation or curtailment is the death or mutilation of the human; denial of utopia is a living death. Ideologies of scientific elitism, therefore, as they "utopia" as essential and implied by ''rationality" in the full sense just completes and fills out our affirmation of exteriority as linked to function in capitalist society are correct if there is no such thing as ethical, constitutive reason operating in community. If such constitutive reason is possible and actual in human beings as human in community, then scientific elitism is false. Men and women acting democratically and participatively do have a capacity to understand themselves and their lives in a way that is cogent and in touch with reality. Indeed, many of the popular movements in Europe, England, and the United States in the last twenty years such as feminism, environmentalism, civil rights, and antiwar movements, often acting against the advice or opinions of experts, have shown themselves to be right and effective. In the Vietnam War, for example, millions of people in the United States taking to the streets in protest proved the "best and the brightest" in the White House, Pentagon, and State Department wrong. The "best and the brightest" according to the standards of scientific elitism proved to be deluded. The presence of an ethical, political rationality in all of us as human invalidates scientific elitism at its To think in a utopian manner, then, about community and socialism is to free ourselves from the excessive hold that science and technology exert over our minds and imaginations. We begin to see that science and technology and expertise, even though they are legitimate within their own core. As I am arguing it here, a fundamental link exists among dialectical phenomenology, ethical, constitutive rationality, and democracy. Philosophy and ethics, properly understood, are antielitist. 10 proper domains, do not exhaust or monopolize the definition of reason and other forms of reason and knowledge that are more informative, profound, and fundamental. Indeed, compared to certain expressions of art or ethics or philosophy or religion, science and technology are relatively superficial. What revelatory power does a scientific equation have compared to Hamlet's "To be or not to be" speech? What does an empirical study of human populations show me about human life compared to the insight of Marx's Capital? What can a factual study of war show about its horrors compared to Picasso's Guernica ?11 To the extent, therefore, that science and technology dominate in the twentieth century as not only the highest forms of reason but the only forms of reason, they shove other, more profound, more reflective, more fundamental forms of reason to the side and twentieth-century industrial society emerges as an inverted, topsy-turvy, absurd world. What seems normal, factual, rational, and sane in such a world is in fact abnormal, apparent, irrational, and absurd. We begin Last printed 92 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 93 to suspect and see that science and technology appear as the highest and only forms of reason because capitalism has appropriated science and technology for its own ends as productive force and ideology. In science and technology capitalism has found the forms of rationality most appropriate for itself, perfectly manifesting it, mirroring it, and justifying it. In such an absurd, inverted, topsy-turvy world, fidelity to the life of reason demands critique, resistance, and revolutionary transcendence. One has to pierce the veil of such a world, see through it as absurd rather than accepting it as normal and sane. The prevailing rationality is profoundly irrational.12 Last printed 93 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 94 Alt solves poverty Capitalism in the present fails- reform to eradicate poverty possible using social business- debaters key to future Yunas, Managing Director of Grameen Bank, co-winner of 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, ‘07 (Muhammad Yunas, Managing Director of Grameen Bank, co-winner of 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, December 2007, “Creating a World Without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism.” http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=104&sid=36caeaf8d671-48f1-880c-f5a7d98adcb8%40sessionmgr4) But much more could be done if the dynamics of capitalism could be applied to humanity's greatest challenges. There are many things that free markets do very well, but a sense of disillusionment is setting in, even as capitalism thrives and global trade is booming. Why have free markets failed so many people? The reason is simple: "unfettered markets in their current form are not meant to solve social problems and instead may actually exacerbate poverty, disease, pollution, corruption, crime, and inequality." Globalization as a general business principle can bring more benefits to the poor than any other alternative, but without proper oversight and guidelines, it has the potential to be highly destructive. To have win-win globalization, we must have fair trafïic laws, traffic signals, and traffic police. Otherwise, the global free market falls under control of financial imperialism. In the same way, national, regional, and local markets need reasonable rules and controls to protect the poor; otherwise, the rich can easily bend conditions to their own benefit. Govemment can help create the world we all want to live in. But even an excellent regulatory regime is not enough to ensure that serious social problems will be solved. Frustrated with govemment, many people have started nonprofit organizations, yet nonprofits, NGOs, and foundations cannot be expected to solve the world's social ills. Nor have multilateral institutions such as the World Bank achieved much in attaining their professed social goals. Corporate social or strong forms (doing good for people and the planet), is built on good intentions but is often mere window dressing. Advocates of CSR talk about the triple bottom line, but ultimately only financial profit calls the shots. "By their nature, corporations are not equipped to deal with social problems." "To make the structure of capitalism complete, we need to introduce another kind of business—one that recognizes the multidimensional nature of human beings." In contrast to profitmaximizing businesses (PMBs), a new kind of business is needed where entrepreneurs set up social businesses, not to achieve limited personal gain but to pursue specific social goals. A social business is not a charity, but a business in every sense that must recover its full costs and recoup investments, but with the profit-maximization principle replaced by the social-benefit principle. The bottom line for the social business is to operate without incurring losses while serving the people and the planet—especially the most disadvantaged—in the best possible manner. Competing social businesses will push each other to improve their efficiency and to serve people and the planet better. Two possible kinds of social businesses: responsibility, in weak forms (doing no harm to people or planet) companies that focus on providing a social benefit such as poverty reduction, health care for the poor, social justice, etc.; and profit-maximizing businesses owned by the poor or disadvantaged, which may or many nor create a social benefit. (This is not to be equated with social entrepreneurship, of which social business is a subset.) Some of the sources from which social businesses of the future might spring: existing PMBs launching their own social businesses, foundations creating social-business investment funds, individual entrepreneurs, dedicated funds from intemational development donors, governments, retired persons with wealth to spare,- and idealistic young people. Concludes by sketching a "dream world" of 2050 with no poor people, no passports or visas, no war and no military establishment, no more incurable diseases, a global education system accessible to all, a single global currency, all people committed to a sustainable lifestyle based on appropriate technologies, and social business as a substantial part of the business world. These are all achievable goals. "This process of imagining a future world of our liking is a major missing element in our education system." Last printed 94 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 95 Alt solves violence Capitalism is at a tipping point-breaking it down is the only way to avoid violence Meszaros, prof at University of Sussex, 95 Istvan Meszaros, 1995, Professor at University of Sussex, England, “Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition” The formation of the modern state is an absolute requirement both for securing and for safeguarding on a permanent basis the productive accomplishments of the system. Capital’s coming to dominance in the realm of material production and the development of totalizing political practices in the form of the modern state go hand in hand together. It is, therefore, by no means accidental that the end of capital’s historical ascendancy in the twentieth century should coincide with the crisis of the modern state in all its forms, from liberal democratic state formations to extreme authoritarian capitalist states (like Hitler’s Germany or Pinochet’s Miltonfriendmannized Chile), and from post-colonial regimes to Soviet type postcapitalist states. Understandably, the now unfolding structural crisis of capital deeply affects all state institutions and corresponding organizational practices. Indeed, this crisis brings with it the crisis of politics in general, under all its aspects, and not only under those directly concerned with the ideological legitimation of any particular state system. The modern state is brought into being in its specific historical modality above all in order to be able to exercise comprehensive control over the unruly centrifugal forces emanating from the separate productive units of capital as an antagonistically structured social reproductive system. As mentioned before, the dictum: ‘largent n’a pas de maitre’ signals the radical overturning of what went on before. For by superseding the ruling principle of the feudal reproductive system a new type of socioeconomic microcosm comes into being, characterized by great mobility and dynamism. But the successful unfolding of this dynamism can only take place through a ‘Faustian pact with the devil’, so to speak, without any guarantee whatsoever that in due course a benevolent god might come to the rescue and outwit Mephistopheles when he claims his rightful prize. The modern state constitutes the only feasible remedial structure which is compatible with the structural parameters of capital as a mode of social metabolic control. It is brought into play in order to rectify-again it must be emphasized: only to the extent to which the much need remedial action can be accommodated within capital’s ultimate social metabolic limits-the absence of unity in all three respects referred to in the last section. Last printed 95 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 96 Alt Solves – Feminism It is necessary to analyze the effects that late-capitalism has had on gender. Lowe, editor of Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique, 95 Donald M. Lowe. Ed. Of positions: east asia cultures critique. 1995 The Body in Late Capitalist USA. Gender is socially constructed, rather than biologically destined. But the term "social construction" is a catch-all tag for all sorts of methodological approaches. It opens up a whole new terrain of untested, related issues. We need to admit the different approaches and debate the issues involved. To say that gender is socially constructed is to admit that it is historical and changing, and therefore open to conversation. I propose that the social construction of gender in late-capitalist USA should be analyzed as a set of related, sedimented, though often conflicting practices-practices of production, consumption, and social reproduction which consist of structural, discursive, counter-discursive and semiotic components. Thus, there is complex of discourses, rather than a single discourse, of gender. However, before I go further, I need to make clear the implications of my approach to gender construction. To begin with, I reject any biological determinism or fundamentalism. I do not even accept the assumption of some social constructivists that gender begins with anatomical sex differences as a bipolarity, and that its social construction is scripted on an already bi-polar biological substratum. Rather, I suggest we need to turn our perspectival priority the other way around, In no social formation, at any place, in any time, except in the bourgeois capitalist order, is gender considered to be biologically determined. Other social formations did not even know biology as a scientific discourse of nature; they had other, totally different, all-encompassing, holistic, concepts of nature. And if we insist that gender constructions are scripted on biological differences, that is our interpretation of their social formation not their lived social reality. I further suggest that, in the bourgeois capitalist formation, gender is not actually biologically determined- Foucault ('970) had pointed out that biology is a nineteenth-century discourse of nature. And Kessler and McKrnna (1985) have shown how science is culturally founded, before it provides us with the so-called data from which to generalize. The new discourse of biology "naturalized?' i.e., disguised and obfuscated, the capitalist construction of gender, providing it with a scientific gloss. And it still remains a part of the dominant ideology at present. Last printed 96 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 97 AT: Cap Inevitable (1) The current financial crisis undermines the idea that capitalism is inevitable Grey, staff writer of multiple socialist magazines and political activist, 09 Sarah Grey, staff writer of multiple socialist magazines and political activist, Feb. 2009 “Open Source Anti-Capitalism,” The Monthly Review, http://www.monthlyreview.org/090216grey.php) For decades we’ve been told that “there is no alternative” to global capitalism—that trust in the market was the only way to bring progress and end poverty, despite the clear absence of an actual end to poverty. The global financial crisis of 2008 has undermined the rhetoric of inevitability, as even its most prominent practitioners begin to question the logic of neoliberalism. A Washington Post editorial titled “The End of American Capitalism?” quotes the Nobel Prize–winning former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz as saying: “People around the world once admired us for our economy, and we told them if you wanted to be like us, here’s what you have to do—hand over power to the market. The point now is that no one has respect for that kind of model anymore given this crisis. And of course it raises questions about our credibility. Everyone feels they are suffering now because of us” (October 10, 2008). Those of us who opposed capitalist globalization before the Washington Post was entertaining such criticism have been arguing for many years that it is fundamentally unstable—as well as pointing out that neoliberalism has never worked for the majority of people on the planet. But after so many decades of marginalization, socialists, anarchists, and other critics of the system formerly derided as “flat-earthers” are finding surreal surprises in the daily news, as even Alan Greenspan begins to question the validity of neoliberal economics. Last printed 97 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 98 AT: Cap Inevitable (2) Cap is not inevitable – that belief is utopian and is maintained by the capitalist consensus to deny radical change. Johnston, Prof of philosophy, U of New mexico, 04 [Adrian, International journal of Zizek studes. Vol 1.0 “The Cynic’s Fetish: Slavoj Žižek and the Dynamics of Belief”] A brief remark by Žižek hints that, despite his somewhat pessimistic assessment of traditional Marxism, he basically agrees with the Marxist conviction that the demise of capitalism is an inevitable, unavoidable historical necessity—“The ultimate answer to the reproach that the radical Left proposals are utopian should thus be that, today, the true utopia is the belief that the present liberal-democratic capitalist consensus could go on indefinitely, without radical changes.”151 This hurling of the charge of utopianism back at those making it is quite convincing. In fact, any system proclaiming to be the embodiment of “the end of history” invariably appears to be utopian. Given what is known about the merciless march of history, believing that an ultimate, unsurpassable socio-political arrangement finally has arrived is almost impossible. So, one should indeed accept as true the unlikelihood of capitalism continuing on indefinitely; it must eventually give way to something else, even if this “x” cannot be envisioned clearly from within the present context. Nonetheless, Žižek’s own theorizing calls for a great deal of cautious reservation about the consequences of embracing this outlook as true, of falling into the trap of (to invoke this motif once more) lying in the guise of truth. Just as the combination of a purely negative, critical Marxism with the anticipation of the event of the act-miracle threatens to turn into an intellectual fetish (in the Žižekian ideological sense of something that renders the present reality bearable), so too might acknowledging the truth of capitalism’s finitude have the same unfortunate side-effect. One can tolerate today’s capitalism, because one knows that it cannot last forever; one can passively and patiently wait it out (at one point, Žižek identifies this anticipation of indeterminate change-yet-to-come as a disempowering lure, although he doesn’t explicitly acknowledge that his own work on ideology sometimes appears to be enthralled by just such a lure152). In both cases, the danger is that the very analyses developed by Žižek in his assault upon late-capitalist ideology might serve to facilitate the sustenance of the cynical distance whose underlying complicity with the present state of affairs he describes so well. Last printed 98 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 99 AT: Cap Inevitable (3) The contradictions inherent to capitalism make its collapse inevitable. MESZAROS (Prof. Emeritus @ Univ. Sussex) 1995 [Istavan, Beyond Capital: Towards a Theory of Transition] p. 438-9 NEVERTHELESS, we may speak of the age of transition to socialism meaningfully in that: Capital is presented with a dangerously narrowing range of feasible alternatives to the full activation of its structural crisis. Thus: the shrinking size of the world directly controlled by private capital in the twentieth century; the sheer magnitude of the resources required for displacing its contradictions, within the constraints of an ominously diminishing return;3t5 the slowly emerging saturation of the global framework of profitable capital production;3i9 — the chronic difficulties encountered in and generated by raising the necessary revenue for keeping in existence the parasitic sections of capital, at the expense of its productive parts; the noticeable weakening of the ideolothegical power of manipulative institutons (which were originally established under the circumstances of postwar economic expansion and its twin brother: the ‘welfare state’) at times of recession and growing ‘structural unemployment’. Characteristically, this is the only context in which the apologists of capital have, at long last, taken notice of the existence of structural conditions and determinations. But, of course, the admission that unemployment is now ‘structural is stated — with a logic worthy of capital’s ‘analytical’ wisdom — not so as to call for a change in the structure (the social order) in which such consequences are unavoidable. On the contrary, in order to justify and maintain the selfsame structure intact, at whatever human cost, accepting ‘structural unemployment’ as the permanent feature of the one and only conceivable structure. We can see here, again, the ‘eternalization of bourgeois conditions’, even in the face of a dramatically obvious and highly disturbing historical development. Yesterday the oracle said: ‘Full Employment in a Free Society’ (see the Lib-Labouring Lord Beveridge’s book of the same title); today it talks about ‘structural unemployment’. But, of course, nothing has really changed, and especially: nothing ought to change. For unemployment is ‘structural’, and therefore it is here to stay to the end of rinse. All these trends indicate a very real movement towards the ultimate limits of capital as such, and hence they show the historical actuality of a painful but inescapable process of transition. Last printed 99 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 100 AT: Cap decreases poverty (1) Neoliberalism and macroeconomic policy has failed to result in a decline in poverty or increased economic stability. This is because of a failure to recognize our own role within capitalism, and the character of globalization Magubane, associate professor of sociology and African studies at the University of Illinois, 04 (Zine Magubane, associate professor of sociology and African studies at the University of Illinois, “The Revolution Betrayed?: Globalization, Neoliberalism, and the Post-Apartheid State,” South Atlantic Quarterly, 2004, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/south_atlantic_quarterly/v103/103.4magubane.html) Nasser rightly points out that capitalism is "a system, not a policy."27 Failure to realize this can result in policies and analyses that obfuscate more than [End Page 664] they clarify. Turning to the specific case of the ANC, I believe that Jeremy Cronin is largely correct in his assertion that a major weakness of macroeconomic policy making within the ANC has been a failure to appreciate the fact that "our problems might be linked to the systematic and objective character of global capitalism and our own semiperipheral position within it. . . . The emphasis is on 'marketing' ourselves better, convincing the world that 'South Africa is not Zimbabwe,' rather than on adopting antisystemic measures."28 The question remains, however, of what possibilities currently exist for any government seeking to adopt antisystemic measures. In an article about the economic stagnation currently afflicting the U.S. economy, the editors of the Monthly Review aptly observe that "there is little inkling in establishment circles of the underlying problems facing capitalist economies. . . . Since the prevailing wisdom is that a capitalist economy naturally tends toward high levels of investment, breakneck growth, and economic prosperity, the idea of a tendency toward stagnation, intrinsic to a mature capitalist economy, is excluded almost by definition."29 This type of ideological hegemony is even more pronounced in discussions about the developing world. William K. Tabb correctly observes that the ultimate irony of neoliberalism is that its "failure to stimulate growth, produce a decline in poverty, or generate greater economic stability has led to the 'augmented' Washington Consensus, brought to you by many of the same folks who produced the original version."30 There is no question that neoliberalism has failed in terms of its announced goals, particularly in terms of bringing rapid economic growth, reduced poverty, or economic stability. Patrick Bond, a South African economist, argues that the recent international financial crisis has given South African leaders a "rare opportunity" to make a case against neoliberalism in international forum such as the Non Aligned Movement and the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.31 Indeed, there is some evidence that the failure of IMF and World Bank policies both in South Africa and internationally resulted in a more emboldened critique emanating from certain quarters in South Africa. For example, in September 2000 Reserve Bank governor Tito Mboweni was quoted as saying, "In the past 10 years the number of people living in extreme poverty—on less than one dollar a day— has risen to a quarter of the world's population. You would think that with such a devastating indictment of their failed policies the World Bank would reform its own policies and practices. But no, almost in defiance [End Page 665] of the evidence it continues to push its simplistic, useless free-market strategies for solving poverty."32 Mboweni's comments were prompted by Trevor Manuel's chairing of the 2000 meeting of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Prague. Indeed, Bill Jordan, general-secretary of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) took the occasion of South Africa's chairing of the annual meeting to put pressure on the ANC government to push for more reforms in the global financial architecture. "A strong argument for real reform coming from South Africa will make a difference at that meeting."33 Last printed 100 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 101 AT: Cap Key to Space Capitalism threatens human survival. It is the root of nuclear war, environmental destruction, and northsouth conflict. The expansionist capitalism of the affirmative will push the US to militarize space and may trigger accidental launch and global nuclear war Marko, 2003 (“Indymedia UK, “Anarchism and Human Survival: Russell's Problem”, 5-14, http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/05/68173.html) the real threats to human survival, threats which are self induced. Much speculation and movie making is devoted toward such survival threatening events as asteroid strikes and mantle head plumes. What is totally ignored is the threat to human survival posed by our own institutions. We can notch another one for the propaganda model; it is to be expected that our pathological institutions would not dwell Bertrand Russell throughout his long career as a public intellectual and political activist had reason to reflect on the follies of humanity and on their inherent pathology. We can expect nothing less of the corporate media. I shall argue that we face what I refer to as "Russell's problem": “are Homo sapiens an intelligent maladaptive organism doomed to self extinction”? There exists good reason to suppose that a maladaptive, intelligent, organism would indeed cause its own extinction simply because of the destructive potential of intelligence. This is one of the farces of many science fiction stories, such as Star Trek, which posit the existence of hideous innately war like but highly intelligent species. This is not a productive mix; surely any advanced species, in order to reach such heights as intergalactic travel, would need to be a species that places a premium on cooperation and solidarity. An avaricious intelligent species would only over time succeed in There exist three threats to survival namely nuclear war, ecological change and north-south conflict. All three I would argue can be traced to a single source that being the pathological nature of state capitalism. What is frightening is that eventual self induced extinction is a rational consequence of our system of world order much like the destruction of the system of world order destroying itself and much of the ecological basis for the support of life long before it would be able to traverse wormholes. prior to 1914 was a rational consequence of its internal nature. I shall focus in this essay on nuclear war, the most immediate threat. In doing so we will come to Currently we are witnessing a major expansion in the US global military system. One facet of this expansion is the globalisation of US nuclear war planning known as "adaptive planning". The idea here is that the US would be able to execute a nuclear strike against any target on Earth at very short notice. For strategic planners the world's population is what they refer to as a "target rich environment". The Clinton era commander of appreciate the nexus between this threat, globalisation and north-south conflict. US nuclear forces, Admiral Mies, stated that nuclear ballistic missile submarines would be able to "move undetected to any launch point" threatening "any spot on What lies at the heart of such a policy is the desire to maintain global strategic superiority what is known as "full spectrum dominance" previously referred to as "escalation dominance". Full spectrum dominance means that the US Earth". would be able to wage and win any type of war ranging from a small scale contingency to general nuclear war. Strategic nuclear superiority is to be used to threaten other states so that they toe the party line. The Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review stipulated that nuclear weapons are needed in case of "surprising military developments" not necessarily limited to chemical or biological weapons. The Clinton administration was more explicit stating in its 2001 Pentagon report to Congress that US nuclear forces are to "hedge against defeat of conventional forces in defense of vital interests". The passage makes clear that this statement is not limited to chemical or biological weapons. We have just seen in Iraq what is meant by the phrase "defense of vital interests". Washington is asserting that if any nation were to have the temerity to successfully defend itself against US invasion, armed with conventional weapons only, then instant annihilation awaits. "What we say goes" or you go is the message being conveyed. Hitler no doubt would have had a similar conception of "deterrence". It should be stressed that this is a message offered to the whole world after all it is now a target rich environment. During the cold war the US twice contemplated using nuclear weapons in such a fashion both in Vietnam, the first at Dien Bien Phu and during Nixon administration planning for "operation duck hook". In both cases the main impediments to US action were the notion that nuclear weapons were not politically "useable" in such a context and because of the Soviet deterrent. The Soviet deterrent is no more and the US currently is hotly pursuing the development of nuclear weapons that its designers believe will be "useable" what the Clinton administration referred to as low yield earth penetrating nuclear weapons and what the Bush administration refers to as the Rapid Nuclear Earth Penetrator. Such strategic reforms are meant to make nuclear war a more viable policy option, on the basis that lower yields will not immediately kill as many innocent people as higher yield weapons. This is known as the lowering of the threshold of nuclear war. The development of the RNEP draws us closer to the prospect of nuclear war, including accidental nuclear war, because lower yields will lower the barrier between conventional and nuclear war. There will exist no real escalatory firewall between these two forms of warfare which means that in any conventional crisis involving nuclear powers, there will exist a strong incentive to strike first. A relationship very similar to the interaction between the mobilisation schedules of the great powers prior to 1914. There exist strong parallels between US nuclear planning and the German Imperial Staff’s Schlieffen plan. Lowering the threshold of nuclear war will also enhance pressures for global nuclear proliferation. If the US is making its arsenal more useable by working towards achieving a first strike capability, then others such as Russia and China must react in order to ensure the viability of their deterrents. Moreover, the potential third world targets of US attack would also have greater incentive to ensure that they also have a nuclear deterrent. It is also understood that the development of these nuclear weapons may require the resumption of nuclear testing, a key reason for the Administration's lack of readiness to abide by the CTBT treaty, which is meant to ban nuclear testing. The CTBT is a key feature of contemporary global nuclear non proliferation regimes for (Marko Cont. no text deleted) the US signed the CTBT in order to extend the nuclear non proliferation treaty (NPT) indefinitely. Abandoning the CTBT treaty, in order to develop a new generation Last printed 101 GT Capitalism Alex Blank further nuclear proliferation. There exists a "deadly connection" between global weapons of mass destruction proliferation and US foreign policy. Dartmouth 2k9 102 of more "useable" nuclear weapons that will lower the threshold of nuclear war, will place the NPT regime under further strain and greatly increase the chances of One may well ask what has all this to do with state capitalism? Consider the thinking behind the militarisation of space, outlined for us by Space Command; “historically military forces have evolved to protect national interests and investments – both military and economic. During the rise of sea commerce, nations built navies to protect and enhance their commercial interests. During the westward expansion of the continental United States, military outposts and the cavalry emerged to protect our wagon trains, settlements and roads”. The document goes on, “the emergence of space power follows both of these models”. Moreover, “the globalization of the world economy will continue, with a widening between ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. The demands of unilateral strategic superiority, long standing US policy known as "escalation" or "full spectrum" dominance, compel Washington to pursue “space control". This means that, according to a report written under the chairmanship of Donald Rumsfeld, "in the coming period the US will conduct operations to, from, in and through space" which includes "power As a result there will inevitably arise an arms race in space. The importance of this simply cannot be over-emphasised. Throughout the nuclear age there have been a number of close calls, due to both human and technical error, that almost lead to a full scale nuclear exchange between Washington and Moscow. These glitches in command and control systems projection in, from and through space". Toward this end, Washington has resisted efforts in the UN to create an arms control regime for space. were ultimately benign because both sides had early warning satellites placed in specialised orbits which could be relied upon to provide real time imagery of nuclear However the militarisation of space now means that these satellites will become open game; the benign environment in space will disappear if the militarisation of space continues. Thus if the US were to "conduct operations to, from in and through space" it will do see remotely. Technical failure may result in the system attacking Russian early warning satellites. Without question this would be perceived by the Russian's as the first shot in a US nuclear first strike. missile launch sites. Consider for instance a curious event that occurred in 1995. A NASA research rocket, part of a study of the northern lights, was fired over Norway. The rocket was it takes only a single rocket to achieve this effect because it was no doubt perceived by Russian planners that this single rocket was meant to disable their perceived by the Russian early warning system as the spear of a US first strike. The Russian system then began a countdown to full scale nuclear response; command and control system as a result of electromagnetic pulse effects. To prevent the loss of all nuclear forces in a subsequent follow on strike the Russian's would need to launch a full scale response as soon as possible. Because the US itself has a hair trigger launch on warning posture a Russian attack would be followed by a full scale US attack; the US has a number of "reserve options" in its war plans, thus such an accidental launch could trigger a global chain of nuclear release around the globe. Calamity was averted in 1995 because Russia's early warning satellites would have demonstrated that there was no launch of US nuclear forces. If these satellites were to be taken out then this ultimate guarantee disappears; the Russian ground based radar system has a number of key holes that prevent it from warning of an attack through two key corridors, one from the Atlantic the other from the Pacific. In the future if an event such as 1995 were to occur in space the Russians no longer would have the level of comfort provided by its space based assets. The militarisation of space greatly increases the chances of a full scale accidental nuclear war. Last printed 102 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 103 AT: Pragmatism Understanding capitalism’s pervasive tendencies and the psychological reasoning behind the system allows us to escape current modes of political thought – searching for pragmatic political solutions locks us into the dominant and oppressive structures of the status quo Zizek, professor of sociology at the Institute for Sociology, Ljubljana, 04 (Slavoj, professor of sociology at the Institute for Sociology, Ljubljana, “Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle – Utopia and the Gentle Art of Killing.” Pg. 113-114, http://books.google.com/books? id=LGxif5RsttUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+borrowed+kettle&ei=vGtoSsahEZHyMrGk3aUB) Thus the present crisis compels us to rethink democracy itself as today’s Master-Signifier. Democracy qua ideology functions principally as the space of a virtual alternative: the very prospect of a change in power, the looming possibility of this change, makes us endure the existing power relations – that is to say, these existing relations are stabilized, rendered tolerable, by the false opening. (In a strict homology, subjects accept there economic situation if it accompanied by an awareness of the possibility of change – ‘good luck is just around the corner’.) The opponents of capitalist globalization like to emphasize the importance of keeping the dreams alive: global capitalism is not the end of history, it is possible to think and act differently – what, however, if it is this very lure of a possible change which guarantees that nothing will actually change? What if it only full acceptance of the desperate closure of the present global situation that can push towards actual change? In this precise way, the virtual alternative displays an actuality of its own; in other words, it is a positive ontological constituent of the existing order. Last printed 103 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 104 AT: Perm (1) Perm fails – must accept the entirety of the Marxist impulse – we cannot reject the ugly parts and conditionally support revolutionaries if they act “with good manners” Zizek, 2008 (Slavoj, In Defense of Lost Causes, pp.175-177) In modern history, the politics of revolutionary terror casts its shadow over the epoch which spans from Robespierre to Mao, or, more generally, the disintegration of the Communist bloc in 1990 —its last installment was the Maoist Cultural Revolution. Obviously, the socio-historical context had changed radically between the French Revolution and the Cultural Revolution—to put it in Platonist terms, what unites the two is precisely and only the same "eternal" idea of revolutionary Justice. In the case of Mao, the question is even whether one can legitimately count him as a Marxist, since the social base of the Maoist revolution was not the working class. One of the most devious traps which lurk for Marxist theorists is the search for the moment of the Fall, when things took the wrong turning in the history of Marxism: was it already the late Engels with his more positivistevolutionary understanding of historical materialism? Was it the revisionism and the orthodoxy of the Second International? Was it Lenin?^^ Or was it Marx himself in his late work, after he had abandoned his youthful humanism (as some "humanist Marxists" claimed decades ago)? This entire trope has to be rejected: there is no opposition here, the Fall is to be inscribed in the very origins. (To put it even more pointedly, such a search for the intruder who infected the original model and set in motion its degeneration cannot but reproduce the logic of anti-Semitism.) What this means is that, even if—or, rather, especially if—one submits the Marxist past to ruthless critique, one has first to acknowledge it as "one's own, " taking full responsibility for it, not to comfortably reject the "bad" side of things by attributing it to a foreign element (the "bad" Engels who was too stupid to understand Marx's dialectics, the "bad" Lenin who did not grasp the core of Marx's theory, the "bad" Stalin who spoilt the noble plans of the "good" Lenin, and so on). The first thing we must do is to fully endorse the displacement in the history of Marxism concentrated in two great passages (or, rather, violent cuts): the passage from Marx to Lenin, as well as the passage from Lenin to Mao. In each case, there is a displacement of the original constellation: from the most advanced country (as Marx expected) to a relatively backward country—the revolution "took place in the wrong country"; from workers to (poor) peasants as the main revolutionary agent. In the same way as Christ needed Paul's "betrayal" in order for Christianity to emerge as a universal Church (recall that, amongst the twelve apostles, Paul occupies the place of Judas the traitor, replacing him!), Marx needed Lenin's "betrayal" in order to enact the first Marxist revolution: it is an inner necessity of the "original" teaching to submit to and survive this "betrayal"; to survive this violent act of being torn out of one's original context and thrown into a foreign landscape where it has to reinvent itself—only in this way is universality born. So, apropos the second violent transposition, that of Mao, it is too easy either to condemn his reinvention of Marxism as theoretically "inadequate," as a regression with regard to Marx's standards (it is easy to show that peasants lack substanceless proletarian subjectivity), but it is equally too facile to blur the violence of the cut and to accept Mao's reformulation as a logical continuation or "application" of Marxism (relying, as is usually the case, on the simple metaphoric expansion of class struggle: "today's predominant class struggle is no longer between capitalists and proletariat in each country, it has shifted to the Third versus the First World, bourgeois versus proletarian nations"). The achievement of Mao is here tremendous: his name stands for the political mobilization of the hundreds of millions of anonymous Third World layers whose labor provides the invisible "substance," the background, of historical development—the mobilization of all those whom even such a poet of "otherness " as Levinas dismissed as the "yellow peril", as we see in what is arguably his weirdest text, "The RussoChinese Debate and the Dialectic" (1960), a comment on the Soviet—Chinese conflict: The yellow peril! It is not racial, it is spiritual. It does not involve inferior values; it involves a radical strangeness, a stranger to the weight of its past, from where there does not filter any familiar voice or inflection, a lunar or Martian past. Does this not recall Heidegger's insistence, throughout the 1930s, that the main task of Western thought today was to defend the Greek breakthrough, the founding gesture of the "West," the overcoming of the pre-philosophical, mythical, "Asiatic" universe, to struggle against the renewed "Asiatic" threat—the greatest adversary of the West was "the mythical in general and the Asiatic in particular"? It is this Asiatic "radical strangeness" which is mobilized, politicized, by Mao Zedong's Communist movement. In his Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel introduces his notorious notion of womankind as "the everlasting irony of the community": womankind "changes by intrigue the universal end of the government into a private end, transforms its universal activity into a work of some particular individual, and perverts the universal property of the state into a possession and ornament for the family. "^^ In contrast to male ambition, a woman wants power in order to promote her own narrow family interests or, even worse, her personal caprice, incapable as she is of perceiving the universal dimension of state politics. How are we not to recall F.W.J. Schelling's claim that "the same principle carries and A power which, when it is kept in its proper place, can be benign and pacifying, turns into its radical opposite, into the most destructive fury, the moment it holds us in its ineffectiveness which would consume and destroy us in its effectiveness"?'*'^ Last printed 104 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 105 intervenes at a higher level, the level which is not its own: the tame femininity which, within the closed circle of family life, is the power of protective love, turns into obscene frenzy when displayed at the level of public and state affairs . . . In short, it is acceptable for a woman to protest against public state power on behalf of the rights of the family and kinship; but woe to a society in which women endeavor directly to influence decisions concerning the affairs of state, manipulating their weak male partners, effectively emasculating them . . . Is there not something similar in the terror aroused by the prospect of the awakening of the anonymous Asian masses? They are fine if they protest at their fate and allow us to help them (through large-scale humanitarian activity), but not when they "empower" themselves, to the horror of sympathetic liberals, always ready to support the revolt of the poor and dispossessed, so long as it is done with good manners . . . Last printed 105 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 106 AT: Perm (2) The movement is already there, what we need to unite it is to universalize the struggle; cooperation within the exsting system only legitimizes it and stops the revolution Zizek, 2002 (Slavoj, Senior Researcher at the Kulturwissenschaftliches Institut in Essen [among other things], “A Plea for Leninist Intolerance,” Cultural Inquiry, Winter, Proquest) Today we can already discern the signs of a kind of general unease. Recall the series of events usually listed under the name of Seattle. The ten-year honeymoon of triumphant global capitalism is over; the longoverdue seven-year itch is here-witness the panicked reactions of big media, which from Time magazine to CNN suddenly started to warn about the Marxists manipulating the crowd of "honest" protesters. The problem is now the strictly Leninist one: how to actualize the media's accusations, how to invent the organizational structure that will confer on this unrest the form of a universal political demand. Otherwise the momenturn will be lost, and what will remain is a marginal disturbance, perhaps organized as a new Greenpeace, endowed with a certain efficiency but also strictly limited goals, marketing strategy, and so forth. In other words, the key Leninist lesson today is that politics without the organizational form of the party is politics without politics, so the answer to those who want just the (quite adequately named) new social movements is the same as the answer of the Jacobins to the Girondin compromisers: "You want revolution without a revolution!" Today's challenge is that there are two ways open for sociopolitical engagement: either play the game of the system, engage in the long march through the institutions, or get active in new social movements, from feminism to ecology to antiracism. And, again, the limit of these movements is that they are not political in the sense of the universal singular: they are one-issue movements that lack the dimension of universality; that is, they do not relate to the social totality. Here, Lenin's reproach to liberals is crucial. They only exploit the working classes' discontent to strengthen their position vis-a-vis the conservatives instead of identifying with it to the end.16 Is this also not the case with today's left liberals? They like to evoke racism, ecology, workers' grievances, and so on to score points over the conservatives without endangering the system. Recall how, at Seattle, Bill Clinton himself deftly referred to the protesters on the streets outside, reminding the gathered leaders inside the guarded palaces that they should listen to the message of the demonstrators (a message that, of course, Clinton interpreted, depriving it of the subversive sting attributed to the dangerous extremists introducing chaos and violence into the majority of peaceful protesters). It's the same with all new social movements, up to the Zapatistas in Chiapas: systemic politics is always ready to listen to their demands, thus depriving them of their proper political sting. The system is by definition ecumenic, open, tolerant, ready to listen to all; even if one insists on one's demands, they are deprived of their universal political sting by the very form of negotiation. Last printed 106 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 107 AT: Perm (3) Negotiation coopts our ability to radically restructure society-we must dogmatically stick to the revolution or it will be diluted and rearticulated back into capitalist structures Zizek, 2002 (Slavoj, Senior Researcher at the Kulturwissenschaftliches Institut in Essen [among other things], “A Plea for Leninist Intolerance,” Cultural Inquiry, Winter, Proquest) So how are we to respond to the eternal dilemma of the radical Left? Should one strategically support center-left figures like Bill Clinton against the conservatives, or should one adopt the stance of "It doesn't matter, we shouldn't get involved in these fights-in a way, it is even better if the Right is directly in power, since, in this way, it will be easier for the people to see the truth of the situation?" The answer is the variation of old Stalin's answer to the question "Which deviation is worse, the rightist or the leftist one?" They are both worse. What one should do is adopt the stance of the proper dialectical paradox. In principle, of course, one should be indifferent toward the struggle between the liberal and conservative poles of today's official politics. However, one can only afford to be indifferent if the liberal option is in power. Otherwise, the price to be paid may appear much too high-recall the catastrophic consequences of the German Communist Party's decision in the early thirties not to focus on the struggle against the Nazis, with the justification that the Nazi dictatorship is the last, desperate stage of the capitalist domination, which will open eyes to the working class, shattering their belief in bourgeois democratic institutions. Along these lines, Claude Lefort himself, whom no one can accuse of communist sympathies, recently made a crucial point in his answer to Francois Furet: today's liberal consensus is the result of 150 years of the leftist workers' struggle and pressure upon the state; it incorporated demands that were one hundred or even fewer years ago dismissed by liberals as horror.4 As proof, one should just look at the list of the demands at the end of the Communist Manifesto. Apart from two or three of them (which, of course, are the key ones), all others are today part of the consensus (at least that of the disintegrating welfare state): universal suffrage, the right to free education, universal health care, care for the retired, limitation of child labor, and so on. Today, in a time of continuous swift changes, from the digital revolution to the retreat of old social forms, this thought is more than ever exposed to the temptation of losing its nerve, of precociously abandoning the old conceptual coordinates. The media constantly bombard us with the need to abandon the old paradigms, insisting that if we are to survive we have to change our most fundamental notions of personal identity, society, environment, and so forth. New Age wisdom claims that we are entering a new "posthuman" era; postmodern political thought is telling us that we are entering a postindustrial phase in which the old categories of labor, collectivity, class, and the like are theoretical zombies, no longer applicable to the dynamics of modernization. And the same holds for psychoanalysis: starting from the rise of the ego-psychology in the 1930s, psychoanalysts have been losing their nerve, laying down their (theoretical) arms, hastening to concede that the oedipal matrix of socialization is no longer operative, that we live in times of universalized perversion, that the concept of repression is of no use in our permissive times. The Third Way ideology and political practice is effectively the model of this defeat, of this inability to recognize how the new is here to enable the old to survive. Against this temptation, one should rather follow the unsurpassed model of Pascal and ask the difficult question: how are we to remain faithful to the old in the new conditions? Only in this way can we generate something effectively new. Last printed 107 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 108 AT: Perm (4) Reform is impossible-capitalism is structured to make alternatives seem taboo, no chance of escaping from within the system Meszaros 95 Istvan Meszaros, 1995, Professor at University of Sussex, England, “Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition” It is always incomparably easier to say ‘no’ than to draw even the bare outlines of-a positive alternative to the negated object. Only on the basis of a coherent strategic view or the overall social complex can even a partial negation of the existent be considered plausible and legitimate For, the alternative advancewhether explicitly or by implication-by any serious negation of the given conditions must be sustainable within it own framework of a social whole, if it is to have any hope of success against the ‘’incorporating’ power of the potentially always ‘hybrid’ established world into which the forces of a critiue want to make an inroad. The point of the socialist project, as originally conceived, was precisely to counterpose such a strategic overall alternative to the existent, and not to remedy, in an integrable way, some if its most glaring defects. For the latter could only facilitate-as indeed varieties of reformism did-the continued operation of cpaital’s mode of metabolic control within the new ’hybrid’ system, notwithstanding its crisis. As time went by, the socialist political adversaries of commodity society became hopelessly fragmented by the rewards which the ruling order could offer, and the capital system as such successfully adapted itself to all partial criticism coming from the socialdemocratic parties, undermining at the same time the original socialist vision as a strategic alternative. The ruling ideology-understandably from its own standpoint-declared that ‘Wholism’ was the odeiological enemy, assured in the knowledge that even the sharpest partial criticism becomes quite impotent if it totalizing framework of intelligibility (and potential legitimacy) is categorically ruled ‘out of court’, with the help of the exorcizing pseudo-philosophical swearword of ‘Wholism’ (or of its several equivalents). Thus, the positive approval of the overall framework and command structure of capital became the absolute premiss of all legitimate political discourse in the capitalist countries, and was willingly accepted as the common frame of reference by the socialdemocratic/labourite interlocutors. At the same time, and notwithstanding its verbal radicalism, the Stalinist system closely mirrored capital's command structure in its own way, liquidating, together with countless militants who tried to remain faithful to the originally envisaged quest for emancipation, even the memory of the genuine socialist objectives. Understandably, therefore, these two principal practical perversions of the international working class movement, emanating from very different sociohistorical circumstances, fatefully undermined all belief in the viability of the socialist alternative with which they were for a long time falsely identified. In reality; far from being coherent and comprehensive socialist negations of the established order, they both represented the line of least resistance under their specific historical conditions, accommodating themselves as modes of social control to the inner demands of the incorrigibly hierarchical capital system. Thus, on the one hand, the failure of the socialdemocratic strategy (given its willing acceptance of the constraints imposed by the parameters of 'selfreforming capitalism') had to take the form of totally abandoning in the end the once held socialist aims. And on the other hand, all efforts at ‘restructuring’ the Stalinist system, from Khruschev’s ‘de-Stalinization’ to Gorbachev’s ‘perestroika’-brought about when running society by means of artificial states of emergency and the corresponding labour camps became both economically and politically untenable- had to founder because the hierarchical command structure of the postrevolutionary social order, with its authoritarian political extraction of surplus-labour (which should have been, instead, the object of a sustained attack) was always retained by the would-be reformers. They could not contemplate restructuring the established structure except by preserving its overall character as a hierarchical structure, since they themselves occupied, as if it was their birth-right, the top echelons. And through their self-contradictory enterprise of ‘restructuring’ without changing the structure itself as the embodiment of the hierarchical social division of labour-just like spcial democracy wanted to reforming capitalism without altering its capitalist substance-they condemned the Soviet system to staggering from one crisis to another. Last printed 108 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 109 AT: Perm (5) Complete rejection is essential – post-politics prevents any movement ground in status quo systems. Zizek 1999 (Slavoj Zizek, The Ticklish Subject pp 198-9) Today, however, we are dealing with another form of the denegation of the political, postmodern post-politics, which no longer merely ‘represses’ the political, trying to contain it and pacify the ‘returns of the repressed’, but much more effectively ‘forecloses’ it, so that the postmodern forms of the ethnic violence, with their ‘irrational’ excessive character, are no longer simple ‘returns of the repressed’ but, rather, represent a case of the foreclosed (from the Symbolic) which, as we know from Lacan, returns in the Real. In post-politics, the conflict of global ideological visions embodied in different parties which compete for power is replaced by the collaboration of enlightened technocrats {economics, public opinion specialists…) and liberal multiculturalists: via the process of negotiation of interests, a compromise is reached in the guise of a more or less universal Conesus. Postpolitics thus emphasizes the need to leave old ideological divisions behind and confront new issues, armed with the necessary expert knowledge and free deliberation that takes people’s concrete needs and demands into account. The best formula that expresses the paradox of post-politics is perhaps Tony Blair’s characterization of New Labour as the ‘Radical Centre’: in the old days of ‘ideological’ political division, the qualification ‘radical’ was reserved either for the extreme Left or for the extreme Right. The Centre was, by definition, moderate: measured 77by the old standards, the term ‘Radical Centre’ is the same nonsense as ‘radical moderation’. What makes New Labour (or Bill Clinton’s politics in the USA) ‘radical’ is its radical abandonment of the ‘old ideological divides’, usually formulated in the guise of a paraphrase of Deng Xiaoping’s motto from the 1960s: ‘It doesn’t matter is a cat is red or white: what matters is that it actually catches mice’: in the same vein, advocates of New Labour like to emphasizes that one should take good ideas without any prejudice and apply them, whatever their ideological origins. And what are these ‘good ideas’? The answer is, of course, ideas that work. It is here that we encounter the gap that separates a political act proper from the ‘administration of social matters’ which remains within the framework of existing sociopolitical relations: the political act (intervention) proper is not simply something that works well within the framework of the existing relations, but something that changes the very framework that determines how things work. To say that good ideas are ‘ideas that work’ means that one accepts in advance the (global capitalist) constellation that determines what works (if, for example, one spends too much money on education or healthcare, that ‘doesn’t work, since it infringes too much on the conditions of capitalist profitability). One can also put it in terms of the well-known definition of politics as the ‘art of the possible’: authentic politics is, rather the exact opposite, that is, the art of the impossible – it changes the very parameters of what is considered ‘possible’ in the existing constellation. Last printed 109 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 110 AT: Perm (6) Capitalism cannot be ended with compromise. A total rejection of the system is necessary to maintain agency and avoid backlash. Anything short of the revolutionary demands of the alternative will make capitalism stronger Bookchin, Environmental theorist and founder of the Social Ecology Institute, 07 (Murry Bookchin is an Environmental theorist and founder of Social Ecology, “Social Ecology and Communalism,” 2007 p. 74-76.) Except where its profits and “growth opportunities” are concerned, capitalism now delights in avowals of the need to “compromise,” to seek a “common ground” – the language of its professoriat no less than its political establishment – which invariably turns out to be its own terrain in a mystified form. Hence the popularity of “market socialism” in self-styled “leftist” periodicals; or possibly “social deep ecology” in deep ecology periodicals like The Trumpeter; or more brazenly, accolades to Gramsci by the Nouvelle Droite in France, or the “Green Adolf” in Germany. A Robin Eckersley has no difficulty juggling the ideas of the Frankfurt School with deep ecology while comparing in truly biocentric fashion the “navigation skills” of birds with the workings of the human mind. The wisdom of making friends with everyone that underpins this academic “discourse” can only lead to a blurring of latent and serious differences – and ultimately to the compromise of all principles and the loss of political direction. The social and cultural decomposition produced by capitalism can be resisted only by taking the most principled stand against the corrosion of nearly all self-professed oppositional ideas. More than at any time in the past, social ecologists should abandon the illusion that a shared use of the word “social” renders all of us into socialists, or that “ecology,” into radical ecologists. The measure of social ecology’s relevance and theoretical integrity consists of its ability to be rational, ethical, coherent, and true to the ideal of the Enlightenment and the revolutionary tradition – not of any ability to earn plaudits from the Price of Wales, Al Gore or Gary Snyder, still less from academics, spiritualists and mystics. In this darkening age when capitalism – the mystified social order par excellence – threatens to globalize the world with capital, commodities, and a facile spirit of “negotiation” and “compromise ,” it is necessary to keep alive the very idea of uncompromising critique. It is not dogmatic to insist on consistency, to infer and contest the logic of a given body of premises, to demand clarity in a time of cultural twilight. Indeed, quite to the contrary, eclecticism and theoretical chaos, not to speak of practices that are more theoretical than threatening and that consistent more of posturing than convincing, will only dim the light of truth and critique. Until social forces emerge that can provide a voice for basic social change rather than spiritual redemption, social ecology must take upon itself the task pf preserving and extending the great tradition from which it has emerged . Should the darkness of capitalist barbarism thicken to the point where this enterprise is no longer possible, history – as the rational development of humanity’s potentialities for freedom and consciousness – will indeed reach its definitive end. Last printed 110 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 111 AT: Plan is good cap Single-issue campaigns like the affirmative are nothing more than masking reforms that sustain the system. The only escape from capitalism is its total destruction, anything less only serves to promote it Herod, political activist, Columbia graduate, 06 (James, “Strategies that have failed” http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/05.htm) 10. Single-issue campaigns. We cannot destroy capitalism with single-issue campaigns. Yet the great bulk of the energies of radicals is spent on these campaigns. There are dozens of them: campaigns to preserve the forests, keep rent control, stop whaling, stop animal experiments, defend abortion rights, stop toxic dumping, stop the killing of baby seals, stop nuclear testing, stop smoking, stop pornography, stop drug testing, stop drugs, stop the war on drugs, stop police brutality, stop union busting, stop red-lining, stop the death penalty, stop racism, stop sexism, stop child abuse, stop the re-emerging slave trade, stop the bombing of Yugoslavia, stop the logging of redwoods, stop the spread of advertising, stop the patenting of genes, stop the trapping and killing of animals for furs, stop irradiated meat, stop genetically modified foods, stop human cloning, stop the death squads in Colombia, stop the World Bank and the World Trade Organization, stop the extermination of species, stop corporations from buying politicians, stop high stakes educational testing, stop the bovine growth hormone from being used on milk cows, stop micro radio from being banned, stop global warming, stop the militarization of space, stop the killing of the oceans, and on and on. What we are doing is spending our lives trying to fix up a system which generates evils far faster than we can ever eradicate them. Although some of these campaigns use direct action (e.g., spikes in the trees to stop the chain saws or Greenpeace boats in front of the whaling ships to block the harpoons), for the most part the campaigns are directed at passing legislation in Congress to correct the problem. Unfortunately, reforms that are won in one decade, after endless agitation, can be easily wiped off the books the following decade, after the protesters have gone home, or after a new administration comes to power. These struggles all have value and are needed. Could anyone think that the campaigns against global warming, or to free Leonard Peltier, or to aid the East Timorese ought to be abandoned? Single issue campaigns keep us aware of what's wrong, and sometimes even win. But in and of themselves, they cannot destroy capitalism, and thus cannot really fix things. It is utopian to believe that we can reform capitalism. Most of these evils can only be eradicated for good if we destroy capitalism itself and create a new civilization. We cannot afford to aim for anything less. Our very survival is at stake. There is one singleissue campaign I can wholehearted endorse: the total and permanent eradication of capitalism. Last printed 111 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 112 AT: Gibson-Graham (1) Gibson-Graham reduce everything to discourse and reject essentializing narratives, but in turn they make the world into one large essentializing discourse. This causes their epistemological project to collapse into itself Poitevin, doctoral program in sociology @ UC Davis, 01 (Rene Francisco “end of anti-capitalism as we knew it: Reflections on postmodern marxism” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3952/is_200101/ai_n8932891/pg_1) The third feature of J.K. Gibson-Graham's work, in particular, and of the whole radical democracy tradition, in general, is its post-structuralist extremism.26 For postmodern Marxists it is not enough to point out that, as both Foucault and Habermas argue, we inhabit an intellectual regime characterized by a paradigm shift from the "philosophy of consciousness" to the "philosophy of language."27 Nor is it good enough for postmodern/post-Marxists to recognize the pitfalls embedded in Hegelian epistemology and argue instead, as Spivak does, for strategic-- uses-of-essentialism as a corrective to the excesses of teleological thinking and fixed notions of class.28 No way. As far as postmodern Marxism is concerned, the only way to compensate for constructions of capitalism that are too totalizing is through the unconditional surrender of the Marxist project. As J.K. Gibson-Graham themselves make clear, "to even conceive of 'capitalism' as 'capitalisms' is still taking 'capitalism' for granted."29 And to try to redistribute the heavy theoretical and political burden placed upon the proletariat by reconfiguring political agency through "race-class-gender," as opposed to just class, is still a futile endeavor: essentialism is still essentialism whether one essentializes around one or three categories. This strand of poststructuralism, one that once again, can be directly traced back to Laclau and Mouffe's Hegemony and Socialist Strategy,30 is predicated on the faulty epistemological premise that what really matters is "discourse." As Laclau and Mouffe clarify, "our analysis rejects the distinction between discursive and nondiscursive practices. It affirms that every object is constituted as an object of discourse."31 The problem with this approach is that once we enter this world of epistemological foundationalism predicated on the claim that there is "nothing but discourse," we enter a world of relativism in which all we can do is "create discursive fixings," as J.K. Gibson-Graham themselves prescribe, that will guarantee that "any particular analysis will never find the ultimate cause of events."32 It is this ideological postmodern insistence on reducing all of social reality to discourse that ultimately overloads its theoretical apparatus and causes it to buckle beneath them. The Amherst School's "provisional ontology" is incapable of escaping the performative trap of trying to get rid of essentialism by essentializing all of reality as "discursive." The postmodern Marxist approach to ontology boils down to substituting in political practice every occurrence of "continuity" with "discontinuity" as a way to get rid of essentialism and macro-narratives. Even Foucault, the great master of discontinuity, distances himself from such mirror-reversal solutions when theorizing the limits of discourse and accounting for the "divergence, the distances, the oppositions, the differences" that constitute the episteme of a period.33 Last printed 112 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 113 AT: Gibson-Graham (2) Gibson-Graham are bogus – their alternative to capitalism excludes pragmatic methods Wendland, managing editor of Political Affairs, 06 Joel Wendland, managing editor of Political Affairs, 12/27/06 Book Review: A Postcapitalist Politics, by J.K. Gibson-Graham http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/4602/ A Postcapitalist Politics is billed as a follow-up to the duo’s 1996 book, The End of Capitalism (as We Knew It). The general argument of both books, shrouded in the (post)Marxian jargon associated with journals like Rethinking Marxism, is that capitalism isn’t a total system, that it is only partial, and that other modes of production exist alongside it which ordinary people who share a "mutually interdependent" economic community (there’s no such thing as a working class let alone a usefully defined concept of class) use continually to subvert capitalism. In arriving at these formulations, J.K. Gibson-Graham adopt an anti-state posture, reject anti-capitalist alternatives such as socialism, and even refuse to acknowledge the dominant global events that are determining so much of what goes on in the world. You won’t find Bush or Australian Prime Minister John Howard mentioned, and war in Iraq and Afghanistan, "war on terror," and even contemporary alternatives to capitalism and imperialism such as Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution (in which workers’ cooperatives, an important subject of Gibson-Graham’s book, have played an important role) or Alternativa Bolivariana para las Américas are simply evaded. Useful analysis of this process (see for example Delia D. Aguilar and Anne E. Lacsamana, Women and Globalization and David Bacon, The Children of NAFTA), simply put, has suggested that this globalization of the division of labor, a process that has its origins in capitalist centers and given its particular character by imperialism, is part of a logical framework and set of practices that purposely underdevelop certain geographical portions of the global labor market in order to force people into decisions like becoming migrant workers. Marxist and anti-imperialist politics typically conclude that broad organization of people in those marginal regions into communities of nation and classes (in solidarity with the working classes of the capitalist centers) are the best method of resisting those global processes and developing local and global alternatives to them. Gibson-Graham are having none of that. Indeed, their cataloging of non-capitalist modes of survival in Jagna and their argument for an alternative development, such as local investment initiatives like those developed by the Asian Migrant Center (a group that convinces migrant workers to save their remittances in local cooperative investment projects). Their research on Jagna exposes a "diverse economic community," as they call it, composed of family networks, individual enterprises, small businesses, small farmers (mainly tenants), and others which can be developed through such investment projects that do not rely on outside imperatives or goals and which can provide for people’s needs in non-capitalistic ways. Resources can be "marshaled" for community needs without relying either on capitalist globalization (that only promotes the migrant workforce solution to lack of subsistence) or the state (which is, in all contexts, authoritarian). Their critique of development completely ignores and excludes socialist and national alternatives to capitalism and imperialism . Indeed, local initiatives, also described as being modeled in different communities in other parts of the world, are posed as the alternative to global capitalist development. Last printed 113 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 114 AT: Gibson-Graham (3) Gibson-Graham does not effectively reject capitalism – they trash Marxism and eliminate the only doctrine that would overthrow capitalism Politevin, doctoral program of UC Davis, 01 Rene Francisco Poitevin, member of the SR editorial collective. His political background and work experience include low-income-housing organizing, prison reform advocacy, and media activism. He is currently in the doctoral program in sociology at the University of California, Davis, 2001 The end of anti-capitalism as we knew it: Reflections on postmodern Marxism http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3952/is_200101/ai_n8932891/pg_11/?tag=content;col1 The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It) begs another question: Who are they going after? Is it capitalism or is it Marx? Their book spends so much time on what is supposedly wrong with Marxism that at times it reads more like The End of Marxism As We Knew It. This approach is typical of a pattern that, to quote Wendy Brown, "responds less to the antidemocratic forces of our time than to a ghostly philosophical standoff between historically abstracted formulations of Marxism and liberalism. In other words, this effort seeks to resolve a problem in a (certain) history of ideas rather than a problem in history."19 Simply put, postmodern Marxist politics has more to do with the micropolitics of the ivory tower than with the plight of the workers who clean their campuses. However, once it becomes clear that a necessary condition for the primacy of postmodern theory and politics is that Marxism has to go (otherwise you do not have to become a postmodern to address their concerns), J.K. Gibson-Graham's anti-Marxist hostility, while actively embracing the Marxist label in order to render it useless, makes a lot of sense. And once again, all this is done with impeccable logic: Given that Marxism is still the only doctrine that calls for the systematic overthrow of capitalism, getting rid of Marx(ism) is also to get rid of the need for revolution with a big "R."20 Last printed 114 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 115 AT: Howard-Hassmann 1. Capitalism isn’t a prerequisite to democracy – the democratic process existed long before Adam Smith ever coined the word “capitalism.” There’s no evidence to prove that the democratic system relies upon capitalism to sustain democracy 2. Their evidence goes our way – it cites social mobilization as the internal link to political and civil rights. The alternative is the most effective site of social mobilization, which means the k solves any impacts to a disad to the alt 3. Turn - democracy doesn’t ensure human rights or the ethical treatment of women – this is from their author Howard-Hassmann, Author, Canada Research Chair in Global Studies and Political Science at Wilfrid Laurier University and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, 05 (Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann, Author, Canada Research Chair in Global Studies and Political Science at Wilfrid Laurier University and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, “The Second Great Transformation: Human Rights Leapfrogging in the Era of Globalization,” Human Rights Quarterly, 2005, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_rights_quarterly/v027/27.1howard-hassmann.html) Democracy here stands as a substitute for human rights. Both Jack Donnelly and Michael Freeman have warned that political democracy does not necessarily imply protection of human rights.35 Democratic rule can result in majoritarian rule, undermining the rights of minorities or of racially distinct groups, as in the all-white "democracy" of South Africa during the apartheid era or as in Israel at present. Majoritarian democracy can also undermine the rights of women, as in a Bahamian referendum in 2002 in which voters decided against granting children born of Bahamian mothers and foreign fathers the same citizenship rights as children born of Bahamian fathers and foreign mothers.36 Nevertheless, modern democratic states buttressed by the rule of law and by a civic culture of activism and political freedom are more likely than any other type of political system to protect human rights. And this is precisely the point. Democratic principles of government, the rule of law, and a civic culture took centuries to emerge in Western Europe and North America, with intervening episodes of dictatorship and fascism. Until well into the twentieth century, what are now known as human rights were systematically denied to the vast majority of Westerners. Rights-based liberal democratic societies certainly did not emerge through some easy, predictable, and inevitable coincidence of capitalism and rights. Last printed 115 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 116 AT: Cap Sustainable (1) Capitalism is not sustainable. We always want more and more, leading to our own destruction. Pearce, English Science Author and Journalist, ‘08 (Fred Pearce, English Science Author and Journalist, February 2008, New Scientist “Dirty, Sexy http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=7&sid=3983b944-adaf-45f1-ae1d-21f879f16858%40sessionmgr111) Money” Adrian Pollock portrays capitalism as the main obstacle to a sustainable future (10 March, p 23). I suggest the problem is that the “science” of economics makes a basic assumption that time is the ultimate scarce good we have. When “time is money”, the more processes will be speeded up to be economic. The technology to realise this uses more power and thus more free energy – as defined in the 1870s by mathematical physicist Willard Gibbs – and more carbon dioxide. The laws of thermodynamics should have taught us that Gibbs free energy is the ultimate scarce good – not for the individual consumer but for humanity and for all natural systems. We have to develop a macroeconomic theory based on the scarcity of free energy. And we have to develop technology to minimise the use of free energy: not only direct use, but also indirect use as capital and materials in production and consumption. The economy has to slow down. The 2008 collapse proves that capitalism unsustainable because individually rational decisions result in crisis. JONATHAN RAUCH Book Reviewer NYT. 5/14/2009. “Capitalisms Fault Lines” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/books/review/Rauch-t.html Populists and libertarians will hate this book, though I wouldn’t want to predict which group will hate it more. A perfect storm of irresponsibility? Hardly. The crisis came about precisely because intelligent businesses and consumers followed market signals. “The mistakes were systemic — the product of the nature of the banking business in an environment shaped by low interest rates and deregulation rather than the antics of crooks and fools.” Were a lot of people reckless and stupid? Of course! But that cannot explain why the whole system crashed, since a lot of people are always reckless and stupid. The problem, fundamentally, is that markets cannot, and rationally should not, anticipate their own collapse. “A depression is too remote an event to influence business behavior.” Any single business can rationally guard against its own bankruptcy, but not the simultaneous bankruptcy of everybody else. “The profitmaximizing businessman rationally ignores small probabilities that his conduct in conjunction with that of his competitors may bring down the entire economy.” During the housing bubble, for example, sitting out the mortgage boom meant forgoing large profits. “Even if you know you’re riding a bubble and are scared to be doing so,” Posner writes, “it is difficult to climb off without paying a big price.” So people made decisions that were individually rational but collectively irrational. To see the crisis through populist spectacles, as President Obama does when he attributes it to “irresponsibility,” is to misunderstand the whole problem by blaming capitalists for a failure of capitalism. And so — here is the part libertarians will hate — markets, entirely of their own accord, will sometimes capsize and be unable to right themselves completely for years at a stretch . (See: Japan, “lost decade” of.) Nor can monetary policy be counted on to counteract markets’ tippy tendencies, as so many economists had come to believe. Alas, economists and policy makers got cocksure. They thought they had consigned depressions to history. As a result, they missed warning signs and failed to prepare for the worst. “We are learning,” Posner writes, “that we need a more active and intelligent government to keep our model of a capitalist economy from running off the rails.” By doing what, exactly? Posner thinks laissez-faire economics has nothing relevant to say. The rest of the economics profession is all over the map. The system of financial regulation will need an overhaul, but Posner argues that the time for that is not now, in the heat of crisis. Anyway, no one is sure what to do. He halfheartedly suggests a few reforms but concedes they are “pretty small beer.” If pressed, I suspect, he might also acknowledge some 20-20 hindsight in his insistence that the government should have prepared for an event that hardly anyone thought possible. By the last page, not a single lazy generalization has survived Posner’s merciless scrutiny, not one populist cliché remains standing. “A Failure of Capitalism” clears away whole forests of cant but leaves readers at a loss as to where to go from here. In other words, it is only a starting point — but an indispensable one. Last printed 116 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 117 AT: Cap Good Globalization discourse shapes their politics and becomes self-legitimating – the only reason their authors appear right is because they are entrenched in this discourse Schram, prof @ Bryn Mawr College, 06 Sanford F. Schram, teaches social theory and social policy in the Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research at Bryn Mawr College, 2006 Chapter One; in Welfare Discipline: Discourse, Governance, and Globalization Pg 5 par 3 – pg 8 par 1 My argument goes further to suggest that the ultimate irony of what I am calling globalization discourse operated as a form of circular causality in that it operates as a self-fulilling prophecy.16 The United States has led the way in championing the necessity of scaling back the welfare state in the face of globalization, and nowhere has the idea of globalization had as devastating consequences for social policies for the most vulnerable in society as in the United States. Nonetheless, while globalization discourse looks like a process that starts with a story about the rest of the world that the United States has told to itself in no small part to produce a welfare state retrenchment right here at home,17 the result is that the United States became a model for other welfare states .18 The globalization of welfare policy discourse has come to involve both the high degree to which welfare policy was framed in terms of the necessity to retrench in order to compete internationally and the dissemination of that perspective to other countries . Both forms of the globalization of welfare policy discourse are occurring. Now that the United States as a world economic leader has so dramatically begun to scale back its social protections in the name of making itself more able to compete in a global economic competition, other countries have developed similar discourses, often in the name of "labor activation," to promote work and reduce reliance by the unemployed on state benefits. The irony here, I argue, is that the dissemination of U.S.-style globalization discourse ends up coming back home to reinforce concerns in the United States about the need to retrench its social welfare policies. In this way, globalizaion discourse could very well become its own self- fulilling prophecy. Like a ghost of a not-yet-fullyborn world system, globalization discourse haunted the political imagination of the west until preoccupation with its very idea furthered the possibility of it materializing in practice . For someone like Jacques Derida, globalization discourse is therefore a form of melancholy more than mourning: by anticipation, we were regretting what had not yet happened, rather than waiting to grieve after a loss occurred .19 The crisis narrative of welfare retrenchment as a necessary consequence of economic globalization implied to its audience a subject position as a concerned party who must share the narrative's sense of urgency and must accept that drastic actions need to be taken to avoid the impending catastrophe before it arrives. Therefore, irrespective of how much increased global economic activity was occurring, the crisis narrative of welfare state retrenchment in the face of economic globalization became in the United States its own pretext . Irrespective of whether all western welfare states had actually already entered into what has been called a "race to the bottom" stemming from global economic competition, the idea has created anticipation to the point that the retrenchment in social welfare protections that did take place has increased the currency of the very same idea to the point that scaling back has be¬ come what has to be done in order to compete successfully in a new global economy. In a vicious cycle, globalization discourse makes itself real. This U.S. discourse of welfare state retrenchment as unavoidable in the face of economic globalization has to varying degrees with varying effects become a model to be emulated by policymakers in other advanced industrial societies . 21 In Europe, welfare reform is focused on "labor activation," which implies, like the U.S. "welfare dependency," that the unemployed are passive and need to be made active participants in the workforce.22 There is therefore both economic globalization and the Americanization of welfare discourse spreading around the developed world.23 Both are occurring, and the second is helping make the first a fait accompli'. As the latter spreads around the world, its globalization, as it were, helps make a self-fulfilling prophecy of the idea of attacking welfare dependency to retrench the welfare state in the face of global competition. And as the latter spreads around the world, it also increases consideration of policies of welfare state retrenchment, albeit in some countries more than in others, including most especially, and perhaps not ironically, the United States, where the discourse of globalization and its preoccupation with welfare state retrenchment as an unavoidable corollary were first most aggressively championed. The causal chain is not linear. Last printed 117 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 118 AT: Case outweighs (1) Capitalism is the root cause of war and environmental destruction. Cook, Prof. of Phil. Univ. Windsor, 2006 [Deborah, “STAYING ALIVE: ADORNO AND HABERMAS ON SELF-PRESERVATION UNDER LATE CAPITALISM,” Rethinking Marxism, 18(3):433-447] In the passage in Negative Dialectics where he warns against self-preservation gone wild, Adorno states that it is “only as reflection upon … self-preservation that reason would be above nature” (1973, 289). To rise above nature, then, reason must become “cognizant of its own natural essence” (1998b, 138). To be more fully rational, we must reflect on what Horkheimer and Adorno once called our underground history (1972, 231). In other words, we must recognize that our behavior is motivated and shaped by instincts, including the instinct for self-preservation (Adorno 1998a, 153). In his lectures on Kant, Adorno makes similar remarks when he summarizes his solution to the problem of selfpreservation gone wild. To remedy this problem, nature must first become conscious of itself (Adorno 2000, 104). Adopting the Freudian goal of making the unconscious conscious, Adorno also insists that this critical self-understanding be accompanied by radical social, political, and economic changes that would bring to a halt the self-immolating domination of nature. This is why mindfulness of nature is necessary but not sufficient to remedy unbridled self-preservation. In the final analysis, society must be fundamentally transformed in order rationally to accommodate instincts that now run wild owing to our forgetfulness of nature in ourselves. By insisting on mindfulness of nature in the self, Adorno champions a form of rationality that would tame self-preservation, but in contrast to Habermas, he thinks that the taming of self-preservation is a normative task rather than an accomplished fact. Because self-preservation remains irrational, we now encounter serious environmental problems like those connected with global warming and the greenhouse effect, the depletion of natural resources, and the death of more than one hundred regions in our oceans. Owing to self- preservation gone wild, we have colonized and destabilized large parts of the world, adversely affecting the lives of millions, when we have not simply enslaved or murdered their inhabitants outright. Famine and disease are often the result of ravaging the land in the name of survival imperatives. Wars are waged in the name of self-preservation: with his now notoriously invisible weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was said to represent a serious threat to the lives of citizens in the West. The war against terrorism, waged in the name of self-preservation, has seriously undermined human rights and civil liberties; it has also been used to justify the murder, rape, and torture of thousands As it now stands, the owners of the means of production ensure our survival through profits that, at best, only trickle down to the poorest members of society. Taken in charge by the capitalist economy, self-preservation now dictates that profits increase exponentially to the detriment of social programs like welfare and health care. In addition, self- preservation has gone wild because our instincts and needs are now firmly harnessed to commodified offers of satisfaction that deflect and distort them. Having surrendered the task of self-preservation to the economic and political systems, we remain in thrall to untamed survival instincts that could well end up destroying not just the entire species, but all life on the planet. Last printed 118 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 119 Affirmative - Cap inevitable (1) Capitalism is embedded into our everyday lives – the alternative destroys living. Callinicos – Professor of European Studies – 2003 (Alex, “An Anti-Capitalist Manifesto”) More seriously, Sen claims, in effect, that 'the right to interact economically with one another' must find expression in a market economy.' This makes the restriction –let alone the abolition – of market mechanisms necessarily a violation of human freedom. The comparison of market exchanges to conversation has, moreover, the effect (familiar in defences of capitalism) of naturalizing the market. Human society is unimaginable without language: if markets are as basic as that, then restricting or abolishing them threatens the very functioning of human societies. But Sen here elides certain important distinctions. There are markets and markets. Karl Polanyi in his classic work The Great Transformation (1944) argued that in the long run of human history economic practices have been embedded in larger social relationships, and regulated according to one or more of the following principles –reciprocity, redistribution, and house holding (i.e. production for one's own use). Where markets existed, they did so in the form of local trade (fairs and market days and the like) and longdistance trade: both external trade and local trade are relative to geographical distance, the one being confined to goods which cannot overcome it, the other only such as can. Trade of this kind is rightly regarded as complementary. Local exchange between town and countryside, foreign trade between different climactic zones are based on this principle. Such trade need not imply competition.2° Cap is inevitable- any reform will fail Prince Rupert Daily News 07 (British Columbia), April 4, 2007 Wednesday, Final Edition, LOCAL NEWS; Green Justice; Pg. 16, 561 words, Charles Justice, The Daily News) We can try and regulate capitalism but we have another problem which global warming has demonstrated: when faced with the facts about global warming the most powerful government in the world was influenced by corporations to suppress the science and minimize the extent of the problem to the public. This set back the cause of prevention at least 10 years - at an incalculable cost to humanity and the Earth's ecosystems. In short, global warming demonstrates not only market failure but also "government failure". It's not as if we haven't had forwarning of this. History is full of examples of empires like the Romans and the Babylonians, that grew because they were able to extract resources efficiently but destroyed themselves because the were not able to extract resources sustainably. And in almost every case no-one saw it coming. This time it's different because we can see it coming and we can prevent it. We know that we need to be able to reform capitalism if we are to survive, but how to go about it? Both our economies and our ecosystems need to stay healthy. We know trying to destroy capitalism doesn't work. We know tinkering with reforming capitalism doesn't work because we've spent the last century doing that and things have only gotten worse. Suppose we use the analogy of a computer operating system. Capitalism needs an upgrade. Just as Microsoft upgrades from Windows 95 to Windows XP, we need to upgrade the "economic software" to keep the system from crashing. That's what Peter Barnes discusses in his intriguing book, Capitalism 3.0, published 2006 and also available on the internet. Basically , the solution is to change the rules so that the "commons sector" becomes an economic power to balance the power of corporations and governments. More next week. Last printed 119 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 120 Affirmative - Cap inevitable (2) Capitalism is inevitable. Even the groups that resist it are part and parcel of the system. Wilson, coordinator of the Independent Press Association’s Campus Journalism Project, 2000 (John K., coordinator of the Independent Press Association’s Campus Journalism Project, How the Left can Win Arguments and Influence People, pg 12- 14) Progressive capitalism is not a contradiction in terms, for progressives support capitalism in many ways. Even nonprofit organizations and cooperatives are not antithetical to capitalism and the market; these groups simply use capitalism for aims different from the single-minded pursuit of profits. But the rules of supply and demand, the expenses and revenues, the idea of entrepreneurship and innovation, and the need to adapt to the market are essential. Any progressive magazine or institution that tries to defy the rules of capitalism won't be around for very long and certainly won’t have the resources to mount a serious advocacy of progressive ideas. One of the most effective tactics of the environmental movement was encouraging consumers to consider environmental values when making capitalist choices about what products to buy. Today, a manufacturer who ignores environmental issues puts its profits at risk because so many people are looking for environmentally friendly products and packaging. Crusades against Coca-Cola for its massive output of non-recycled plastic bottles in America or against companies supporting foreign dictatorships are part of the continuing battle to force companies to pay attention to consumer demands. Of course, consumer protests and boycotts are only one part of making "capitalism for everyone." Many progressive groups are now buying stock in companies precisely to raise these issues at stockholder meetings and pressure the companies to adopt environmentally and socially responsible policies. Unfortunately, the legal system is structured against progressive ideas. In 2000, Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream was forced to sell out to a big corporation that might ignore its commitment to many progressive causes. The company didn't want to sell, but the law demanded that the company's duty to stockholders was to consider only the money involved. Imagine what would happen if our capitalist laws were designed to promote progressive ideas instead of impeding them. Instead of allowing a shareholder lawsuit against any company acting in a morally, socially, and environmentally conscious way, American laws should encourage these goals. The claim by some leftists that capitalism is inherently irresponsible or evil doesn't make sense. Capitalism is simply a system of markets. What makes capitalism so destructive isn't the basic foundation but the institutions that have been created in the worship of the "free market." Unfortunately, progressives spend most of their time attacking capitalism rather than taking credit for all the reforms that led to America's economic growth. We can't go backwards. Capitalism is inevitable. John Isbister, Professor Economics, U. Cal @ Santa Cruz, in 2001 (Capitalism and Justice, p. 46) Some in the capitalist world try to retain or re-create the best parts of precapitalism. Some Amish and Mennonite communities are based on precapitalist values, as are some other faith-based groups. The 1960s and 1970s saw the creation of secular alternative rural communes, communities whose members tried to eliminate all marks of distinction between them, to be self-sufficient, and to live simply. The communes had some successes, but most eventually collapsed. Communities such as these have attempted to embody precapitalist values, but none has succeeded in cutting itself off from capitalist influences: from the market, from the media, from the legal system, and from other influences of the modern world. While we can learn from our antecedent societies, we cannot return to them. The door has been closed. Last printed 120 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 121 Affirmative - Cap inevitable (3) Capitalism is too deeply rooted in our lifestyles. Wilson 2K (John K., coordinator of the Independent Press Association’s Campus Journalism Project, How the Left can Win Arguments and Influence People, pg 15- 16) Capitalism is far too ingrained in American life to eliminate. If you go into the most impoverished areas of America, you will find that the people who live there are not seeking government control over factories or even more social welfare programs; they're hoping, usually in vain, for a fair chance to share in the capitalist wealth. The poor do not pray for socialism-they strive to be a part of the capitalist system. They want jobs, they want to start businesses, and they want to make money and be successful. What's wrong with America is not capitalism as a system but capitalism as a religion. We worship the accumulation of wealth and treat the horrible inequality between rich and poor as if it were an act of God. Worst of all, we allow the government to exacerbate the financial divide by favoring the wealthy: go anywhere in America, and compare a rich suburb with a poor townthe city services, schools, parks, and practically everything else will be better financed in the place populated by rich people. The aim is not to overthrow capitalism but to overhaul it. Give it a social-justice tune-up, make it more efficient, get the economic engine to hit on all cylinders for everybody, and stop putting out so many environmentally hazardous substances. To some people, this goal means selling out leftist ideals for the sake of capitalism. But the right thrives on having an ineffective opposition. The Revolutionary Communist Party helps stabilize the "free market" capitalist system by making it seem as if the only alternative to free-market capitalism is a return to Stalinism. Prospective activists for change are instead channeled into pointless discussions about the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. Instead of working to persuade people to accept progressive ideas, the far left talks to itself (which may be a blessing, given the way it communicates) and tries to sell copies of the Socialist Worker to an uninterested public. Last printed 121 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 122 Affirmative - Gibson-Graham (1) The alternative is a fantasy- all your impact are scare tactics that should be ignored J.K. Gibson-Graham, Professor of Human Geography at the Australian National University and Professor of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1996 (The End of Capitalism (As We Know It)) pgs 256-258 If the unity of Capitalism confronts us with the mammoth task of systemic transformation it is the singularity and totality of Capitalism that makes the task so hopeless. Capitalism presents itself as a singularity in the sense of having no peer or equivalent, of existing in a category by itself; and also in the sense that when it appears fully realized within a particular social formation, it tends to be dominant of alone. As a sui generis economic form, Capitalism has no true analogues. Slavery, independent commodity production, feudalism, socialism, primitive-communism and other forms of economy all lack the systemic properties of Capitalism and the ability to reproduce and expand themselves according to internal laws. Unlike socialism, for example, which is always struggling to be born, which needs the protection and fostering of the state, which is fragile and easily deformed, Capitalism takes on its full form as a natural outcome of an internally driven growth process. Its organic unity gives capitalism the peculiar power to regenerate itself, and even to subsume its moments of crisis as requirements of its continued growth and development. Socialism has never been endowed with that mythic capability of feeding on its own crises; its reproduction was never driven from within by a life force but always from without; it could never reproduce itself but always had to be reproduced, often an arduous if not impossible process. Other modes of production that lack the organic unity of Capitalism are more capable of being instituted or replaced incrementally and more likely to coexist with other economic forms. Capitalism by contrast tends to appear by itself. Thus, in the United States, if feudal or ancient classes exist, they exist as residual forms; if slavery exists, it exists as a marginal form if socialism or communism exists, it exists as a prefigurative form. None of these forms truly and fully coexists with Capitalism. Where Capitalism does coexist with other forms, those places (the so-called Third World, for example, or backward regions in what are known as the “advanced capitalist” nations) are seen as not funny “developed”. Rather than signaling the real possibility of Capitalism coexisting with non-capitalist economic forms, the coexistence of capitalism with noncapitalist economic forms, the coexistence of capitalism with non-capitalism marks the Third World as insufficient and incomplete. Subsumed to the hegemonic discourse of Development, it identifies a diverse array of countries as the shadowy other of the advanced capitalist nations. One effect of the notion of capitalist exclusivity is a monolithic conception of class, at least in the context of “advanced capitalist” countries. The term “class” usually refers to a social cleavage along the axis of capital and labor since capitalism cannot coexist with any but residual or pre-figurative non-capitalist relations. The presence and fullness of the capitalist monolith not only denies the possibility of economic or class diversity in the present but prefigures a monolithic and modernist socialism – one in which everyone is a comrade and class diversity does not exist. Capitalism’s singularity operates to discourage projects to create alternative economic institutions and class relations, since these will necessarily be marginal in the context of Capitalism’s exclusivity. The inability of Capitalism to coexist thus produces not only the present impossibility of alternatives but also their future unlikelihood – pushing socialist projects to the distant and unrealizable future. Last printed 122 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 123 Affirmative - Gibson- Graham (2) Holding onto ideas kills leftist policies-every political demand like the plan can’t overturn capital and makes the mistake of helping the victims of globalization J.K. Gibson-Graham, Professor of Human Geography at the Australian National University and Professor of Geosciences at the University of Massachusates, Amherst, 1996 (The End of Capitalism (As We Know It)) pgs 259 The third characteristic of Capitalism, and perhaps its best known is its tendency to present itself as the social totality. This is most obvious in metaphors of containment and subsumption. People who are not themselves involved in capitalism exploitation nevertheless may be seen to live “in the pores” of capitalism (Spivak 1988: 135) or within capitalism. Capitalism is presented as the embrace, the container, something large and full. Non-capitalism forms of production, such as commodity production by self-employed workers or the production of household goods and services, are seen as somehow taking place within capitalism. Household production becomes subsumed to capitalism as capitalist “reproduction”. Even oppressions experienced along entirely different lines of social antagonism are often convened within “the plenary geography of capitalism.” Capitalism not only casts a wider net than other things, it also constitutes us more fully, in a process that is more like a saturation than like a process of over determination. Our lives are dripping with capitalism. We cannot get outside capitalism; it has no outside. It becomes that which has no outside by swallowing up its conditions of existence. The banking system, the national state, domestic production, the built environment, nature as product, media culture – all are conditions of Capitalism’s totalizing existence that seem to lose their autonomy, their contradictory capability to be read as conditions of its nonexistence. We laboriously pry each piece loose – theorizing the legal “system,” for example, as a fragmented and diverse collection of practice and institution that is constituted by a whole host of things in addition to capitalism – but capitalism nevertheless exerts its massive gravitational pull. Even socialism functions as the dual or placeholder of capitalism rather than as its active and contradictory constituent. Socialism is just capitalism’s opposite, a great emptiness on the other side of a membrane, a social space where the fullness of capitalism is negated. When the socialist bubble in Eastern Europe burst, capitalism flooded in like a miasma. We are all capitalist now. It seems we have banished economic determinism and the economistic conception of class as the major axis of social transformation, only to enshrine the autonomy once again – this time in a vast metonymic emplacement (Laclau and Mouffe 1985). Capitalism, which is a name for a form of economy, is invoked in every social dimension. The wealthy industrial societies are summarily characterized as capitalist social formations. On the one hand we have taken back social life from the economy while, on the other, we have allowed it – under the name of capitalism - to colonize the entire social space. This means that the left is not only presented with the revolutionary task of transforming the whole economy, it must replace the entire society as well. It is not surprising that there seems to be no room for a thriving and powerful non-capitalist economy, politics and culture though it is heartening to consider that these nevertheless may exist. Last printed 123 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 124 Affirmative - Perm solvency (1) The perm is necessary to solve the beneficial aspects of welfare policy. Ian Gough Prof. of Social Policy at the University of Bath. 1979. “The Political Economy of the Welfare State” Macmillan Press LTD The future development of social policy and welfare state structures in the 1980s will depend on the level and forms of class struggle. In this endemic and ongoing conflict, ideas and theories about the world play a crucial role, and this is especially true in the sphere of social policy. This book has tried to apply Marxist political economy to an analysis of the welfare state. If its arguments have any validity they must be capable of translation into political strategy. Returning to the two radical perspectives on the welfare state criticised in Chapters 1 and, we can discern the political implication of each. Those of a socialist persuasion who regard the welfare state as a creature of capital, pure and simple, will have nothing to do with defending or extending it. On the other hand, those who see it as the creation of labour, as a socialist island within a capitalist sea, will fix their standard to the welfare state as it exists. The latter school will be blind to its defects, the former will be unaware of its potential. Neither position, I have argued, is adequate. Once the contradictory nature of the welfare state and its contradictory impact on capitalism is appreciated, then the political strategy of all who work in it, use it or are concerned with it can be refined. The positive aspects of welfare policies need defending and extending, their negative aspects need exposing arid attacking. It is at this stage that the concept of 'human needs' becomes relevant in clarifying what is positive and what is negative. In this way, a struggle may be mounted to realise in practice the ideology of the welfare state propounded in many orthodox textbooks: a system for subjecting economic forces to conscious social control and for meeting human needs. It will not develop in this direction without continuous and informed struggle. It is to be hoped that this book will contribute to an understanding of the current welfare state, arid hence to this struggle for its transformation away from 'welfare capitalism' and in the direction of 'welfare socialism'. Last printed 124 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 125 Affirmative - Perm solvency (2) Perm is a move toward ethical capitalism – we don’t have time for utopian upheavals Devin Stewart -- Director of the Global Policy Innovations program at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs “is Ethical Capitalism Possible?” 1-25-2009. http://vcr.csrwire.com/node/13160 From these developments, one could conclude that the global economic system is inherently flawed, that it is unethical and doomed to destroy itself. In fact, what is critically needed is moderation, a middle ground between total freedom and principled action. The incoming Obama Administration calls it "smart policies." The alternative is protectionism, a rolling back of the open global economy, and political if not armed conflict. Instilling the practice of ethical capitalism is possible and practical. Consumers increasingly demand products that coincide with their moral awareness. Likewise, politicians are under pressure to implement policies that mitigate the stresses of globalization. These forces can come together to produce products that are recycled, carbon neutral, free range, or fair trade, and policies that battle climate change, poverty, and global diseases. Non-action is highly risky. Looking at climate change alone, the possible long-term risks include a shift in arable land; sharpening competition for energy resources; and the emergence of climate change refugees from island nations or low-lying areas, who may carry with them or engender political violence and unrest, even terrorism. Given that carbon emissions are primarily related to business activities, how can business models become more sustainable? Global human civilization has all the moral tools it needs. As Peter David Pedersen of E-Square has noted, we neither have the time nor the need for another ideology or "ism." Ethical principles that emphasize reciprocal rights and responsibilities have long characterized human societies. The Golden Rule is a feature of more than 100 world religious and cultural canons—"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Last printed 125 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 126 Affirmative - Perm Solvency (3) Total rejection of capitalism fragments resistance – the perm solves best. J.K. Gibson-Graham, Professor of Human Geography at the Australian National University and Professor of Geosciences at the University of Massachusates, Amherst, 1996 (The End of Capitalism (As We Know It)) One of our goals as Marxists has been to produce a knowledge of capitalism. Yet as “that which is known,” Capitalism has become the intimate enemy. We have uncloaked the ideologically-clothed, obscure monster, but we have installed a naked and visible monster in its place. In return for our labors of creation, the monster has robbed us of all force. We hear – and find it easy to believe – that the left is in disarray. Part of what produces the disarray of the left is the vision of what the left is arrayed against. When capitalism is represented as a unified system coextensive with the nation or even the world, when it is portrayed as crowding out all other economic forms, when it is allowed to define entire societies, it becomes something that can only be defeated and replaced by a mass collective movement (or by a process of systemic dissolution that such a movement might assist). The revolutionary task of replacing capitalism now seems outmoded and unrealistic, yet we do not seem to have an alternative conception of class transformation to take its place. The old political economic “systems” and “structures” that call forth a vision of revolution as systemic replacement still seem to be dominant in the Marxist political imagination. The New World Order is often represented as political fragmentation founded upon economic unification. In this vision the economy appears as the last stronghold of unity and singularity in a world of diversity and plurality. But why can’t the economy be fragmented too? If we theorized it as fragmented in the United States, we could being to see a huge state sector (incorporating a variety of forms of appropriation of surplus labor), a very large sector of self-employed and family-based producers (most noncapitalist), a huge household sector (again, quite various in terms of forms of exploitation, with some households moving towards communal or collective appropriation and others operating in a traditional mode in which one adult appropriates surplus labor from another). None of these things is easy to see. If capitalism takes up the available social space, there’s no room for anything else. If capitalism cannot coexist, there’s no possibility of anything else. If capitalism functions as a unity, it cannot be partially or locally replaced. My intent is to help create the discursive conception under which socialist or other noncapitalist construction becomes “realistic” present activity rather than a ludicrous or utopian goal. To achieve this I must smash Capitalism and see it in a thousand pieces . I must make its unity a fantasy, visible as a denial of diversity and change. Last printed 126 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 127 Affirmative – Alternative Fails The alternative’s withdrawal from the state fails to attack capitalism – only working within the State allows us to challenge adversaries such as Hitler or Chavez Slavoj Žižek, “Resistance Is Surrender,” November 15, 2007 (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n22/zize01_.html) One of the clearest lessons of the last few decades is that capitalism is indestructible. Marx compared it to a vampire, and one of the salient points of comparison now appears to be that vampires always rise up again after being stabbed to death. Even Mao’s attempt, in the Cultural Revolution, to wipe out the traces of capitalism, ended up in its triumphant return. Today’s Left reacts in a wide variety of ways to the hegemony of global capitalism and its political supplement, liberal democracy. It might, for example, accept the hegemony, but continue to fight for reform within its rules (this is Third Way social democracy). Or, it accepts that the hegemony is here to stay, but should nonetheless be resisted from its ‘interstices’. Or, it accepts the futility of all struggle, since the hegemony is so all-encompassing that nothing can really be done except wait for an outburst of ‘divine violence’ – a revolutionary version of Heidegger’s ‘only God can save us.’ Or, it recognises the temporary futility of the struggle. In today’s triumph of global capitalism, the argument goes, true resistance is not possible, so all we can do till the revolutionary spirit of the global working class is renewed is defend what remains of the welfare state, confronting those in power with demands we know they cannot fulfil, and otherwise withdraw into cultural studies, where one can quietly pursue the work of criticism. Or, it emphasises the fact that the problem is a more fundamental one, that global capitalism is ultimately an effect of the underlying principles of technology or ‘instrumental reason’. Or, it posits that one can undermine global capitalism and state power, not by directly attacking them, but by refocusing the field of struggle on everyday practices, where one can ‘build a new world’; in this way, the foundations of the power of capital and the state will be gradually undermined, and, at some point, the state will collapse (the exemplar of this approach is the Zapatista movement). Or, it takes the ‘postmodern’ route, shifting the accent from anti-capitalist struggle to the multiple forms of politico-ideological struggle for hegemony, emphasising the importance of discursive re-articulation. Or, it wagers that one can repeat at the postmodern level the classical Marxist gesture of enacting the ‘determinate negation’ of capitalism: with today’s rise of ‘cognitive work’, the contradiction between social production and capitalist relations has become starker than ever, rendering possible for the first time ‘absolute democracy’ (this would be Hardt and Negri’s position). These positions are not presented as a way of avoiding some ‘true’ radical Left politics – what they are trying to get around is, indeed, the lack of such a position. This defeat of the Left is not the whole story of the last thirty years, however. There is another, no less surprising, lesson to be learned from the Chinese Communists’ presiding over arguably the most explosive development of capitalism in history, and from the growth of West European Third Way social democracy. It is, in short: we can do it better. In the UK, the Thatcher revolution was, at the time, chaotic and impulsive, marked by unpredictable contingencies. It was Tony Blair who was able to institutionalise it, or, in Hegel’s terms, to raise (what first appeared as) a contingency, a historical accident, into a necessity. Thatcher wasn’t a Thatcherite, she was merely herself; it was Blair (more than Major) who truly gave form to Thatcherism. The response of some critics on the postmodern Left to this predicament is to call for a new politics of resistance. Those who still insist on fighting state power, let alone seizing it, are accused of remaining stuck within the ‘old paradigm’: the task today, their critics say, is to resist state power by withdrawing from its terrain and creating new spaces outside its control. This is, of course, the obverse of accepting the triumph of capitalism. The politics of resistance is nothing but the moralising supplement to a Third Way Left. Simon Critchley’s recent book, Infinitely Demanding, is an almost perfect embodiment of this position.[*] For Critchley, the liberal-democratic state is here to stay. Attempts to abolish the state failed miserably; consequently, the new politics has to be located at a distance from it: anti-war movements, ecological organisations, groups protesting against racist or sexist abuses, and other forms of local self-organisation. It must be a politics of resistance to the state, of bombarding the state with impossible demands, of denouncing the limitations of state mechanisms. The main argument for conducting the politics of resistance at a distance from the state hinges on the ethical dimension of the ‘infinitely demanding’ call for justice: no state can heed this call, since its ultimate goal is the ‘real-political’ one of ensuring its own reproduction (its economic growth, public safety, etc). ‘Of course,’ Critchley writes, history is habitually written by the people with the guns and sticks and one cannot expect to defeat them with mocking satire and feather dusters. Yet, as the history of ultra-leftist active nihilism eloquently shows, one is lost the moment one picks up the guns and sticks. Anarchic political resistance should not seek to mimic and mirror the archic violent sovereignty it opposes. So what should, say, the US Democrats do? Stop competing for state power and withdraw to the interstices of the state, leaving state power to the Republicans and start a campaign of anarchic resistance to it? And what would Critchley do if he were facing an adversary like Last printed 127 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 128 Hitler? Surely in such a case one should ‘mimic and mirror the archic violent sovereignty’ one opposes? Shouldn’t the Left draw a distinction between the circumstances in which one would resort to violence in confronting the state, and those in which all one can and should do is use ‘mocking satire and feather dusters’? The ambiguity of Critchley’s position resides in a strange non sequitur: if the state is here to stay, if it is impossible to abolish it (or capitalism), why retreat from it? Why not act with(in) the state? Why not accept the basic premise of the Third Way? Why limit oneself to a politics which, as Critchley puts it, ‘calls the state into question and calls the established order to account, not in order to do away with the state , desirable though that might well be in some utopian sense, but in order to better it or attenuate its malicious effect’? These words simply demonstrate that today’s liberal-democratic state and the dream of an ‘infinitely demanding’ anarchic politics exist in a relationship of mutual parasitism: anarchic agents do the ethical thinking, and the state does the work of running and regulating society. Critchley’s anarchic ethico-political agent acts like a superego, comfortably bombarding the state with demands; and the more the state tries to satisfy these demands, the more guilty it is seen to be. In compliance with this logic, the anarchic agents focus their protest not on open dictatorships, but on the hypocrisy of liberal democracies, who are accused of betraying their own professed principles. The big demonstrations in London and Washington against the US attack on Iraq a few years ago offer an exemplary case of this strange symbiotic relationship between power and resistance. Their paradoxical outcome was that both sides were satisfied. The protesters saved their beautiful souls: they made it clear that they don’t agree with the government’s policy on Iraq. Those in power calmly accepted it, even profited from it: not only did the protests in no way prevent the already-made decision to attack Iraq; they also served to legitimise it. Thus George Bush’s reaction to mass demonstrations protesting his visit to London, in effect: ‘You see, this is what we are fighting for, so that what people are doing here – protesting against their government policy – will be possible also in Iraq!’ It is striking that the course on which Hugo Chávez has embarked since 2006 is the exact opposite of the one chosen by the postmodern Left: far from resisting state power, he grabbed it (first by an attempted coup, then democratically), ruthlessly using the Venezuelan state apparatuses to promote his goals. Furthermore, he is militarising the barrios, and organising the training of armed units there. And, the ultimate scare: now that he is feeling the economic effects of capital’s ‘resistance’ to his rule (temporary shortages of some goods in the state-subsidised supermarkets), he has announced plans to consolidate the 24 parties that support him into a single party. Even some of his allies are sceptical about this move: will it come at the expense of the popular movements that have given the Venezuelan revolution its élan? However, this choice, though risky, should be fully endorsed: the task is to make the new party function not as a typical state socialist (or Peronist) party, but as a vehicle for the mobilisation of new forms of politics (like the grass roots slum committees). What should we say to someone like Chávez? ‘No, do not grab state power, just withdraw, leave the state and the current situation in place’? Chávez is often dismissed as a clown – but wouldn’t such a withdrawal just reduce him to a version of Subcomandante Marcos, whom many Mexican leftists now refer to as ‘Subcomediante Marcos’? Today, it is the great capitalists – Bill Gates, corporate polluters, fox hunters – who ‘resist’ the state. The lesson here is that the truly subversive thing is not to insist on ‘infinite’ demands we know those in power cannot fulfil. Since they know that we know it, such an ‘infinitely demanding’ attitude presents no problem for those in power: ‘So wonderful that, with your critical demands, you remind us what kind of world we would all like to live in. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where we have to make do with what is possible.’ The thing to do is, on the contrary, to bombard those in power with strategically well-selected, precise, finite demands, which can’t be met with the same excuse. Last printed 128 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 129 Affirmative - Democracy turn A. Capitalism is key to democracy Howard-Hassmann, Author, Canada Research Chair in Global Studies and Political Science at Wilfrid Laurier University and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, 05 (Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann, Author, Canada Research Chair in Global Studies and Political Science at Wilfrid Laurier University and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, “The Second Great Transformation: Human Rights Leapfrogging in the Era of Globalization,” Human Rights Quarterly, 2005, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_rights_quarterly/v027/27.1howard-hassmann.html) One piece of good news, however, is that almost all countries of the world now accept capitalism. Rueschmeyer, Stephens, and Stephens have [End Page 24] shown the connection between capitalism and democracy: capitalism is a necessary, though not sufficient, prerequisite for democracy.70 Both quantitative and qualitative studies finding a correlation between capitalism and democracy also show that an intervening variable is necessary to effect such a correlation. That intervening variable is class action and organization. In a review of many studies of the relationship between economic development and human rights, Landman also finds that "economic development [usually capitalist] does not enhance directly political or civil rights," but that "social mobilization has a direct relationship with the expansion and contraction of political and civil rights."71 Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens' analysis confirms Sen's assertion that development depends on human agency: the "achievement of development is thoroughly dependent on the free agency of people."72 Participatory freedoms are particularly important, says Sen. "Political freedoms (in the form of free speech and elections) help to promote economic security. Social opportunities (in the form of education and health facilities) facilitate economic participation. Economic facilities (in the form of opportunities for participation in trade and production) can help to generate personal abundance as well as public class action and human agency to which Rueschemeyer, Stephens and Stephens refer is not purely voluntarist: it arises only if the structural conditions are appropriate. Democracy, Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens assert, is "above all a matter of power":74 it is necessary for the subordinated classes to wrest democracy from the powerful. resources for social facilities. Freedoms of different kinds can strengthen one another."73 But the Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens set themselves the task of determining how, and under what structural conditions, social movements for democracy arose. They referred to the many complex sequences—rooted in the actual historical experiences of various countries—that resulted in subordinate [End Page 25] social classes' developing the capacity to organize. Class action is made possible by transformations in social organization, especially by improvements in education and communication, and by urbanization and the concentration of population. This results in the emergence of civil society as a counterweight to state power. B. Democracy is key to prevent extinction Larry Diamond1995, staff, “Promoting Democracy in the 1990’s”, Oct, p. online: http://www.carnegie.org/sub/ pubs/deadly/dia95_01.html lexis This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because , within their Last printed 129 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 130 own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built. Last printed 130 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 131 Affirmative - Poverty Turn (1/2) A. Globalization and Capitalism are key to the global eradication of poverty in developing countries. The Oakland Tribune, ‘07 (The Oakland Tribune Staff Writer, September 2007, The Oakland Tribune “Global Capitalism Saves the Children” http://global.factiva.com/ga/default.aspx) GLOBAL capitalism has long lacked for a ringing slogan like "workers of the world unite." It's never too late to find one, and a good candidate — with apologies to the international charity of the same name — might be "save the children." The United Nations Children's Fund just announced that deaths of young children worldwide hit an all-time low, falling beneath 10 million annually. Better practices to protect against disease and to enhance nutrition — more vaccinations and mosquito nets, more breast-feeding and vitamin A drops — played a role, but the most important factor in this global goodnews story is economic growth. It is no coincidence that as UNICEF was reporting the drop in child mortality, the World Bank was reporting global poverty rates had fallen as part of an extraordinary worldwide economic boom. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson calls it "far and away the strongest global economy I've seen in my business lifetime." The global economy is growing at a 5 percent clip, higher than the 3 percent of the period from 1960 to 1980 and the 4.7 percent from 1960 to 1980. In a worldwide instance of trickle-down economics, the growth is diminishing the ranks of the poor. According to the World Bank, developing countries have averaged 3.9 percent growth since 2000, contributing "to rapidly falling poverty rates in all developing regions over the past few years." In 1990, 1.25 billion people lived on less than $1 a day. In 2004, less than a billion did, even though world population increased 20 percent in the interim. When a developing country gets richer, it means that people living there are less likely to be malnourished and — as infrastructure improves — more likely to have access to clean water and to sanitation. This is a boon to health. A recent article in the journal Lancet concluded that "undernutrition is the underlying cause of a substantial proportion of all child deaths." Malnutrition weakens a child's immune system and makes him more susceptible to diarrhea, malaria, pneumonia and other diseases. Lack of potable water and sanitation — roughly 1 billion people lack clean water, and 2 billion lack sanitation — also increases the risk of illness, obviously. Millions die every year from diseases associated with contaminated water and poor sanitation. China and India have led the way in growth, with the fastest- and second-fastest-growing major economies in the world. Thus, what have been sinks of human misery on a vast scale for centuries are becoming more livable. China accounted for almost all the recent drop in people living on less than $1 a day, experiencing a decline of 300 million since 1990. India has seen its mortality rate for children under the age of 5 decline from 123 per 1,000 in 1990 to 74 in 2005. Such growth in developing countries is the result of, according to the World Bank, "further integration into world markets, better functioning internal markets and rising demand for many commodities." In short: globalization and capitalism. When a goateed anarcho-syndicalist commits an act of vandalism at an anti-globalization protest, he might think that he's striking a blow against The Man, but he's really rallying against the chance some desperately poor little boy or girl has to live a healthier life. Because we in the West have reached the sunny uplands of sustained economic development, we can worry about the deleterious second-order effects — pollution, etc. — of growth. In too many places around the world, however, economic growth is still a matter of life and death. Governments, philanthropists and activists have been pouring massive resources into fighting AIDS and other diseases in the Third World recently. This is all very commendable, but we can't ignore the main event. By all means, let's save the world — help it grow. Last printed 131 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 132 Affirmative - Poverty Turn (2/2) B. Poverty is an ongoing thermonuclear war against the poor GILLIGAN 96 (James, Professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, and a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the National Campaign Against Youth Violence, "Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and its Causes", p. 191-196) The deadliest form of violence is poverty. You cannot work for one day with the violent people who fill our prisons and mental hospitals for the criminally insane without being forcible and constantly reminded of the extreme poverty and discrimination that characterizes their lives. Hearing about their lives, and about their families and friends, you are forced to recognize the truth in Gandhi's observation that the deadliest form of violence is poverty. Not a day goes by without realizing that trying to understand them and their violent behavior in purely individual terms is impossible and wrong-headed. Any theory of violence, especially a psychological theory, that evolves from the experience of men in maximum security prisons and hospitals for the criminally insane must begin with the recognition that these institutions are only microcosms. They are not where the major violence in our society takes place, and the perpetrators who fill them are far from being the main causes of most violent deaths. Any approach to a theory of violence needs to begin with a look at the structural violence in this country. Focusing merely on those relatively few men who commit what we define as murder could distract us from examining and learning from those structural causes of violent death that are for more significant from a numerical or public health, or human, standpoint. By "structural violence" I mean the increased rates of death, and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted with the relatively low death rates experienced by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of class structure; and that structure itself is a product of society's collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting "structural" with "behavioral violence," by which I mean the nonnatural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on. Structural violence differs from behavior violence in at least three major respects. The lethal effects of= structural violence operate continuously, rather than sporadically, whereas murders, suicides, executions, wars, and other forms of behavioral violence occur one at a time. *Structural violence operates more or less independently of individual acts; independent of individuals and groups (politicians, political parties, voters) whose decisions may nevertheless have lethal consequences for others. *Structural violence is normally invisible, because it may appear to have had other (natural or violent) causes. The finding that structural violence causes far more deaths than behavioral violence does is not limited to this country. Kohler and Alcock attempted to arrive at the number of excess deaths caused by socioeconomic inequities on a worldwide basis. Sweden was their model of the nation that had come closest to eliminating structural violence. It had the least inequity in income and living standards, and the lowest discrepancies in death rates and life expectancy; and the highest overall life expectancy of the world. When they compared the life expectancies of those living in the other socioeconomic systems against Sweden, they found that 18 million deaths a year could be attributed to the "structural violence" to which the citizens of all the other nations were being subjected. During the past decade, the discrepancies between the rich and poor nations have increased dramatically and alarmingly. The 14 to 19 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those by genocide – or about eight million per year, 1939-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (232 million), it is clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, and accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. Structural violence is also the main cause of behavioral violence on a socially and epidemiologically significant scale (from homicide and suicide to war and genocide). The question as to which of the two forms of violence – structural or behavioral – is more important, dangerous, or lethal is moot, for they are inextricably related to each other, as cause to effect. Last printed 132 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 133 Affirmative - Cap solves poverty (1) Cap is key to solve poverty Walton, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of California, Davis, 2006. (Gary M Walton, Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of California, Davis and President, Foundation for Teaching Economics, 2006, http://www.fte.org/capitalism/introduction/index.html) Recent declines in the number of the world’s poor are primarily a result of institutional improvements in Asia, especially in China and India. Since 1980, more than 200 million people have moved above the poverty threshold measure. The policy shifts allowing private holdings of land in China and greater freedom to create commercial enterprises to produce and exchange goods are revolutionizing life there. In contrast, the number of poor people in Africa continues to grow, as insecure property rights and weak regimes of law and order discourage investment, production, and exchange throughout much of the continent. Evidence on the economic growth effects of expansive markets and integration into world exchange is given in Figure 5 which shows the phenomenal growth rate of economies that have moved away from centrally-planned, closed economic systems, to open, globally integrated systems. (See Appendix 2 for a static ranking of countries by measures of openness to international trade.) The comparison to both advanced rich nations and to those which, by design or lack of opportunity, have not globalized is striking. The faster growth rates of nations entering into the world market system is positive news, holding out the very real possibility of poorer nations “catching up” to the material comforts enjoyed by the advanced/rich nations, even as the less globalized fall farther behind. This positive conclusion requires elaboration because it rests on both actual growth rates and population size. From the work of Stanley Fisher (2003), we can see the growth rates of nations in Figure 6, unaccounted for population size. The upward trend line shows richer nations growing more rapidly on average than poorer nations. Figure 7, however, magnifies the dots according to population size, revealing a downward trend, a catching up. Especially in Asia, where institutional economic change has been notable, populous China and now India are following Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea out of poverty. Last printed 133 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 134 Affirmative - Cap prevents poverty (2) Capitalism has turned companies into helping the needy more due to consumer demand. Fitzgerald, writer for business network, 2008 Michael Fitzgerald, has been published in the New York Times, The Economist, Fast Company, Inc. and CIO. He was also a 2007 Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellow in Science and Religion, February 27th, 2008 @ 8:06 pm, http://blogs.bnet.com/business-books/?p=154 Do corporations exist solely to maximize their bottom lines? We don’t think so , a post that drew from a Forbes article looking at the history of efforts to create socially conscious companies. In fact, most companies follow a shifting strategy towards profits — many now engage in some form of philanthropy, for instance, and there is a burgeoning effort to develop much more socially conscious firms, the ‘creative capitalism’ Bill Gates talked about at this year’s World Economic Forum. In one sense, this is old news — companies have always had pressure not to focus purely on profits. Regulation occurs when industries cause harm to ordinary citizens, a pattern that has been repeated from railroads to food processing to pharmaceuticals. Attracting talent leads to pensions and health benefits and other perks. But the current push for socially conscious business goes further — what we expect from companies seems to be shifting, to something more holistic than providing a few jobs for communities. Certainly we in the media seem to have shifted from dunning companies for how they treat the working stiff to dunning them for how they treat the world. In that vein, McKinsey released a survey of corporate philanthropy (free registration required) that suggests that businesses see real opportunity in pursuing certain kinds of corporate philanthropy. It is notable, however, that some 30 percent of the responses to the question asking about business goals indicate that some companies are trying to reach very concrete goals, such as building knowledge about potential new markets and informing areas of innovation. Respondents from companies with these goals are likelier than others to say business concerns should play a role in determining funding for philanthropic programs. Also, their philanthropic programs are much more likely to address at least some of the social and political issues relevant to their businesses; nearly two-thirds say they currently do, compared with just under half of all respondents. Last printed 134 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 135 Affirmative - Cap prevents poverty (3) Capitalism is not the cause of poverty but the solution for poverty. Capitalism.org, writers write a published magazine, 2004. Capitalism.org, Capitalism Magazine is a private "for-profit" website owned by Bahamas 2000, Ltd. Published, 2004, http://www.capitalism.org/index.htm Capitalism did not create poverty, but it inherited it. Far from being a cause of poverty, laissez-faire capitalism is the only solution to solving it. Observe that the freedom that a rich man needs to maintain and add to his wealth, is the same freedom a poor man needs to create his wealth -- and the creation of wealth for both, has the same root -- reason. The only requirement of reason from the state is entirely singular in principle: freedom, that is, the banishment of the initiation of force from all social relationships. Yet, this is precisely the freedom that the "humanitarians" do not wish to give either of them, since this "right" to freedom and liberty, can only come at the expense of the alleged humanitarian's "might." "Those humanitarians who claim to help the poor, but oppose capitalism, do not really have the interests of the poor in mind." [AR paraphrase I think, need to check.] Since all men are free to create wealth under capitalism, no one is forced into poverty, as in non-capitalist countries. In a capitalist country, the only poor are those who choose to remain so of their own free-will (such as many of the "back to nature" types who wish to live like hippies).Keep in mind that the moral justification of capitalism is not the it serves the "needs of the many", but that it protects the rights of every individual -- in particular, it protects the individual from the "many" (majority). Capitalism is not egalitarian, nor "compassionate"; Capitalism is just. Capitalism is the only way to solve poverty. Balko, writer for Fox News, 2002; Randly Balko, writer for Fox news, 10-9-02 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65278,00.html World poverty is down. Income gaps are narrowing. And the reasons for all of this are, to the protesters chagrin, none other than capitalism, globalization and free trade. The first study is the 2002 edition of the United Nations annual "Human Development Report." The report informs us that as of 2002, 140 of the world is 200 countries -- 70 percent -- now hold multi-party elections. Eighty-two countries representing 57 percent of the human population are fully democratic, the highest percentage in human history. After a century in which totalitarianism -- Nazism, fascism and communism -- killed more than 170 million people, a clear move toward universal political freedom is afoot. The numbers on world economics are good, too. World poverty fell more than 20 percent between 1990 and 1999, a decade of aggressive globalization. The number of world Internet users is expected to double by 2005 to one billion. In those regions of the world most sympathetic to liberal reform, the news is even better. In ten years, poverty halved in in East Asia and the Pacific regions. Since 1990, 800 million people have gained new access to improved water supplies, and 750 million to improved sanitation. In the last 30 years, infant mortality rates have dropped from 96 deaths per 1,000 live births to just 56. A study from the Institute for International Studies boasts even more good news. The author of that study, Surjit S. Bhalla, employed accounting statistics based on individual incomes instead of national incomes, which allowed him to more accurately measure wealth and poverty rates. Bhalla concludes that the world poverty rate has declined even more dramatically than the U.N. reports, from 44 percent in 1980 to just 13 percent in 2000. Bhalla attributes the decline to progress in China and India, the two most populous nations in the world, and two nations that have made significant moves toward more economic freedom in the last 20 years. Last printed 135 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 136 Affirmative - Cap prevents poverty (4) Capitalism leads to a countries prosperity. Bernstein, writer for the freeman website, 2003 Andrew Bernstein, writer for the freeman website and is the author of The Capitalist Manifesto (University Press of America, forthcoming next year). December 2003http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/global-capitalism-curing-oppression-and-poverty/ The freedom of the capitalist system liberates creative human brainpower from bondage to the state. The ensuing advances in science, medicine, agriculture, technology, and industry generate vast increases in living standards and life expectancies. It is not surprising that during the capitalist epoch, roughly 1820 to the present, the free countries of western Europe and North America saw their total economic output increase 60 times, and per capita income grow to be 13 times what it had been previously. Even minimal capitalist elements have already produced salutary results in communist Vietnam. The annual minimum wage there is $134; but Nike, which owns Vietnamese factories—misleadingly dubbed “sweatshops” by anti-capitalist ideologues—pays an average salary of $670, which is double the country’s per capita GDP. Western companies in the poorest countries pay their workers, on average, twice what the corresponding native firms pay. Most important, workers voluntarily seek such employment, and unlike the repressive governments, these private companies have no legal right to initiate force against them. Capitalism is freedom—and freedom leads to prosperity. The moral is the practical. On the other hand, statism is oppression —and oppression leads to destitution. The immoral is the impractical. After two centuries of capitalism, 80 years of socialism, and a millennium of feudalism, the contest is over and the scores are on the board. The alternatives open to human beings are stark: freedom and prosperity or statism and misery. We have only to make our choice. Capitalism is key to solve poverty. Kling, writer for moneynews.com, 2009 (Michael Kling http://www.moneynews.com/streettalk/capitalism_works/2009/03/20/194300.html) writer for moneynews.com, 3-20-09 Guess what: Capitalism works, write top University of Chicago economists Gary Becker and Kevin Murphy in a Financial Times editorial. Numbers show capitalism prompted an enormous growth of worldwide wealth in recent decades. Even if the slowdown means GDP loses ground this year, as the OECD now predicts, we’re still way ahead of the game compare to only a few years ago. In simple terms, the world is much less poor than it used to be, and there’s no erasing those gains. World real gross domestic product grew by about 145 percent between 1980 and 2007, they note. Chinese and Indian incomes skyrocketed after those countries adopted market-based reforms. Even if a recession slashes 10 percent off world GDP long-term capitalism-induced growth in prosperity would be substantial. Legislators and regulators should appreciate those benefits, they warn. The widespread view to do something, anything, to boost the economy, may violate the oath doctors take: First, do no harm. Government interventions hurt rather than help by increasing risk and uncertainty, Becker and Murphy warn. “The government has overridden contracts and rewarded many of those whose poor decisions helped create the mess,” the economists write. “It proposes to override even more contracts.” Political agendas will replace sound business judgments in government-owned companies, causing distorted decision-making, they warn. “While such dramatic measures may be expedient, they are likely to have serious adverse consequences.” A bill that would substantial increase taxes of employees at companies receiving TARP funding is an example of political expediency. Under the proposed law, banks would be forced to risk losing top employees or return TARP funds, thus crippling their lending ability. “I honestly think TARP banks have a grave risk of losing just the people they need to keep to help get them out of trouble,” said Pat Wieser, an executive recruiter, told The Washington Post. Last printed 136 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 137 Capitalism is key to world peace. Affirmative – Cap leads to peace Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato institute, 2005 (Doug Bandow, CATO Institute. Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato institute – he served as a special assistant to President Reagan, November 10, 2005 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5193) In a world that seems constantly aflame, one naturally asks: What causes peace? Many people, including U.S. President George W. Bush, hope that spreading democracy will discourage war. But new research suggests that expanding free It's a reason for even the left to support free markets. The capitalist peace theory isn't new: Montesquieu and Adam Smith believed in it. Many of Britain's classical liberals, such as Richard Cobden, pushed free markets while opposing imperialism. But World War I demonstrated that increased trade was not enough . The prospect of economic ruin did not prevent rampant nationalism, ethnic hatred, and security fears from trumping the power of markets. An markets is a far more important factor, leading to what Columbia University's Erik Gartzke calls a "capitalist peace." even greater conflict followed a generation later. Thankfully, World War II left war essentially unthinkable among leading industrialized - and democratic - states. Support grew for the argument, going back to Immanual Kant, that republics are less warlike than other systems. Today's corollary is that creating democracies out of dictatorships will reduce conflict. This contention animated some support outside as well as inside the United States for the invasion of Iraq. But Gartzke argues that "the 'democratic peace' is a mirage created by the overlap between economic and political freedom." That is, democracies typically have freer economies than do authoritarian states. Thus, while "democracy is desirable for many reasons," he notes in a chapter in the latest volume of Economic Freedom in the World, created by the Fraser Institute, "representative governments are unlikely to contribute directly to international peace." Capitalism is by far the more important factor. The shift from statist mercantilism to high-tech capitalism has transformed the economics behind war. Markets generate economic opportunities that make war less desirable. Territorial aggrandizement no longer provides the best path to riches. Freeflowing capital markets and other aspects of globalization simultaneously draw nations together and raise the economic price of military conflict. Moreover, sanctions, which interfere with economic prosperity, provides a coercive step short of war to achieve foreign policy ends. Positive economic trends are not enough to prevent war, but then, neither is democracy. It long has been obvious that democracies are willing to fight, just usually not each other. Contends Gartzke, "liberal political systems, in and of themselves, have no impact on whether states fight.” In particular, poorer democracies perform like non-democracies. He explains: "Democracy does not have a measurable impact, while nations with very low levels of economic freedom are 14 times more prone to conflict than those with very high levels." Gartzke considers other variables, including alliance memberships, nuclear deterrence, and regional differences. Although the causes of conflict vary, the relationship between economic liberty and peace remains. His conclusion hasn't gone unchallenged. Author R.J. Rummel, an avid proponent of the democratic peace theory, challenges Gartzke's methokdology and worries that it "may well lead intelligent and policy-wise analysts and commentators to draw the wrong conclusions about the importance of democratization." Gartzke responds in detail, noting that he relied on the same data as most democratic peace theorists. If it is true that democratic states don't go to war, then it also is true that "states with advanced free market economies never go to war with each other, either." The point is not that democracy is valueless. Free political systems naturally entail free elections and are more likely to protect other forms of liberty - civil and economic, for instance. However, democracy alone doesn't yield peace. To believe is does is dangerous: There's no panacea for creating a conflict-free world. That doesn't mean that nothing can be done. But promoting open international markets - that is, spreading capitalism - is the best means to encourage peace as well as prosperity. Notes Gartzke: "Warfare among developing nations will remain unaffected by the capitalist peace as long as the economies of many developing countries remain fettered by governmental control." Freeing those economies is critical. It's a particularly important lesson for the anti-capitalist left. For the most part, the enemies of economic liberty also most stridently denounce war, often in near-pacifist terms. Yet they oppose the very economic policies most likely to encourage peace. If market critics don't realize the obvious economic and philosophical value of markets - prosperity and freedom - Trade encourages prosperity and stability; technological innovation reduces the financial value of conquest; globalization creates economic interdependence, increasing the cost of war. Nothing is certain in life, and people are motivated by far more than economics. But it turns out that peace is good business. And capitalism is good for peace. they should appreciate the unintended peace dividend . Last printed 137 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 138 Affirmative - Value to Life turn Capitalism is key to any value to life without poverty, dictatorships, and meaningless lives Saunders, Writer for Policy Magazine, 08 (Peter Saunders, writer for Policy Magazine, Summer 07-08, http://www.cis.org.au/POLICY/summer%200708/saunders_summer07.html) If we want to know if capitalism is bad (or good) for the 'soul,' it probably makes more sense to approach the question metaphorically rather than theologically. Approached in this way, saying something is 'good for the soul' implies simply that it enhances our capacity to live a good life. On this less literal and more secular interpretation of the 'soul,' capitalism fares rather well. We have known since the time of Adam Smith that capitalism harnesses self-interest to generate outcomes that benefit others. This is obvious in the relationship between producers and consumers, for profits generally flow to those who anticipate what other people want and then deliver it at the least cost. But it also holds in the relationship between employers and employees. One of Karl Marx's most mischievous legacies was to suggest that this relationship is inherently antagonistic: that for employers to make profit, they must drive wages down. In reality, workers in the advanced capitalist countries thrive when their companies increase profits. The pursuit of profit thus results in higher living standards for workers, as well as cheaper and more plentiful goods and services for consumers. The way this has enhanced people's capacity to lead a good life can be seen in the spectacular reduction in levels of global poverty, brought about by the spread of capitalism on a world scale. In 1820, 85% of the world's population lived on today's equivalent of less than a dollar per day. By 1950, this proportion had fallen to 50%. Today it is down to 20%. World poverty has fallen more in the last fifty years than it did in the previous five hundred.(11) This dramatic reduction in human misery and despair owes nothing to aging rockstars demanding that we 'make poverty history.' It is due to the spread of global capitalism. Capitalism has also made it possible for many more people to live on Earth and to survive for longer than ever before. In 1900, the average life expectancy in the 'less developed countries' was just thirty years. By 1960, this had risen to forty-six years. By 1998, it was sixty-five years. To put this extraordinary achievement into perspective, the average life expectancy in the poorest countries at the end of the twentieth century was fifteen years longer than the average life expectancy in the richest country in the world—Britain—at the start of that century. By perpetually raising productivity, capitalism has not only driven down poverty rates and raised life expectancy, it has also released much of humanity from the crushing burden of physical labour, freeing us to pursue 'higher' objectives instead. What Clive Hamilton airily dismisses as a 'growth fetish' has resulted in one hour of work today delivering twenty-five times more value than it did in 1850. This has freed huge chunks of our time for leisure, art, sport, learning, and other 'soul-enriching' pursuits. Despite all the exaggerated talk of an 'imbalance' between work and family life, the average Australian today spends a much greater proportion of his or her lifetime free of work than they would had they belonged to any previous generation in history. There is another sense, too, in which capitalism has freed individuals so they can pursue worthwhile lives, and that lies in its record of undermining tyrannies and dictatorships. As examples like Pinochet's Chile and Putin's Russia vividly demonstrate, a free economy does not guarantee a democratic polity or a society governed by the rule of law. But as Milton Friedman once pointed out, these latter conditions are never found in the absence of a free economy.(12) Historically, it was capitalism that delivered humanity from the 'soul-destroying' weight of feudalism. Later, it freed millions from the dead hand of totalitarian socialism. While capitalism may not be a sufficient condition of human freedom, it is almost certainly a necessary one. Last printed 138 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 139 Affirmative - Human rights turn Capitalism is critical to human rights. Bernstein, writer for the freeman website, 2003 Andrew Bernstein, writer for the freeman website and is the author of The Capitalist Manifesto (University Press of America, forthcoming next year). December 2003http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/globalcapitalism-curing-oppression-and-poverty/ Although leftist agitators continue to protest global capitalism, they overlook the key points in the debate. Capitalism has been instituted on three continents—in western Europe, North America, and Asia. These nations —England, France, the United States, Japan, Hong Kong, and the others—are among the world’s wealthiest countries with per capita incomes in the range of at least $20,000– $30,000 annually. Additionally, even the prosperity of a so-called “socialist” country like Sweden is based on significant elements of capitalism, including Volvo, Saab, and Ericsson, as well as countless private small shops. But capitalism is not merely the system of prosperity; fundamentally, it is the system of individual rights and freedom. The inalienable rights of individuals are largely protected in these countries. For example, their citizens enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, and of intellectual expression. They have freedom of religion. Similarly, they possess economic freedom, including the right to own property—their own home or farm—to start their own businesses, and to seek profit. These countries hold free elections, and their governments are subject to the rule of law. By contrast, the noncapitalist nations of the world, past and present, lack both freedom and prosperity. For example, in feudal Europe, before the capitalist revolution of the late eighteenth century, serfdom and its legacy dominated. Peasants were often legally tied to the land and possessed few rights. Commoners, more broadly, were subordinated to the king, aristocrats, and Church, and free thought was punished. Voltaire, for example, was imprisoned for his revolutionary ideas, as was Diderot. Galileo was threatened with torture and Giordano Bruno burned at the stake for supporting scientific theories that clashed with the teachings of the Church. The minds and rights of individual citizens were thoroughly suppressed. What were the practical results of such repression? Poverty, famine, and disease were endemic during the feudal era. The bubonic plague wiped out virtually one third of Europe’s population during the fourteenth century, and recurred incessantly into the eighteenth. Famine killed sizable portions of the population in Scotland, Finland, and Ireland—and caused misery and death even in such relatively prosperous countries as England and France. According to one economist, economic growth was nonexistent during the centuries 500–1500—and per capita income rose by merely 0.1 percent per year in the years 1500–1700. In 1500 the European per capita GDP was roughly $215; in 1700, roughly $265. The world today is filled with countries more brutally repressed even than those of feudal Europe. In Sudan, for example, the Islamic government arms Arab militias that murder, rape, and enslave the black Christian population. There are currently tens of thousands of black slaves in Sudan. In Rwanda in 1994, Hutu tribesmen slaughtered 800,000 innocent victims, mostly members of the Tutsi tribe. In communist North Korea, political prisoners are enslaved, starved, and used for target practice by prison guards and troops. The practical results of such oppression are the same as in feudal Europe. In Sudan per capita GDP is $296; in Rwanda it is $227. In North Korea, where nighttime satellite photographs reveal utter darkness because the country lacks electricity, conditions are just as grim. Despite massive aid from the capitalist West, tens of thousands of human beings starved to death there in recent years. What must be recognized is that freedom is a necessary condition of wealth. Cures for disease, economic growth, agricultural and industrial revolutions—the means by which human beings rise above deprivation and misery—are products of the rational mind operating under conditions of political-economic freedom. Last printed 139 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 140 Affirmative – Environment turn (1/2) A. Capitalism incentivizes protection of the environment. Norberg 03 (Johan, Senior Fellow at Cato Institute, In Defense of Global Capitalism, pg 224) Although multinational corporations and free trade are proving good for development and human rights in the Third World, there still remains the objection that globalization harms the environment. Factories in the Western world, the argument runs, will relocate to poorer countries with no environmental legislation, where they can pollute with impunity. The West has to follow suit and lower its own environmental standards in order to stay in business. That is a dismal thesis, with the implication that when people obtain better opportunities, resources, and technology, they use them to abuse nature. Does there really have to be a conflict between development and the environment? The notion that there has to be a conflict runs into the same problem as the whole idea of a race to the bottom: it doesn't tally with reality. There is no exodus of industry to countries with poor environmental standards, and there is no downward pressure on the level of global environmental protection. Instead, the bulk of American and European investments goes to countries with environmental regulations similar to their own. There has been much talk of American factories moving to Mexico since NAFTA was signed. Less well known, however, is that since free trade was introduced Mexico has tightened up its environmental regulations, following a long history of complete nonchalance about environmental issues. This tightening up is part of a global trend. All over the world, economic progress and growth are moving hand in hand with intensified environmental protection. Four researchers who studied these connections found “a very strong, positive association between our [environmental] indicators and the level of economic development.” A country that is very poor is too preoccupied with lifting itself out of poverty to bother about the environment at all. Countries usually begin protecting their natural resources when they can afford to do so. When they grow richer, they start to regulate effluent emissions, and when they have still more resources they also begin regulating air quality. A number of factors cause environment protection to increase with wealth and development. Environmental quality is unlikely to be a top priority for people who barely know where their next meal is coming from. Abating misery and subduing the pangs of hunger takes precedence over conservation. When our standard of living rises we start attaching importance to the environment and obtaining resources to improve it. Such was the case earlier in western Europe, and so it is in the developing countries today. Progress of this kind, however, requires that people live in democracies where they are able and allowed to mobilize opinion; otherwise, their preferences will have no impact. Environmental destruction is worst in dictatorships. But it is the fact of prosperity no less than a sense of responsibility that makes environmental protection easier in a wealthy society. A wealthier country can afford to tackle environmental problems; it can develop environmentally friendly technologies—wastewater and exhaust emission control, for example—and begin to rectify past mistakes. Last printed 140 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 141 Affirmative - Environment turn (2/2) B. Extinction Diner, 94 (Judge Advocate’s General’s Corps of US Army, David N., Military Law Review, Winter, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161, Lexis) No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of life and death -- extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a single-minded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race. n67 In past mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, and new species replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now? The prime reason is the world's survival. Like all animal life, humans live off of other species. At some point, the number of species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails, and then humans also would become extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species the world needs to support human life, and to find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound policy. In addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind. n68 2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest, n69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services -- pollution control, n70 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. n71 3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. n72 Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. n73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew n74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. n75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. n76 4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. n77 As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss. Last printed 141 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 142 Affirmative - A2: Cap not moral Capitalism is moral YOUNKINS, professor of accountancy and business administration, 2007. Edward YOUNKINS, , professor of accountancy and business administration @ Wheeling Jesuit University, June 24, 2007, http://www.quebecoislibre.org/07/070624-5.htm A social system such as capitalism is a system of relationships and cannot be moral or immoral in the sense that a person can be – only individuals can be moral agents. However, a social system can be moral in its effects if it promotes the possibility and likelihood of moral behavior of mindful human beings who act within it. It follows then, that because the formation of a social system is an act of men, there is a moral imperative to create the kind of political and economic system that permits the greatest possibility for selfdetermination and moral agency. Capitalism is that system. Last printed 142 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 143 Affirmative - A2: Root Cause Capitalism isn’t the root of anything. Aberdeen 3 [Richard Aberdeen 2003 “THE WAY A http://freedomtracks.com/uncommonsense/theway.html] Theory of Root Cause and Solution” A view shared by many modern activists is that capitalism, free enterprise, multi-national corporations and globalization are the primary cause of the current global Human Rights problem and that by striving to change or eliminate these, the root problem of what ills the modern world is being addressed. This is a rather unfortunate and historically myopic view, reminiscent of early “class struggle” Marxists who soon resorted to violence as a means to achieve rather questionable ends. And like these often brutal early Marxists, modern anarchists who resort to violence to solve the problem are walking upside down and backwards, adding to rather than correcting, both the immediate and long-term Human Rights problem. Violent revolution, including our own American revolution, becomes a breeding ground for poverty, disease, starvation and often mass oppression leading to future violence. Large, publicly traded corporations are created by individuals or groups of individuals, operated by individuals and made up of individual and/or group investors. These business enterprises are deliberately structured to be empowered by individual (or group) investor greed. For example, a theorized ‘need’ for offering salaries much higher than is necessary to secure competent leadership (often resulting in corrupt and entirely incompetent leadership), lowering wages more than is fair and equitable and scaling back of often hard fought for benefits, is sold to stockholders as being in the best interest of the bottom-line market value and thus, in the best economic interests of individual investors. Likewise, major political and corporate exploitation of third-world nations is rooted in the individual and joint greed of corporate investors and others who stand to profit from such exploitation. More than just investor greed, corporations are driven by the greed of all those involved, including individuals outside the enterprise itself who profit indirectly from it. If one examines “the course of human events” closely, it can correctly be surmised that the “root” cause of humanity’s problems comes from individual human greed and similar negative individual motivation. The Marx/Engles view of history being a “class” struggle ¹ does not address the root problem and is thus fundamentally flawed from a true historical perspective (see Gallo Brothers for more details). So-called “classes” of people, unions, corporations and political groups are made up of individuals who support the particular group or organizational position based on their own individual needs, greed and desires and thus, an apparent “class struggle” in reality, is an extension of individual motivation. Likewise, nations engage in wars of aggression, not because capitalism or classes of society are at root cause, but because individual members of a society are individually convinced that it is in their own economic survival best interest. War, poverty, starvation and lack of Human and Civil Rights have existed on our planet since long before the rise of modern capitalism, free enterprise and multi-national corporation avarice, thus the root problem obviously goes deeper than this. Junior Bush and the neoconservative genocidal maniacs of modern-day America could not have recently effectively gone to war against Iraq without the individual support of individual troops and a certain percentage of individual citizens within the U.S. population, each lending support for their own personal motives, whatever they individually may have been. While it is true that corrupt leaders often provoke war, using all manner of religious, social and political means to justify, often as not, entirely ludicrous ends, very rare indeed is a battle only engaged in by these same unscrupulous miscreants of power. And though a few iniquitous elitist powerbrokers may initiate nefarious policies of global genocidal oppression, it takes a very great many individuals operating from individual personal motivations of survival, desire and greed to develop these policies into a multi-national exploitive reality. No economic or political organization and no political or social cause exists unto itself but rather, individual members power a collective agenda. A workers’ strike has no hope of succeeding if individual workers do not perceive a personal benefit. And similarly, a corporation will not exploit workers if doing so is not believed to be in the economic best interest of those who run the corporation and who in turn, must answer (at least theoretically) to individuals who collectively through purchase or other allotment of shares, own the corporation. Companies have often been known to appear benevolent, offering both higher wages and improved benefits, if doing so is perceived to be in the overall economic best interest of the immediate company and/or larger corporate entity. Non-unionized business enterprises frequently offer ‘carrots’ of appeasement to workers in order to discourage them from organizing and historically in the United States, concessions such as the forty-hour workweek, minimum wage, workers compensation and proscribed holidays have been grudgingly capitulated to by greedy capitalist masters as necessary concessions to avoid profitcrippling strikes and outright revolution. Last printed 143 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 144 Affirmative: Cap Good – Environment Capitalism helps the environment and solves CO2 emissions John Tierney 4/20/09; “Use Energy, Get rich and Save the Planet” New York Times; http://www.nytimes.com/ 2009/04/21/science/earth/21tier.html?_r=1 When the first Earth Day took place in 1970, American environmentalists had good reason to feel guilty. The nation’s affluence and advanced technology seemed so obviously bad for the planet that they were featured in a famous equation developed by the ecologist Paul Ehrlich and the physicist John P. Holdren, who is now President Obama’s science adviser. Their equation was I=PAT, which means that environmental impact is equal to population multiplied by affluence multiplied by technology. Protecting the planet seemed to require fewer people, less wealth and simpler technology — the same sort of social transformation and energy revolution that will be advocated at many Earth Day rallies on Wednesday. But among researchers who analyze environmental data, a lot has changed since the 1970s. With the benefit of their hindsight and improved equations, I’ll make a couple of predictions: 1. There will be no green revolution in energy or anything else. No leader or law or treaty will radically change the energy sources for people and industries in the United States or other countries. No recession or depression will make a lasting change in consumers’ passions to use energy, make money and buy new technology — and that, believe it or not, is good news, because... 2. The richer everyone gets, the greener the planet will be in the long run. I realize this second prediction seems hard to believe when you consider the carbon being dumped into the atmosphere today by Americans, and the projections for increasing emissions from India and China as they get richer. Those projections make it easy to assume that affluence and technology inflict more harm on the environment. But while pollution can increase when a country starts industrializing, as people get wealthier they can afford cleaner water and air. They start using sources of energy that are less carbonintensive — and not just because they’re worried about global warming. The process of “decarbonization” started long before Al Gore was born. The old wealth-is-bad IPAT theory may have made intuitive sense, but it didn’t jibe with the data that has been analyzed since that first Earth Day. By the 1990s, researchers realized that graphs of environmental impact didn’t produce a simple upward-sloping line as countries got richer. The line more often rose, flattened out and then reversed so that it sloped downward, forming the shape of a dome or an inverted U — what’s called a Kuznets curve. (See nytimes.com/tierneylab for an example.) In dozens of studies, researchers identified Kuznets curves for a variety of environmental problems. There are exceptions to the trend, especially in countries with inept governments and poor systems of property rights, but in general, richer is eventually greener. As incomes go up, people often focus first on cleaning up their drinking water, and then later on air pollutants like sulfur dioxide. As their wealth grows, people consume more energy, but they move to more efficient and cleaner sources — from wood to coal and oil, and then to natural gas and nuclear power, progressively emitting less carbon per unit of energy. This global decarbonization trend has been proceeding at a remarkably steady rate since 1850, according to Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University and Paul Waggoner of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. “Once you have lots of high-rises filled with computers operating all the time, the energy delivered has to be very clean and compact,” said Mr. Ausubel, the director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller. “The long-term trend is toward natural gas and nuclear power, or Last printed 144 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 145 conceivably solar power. If the energy system is left to its own devices, most of the carbon will be out of it by 2060 or 2070.” But what about all the carbon dioxide being spewed out today by Americans commuting to McMansions? Well, it’s true that American suburbanites do emit more greenhouse gases than most other people in the world (although New Yorkers aren’t much different from other affluent urbanites). But the United States and other Western countries seem to be near the top of a Kuznets curve for carbon emissions and ready to start the happy downward slope. The amount of carbon emitted by the average American has remained fairly flat for the past couple of decades, and per capita carbon emissions have started declining in some countries, like France. Some researchers estimate that the turning point might come when a country’s per capita income reaches $30,000, but it can vary widely, depending on what fuels are available. Meanwhile, more carbon is being taken out of the atmosphere by the expanding forests in America and other affluent countries. Deforestation follows a Kuznets curve, too. In poor countries, forests are cleared to provide fuel and farmland, but as people gain wealth and better agricultural technology, the farm fields start reverting to forestland. Of course, even if rich countries’ greenhouse impact declines, there will still be an increase in carbon emissions from China, India and other countries ascending the Kuznets curve. While that prospect has environmentalists lobbying for global restrictions on greenhouse gases, some economists fear that a global treaty could ultimately hurt the atmosphere by slowing economic growth, thereby lengthening the time it takes for poor countries to reach the turning point on the curve. But then, is there much reason to think that countries at different stages of the Kuznets curve could even agree to enforce tough restrictions? The Kyoto treaty didn’t transform Europe’s industries or consumers. While some American environmentalists hope that the combination of the economic crisis and a new president can start an era of energy austerity and green power, Mr. Ausubel says they’re hoping against history. Over the past century, he says, nothing has drastically altered the long-term trends in the way Americans produce or use energy — not the Great Depression, not the world wars, not the energy crisis of the 1970s or the grand programs to produce alternative energy. “Energy systems evolve with a particular logic, gradually, and they don’t suddenly morph into something different,” Mr. Ausubel says. That doesn’t make for a rousing speech on Earth Day. But in the long run, a Kuznets curve is more reliable than a revolution. l transformation and energy revolution that will be advocated at many Earth Day rallies on Wednesday. Last printed 145 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 146 Affirmative: Cap Good – Military Readiness Capitalism is key to a high standard of living and military readiness Jeff DiSario 3/11/09; “Capitalism is Good – Leave It http://thenationalreport.com/?p=159 Alone” The National Report, Overall, capitalism is good. The wealth and relative high standard of living we all enjoy in this nation is evidence of that. There is nothing wrong with big business, big money, and big banks . They have enabled our country to prevail in times of war and threat. Pure grit and determination alone didn’t enable us to simultaneously defeat the Nazis and the Japanese in World War II. Both were very savvy, with well planed tactics and engineering. The simple truth is we out spent them, and out produced them. We cranked ships out faster than the German U boats could sink them. After Pearl Harbor we rebuilt and rearmed our Pacific fleet in record time. Technology that was outdated for us at the beginning of the War quickly became state of the art, far surpassing the abilities of our enemies’. We had a ton of production capability with a big checkbook to throw at the effort. In the 1980s it was capitalism that defeated the Soviet Union. Yes Ronald Reagan had a high budget for defense, but it was still a fraction of our budget and very manageable. However, the Soviet Union had to spend a ridiculous percentage of it’s GNP in an attempt to just keep pace. They couldn’t do it because they weren’t capitalists. It broke them down, forcing a collapse. Their population started demanding certain things from their government, and became more and more discontent with their standard of living. How is that for a war? Not a single shot fired! Zero troops mobilized! All capitalism and big money. Don’t mess with a good thing. Money keeps a nation strong, people fed, and a military at the ready. The people that want to overhaul our financial system want guarantees. Well grow up! There are no guarantees in life. I don’t care what system you want to put into place, what rules you want to enforce, or grand ideas you want to explore. None of them will ever produce a 100% guarantee. What we do have is a great track record. Look it up. Overall our markets spend much more time up then down. The historical data is everywhere on the web and trade publications. Difficult times will always come, and then they will go. The problem with enduring them is our general lack of savings. Most Americans spend more than they make, living on credit. That is another main contributor to our current problems. This would be much more manageable for people who learn how to save in the good times. Maybe that is what needs to change. That should be the lesson for this country through this financial crisis. This crisis is this nation’s margin call. We are not a nation of savers, we are a nation of spenders. Squirrels and ants know how to gather and store food in the abundant spring and summer seasons to last them through long cold winters. Take a cue from a lower life form. I find the belief that our government is going to bring it’s financial expertise and prowess to the financial sector laughable! Is it really wise to leave money management in the hands of the government? When has the government ever demonstrated its ability to handle money? The current administration has a hard time finding people for federal positions that aren’t embroiled in tax problems! Who in the government would oversee this process exactly? That would have to fall into the hands of Timothy Geitner, the Treasury secretary who had unpaid taxes. Lastly, I am not confortable havng a consortium of global financial officials revamping our financial rulebook. We are Americans and our government answers to us, not a conglomeration of 20 world financial powers. It is not recomended to give our sovereignty away to someone else’s say so. If they would like to compare notes and listen to some good ideas, fine. However, our nation is our nation. We shouldn’t leave our fiscal policies up to foreigners. Final say so on our financial policies belongs right Last printed 146 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 147 here at home. Period. Let your senators and congressmen know how you feel about that! Until another nation can rival America’s financial power, I don’t think it is wise to take clues from someone else. We are the wealthiest, most powerful nation in history. Maybe others should be taking their cues from us, or does that make too much sense? Last printed 147 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 148 Affirmative: Cap Good – Environment/Quality of Life Capitalism helps the environment and the overall quality of life Jerry Taylor 4/22/03 “Happy Earth Day? Thank http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3073 Capitalism” CATO Institute, Earth Day (April 22) is traditionally a day for the Left -- a celebration of government's ability to deliver the environmental goods and for threats about the parade of horribles that will descend upon us lest we rededicate ourselves to federal regulators and public land managers. This is unfortunate because it's businessmen -- not bureaucrats or environmental activists -- who deserve most of the credit for the environmental gains over the past century and who represent the best hope for a Greener tomorrow. Indeed, we wouldn't even have environmentalists in our midst were it not for capitalism. Environmental amenities, after all, are luxury goods. America -- like much of the Third World today -had no environmental movement to speak of until living standards rose sufficiently so that we could turn our attention from simply providing for food, shelter, and a reasonable education to higher "quality of life" issues. The richer you are, the more likely you are to be an environmentalist. And people wouldn't be rich without capitalism. Wealth not only breeds environmentalists, it begets environmental quality. There are dozens of studies showing that, as per capita income initially rises from subsistence levels, air and water pollution increases correspondingly. But once per capita income hits between $3,500 and $15,000 (dependent upon the pollutant), the ambient concentration of pollutants begins to decline just as rapidly as it had previously increased. This relationship is found for virtually every significant pollutant in every single region of the planet. It is an iron law. Given that wealthier societies use more resources than poorer societies, such findings are indeed counterintuitive. But the data don't lie. How do we explain this? The obvious answer -- that wealthier societies are willing to trade-off the economic costs of government regulation for environmental improvements and that poorer societies are not -- is only partially correct. In the United States, pollution declines generally predated the passage of laws mandating pollution controls. In fact, for most pollutants, declines were greater before the federal government passed its panoply of environmental regulations than after the EPA came upon the scene. Much of this had to do with individual demands for environmental quality. People who could afford cleaner-burning furnaces, for instance, bought them. People who wanted recreational services spent their money accordingly, creating profit opportunities for the provision of untrammeled nature. Property values rose in cleaner areas and declined in more polluted areas, shifting capital from Brown to Green investments. Market agents will supply whatever it is that people are willing to spend money on. And when people are willing to spend money on environmental quality, the market will provide it. Meanwhile, capitalism rewards efficiency and punishes waste. Profit-hungry companies found ingenious ways to reduce the natural resource inputs necessary to produce all kinds of goods, which in turn reduced environmental demands on the land and the amount of waste that flowed through smokestacks and water pipes. As we learned to do more and more with a given unit of resources, the waste involved (which manifests itself in the form of pollution) shrank. This trend was magnified by the shift away from manufacturing to service industries, which characterizes wealthy, growing economies. The latter are far less pollution-intensive than the former. But the former are necessary prerequisites for the latter. Property rights -- a necessary prerequisite for free market economies -- also provide strong incentives Last printed 148 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 149 to invest in resource health. Without them, no one cares about future returns because no one can be sure they'll be around to reap the gains. Property rights are also important means by which private desires for resource conservation and preservation can be realized. When the government, on the other hand, holds a monopoly on such decisions, minority preferences in developing societies are overruled (see the old Soviet block for details). Furthermore, only wealthy societies can afford the investments necessary to secure basic environmental improvements, such as sewage treatment and electrification. Unsanitary water and the indoor air pollution (caused primarily by burning organic fuels in the home for heating and cooking needs) are directly responsible for about 10 million deaths a year in the Third World, making poverty the number one environmental killer on the planet today. Capitalism can save more lives threatened by environmental pollution than all the environmental organizations combined. Finally, the technological advances that are part and parcel of growing economies create more natural resources than they consume. That's because what is or is not a "natural resource" is dependent upon our ability to harness the resource in question for human benefit. Resources are therefore a function of human knowledge. Because the stock of human knowledge increases faster in free economies than it does in socialist economies, it should be no surprise that most natural resources in the western world are more abundant today than ever before no matter which measure one uses. This is not to say that government regulations haven't had an impact or aren't occasionally worthwhile. It is to say, however, that free markets are an ally -- not an enemy -- of Mother Earth. The Left, accordingly, has no special claim on Earth Day. Last printed 149 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 150 Affirmative: Cap Good - Environment Capitalist products help the environment – fluorescent light bulbs prove J Scott Moody 9/7/06; “Capitalism is Good for the Environment” The Main Heritage Policy Center, http://www.mainepolicy.org/mhpc_blog/2006/09/capitalism-is-good-for-the-env.html This has nothing to do with taxes, but I was so struck by these numbers that I just had to share this story. Its the story of the humble light bulb. A revolution is brewing in the lighting industry and its going to save us all alot of money and help the environment along way. This article chronicles the development of the Compact Flourescend Lightbulb (CFL). The CFL has been around for some time, but the story goes on to tell how Walmart (Yes, the same Walmart that is vilified in the popular media) is beginning and alliance with GE (primary manufacturerer of CFLs) to double/triple the number of CFLs sold each year. What does this mean for your wallet and the environment: "Compact flourescents emit the same light as classic incandescents but use 75% to 80% less electricity. What that means is that if every one of 110 million American households bought just one ice-creamcone bulb, took it home, and screwed it in the place of an ordinary 60-watt bulb, the energy saved would be enough to power a city of 1.5 million people. One bulb swapped out, enough electricity is saved to power all the homes in Delaware and Rhode Island. In terms of oil not burned, or greenhouse gased nor exhausted into the atomosphere, one bulb is equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the roads. That's the law of large numbers--a small action, multiplied by 110 million. The single greatest source of greenhouse gases in the United States is power plants--half our electricity comes from coal plants. One bulb swapped out: enough electricity saved to turn off two entire power plants--or skip building the next two. Just one swirl per home. The typical U.S. house has between 50 and 100 sockets (astonish yourself: Go count the bulbs in your house). So what if we all bought and installed two icecream-cone bulbs? Five? Fifteen?" Of course, I would never suggest to anyone that they do something that I wouldn't also do. In fact, in my household, all my bulbs I use regularly are CFLs. They last 5 o 7 years and--especially with Maine's high electricity costs--pay for themselves rapidly. Go on . . . be a part of a revolution! Just remember, CFLs were invented in the United States, not the Soviet Union. Capitalism is good for the environment. Last printed 150 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 151 Affirmative: Capitalism is Inevitable Capitalism is inevitable and the only viable economic system Joseph R. Stromberg 7/9/04; Stromberg is a historian in residence at the Mises Institute in Austria; “Why Capitalism is Inevitable” Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1562 For all the talk about the triumph of capitalism, it seems that the free market—the real thing and not someone's imagined conception of it—has very few friends in politics or the world of ideas. Thus do the writings Murray Rothbard, the leading defender of the market economy of his generation, still have the power to shock and clarify the essential ideological and political battles of our time. This essay in particular constitutes on commentary on his powerful piece from 1973: "A Future of Peace and Capitalism." The traditional enemies on the left are all-too predictable in their insistence that market processes must be bent, shape, and chopped to conform to the demands of social justice, egalitarian ethics, or environmental concerns. On the right, the neoconservatives insist that global capitalism must be financed by credit expansion and escorted by the US global military empire in order to truly serve the interests of world order. Also on the right, the paleoconservatives cast aspersions on the market for its supposed disruptions of community life, its internationalism, and it baneful moral effects. The result is that interventions are cheered from all sides. For example, the movement for the (government-imposed) family wage spans left and right, when the state intervenes to curb mass retailing, free trade, sound money, freedom of association, private property, and all the other institutional marks of commercial society, it can count on wide intellectual agreement. Capitalism, it seems, despite its triumphs, remains an irresistible target of the opponents of liberty and property. How striking to discover, then, how few writers and thinkers are willing to spell out precisely what they mean when they refer to the economics of capitalism. For many, the term capitalism is nothing but a vessel into which they pour all the people, institutions, and ideas that they hate. And so capitalism emerges as a synonym for greed, dirty rivers and streams, pollution, corrupt businessmen, entrenched social privilege, the Republican Party, criminal syndicates, world Jewry, war for oil, or what have you. In fact, the advocates of capitalism themselves haven't always been entirely clear on the meaning and implications of capitalist theory. And this is why Murray Rothbard went to such lengths to spell out precisely what he was endorsing when he championed the economics of capitalism. This was especially necessary when he was writing in 1973, a time which was arguably the low point for capitalist theory. Mises died that year, all economists were said to be Keynesians, Nixon closed the gold window, wage and price controls were fastened on industry as an inflation fix, and the US was locked in a titanic Cold War struggle that emphasized government weaponry over private enterprise. Murray Rothbard, meanwhile, was hard at work on his book For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, an effort to breath new life into a traditionally liberal program by infusing it with a heavy dose of political radicalism. It must have seemed like a hopeless task. The same year, he was asked to contribute an essay in a series of readings called Modern Political Economy (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1973). He was to address "The Future of Capitalism" (pp. 419430), the conclusion of which might have seemed self-evidently bleak. But not to Rothbard. His contribution to the volume was lively, optimistic, enormously clarifying, and prescient to the extreme. Above all, he used the opportunity to explain with great clarity what precisely he means when he refers to capitalism: no more and no less than the sum of voluntary activity in society, particularly that characterized by exchange. Last printed 151 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 152 Does that seem like a stretch? Rothbard explains that the term capitalism itself was coined by its greatest enemy Karl Marx, and ever since the term has conflated two very different ideas: free-market capitalism, on the one hand, and state capitalism, on the other. "The difference between them, Rothbard notes, "is precisely the difference between, on the one hand, peaceful, voluntary exchange, and on the other, violent expropriation." This may seem like a small point, but the confusion accounts for why whole swaths of American historiography are incorrect, for example, in distinguishing Alexander Hamilton's supposed sympathy for capitalism from Thomas Jefferson's sympathy for "agrarianism." Rothbard points out that Jefferson was in fact an advocate of laissez-faire who had read and understood the classical economists; as an "agrarian" he was merely applying the doctrine of free markets to the American regional context, even as Hamilton's mercantilist and inflationist sympathies are best described as a preference for state capitalism. As Rothbard explains, capitalism is nothing but the system that emerges in the framework of free exchange of property and the absence of government efforts to stop it. Whether you are talking about buying a newspaper from a vendor or a group of stockholders hiring a CEO, the essence of the exchange is the same: two parties finding ways to benefit by the trade goods and services. From the exchange, both parties expect to benefit else the trade would not have occurred. The global marketplace at all levels is nothing but the extension of the idea of mutual betterment through peaceful exchange. In contrast to market exchange, we have its opposite in government intervention. It can be classified in two ways: either as prohibiting or partially prohibiting an exchange between two people or forcing someone to make an "exchange" that would otherwise not take place in the market. All government activity—regulation, taxation, protectionism, inflation, spending, social insurance, ad infinitum—can be classified as one of those two types of interventions. Taxation is nothing more than robbery (Rothbard challenges anyone to define taxation in a way that would not also describe high-minded theft), and the state itself is nothing but a much-vaunted robber on a mass scale—and it matters not whether the state is conducting domestic or foreign policy; the essence of statecraft is always coercion whereas the essence of markets is always voluntarism. In Rothbard's conception, it is not quite correct to characterize support for free markets as either right or left. In 1973, he heard as many complaints about the supposed greed unleashed by markets from the followers of Russell Kirk as he did from the new left socialists. The right, in fact, was afflicted with a serious intellectual attachment to pre-capitalistic institutional forms of monopoly privilege, militarism, and the unrelenting drive to war. This was what Rothbard saw the political establishment of 1973 bringing to the US: the march of the partnership between government and business that is nothing but the reinvention of political forms that pre-dated the capitalist revolution that began in the Italian city states of the 16th century. The US conservatives were entirely complicit in this attempt to reverse the classical liberal revolution in favor of free markets in order to fasten an old-world monopolist system on society. In this, the conservatives resembled their supposed enemies, the socialists. After all, socialism was, as Rothbard put it, "essentially a confused, middle-of-the-road movement." Its supposed goal of liberty, peace, and prosperity was to be achieved through the imposition of new forms of regimentation, mercantilism, and feudalism. Socialism seeks, in Rothbard's words, "liberal ends by the use of conservative means." ("Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty," Left and Right, I, 1, Spring 1965). Conservatives could be counted on to support the means but not the ends, and the result is something that approaches the current status quo in the US: a mixed political system that combines the worst features of egalitarian ideology with corporate militarism—a system that leaves enough of the private sector unhampered to permit impressive growth and innovation. It was precisely the productive power Last printed 152 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 153 of market, as versus the dead-end of statist methods favored by both left and right, that led Rothbard to see that the gains of capitalism could not finally be reversed. In addition, he may have been the first to anticipate the way in which the terms left and right would eventually come to mean their precise opposite in the reforming economies of Eastern Europe. He was fascinated but not entirely surprised by the events in old Yugoslavia, where a Stalinist system had been forced to reform into a more market oriented economy. In fact, he noted that the trend had begun in the 1960s, and extended all over Eastern Europe. What was essentially happening, Rothbard wrote, was that socialism had been tried and failed and now these countries were turning to market models. Keep in mind that this was 1973, when hardly anyone else believed these countries capable of reform: "In Eastern Europe, then, I think that the prospects for the free market are excellent--I think we’re getting free-market capitalism and that its triumph there is almost inevitable." Ten years later, it was still fashionable to speak of authoritarian regimes that could reform, as contrasted with socialist totalitarianism that could not be reform and presumably had to be obliterated. Rothbard did not believe this, based on both theory and evidence. Rothbard saw that all sectors in all countries moving either toward capitalism or toward socialism, which is to say, toward freedom or toward control. In the US, the trends looked very bleak indeed but he found trends to cheer in the antiwar movement, which he saw as a positive development against military central planning. "Both in Vietnam and in domestic government intervention, each escalating step only creates more problems which confront the public with tile choice: either, press on further with more interventions, or repeal them--in Vietnam, withdraw from the country." His conclusion must have sounded impossibly naïve in 1973 but today we can see that he saw further than any other "futurists" of his time: "the advent of industrialism and the Industrial Revolution has irreversibly changed the prognosis for freedom and statism. In the pre-industrial era, statism and despotism could peg along indefinitely, content to keep the peasantry at subsistence levels and to live off their surplus. But industrialism has broken the old tables; for it has become evident that socialism cannot run an industrial system, and it is gradually becoming evident that neomercantilism, interventionism, in the long run cannot run an industrial system either. Free-market capitalism, the victory of social power and the economic means, is not only the only moral and by far the most productive system; it has become the only viable system for mankind in the industrial era. Its eventual triumph is therefore virtually inevitable." Rothbard's optimism about the prospects for liberty is legendary but less well understood is the basis for it: markets work and government do not. Left and right can define terms however much they want, and they can rant and rave from the point of view of their own ideological convictions, but what must achieve victory in the end is the remarkable influence of millions and billions of mutually beneficial exchanges putting relentless pressure on the designs of central planners to thwart their will. To be optimistic about the prospects for capitalism requires only that we understand Mises's argument concerning the inability of socialist means to produce rational outcomes, and to be hopeful about the triumph of choice over coercion. Keynes notwithstanding, in the long run we are not all dead. Instead, the development of markets— locally and globally—would, over the long haul, create the conditions for liberty. Writing in the Southern Economic Journal in 1962, Rothbard expressed a key motif of his historical vision. Replying to an economist who held, somewhat contradictorily, that advocates of laissez faire wanted to return to an earlier status quo, the which status quo, however, had never existed, Rothbard wrote: "This problem can, however, be resolved fairly simply. There was relatively less government intervention in the nineteenth century than in the other eras—past or present–of human history, and in that sense there was at least a significant shift in favor of laissez-faire. On the other hand, the shift was Last printed 153 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 154 never completed, so that a certain amount of government intervention still remained. Those economists and social philosophers, few though they may be, who wish to change the present system to one of laissez-faire, are therefore looking to the future, but as redeeming the partially-fulfilled promise of the past." (Murray N. Rothbard, "Epistemological Problems of Economics: Comment," Southern Economic Journal, XXVIiI, 4 (April 1962), p. 386.) Rothbard firmly believed that the "partially-fulfilled promise of the past"–heralding freedom, prosperity, and peace–would indeed inform the future, which would be a future of capitalism. Who now obeys Ozymandias, Caesar, or Ceaucescu? Last printed 154 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 155 Affirmative: Cap is Only Alt There is no alternative to capitalism Philip De Vous 2003 Phillip, “'Alternatives to Global Capitalism' is Really No Alternative At All” http://www.acton.org/commentary/commentary_130.php Reports and statistics aside, is there really an “alternative to global capitalism” now that “historic socialism” has failed? Not likely. While many Christians protest what they understand to be the pernicious effects of global capitalism, the market system itself is a source of hope and prosperity for the world’s developing nations. Increased global trade has opened new markets, and with it, new opportunities for the products of the poorest nations. What Professor Duchrow and his colleagues would likely call exploitation, the poor people of the world are more apt to call employment, opportunity, and development. The “alternative” offered by Professor Duchrow under the guise of neo-liberalism is really no alternative at all, at least not a new alternative. Rather, it is the very same “historic socialism” that is acknowledged to have failed. It’s high time socialism’s advocates, Christian and otherwise, confront the causes of that failure Last printed 155 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 156 Affirmative: Alt Leads to Totalitarianism The alternative transitions into totalitarianism Anthony de Jasay 1989 “Social Contract, Free Ride: A Study of the Public Goods Problem” The rival principle of socialism gives priority to “social justice,” to reducing the pain of envy, to what is succinctly expressed by the Marxian phrase, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” The socialist principle urges us, in the context of the large, anonymous society, to reintroduce the norm of “solidarity” and mutual dependence that stabilized the hunter-gatherer horde for more than a million years and that is used today to stabilize small face-to-face groups. Proponents of the solidarity norm apparently fail to understand (or they do not mind) that reinstalling such a social system in the current large, anonymous society inevitably would lead to a totalitarian regime. Hence, those who have adopted socialism make great efforts to maximize the domain of collective choice, and in doing so, they automatically reduce individual freedom. Last printed 156 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 157 Affirmative: Cap Good - Peace Economic interdependence lowers the chance of war Dale C. Copeland, 1996 "Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations," International Security, Vol. 20, no.4 Spring 1996 Liberals argue that economic interdependence lowers the likelihood of war by increasing the value of trading over the alternative of aggression: interdependent states would rather trade than invade. As long as high levels of interdependence can be maintained, liberals assert, we have reason for optimism. Realists dismiss the liberal argument, arguing that high interdependence increases rather than decreases the probability of war. In anarchy, states must constantly worry about their security. Accordingly, interdependence meaning mutual dependence and thus vulnerability - gives states an incentive to initiate war, if only to ensure continued access to necessary materials and goods. The unsatisfactory nature of both liberal and realist theories is shown by their difficulties in explaining the run-ups to the two World Wars. The period up to World War I exposes a glaring anomaly for liberal theory: the European powers had reached unprecedented levels of trade, yet that did not prevent them from going to war. Realists certainly have the correlation right - the war was preceded by high interdependence - but trade levels had been high for the previous thirty years; hence, even if interdependence was a necessary condition for the war, it was not sufficient. At first glance, the period from 1920 to 1940 seems to support liberalism over realism. In the 1920s, interdependence was high, and the world was essentially peaceful; in the 1930s, as entrenched protectionism caused interdependence to fall, international tension rose to the point of world war. Yet the two most aggressive states in the system during the 1930s, Germany and Japan, were also the most highly dependent despite their efforts towards autarchy, relying on other states, including other great powers, for critical raw materials. Realism thus seems correct in arguing that high dependence may lead to conflict, as states use war to ensure access to vital goods. Realism's problem with the interwar era, however, is that Germany and Japan had been even more dependent in the 1920s, yet they sought war only in the late 1930s when their dependence, although still significant, had fallen. Last printed 157 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 158 Affirmative: Broad Alts Fail We should focus on specific transformations rather than broad revolutionary change – this is key to avoid replicating the errors of past oppression Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose 2003; Rabinow is a professor of Social Cultural Anthropology at the University of California-Berkeley, Rose is a professor of Sociology at the London School of Economics, “Introduction: Foucault Today,” The Essential Foucault: Selections From The Essential Works Of Foucault, 1954-1984, Published by New Press, June, Available Online at http://www.lse.ac.uk/ collections/sociology/pdf/ RabinowandRose-IntrotoEssentialFoucault2003.pdf, Accessed 10-15-2004) And, as significantly, it is not a method of critique that seeks to reinvent ourselves anew “the historical ontology of ourselves must turn away from all projects that claim to be global or radical” for we know from our history the fate of such attempts to escape from the constraints of the present: I prefer the very specific transformations that have proved to be possible in the last twenty years in a certain number of areas which concern our ways of being and thinking, relations to authority, relations between the sexes, the way in which we perceive insanity or illness; I prefer even these partial transformations, which have been made in the correlation of historical analysis and the practical attitude, to the programs for a new man that the worst political systems have repeated throughout the twentieth century. 76 What faces us, then, if we are to take historical ontology seriously, is not a grand gesture of transgression or liberation, but a certain modest philosophical and pragmatic work on ourselves: “a historical-practical test of the limits we may go beyond, and thus as work carried out by ourselves on ourselves as free beings.” A work, that is to say, which is both banal and profound, which we carry out upon ourselves in the very real practices within which we are constituted as beings of a certain type, as beings simultaneously constrained and obligated to be free, in our own present. Last printed 158 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 159 Affirmative: Cap Inevitable – Must Work Within System Capitalism is inevitable – only working within the system can change it John K. Wilson 2000; Wilson is a coordinator of the Independent Press Association’s Campus Journalism Project; How the Left can Win Arguments and Influence People, pages 14-17 Capitalism is far too ingrained in American life to eliminate. If you go into the most impoverished areas of America, you will find that the people who live there are not seeking government control over factories or even more social welfare programs; they're hoping, usually in vain, for a fair chance to share in the capitalist wealth. The poor do not pray for socialism-they strive to be a part of the capitalist system. They want jobs, they want to start businesses, and they want to make money and be successful. What's wrong with America is not capitalism as a system but capitalism as a religion. We worship the accumulation of wealth and treat the horrible inequality between rich and poor as if it were an act of God. Worst of all, we allow the government to exacerbate the financial divide by favoring the wealthy: go anywhere in America, and compare a rich suburb with a poor town-the city services, schools, parks, and practically everything else will be better financed in the place populated by rich people. The aim is not to overthrow capitalism but to overhaul it. Give it a social-justice tune-up, make it more efficient, get the economic engine to hit on all cylinders for everybody, and stop putting out so many environmentally hazardous substances. To some people, this goal means selling out leftist ideals for the sake of capitalism. But the right thrives on having an ineffective opposition. The Revolutionary Communist Party helps stabilize the "free market" capitalist system by making it seem as if the only alternative to free-market capitalism is a return to Stalinism. Prospective activists for change are instead channeled into pointless discussions about the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. Instead of working to persuade people to accept progressive ideas, the far left talks to itself (which may be a blessing, given the way it communicates) and tries to sell copies of the Socialist Worker to an uninterested public. Last printed 159 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 160 Affirmative: Cap Good – Decreases Wars Globalization and capitalism lessen the frequency and intensity of war. Daniel Griswold 2005; Griswold is a director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at Cato, “Peace on earth? Try free trade among men” http://www.freetrade.org/node/282 As one little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story recently reported, "War declining worldwide, studies say." According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the number of armed conflicts around the world has been in decline for the past half century . In just the past 15 years, ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 18, with all of them now civil conflicts within countries. As 2005 draws to an end, no two nations in the world are at war with each other. The death toll from war has also been falling. According to the AP story, "The number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meanwhile, are growing in number." Those estimates are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990s, and from a peak of 700,000 in 1951 during the Korean War. Many causes lie behind the good news -- the end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy, among them -- but expanding trade and globalization appear to be playing a major role . Far from stoking a "World on Fire," as one misguided American author has argued, growing commercial ties between nations have had a dampening effect on armed conflict and war, for three main reasons. First, trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy, and democracies don't pick fights with each other. Freedom to trade nurtures democracy by expanding the middle class in globalizing countries and equipping people with tools of communication such as cell phones, satellite TV, and the Internet. With trade comes more travel, more contact with people in other countries, and more exposure to new ideas. Thanks in part to globalization, almost two thirds of the world's countries today are democracies -- a record high. Second, as national economies become more integrated with each other, those nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war. Third, globalization allows nations to acquire wealth through production and trade rather than conquest of territory and resources. Increasingly, wealth is measured in terms of intellectual property, financial assets, and human capital. Last printed 160 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 161 Affirmaitve: A/T: Zizek Zizek’s idea of traversing the fantasy results in bare life and a loss of freedom Andrew Robinson and Simon Tormey - professors of Politics at Nottingham University; 2003; "Zizek is not a Radical"; http://homepage.ntlworld.com/simon.tormey/articles/Zizeknotradical.pdf The Act thus reproduces in the socio-political field the Lacanian concept of traversing the fantasy. Traversing the fantasy involves ‘accepting’ that there is no way one can be satisfied, and therefore a ‘full acceptance of the pain ... as inherent to the excess of pleasure which is jouissance’, as well as a rejection of every conception of radical difference.68 It means, contra Nietzsche, ‘an acceptance of the fact that there is no secret treasure in me’,69 and a transition from being the ‘nothing’ we are today to being ‘a Nothing humbly aware of itself, a Nothing paradoxically made rich through the very awareness of its lack’.70 It involves being reduced to a zero-point or ‘ultimate level’ similar to that seen in the most broken concentration camp inmates,71 so the role of analysis is ‘to throw out the baby... in order to confront the patient with his ‘dirty bathwater’,72 inducing, not an improvement, but a transition ‘from Bad to Worse’, which is ‘inherently ‘terroristic’.73 It is also not freedom in the usual sense, but prostration before the call of the truth-event,74 ‘something violently imposed on me from the Outside through a traumatic encounter that shatters the very foundation of my being’.75 In true Orwellian fashion, Zizek claims that in the Act, freedom equals slavery; the Act involves ‘the highest freedom and also the utmost passivity with a reduction to a lifeless automaton who blindly performs its gestures’.76 Last printed 161 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 162 Affirmative: A/T: Zizek Zizek’s theories should be rejected - he encourages the worst human atrocities Andrew Robinson and Simon Tormey - professors of Politics at Nottingham University; 2003; "Zizek is not a Radical"; http://homepage.ntlworld.com/simon.tormey/articles/Zizeknotradical.pdf As becomes evident ‘class struggle’ is not for Zizek an empirical referent and even less a category of Marxisant sociological analysis, but a synonym for the Lacanian Real. A progressive endorsement of ‘class struggle’ means positing the lack of a common horizon and assuming or asserting the insolubility of political conflict.16 It therefore involves a glorification of conflict, antagonism, terror and a militaristic logic of carving the field into good and bad sides, as a good in itself.17 Zizek celebrates war because it ‘undermines the complacency of our daily routine’ by introducing ‘meaningless sacrifice and destruction’.18 He fears being trapped by a suffocating social peace or Good and so calls on people to take a ‘militant, divisive position’ of ‘assertion of the Truth that enthuses them’.19 The content of this Truth is a secondary issue. For Zizek, Truth has nothing to do with truth-claims and the field of ‘knowledge’. Truth is an event which ‘just happens’, in which ‘the thing itself’ is ‘disclosed to us as what it is’.20 Truth is therefore the exaggeration which distorts any balanced system.21 A ‘truth-effect’ occurs whenever a work produces a strong emotional reaction, and it need not be identified with empirical accuracy: lies and distortions can have a truth-effect, and factual truth can cover the disavowal of desire and the Real.22 In this sense, therefore, Lenin and de Gaulle, St Paul and Lacan are all carriers of the truth and therefore are progressive, ‘radical’ figures, despite the incompatibility of their doctrines. Such individuals (and it is always individuals) violently carve the field and produce a truth-effect. That de Gaulle and the Church are political rightists is of no importance to Zizek, since he redefines ‘right’ and ‘left’ to avoid such problems. He also writes off the human suffering caused by carving the field as justified or even beneficial: it has a ‘transcendental genesis’ in the subject, and its victims endure it because they obtain jouissance from it.23 The structural occurrence of a truth-event is what matters to him - not what kind of world results from it. This is a secondary issue - and anyway one that he thinks is impossible to discuss, since the logic of liberal capitalism is so total that it makes alternatives unthinkable.24 One should keep the utopian possibility of alternatives open, but it should remain empty, awaiting a content.25 Last printed 162 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 163 Affirmative: A/T: Zizek Zizek’s alternative requires that total violence is part of the end itself Andrew Robinson and Simon Tormey - professors of Politics at Nottingham University; 2003; "Zizek is not a Radical"; http://homepage.ntlworld.com/simon.tormey/articles/Zizeknotradical.pdf Secondly, Zizek implies that Lenin must in some sense have ‘understood’ that the revolution would necessarily betray itself, and that all revolutions are structurally doomed to fall short of whatever ideals and principles motivate them. He also implies that the success or failure of a revolution has nothing to do with whether the modes of thought and action, social relations and institutions which follow are at all related to the original revolutionary ideals and Zizek therefore endorses the conservative claim that Lenin’s utopian moments were Machiavellian manoeuvres or at best confused delusions, veiling his true intentions to seize power for himself or a small elite: Lenin was the ‘ultimate political strategist’.121 That Zizek endorses the ‘Lenin’ figure despite endorsing nearly every accusation against Lenin serves to underline the degree to which Zizek’s politics are wedded to conservative assumptions that repression, brutality and terror are ‘always with us’. Rejecting the claim that politics could be otherwise, Zizek wishes to grasp, embrace and even revel in the grubbiness and violence of modern politics. The moment of utopia in Russia was for Zizek realised when the Red Guards succumbed to a destructive hedonism in moments of Bataillean excess.122 The only difference for Zizek between leftist ethics and the standpoint of Oliver North, the Taleban, the antiDreyfusards and even the Nazis is that such ‘rightists’ legitimate their acts in reference to some higher good, whereas leftists also suspend the higher good in a truly authentic gesture of suspension.123 The Soviet Terror is a good terror whereas the Nazi one is not, only because the Soviet terror was allegedly more total, with everyone being potentially at risk, not only out-groups.124 Zizek goes well beyond advocating violence as a means to an end; for Zizek, violence is part of the end itself, the utopian excess of the Act. The closest parallel is the nihilism of Nechaev’s Catechism of a Revolution which proclaims that ‘everything is moral that contributes to the triumph of the revolution; everything that hinders it is immoral and criminal’.125 As Peter Marshall comments in his digest of anarchist writings and movements, the Catechism is ‘one of the most repulsive documents in the history of terrorism’. One can only speculate what he would have made of ‘Repeating Lenin’.126 principles. What matters is that power is held by those who ‘identify with the symptom’, who call themselves ‘Proletarian’. Last printed 163 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 164 Affirmative: Cap Inevitable Capitalism is inevitable – socialist rhetoric fails John K. Wilson 2000; Wilson is a coordinator of the Independent Press Association’s Campus Journalism Project; How the Left can Win Arguments and Influence People, pages 14-17 Socialism is dead. Kaput. Stick a fork in Lenin's corpse. Take the Fidel posters off the wall. Welcome to the twenty-first century. Wake up and smell the capitalism. I have no particular hostility to socialism. But nothing can kill a good idea in America so quickly as sticking the "socialist" label on it. The reality in America is that socialism is about as successful as Marxist footwear (and have you ever seen a sickle and hammer on anybody's shoes?). Allow your position to be defined as socialist even if it isn't (remember Clinton's capitalist health care plan?), and the idea is doomed. Instead of fighting to repair the tattered remnants of socialism as a marketing slogan, the left needs to address the core issues of social justice. You can form the word socialist from the letters in social justice, but it sounds better if you don't. At least 90 percent of America opposes socialism, and 90 percent of America thinks "social justice" might be a good idea. Why alienate so many people with a word? Even the true believers hawking copies of the Revolutionary Socialist Worker must realize by now that the word socialist doesn't have a lot of drawing power. In the movie Bulworth, Warren Beatty declares: "Let me hear that dirty word: socialism!" Socialism isn't really a dirty word, however; if it were, socialism might have a little underground appeal as a forbidden topic. Instead, socialism is a forgotten word, part of an archaic vocabulary and a dead language that is no longer spoken in America. Even Michael Harrington, the founder of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), didn't use the word socialism in his influential book on poverty, The Other America. The best reason for the left to abandon socialism is not PR but honesty. Most of the self-described "socialists" remaining in America don't qualify as real socialists in any technical sense. If you look at the DSA (whose prominent members include Harvard professor Cornel West and former Time columnist Barbara Ehrenreich), most of the policies they urge-a living wage, universal health care, environmental protection, reduced spending on the Pentagon, and an end to corporate welfare-have nothing to do with socialism in the specific sense of government ownership of the means of production. Rather, the DSA program is really nothing more than what a liberal political party ought to push for, if we had one in America. Europeans, to whom the hysteria over socialism must seem rather strange, would never consider abandoning socialism as a legitimate political ideology. But in America, socialism simply isn't taken seriously by the mainstream. Therefore, if socialists want to be taken seriously, they need to pursue socialist goals using nonsocialist rhetoric. Whenever someone tries to attack an idea as "socialist" (or, better yet, "communist"), there's an easy answer: Some people think everything done by a government, from Social Security to Medicare to public schools to public libraries, is socialism. The rest of us just think it's a good idea. (Whenever possible, throw public libraries into an argument, whether it's about good government programs or NEA funding. Nobody with any sense is opposed to public libraries. They are by far the most popular government institutions.) If an argument turns into a debate over socialism, simply define socialism as the total government ownership of all factories and natural resources--which, since we don't have it and no one is really arguing for this to happen, makes socialism a rather pointless debate. Of course, socialists will always argue among themselves about socialism and continue their internal debates. But when it comes to influencing public policy, abstract discussions about socialism are worse than useless, for they alienate the progressive potential of the American people. It's only by pursuing specific progressive policies on nonsocialist Last printed 164 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 165 terms that socialists have any hope in the long term of convincing the public that socialism isn't (or shouldn't be) a long-dead ideology. Last printed 165 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 166 Affirmative: Cap Good – Predictions About Collapse of Cap Bad Apocalyptic predictions about the collapse of capitalism are counter-productive – only by emphasizing the progressive aspects of capitalism can change be achieved John K. Wilson 2000; Wilson is a coordinator of the Independent Press Association’s Campus Journalism Project; How the Left can Win Arguments and Influence People, pages 14-17 Leftists also need to abandon their tendency to make apocalyptic predictions. It's always tempting to predict that environmental destruction is imminent or the stock market is ready to crash in the coming second Great Depression. Arguments that the U.S. economy is in terrible shape fly in the face of reality. It's hard to claim that a middle-class American family with two cars, a big-screen TV, and a computer is oppressed. While the poor in America fell behind during the Reagan/Gingrich/Clinton era and the middle class did not receive its share of the wealth produced during this time, the economy itself is in excellent shape. Instead, the problem is the redistribution of wealth to the very rich under the resurgence of "free market" capitalism. Instead of warning that the economy will collapse without progressive policies, the left should emphasize that the progressive aspects of American capitalism have created the current success of the American economy after decades of heavy government investment in human capital. But the cutbacks in investment for education and the growing disparity between the haves and the have-notes are threatening the economy’s future success. Last printed 166 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 167 Affirmative: Alt Kills Millions The transition away from capitalism kills millions Llewllyn Rockwell 5/17/08; Rockwell is the president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute; “Everything You Love You Owe to Capitalism” http://mises.org/story/2982 Whatever the specifics of the case in question, socialism always means overriding the free decisions of individuals and replacing that capacity for decision making with an overarching plan by the state . Taken far enough, this mode of thought won't just spell an end to opulent lunches. It will mean the end of what we all know as civilization itself. It would plunge us back to a primitive state of existence, living off hunting and gathering in a world with little art, music, leisure, or charity. Nor is any form of socialism capable of providing for the needs of the world's six billion people, so the population would shrink dramatically and quickly and in a manner that would make every human horror ever known seem mild by comparison. Nor is it possible to divorce socialism from totalitarianism, because if you are serious about ending private ownership of the means of production, you have to be serious about ending freedom and creativity too. You will have to make the whole of society, or what is left of it, into a prison. In short, the wish for socialism is a wish for unparalleled human evil. If we really understood this, no one would express casual support for it in polite company. It would be like saying, you know, there is really something to be said for malaria and typhoid and dropping atom bombs on millions of innocents. Last printed 167 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 168 Affirmative: Revolution Alts Fail Leftist revolutions empirically fail and have caused some of the worst human attrocities Martin Peretz 2/3/03; Martin is a former Assistant Professor at Harvard, Editor-in Chief of The New Republic; "Manque" The New Republic, Lexis What is the grand "progressive" vision for which the French left fights, which the Zionists and Jews are insidiously holding back? In the grand conflicts of the last century, there was always a left-wing structure of Manichaeanism. On the one side: imperialism and capitalism. On the other: a compelling and revolutionary dream. The dreams turned out to be nightmares. But they were dreams, nonetheless. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Che, the Viet Cong, the Sandinistas, always a man and a movement saying they aimed to build a better world, which they actually tried to describe. In the end, of course, the better world did not arrive: In its place were death camps, mass deportations, forced famines, massacres, reeducation programs, prisons of the body, and greater prisons of the soul. Last printed 168 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 169 Affirmative: Cap Good - Peace Capitalism is key to ensuring peace and stability Leonard Silk 1996; Silk is a professor at Pace University; “Making Capitalism Work” p. 27-28 Theoretically there was no reason why this had to be so. In a rational world, the improved prospects for peace should have led to greater spending on consumer goods and productivity raising investment. But that happens only when workers can be shifted to new jobs--and financial resources reallocated to create those jobs. In the absence of sufficient shifts of human and capital resources to expanding civilian industries, there were strong economic pressures on arms-producing nations to maintain high levels of military production and to sell weapons--conventional as well as dual-use nuclear technology--wherever buyers could be found. Without a revival of national economies and of the global economy, the production and proliferation of weapons would continue, creating more Iraqs, Cambodias, Yugoslavias, and Somalias-or worse. Like the Great Depression, the economic slump of the early 1990s fanned the fires of nationalist, ethnic, and religious hatred around the world. Economic hardship was not the only cause of these social and political pathologies, but it aggravated all of them, and in turn they fed back upon economic development. They also undermined efforts to deal with such global programs as environmental pollution, the production and trafficking of drugs, crime, sickness, famine, AIDS, and other plauges. Economic growth would not solve all those problems. But growth-and growth alone--creates the additional resources that make it possible to achieve such fundamental goals as higher living standards, national and collective security, a healthier environment, and more open economies and societies. Last printed 169 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 170 Affirmative: Cap Good – Free Trade Globalization promotes free trade Daniel T. Griswold 1/6/04; Griswold is an associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies; “Trading Tyranny for Freedom: How Open Markets Till the Soil for Democracy” Cato Institute, http:// www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-026es.html, Accessed 07-17-08 In the aftermath of September 11, the foreign policy dimension of trade has reasserted itself. Expanding trade, especially with and among less developed countries, is once again being recognized as a tool for encouraging democracy and respect for human rights in regions and countries of the world where those commodities have been the exception rather than the rule. Political scientists have long noted the connection between economic development, political reform, and democracy. Increased trade and economic integration promote civil and political freedoms directly by opening a society to new technology, communications, and democratic ideas. Economic liberalization provides a counterweight to governmental power and creates space for civil society. And by promoting faster growth, trade promotes political freedom indirectly by creating an economically independent and politically aware middle class. The reality of the world today broadly reflects those theoretical links between trade, free markets, and political and civil freedom. As trade and globalization have spread to more and more countries in the past 30 years, so too have democracy and political and civil freedoms. In particular, the most economically open countries today are more than three times as likely to enjoy full political and civil freedoms as those that are relatively closed. Last printed 170 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 171 Free Trade is key to democracy Daniel T. Griswold 1/6/04; Griswold is an associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies; “Trading Tyranny for Freedom: How Open Markets Till the Soil for Democracy” Cato Institute, http:// www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-026es.html, Accessed 07-17-08 In a November 6, 2003, speech on the need to promote democracy in the Muslim world, President George W. Bush explicitly drew the connection between economic and political freedoms: Historians will note that in many nations, the advance of markets and free enterprise helped to create a middle class that was confident enough to demand their own rights. They will point to the role of technology in frustrating censorship and central control—and marvel at the power of instant communications to spread the truth, the news, and courage across borders.1 In an April 2002 speech in which President Bush urged Congress to grant him trade promotion authority, he argued that trade is about more than raising incomes. “Trade creates the habits of freedom,” the president said, and those habits “begin to create the expectations of democracy and demands for better democratic institutions. Societies that are open to commerce across their borders are more open to democracy within their borders.”2 Other administration officials have taken that reasoning a step further, arguing that the democracy and respect for human rights that trade can foster would create a more peaceful world, reducing the frustration and resentment that can breed radicalism and terrorism. There is a great deal of research on the economic impact of trade, but much less on its political impact. Do the assertions that expanding trade and international commerce promote democracy and human rights make sense in theory, and do they stand up to empirical scrutiny? The evidence from this study strongly suggests that those assertions rest on solid ground and deserve to be considered as Congress and the administration shape our international economic and trade policy. Theory: How Free Markets Foster Political Freedoms Economic openness and the commercial competition and contact it brings can directly and indirectly promote civil and political freedoms within countries. Trade can influence the political system directly by increasing the contact a nation’s citizens experience with the rest of the world , through face-to-face meetings, and electronic communications, including telephone, fax, and the Internet. Commercial communication can bring a sharing of ideas and exposure to new ways of thinking, doing business, and organizing civil society. Along with the flow of consumer and industrial goods often come books, magazines, and other media with political and social content. Foreign investment and services trade create opportunities for foreign travel and study, allowing citizens to experience first-hand the civil liberties and more representative political institutions of other nations. Economic freedom and trade provide a counterweight to governmental power. A free market diffuses economic decisionmaking among millions of producers and consumers rather than leaving it in the hands of a few centralized government actors who could, and often do, use that power to suppress or marginalize political opposition. Milton Friedman, the Nobel-prize-winning economist, noted the connection between economic and political freedom in his 1962 book, Capitalism and Freedom: Viewed as a means to the end of political freedom, economic arrangements are important because of their effect on the concentration or dispersion of power. The kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other.3 Last printed 171 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 172 Democracy is the bedrock for human survival Henry Teune 2002; Teune is a project Director of the International Research Program; “The annals of the American academy of political and social science” The outlines of a global democracy can be seen now only through visionary lenses. During the past three decades, social scientists and professional observers described an emerging global political economy, but without democracy. 1 It took most of the 1990s to grasp that without democracy, globalization could not continue in a peaceful, orderly fashion. Democracy began to become the bedrock of the prosperity promised by globalization. It may well turn out to be the best invention for human survival and the betterment of everyday living. Indeed, in time, democracy in large-scale societies may be judged the most important discovery of the twentieth century since vaccines. Governments systematically killing their own peoples and nearly nonstop international wars of scale marked the first half of the twentieth century (Rummel 1996). By that century's end, the beginning of the institutionalization of a second democratic revolution, not only had major international wars ceased, but almost all governments openly subscribed to the principle that they should improve people's lives and should not kill, incarcerate, or expel them. As important was the muting of any credible national political challenges to rudimentary human rights. The killing of masses of people by legitimate authorities may be the most important international fact of the first half of the twentieth century. But the most important fact of this era of globalization is that almost all [*24] governments, save one or two, stopped doing that around the century's end, following the spread of democracy. Last printed 172 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 173 Affirmative: Alt Can’t Solve The alternative fails to understand the division of labor, dooming it to failure Andrew Sayer 1995; Sayer has a B.A. Geography (London), MA Urban and Regional Studies, D.Phil. (Sussex) Professor; “Radical Political Economy A Critique” p. 2 I believe the most serious outstanding theoretical problems of radical political economy lie in its treatment of division of labour. Marxism acknowledges the historic importance of the rise of division of labour in economic development but assumes that a socialist or communist economy could reach an even higher level of development while overcoming the division of labour. Ironically for a materialist theory, this curious combination of ideas derives from a failure to appreciate the materiality, complexity, opacity and intractability of an advanced division of labour. Unless we recognize these qualities and those of the parallel division of knowledge in society, we cannot hope to understand one of Marx's main targets - the uneven and so-called 'anarchic' character of capitalist development. In the absence of such an appreciation, theorists tend to mistake the fragmented quality of capitalist ownership as a cause rather than an effect of the anarchy of the social division of labour. Similarly, we are liable to mistake the flawed rationality of exchange-value as a consequence of capitalism rather than of the necessity of money in advanced economies (e.g. Collier, 1994a). Equally, we cannot expect to understand the problems of economic motivation and coordination that plagued the state socialist economies unless we recognize the material and informational properties of the division of labour which they were trying to control. Nor, in addition, can we hope to develop feasible alternatives to capitalism and state socialism without appreciating these constraints. Without such an understanding, radical political economy is prone to (mis)attribute the effects of these divisions to other sources, particularly class. Last printed 173 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 174 Affirmative: Alternative Can’t Solve Marxist theory fail to recognize that aspects other then industrial society have a dual quality and can’t be treated as capitalistic in nature Andrew Sayer 1995; Sayer has a B.A. Geography (London), MA Urban and Regional Studies, D.Phil. (Sussex) Professor; “Radical Political Economy A Critique” pgs. 3-4 In Capital, Marx notes that the organization of a factory has a 'double nature', deriving in part from its scale and industrial character, and in part from its 'capitalistic shell'. I shall argue that while this is so, Marx and radical political economy generally fail to note that other aspects of industrial society which they treat as having a single, or uniquely capitalist nature too, also have this dual quality. Thus urbanization, the social division of labour and its anarchic development have a double nature, deriving from the industrial as well as the capitalist character of society. This, of course, has major implications for alternatives to capitalism which assume an advanced industrial economy, suggesting that we should expect many problems merely to change form rather than disappear altogether. The general thrust of the critique therefore leads towards a revived but moderate version of the industrial-society thesis that is, one which accepts that the social relations of production make a significant difference to the type of industrial society, but which insists that there are nevertheless certain features relating primarily to division of labour that are common to any advanced industrial economy, and merely take different forms under different modes of production. It also makes certain concessions to liberal theory, particularly Hayek's emphasis on the division of knowledge in advanced economies and the 'epistemological' version of the economic problem, and to Weber's insights on rationalization. Nevertheless we argue for a position which differs from those of both of these theorists. Last printed 174 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 175 Affirmative: Alt = Totalitarianism Alt can’t solve - alternative solely targets capitalism Andrew Sayer 1995; Sayer has a B.A. Geography (London), MA Urban and Regional Studies, D.Phil. (Sussex) Professor; “Radical Political Economy A Critique” pg. 8 The problem of critical standpoints has become more acute in recent years, indeed it is central to the crisis of the Left. There is no longer a single standpoint or alternative (socialism/communism) counterposed to a single, overarching target (capitalism). Now there are many targets patriarchy, racism, homophobia, militarism, industrialism - and correspondingly many critical standpoints with complex relations between them. That critical social science is no longer seen as synonymous with a socialist perspective is a sign of considerable progress, and cause for optimism too, as failure on the traditional front of class politics is compensated by progress on other, newer fronts such as the politics of gender. But it is also a source of heightened uncertainty. While there was always a problem of inconsistencies between critical standpoints, it has deepened and widened with the rise of 'green' concerns, for they bring into question the feasibility and desirability of non-capitalist as well as capitalist industrial societies. Is the problem capitalism, industrial society in general, or modernity?; and what are the alternatives? Equally, increasing awareness of problems of ethnocentrism and value pluralism throws doubt over the familiar, implicit critical standpoints of Western radical social science. How do we decide what is a problem? What if we cannot reach a consensus on this? Until recently, it seemed that the problems or targets of critical social science could be relied upon to emerge from the investigation of existing practices, where one would encounter the felt needs, frustrations and suffering of actors, and in discovering the sources of these problems, work out what changes would lead towards emancipation (e.g. Fay, 1975, 1987; Collier, 1994b). This was coupled with an implicit view that emancipation was a form of escape from domination, illusion and unwanted constraints, with little or no acknowledgement that it depended on the construction of superior, alternative, progressive frameworks which could replace the old ones. But it is now increasingly apparent that normative questions of possible alternatives and what is good or bad about them cannot be evaded. How, without addressing such questions, could one decide what constitutes a superior alternative? Should there be a presumption in favour of community as a basis of social organization over other forms? Does liberalism provide the best framework for multicultural societies? What should be people's rights and responsibilities? What are our responsibilities to distant others, future generations, and to other species? There is little hope of achieving the goal of an emancipatory social science if it shuns normative discussions of issues such as these. Last printed 175 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 176 Affirmative: Alt Can’t Solve The alternative misunderstands advanced economies Andrew Sayer 1995; Sayer has a B.A. Geography (London), MA Urban and Regional Studies, D.Phil. (Sussex) Professor; “Radical Political Economy A Critique” pg. 251 While our critique has far-reaching implications for political economy, it bears noting that it is nevertheless not only abstract but incomplete, in that there are other areas - such as household economies and green political economy - where much more work is needed (but see, for example, Fine, 1992; Altvater, 1993; and Dryzek, 19K7). Explanations of concrete situations are likely to have to draw upon theory in these areas too. However, 1 hope to have shown the dangers in socialist thought of the apparently innocuous abstraction from the materiality and complexity of advanced economies and their divisions of labour and knowledge. In sum, it can lead to a systematic misunderstanding of existing economic systems, their distributions of power and characteristic dynamics and features. By extension, it lends support to alternatives which are infeasible or undesirable. Appreciating the double nature of capitalist and socialist industrial societies does not reveal a clear path to emancipation, for almost certainly there is none; rather it heightens our awareness of the many dilemmas of their development. At the same time, a disaggregative approach, asking counterfactual questions and comparing the attributes of capitalist, market-socialist and state-socialist economies can enrich understanding of what could be as well as what is Last printed 176 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 177 Affirmative: Alt Can’t Solve Marxist alternatives to capitalism lack direction which will cause them to be unsucessful Andrew Sayer 1995; Sayer has a B.A. Geography (London), MA Urban and Regional Studies, D.Phil. (Sussex) Professor; “Radical Political Economy A Critique” pg. 252 Since critical social science has proved to be a much more problematic enterprise than realized twenty years ago (Fay, 1987), it makes sense to examine its standpoints and implicit alternatives more closely - particularly their constructivist and collectivist assumptions. Radical political economy cannot continue to follow Marxism in standing apart from the debates of normative political theory, nor can it embrace a postmodernist celebration of fragmentation and rejection of the search for a better social framework. It is now more clear than ever that struggles which are directed against domination and oppression but which lack any normative direction in terms of alternative frameworks are unlikely to be successful. Though it has recently suffered from neglect we need a radical political economy more than ever before Last printed 177 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 178 Affirmative: Alt Can’t Solve The alternative leads to totalitarianism and can’t solve Andrew Sayer 1995; Sayer has a B.A. Geography (London), MA Urban and Regional Studies, D.Phil. (Sussex) Professor; “Radical Political Economy A Critique” pg. 8 This book is motivated by the view that such complacency is entirely unwarranted. The totalitarian character of state socialism and its problems of economic motivation and coordination are not historical aberrations but are presaged by Marxism's lack of a sufficiently materialist understanding of the social division of labour and its associated division and dispersion of knowledge in advanced economies. This failing not only explains the inadequacies of state socialism's attempt to plan such an economy centrally, but is the major unresolved flaw in Marxist theory of capitalism. The reluctance of the Left to think through alternatives (for fear of producing 'blueprints' which might pre-empt future struggles) meant not only that radical political movements had little idea of feasible and desirable objectives, but that the standpoints from which capitalism and its problems were explained and criticized were unexamined and often incoherent or undesirable. There is no way the Left can reply to market triumphalism and the lack of alternatives without giving some consideration to the old problems of political economy. Last printed 178 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 179 2NC Overview The affirmative increases social services resulting in the reproduction of the labor force. These social services ease capital accumulation by ensuring the rational allocation of resources. New social problems are created and substituted with many more problems – That’s Hall in 89 evidence from the 1NC. This promotion of capitalism encourages accumulation-driven expansion which has devastating consequences. Capitalism will inevitably have a structural crisis because of this expansion that will result in its collapse and the destruction of humanity – that’s the Mezaros in 95 evidence from the 1NC. The alternative to this is to reject the affirmative in order to radically resist capitalism through a process of revolutionary persuasion. Only through debating and discussing alternatives to capitalism can we hope for change. Last printed 179 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 180 2NC Link Wall – Abortion 1. Funding for Abortions legitimizes capitalism –this funding feeds the economic system by reproducing the labor force so that the rich may stay atop and the disintegration of the societal hierarchy and the collapse of capitalism may be avoided – That’s the Hall in 89 from the 1NC 2. Capitalism is the root cause of the harms of the 1AC – the restrictions on Medicaid funding for abortion privilege the rich and harm the underprivileged members of society. The capitalist system has created a huge rich-gap divide that has hurt the poor members of society. 3. Abortion and the language of choice forces everything to revolve around the accumulation of capital McCarraher, teaches humanities at Villanova University, 2001, (Eugene McCarraher http://vox-nova.com/2008/08/22/eugene-mccarraher-on-abortion-and-capitalism/, Vox Nova, Eugene McCarraher on abortion and capitalism) This political economy of death is the precondition for the emergence of “choice” as the holy grail of our moral culture. It’s neither coincidental nor unironical that the word so decisive in the legitimation of corporate hegemony is also pivotal to the defense of abortion. First, both abortion and corporate capitalism are justified in the liberal individualist language of self-ownership and autonomous will. Second, the language of choice obscures and even nullifies the moral substance of the choices made. And third, the alacrity with which “choice” is now invoked is, I suspect, an indication of how meaningless — and therefore how few –our choices have really become. Abortion becomes more conceivable as a practice, not only when sex is utterly divorced from pregnancy, but when the organization of work hampers or precludes the reproductive practices of sex, birth, and child-rearing. If we are going to combat abortion, then I would suggest that we appropriate and transform the language of choice, and argue that abortion is the hallmark of a culture that forces everything to pivot around the accumulation of capital. We must tie abortion to a political economy that controls our work, warps our practices of love, and compensates with the perverse but beguiling enchantments of commodified freedom. Last printed 180 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 181 2NC Link Wall – Healthcare 1. Reproduction of the labor force – Healthcare to the poor aids the recreation of the labor force which allows for the continuation of capitalism, because it prevents social disintegration. This seeks to guarantee that the lower class maintain our infrastructure and provide basic urban services. As a result, more problems are created, turning case. That’s the Hall in 89 evidence from the 1NC. 2. New public health still locked into the motivation to support the capitalist system by creating productive workers Lupton, lecturer @ University Western Sydney, 95 Deborah Lupton, Social Sciences Lecturer- University Western Sydney, 1995, The Imperative of Health: public health and the regulated body, p. 28 An attempt to draw a distinction between the “old” and the “new” public health is thus somewhat difficult to justify, as the “new” public health continues to be characterized by some approaches that date back centuries as well as those that can be more readily identified with contemporary concerns. Just as the early public health movement was mobilized by economic concerns, the objective of health promotion in ensuring productive citizens still dominates public health discourse. The bottom-line of the logic of all these “preventive” actions is not simply human happiness achieved through the minimization of illness and pain, by preserving and redirecting the limited resources available for health care. For example, Ashton and Seymour quote the goal of the World Health Organization’s Health for All by the Year 2000 report issued in 1981, which stated that “the main social target of governments and WHO in the coming decades should be the attainment by all citizens of the world by the year 2000 or a level of health that will permit them to lead a socially and economically productive life.” 3. For-profit health care is the root cause the U.S. health care crisis Dean, contributing author to Dissident voice, 09, (Paul Dean Dissident Voice, June 19th, 2009, Health Care Reform And Carburetor Tweaking, http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/06/health-care-reform/) But regardless of whether we are in the process of creating, operating, maintaining, or “reforming” our health care system, what does not make sense is to retain the one design element that contains within it a terminal conflict of interest that no tinkering can ever resolve. A for-profit system assumes that we can somehow make people rich as a result of caring for the sick, but what we really do is make people sick by caring for the rich. One thing is clear: despite spending tens of millions of dollars worth of their ill-gotten profits to buy off our politicians and deform public opinion on the issues, Americans are not buying the traditional array of industry excuses any more. Even absent any substantial support for the idea in Washington or in the corporate mass media, about two- thirds of our citizens want to switch to a single-payer system now. What is there really to argue or debate? Healthcare industry executives, some of the best paid people on the planet, seem less than eager to appear before the public in front of a banner that reads, “We’re number thirty seven — and that’s good enough!” So they and their politicians and media outlets spread fairy dust. Virtually all of the current “reform” plans being tossed about by our politicians, including the much-touted “public option,” leave in place a network of forprofit private insurance companies to administer the system. This arrangement fails completely to Last printed 181 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 182 address our systemic defect. For-profit healthcare is the problem. It cannot possibly be the solution. Last printed 182 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 183 2NC Link Wall – Education (SS) 1. Reproduction of the labor force – Head Start and education programs to the poor aids the recreation of the labor force, which allows for the continuation of capitalism, because it prevents social disintegration. This seeks to guarantee that the lower class maintain their current economic status and do things such as improve our infrastructure and provide basic urban services. As a result, more problems are created, turning case. That’s the Hall in 89 evidence from the 1NC 2. Turn: the Affirmative’s moral imperative constitutes a totalitarian paralysis and continuity of conservative politics which replicate your case harms. Stavrakakis, Prof Psychoanalysis @ U Essex, 03 Yannis Stavrakakis, Prof Psychoanalysis @ U Essex, 03 parallax, 2003, vol. 9, no. 2, 56–71 Re-Activating the Democratic Revolution: The Politics of Transformation Beyond Reoccupation and Conformism This brings us to the whole discussion around the ethical turn in contemporary political philosophy. Even if one concludes that radical democracy can be a viable and fruitful project for a politics of transformation, what about the prioritization of ethics within recent radical democratic discourse? For example, at a fairly superficial level, it seems as if Zizek questions the importance of ethics in this field, and thus would also seem to question the deployment of the radical democratic attitude at the ethical level. Consider, for example, his outright condemnation of the ethical turn in political philosophy: ‘The ‘‘return to ethics’’ in today’s political philosophy shamefully exploits the horrors of Gulag or Holocaust as the ultimate bogey for blackmailing us into renouncing all serious radical engagement’.60 Surely, however, this cannot be a rejection of ethics in toto. Even if only because Zizek himself has devoted a considerable part of his work elaborating the ethics of psychoanalysis in the Lacanian tradition.61 It follows then that it must be a particular form of ethical discourse that constitutes his target. The same is true of Alain Badiou’s argument, to which we will now turn. Badiou’s target is a particular type of ethics, of ethical ideology, which uses a discourse of ‘human rights’ and ‘humanitarianism’ in order to silence alternative thought and politics and legitimize the capitalist order. This is an ethics premised on the principle that ‘good is what intervenes visibly against an Evil that is identifiable a priori’.62 What Badiou points to here, is what appears as a strange inversion; here the Good is derived from the Evil and not the other way round.63 The result of such an inversion is significant for the theory and politics of transformation: If the ethical ‘‘consensus’’ is founded on the recognition of Evil, it follows that every effort to unite people around a positive idea of the Good, let alone identify Man with projects of this kind, becomes in fact the real source of evil itself. Such is the accusation so often repeated over the last fifteen years: every revolutionary project stigmatized as ‘‘utopian’’ turns, we are told, into totalitarian nightmare. Every will to inscribe an idea of justice or equality turns bad. Every collective will to the Good creates Evil […] In reality, the price paid by ethics is a stodgy conservatism.64 This ethic, which is revealed as nothing but a mindless catechism, a miserable moralism,65 is an ethics that can have no relation to a transformative political agenda. 66 This ethics is presented in Badiou’s argument as a distortion of a real ethic of truths, which attempts to restore the logical priority of Good over Evil. Badiou’s ethic of truths is an ethics related to the idea of the event, a category central for his whole philosophical and political apparatus. To put it briefly, the event here refers to a real break which destabilizes a given discursive articulation, a preexisting order. Last printed 183 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 184 Last printed 184 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 185 3. Turn: the aff’s compassionate benevolence toward the other is a means of assuaging guilt. The plan’s dispensation of charity only makes us all more comfortable and complacent in our continual participation in the socio-economic processes that guarantee the third world’s emiseration. Zizek 06 Slavoj, Zizek, Prof. of Sociology at Univ. Ljubljana, 2006 “Nobody Has to be Vile,” London Review of Books, Vol. 28 No. 7] Liberal communists are pragmatic; they hate a doctrinaire approach. There is no exploited working class today, only concrete problems to be solved: starvation in Africa, the plight of Muslim women, religious fundamentalist violence. When there is a humanitarian crisis in Africa (liberal communists love a humanitarian crisis; it brings out the best in them), instead of engaging in anti-imperialist rhetoric, we should get together and work out the best way of solving the problem, engage people, governments and business in a common enterprise, start moving things instead of relying on centralised state help, approach the crisis in a creative and unconventional way. Liberal apartheid in South Africa. communists like to point out that the decision of some large international corporations to ignore apartheid rules within their companies was as important as the direct political struggle against Abolishing segregation within the company, paying blacks and whites the same salary for the same job etc: this was a perfect instance of the overlap between the struggle for political freedom and business interests, since the same companies can now thrive in post-apartheid South Africa. Liberal communists love May 1968. What an explosion of youthful energy and creativity! How it shattered the bureaucratic order! What an impetus it gave to economic and social life after the political illusions dropped away! Those who were old enough were themselves protesting and fighting on the streets: now they have changed in order to change the world, to revolutionise our lives for real. Didn’t Marx say that all political upheavals were unimportant compared to the invention of the steam engine? And would Marx not have said today: what are all the protests against global capitalism in comparison with the internet? Above all, liberal communists are true citizens of the world – good people who worry. They worry about populist fundamentalism and irresponsible greedy capitalist corporations. They see the ‘deeper causes’ of today’s problems: mass poverty and hopelessness breed fundamentalist terror. Their goal is not to earn money, but to change the world (and, as a by-product, make even more money). Bill Gates is already the single greatest benefactor in the history of humanity, displaying his love for his neighbours by giving hundreds of millions of dollars for education, the fight against hunger and malaria etc. The catch is that before you can give all this away you have to take it (or, as the liberal communists would put it, create it). In order to help people, the justification goes, you must have the means to do so, and experience – that is, recognition of the dismal failure of all centralised statist and collectivist approaches – teaches us that private enterprise is by far the most effective way. By regulating their business, taxing them excessively, the state is undermining the official goal of its own activity (to make life better for the majority, to help those in need). Liberal communists do not want to be mere profit-machines: they want their lives to have deeper meaning. They are against old-fashioned religion and for spirituality, for non-confessional meditation (everybody knows that Buddhism foreshadows brain science, that the power of meditation can be measured scientifically). Their motto is social responsibility and gratitude: they are the first to admit that society has been incredibly good to them, allowing them to deploy their talents and amass wealth, so they feel that it is their duty to give something back to society and help people. This beneficence is what makes business success worthwhile. This isn’t an entirely new phenomenon. Remember Andrew Carnegie, who employed a private army to suppress organised labour in his steelworks and then distributed large parts of his wealth for educational, cultural and humanitarian causes, proving that, although a man of steel, he had a heart of gold? In the same way, today’s liberal communists give away with one hand what they grabbed with the other. There is a chocolate- flavoured laxative available on the shelves of US stores which is publicised with the paradoxical injunction: Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate! – i.e. eat more of something that itself causes constipation. The structure of the chocolate laxative can be discerned throughout today’s ideological landscape; it is what makes a figure like Soros so objectionable. He stands for ruthless financial exploitation combined with its counter-agent, humanitarian worry about the catastrophic social consequences of the unbridled market economy. Soros’s daily routine is a lie embodied: half of his working time is devoted to financial speculation, the other half to ‘humanitarian’ activities (financing cultural and democratic activities in post-Communist countries, writing essays and books) which work against the effects of his own speculations. The two faces of Bill Gates are exactly like the two faces of Soros: on the one hand, a cruel Last printed 185 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 186 businessman, destroying or buying out competitors, aiming at a virtual monopoly; on the other, the great philanthropist who makes a point of saying: ‘What does it serve to have computers if people do not have enough to eat?’ According to liberal communist ethics, the ruthless pursuit of profit is counteracted by charity: charity is part of the game, a humanitarian mask hiding the underlying economic exploitation. Developed countries are constantly ‘helping’ undeveloped ones (with aid, credits etc), and so avoiding the key issue: their complicity in and responsibility for the miserable situation of the Third World. As for the opposition between ‘smart’ and ‘nonsmart’, outsourcing is the key notion. You export the (necessary) dark side of production – disciplined, hierarchical labour, ecological pollution – to ‘non-smart’ Third World locations (or invisible ones in the First World). The ultimate liberal communist dream is to export the entire working class to invisible Third World sweat shops. Last printed 186 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 187 2NC Link Wall – Education (CJ) 1. Reproduction of the labor force – Head Start and education programs to the poor aids the recreation of the labor force, which allows for the continuation of capitalism, because it prevents social disintegration. This seeks to guarantee that the lower class maintain their current economic status and do things such as improve our infrastructure and provide basic urban services. As a result, more problems are created, turning case. That’s the Hall in 89 evidence from the 1NC 2. Turn: US hegemony is a tool to sustain capitalist growth through endless genocidal wars Meszaros, prof @ U. Sussex, 7 (Professor Emeritus(Istvan Meszaros, Hungarian Marxist philosopher and Professor Emeritus at U. Sussex. “The Only Viable Economy,” Monthly Review, http://www.monthlyreview.org/0407meszaros.htm) The quixotic advocacy of freezing production at the level attained in the early 1970s was trying to camouflage, with vacuous pseudo-scientific model-mongering pioneered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the ruthlessly enforced actual power relations of U.S. dominated postwar imperialism. That variety of imperialism was, of course, very different from its earlier form known to Lenin. For in Lenin's lifetime at least half a dozen significant imperialist powers were competing for the rewards of their real and/or hoped for conquests. And even in the 1930s Hitler was still willing to share the fruits of violently redefined imperialism with Japan and Mussolini's Italy. In our time, by contrast, we have to face up to the reality -- and the lethal dangers -- arising from global hegemonic imperialism, with the United States as its overwhelmingly dominant power.7 In contrast to even Hitler, the United States as the single hegemon is quite unwilling to share global domination with any rival. And that is not simply on account of political/military contingencies. The problems are much deeper. They assert themselves through the ever-aggravating contradictions of the capital system's deepening structural crisis. U.S. dominated global hegemonic imperialism is an -- ultimately futile -- attempt to devise a solution to that crisis through the most brutal and violent rule over the rest of the world, enforced with or without the help of slavishly "willing allies," now through a succession of genocidal wars. Ever since the 1970s the United States has been sinking ever deeper into catastrophic indebtedness. The fantasy solution publicly proclaimed by several U.S. presidents was "to grow out of it." And the result: the diametrical opposite, in the form of astronomical and still growing indebtedness. Accordingly, the United States must grab to itself, by any means at its disposal, including the most violent military aggression, whenever required for this purpose, everything it can, through the transfer of the fruits of capitalist growth -- thanks to the global socioeconomic and political/military domination of the United States -- from everywhere in the world. Could then any sane person imagine, no matter how well armored by his or her callous contempt for "the shibboleth of equality," that U.S. dominated global hegemonic imperialism would take seriously even for a moment the panacea of "no growth"? Only the worst kind of bad faith could suggest such ideas, no matter how pretentiously packaged in the hypocritical concern over "the Predicament of Mankind." For a variety of reasons there can be no question about the importance of growth both in the present and in the future. But to say so must go with a proper examination of the concept of growth not only as we know it up to the present, but also as we can envisage its sustainability in the future. Our siding with the need for growth cannot be in favor of unqualified growth. The tendentiously avoided real question is: what kind of growth is both feasible today, in contrast to dangerously wasteful and even crippling capitalist growth visible all around us? For growth must be also positively sustainable in the future on a long-term basis. Last printed 187 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 188 2NC Link Wall – Levinas 1. Reproduction of the labor force – In the process of helping “the other” the affirmative recreates the labor force, which allows for the continuation of capitalism, because it prevents social disintegration. This seeks to guarantee that the lower class maintain their current economic status and do things such as improve our infrastructure and provide basic urban services. As a result, more problems are created, turning case. That’s the Hall in 89 evidence from the 1NC. 2. Capitalism structures our daily life and what actions we can take. This forecloses our ability to think outside the system. Even advocacies that seem radical will be co-opted back into the system Zizek 08 (Slavoj Zizek prof phil/sociology/psyche @ European grad institute and the debate community’s own Britney Spears, “censorsip today: Violence or Ecology as a new Opium for the masses” 2008 http://www.lacan.com/zizecology1.htm) In spite of the infinite adaptability of capitalism which, in the case of an acute ecological catastrophe or crisis, can easily turn ecology into a new field of capitalist investment and competition, the very nature of the risk involved fundamentally precludes a market solution - why? Capitalism only works in precise social conditions: it implies the trust into the objectivized/"reified" mechanism of the market's "invisible hand" which, as a kind of Cunning of Reason, guarantees that the competition of individual egotisms works for the common good. However, we are in the midst of a radical change. Till now, historical Substance played its role as the medium and foundation of all subjective interventions: whatever social and political subjects did, it was mediated and ultimately dominated, overdetermined, by the historical Substance. What looms on the horizon today is the unheard-of possibility that a subjective intervention will intervene directly into the historical Substance, catastrophically disturbing its run by way of triggering an ecological catastrophe, a fateful biogenetic mutation, a nuclear or similar military-social catastrophe, etc. No longer can we rely on the safeguarding role of the limited scope of our acts: it no longer holds that, whatever we do, history will go on . For the first time in human history, the act of a single socio-political agent effectively can alter and even interrupt the global historical process, so that, ironically, it is only today that we can say that the historical process should effectively be conceived "not only as Substance, but also as Subject." This is why, when confronted with singular catastrophic prospects (say, a political group which intends to attack its enemy with nuclear or biological weapons), we no longer can rely on the standard logic of the "Cunning of Reason" which, precisely, presupposes the primacy of the historical Substance over acting subjects: we no longer can adopt the stance of "let the enemy who threatens us deploy its potentials and thereby self-destruct himself" - the price for letting the historical Reason do its work is too high since, in the meantime, we may all perish together with the enemy. Recall a frightening detail from the Cuban missile crisis: only later did we learn how close to nuclear war we were during a naval skirmish between an American destroyer and a Soviet B-59 submarine off Cuba on October 27 1962. The destroyer dropped depth charges near the submarine to try to force it to surface, not knowing it had a nuclear-tipped torpedo. Vadim Orlov, a member of the submarine crew, told the conference in Havana that the submarine was authorized to fire it if three officers agreed. The officers began a fierce, shouting debate over whether to sink the ship. Two of them said yes and the other said no. "A guy named Arkhipov saved the world," was a bitter comment of a historian on this accident. Last printed 188 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 189 2NC Link Wall – Military 1. Sustainment of capitalism – the military acts as a tool to sustain the capitalist system’s drive for accumulation-expansionism and exploitation of third world countries and the poor. That’s the Hall in 89 and Mezaros in 95 evidence from the 1NC. 2. US hegemony is a tool to sustain capitalist growth through endless genocidal wars Meszaros, prof @ U. Sussex, 7 (Professor Emeritus(Istvan Meszaros, Hungarian Marxist philosopher and Professor Emeritus at U. Sussex. “The Only Viable Economy,” Monthly Review, http://www.monthlyreview.org/0407meszaros.htm) The quixotic advocacy of freezing production at the level attained in the early 1970s was trying to camouflage, with vacuous pseudo-scientific model-mongering pioneered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the ruthlessly enforced actual power relations of U.S. dominated postwar imperialism. That variety of imperialism was, of course, very different from its earlier form known to Lenin. For in Lenin's lifetime at least half a dozen significant imperialist powers were competing for the rewards of their real and/or hoped for conquests. And even in the 1930s Hitler was still willing to share the fruits of violently redefined imperialism with Japan and Mussolini's Italy. In our time, by contrast, we have to face up to the reality -- and the lethal dangers -- arising from global hegemonic imperialism, with the United States as its overwhelmingly dominant power.7 In contrast to even Hitler, the United States as the single hegemon is quite unwilling to share global domination with any rival. And that is not simply on account of political/military contingencies. The problems are much deeper. They assert themselves through the ever-aggravating contradictions of the capital system's deepening structural crisis. U.S. dominated global hegemonic imperialism is an -- ultimately futile -- attempt to devise a solution to that crisis through the most brutal and violent rule over the rest of the world, enforced with or without the help of slavishly "willing allies," now through a succession of genocidal wars. Ever since the 1970s the United States has been sinking ever deeper into catastrophic indebtedness. The fantasy solution publicly proclaimed by several U.S. presidents was "to grow out of it." And the result: the diametrical opposite, in the form of astronomical and still growing indebtedness. Accordingly, the United States must grab to itself, by any means at its disposal, including the most violent military aggression, whenever required for this purpose, everything it can, through the transfer of the fruits of capitalist growth -- thanks to the global socioeconomic and political/military domination of the United States -- from everywhere in the world. Could then any sane person imagine, no matter how well armored by his or her callous contempt for "the shibboleth of equality," that U.S. dominated global hegemonic imperialism would take seriously even for a moment the panacea of "no growth"? Only the worst kind of bad faith could suggest such ideas, no matter how pretentiously packaged in the hypocritical concern over "the Predicament of Mankind." For a variety of reasons there can be no question about the importance of growth both in the present and in the future. But to say so must go with a proper examination of the concept of growth not only as we know it up to the present, but also as we can envisage its sustainability in the future. Our siding with the need for growth cannot be in favor of unqualified growth. The tendentiously avoided real question is: what kind of growth is both feasible today, in contrast to dangerously wasteful and even crippling capitalist growth visible all around us? For growth must be also positively sustainable in the future on a long-term basis. Last printed 189 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 190 Last printed 190 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 191 2NC Link Wall – Legal Services 1. Reproduction of the labor force – legal services allow the working force to be sustained just enough to keep the poor marginalized and manipulated by the capitalist system. This reproduction of the workforce sustains capitalism and prevents social disintegration. That’s the Hall in 89 evidence from the 1NC 2. Law is an avenue by which the rich are always placed above the poor. Parenti, received his Ph.D. in political science from Yale University, 84 Michael Parenti, he was awarded a Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition serves on the advisory boards of Independent Progressive Politics Network, Education Without Borders, and the Jasenovic Foundation as a Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C, The law in its majestic equality, Anatole France once observed, prohibits rich and poor alike from stealing bread and begging in the streets. And in so doing the law becomes something of a farce, a fiction that allows us to speak of the “rights of all” divorced from the class conditions that often place the rich above the law and the poor below it. In the absence of certain substantive conditions, formal rights are of little value to millions who lack the time, money and opportunity to make a reality of their rights. Take the “right of every citizen to be heard.” In its majestic equality, the law allows both the rich and the poor to raise high their political voices: both are free to hire the best-placed lobbyists and Washington lawyers to pressure public officeholders; both are free to shape public opinion by owning a newspaper or television station; and both rich and poor have the right to engage in multimilliondollar election campaigns in order to pick the right persons for office or win office themselves. But again, this formal political equality is something of a fiction as we shall see in the pages ahead. Of what good are the rules for those millions who are excluded from the game? 3. Under capitalism, law is a “means of manipulation and control” Quinney, prof. of sociology at Northern Illinois U and founder of critical criminology, and Shelden, prof. of criminal justice at UNLV, 01 (Richard Quinney, Randall G. Shelden, “Critique of legal order,” 2001, http://books.google.com/books? id=yGGj8V9ABMAC&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=%22capitalist+legal %22&source=bl&ots=okjdakaLnR&sig=sbVW8X4IIxKgLfk84_Kq6KdrJeE&hl=en&ei=6tBpSsCLHI2cMOawnNAM&sa=X&oi=bo ok_result&ct=result&resnum=10) As students of law and crime, and as socialists, our task is to consider the alternative to the capitalist legal order. Further study of the American legal system must be devoted to the contradictions of the existing legal order. At this advanced stage of capitalist development, law is little more than a rigid and repressive means of manipulation and control. We must make others aware of the current meaning of law and crime control in capitalist society. The objective is to move beyond the existing legal order. And this means ultimately that we are engaged in a socialist revolution. Last printed 191 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 192 2NC Link Wall – Immigration 1.Exploitation – capitalism uses immigrants as cheap labor to do the dirty work of society. In a capitalist system immigrants are devalued and exploited in order to reproduce the labor force and sustain the capitalistic machine. This creates even more problems, since capitalism grows stronger, turning case – That’s Hall in 89 from the 1NC 2. Turn - racism towards immigrants is a necessary product of the capitalist nation state. Castles and Kosack, Institute of Race Relations, 72 Stephen Castles and Godula Kosack, Professor of Migration and Refugee Studies and Institute of Race Relations, 1972, New Left Review, The Function of Labour Immigration in Western European Capitalism, Stephen Castles and Godula Kosack, http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=800 Discrimination against immigrants is a reflection of widespread hostility towards them. In Britain, this is regarded as ‘colour prejudice’ or ‘racialism’, and indeed there can be no doubt that the hostility of large sections of the population is at present directed against black people. Race relations theorists attribute the problems connected with immigration partly to the immigrants’ difficulties in adapting to the prevailing norms of the ‘host society’, and partly to the indigenous population’s inbred distrust of the newcomers who can be distinguished by their skin colour. The problems are abstracted from the socio-economic structure and reduced to the level of attitudes. Solutions are to be sought not through political action, but through psychological and educational strategies. 45 But a comparison of surveys carried out in different countries shows that hostility towards immigrants is everywhere as great as in Britain, even where the immigrants are white. 46 The Italian who moves to the neighbouring country of Switzerland is as unpopular as the Asian in Britain. This indicates that hostility is based on the position of immigrants in society and not on the colour of their skin. Racialism and xenophobia are products of the capitalist national state and of its imperialist expansion. 47 Their principal historical function was to split the working class on the international level, and to motivate one section to help exploit another in the interests of the ruling class. Today such ideologies help to deepen the split within the working class in West Europe. Many indigenous workers do not perceive that they share a common class position and class interests with immigrant workers. The basic fact of having the same relationship to the means of production is obscured by the local workers’ marginal advantages with regard to material conditions and status. The immigrants are regarded not as class comrades, but as alien intruders who pose an economic and social threat. It is feared that they will take away the jobs of local labour, that they will be used by the employers to force down wages and to break strikes. 48 Whatever the behaviour of the immigrant workers—and in fact they almost invariably show solidarity with their fears are not without a basis. It is indeed the strategy of the employers to use immigration to put pressure on wages and to weaken the labour movement. 49 The very social and legal weakness of the immigrants is a weapon in the hands of the employers. Other points of competition are to be found outside work, particularly on the housing market. The presence of immigrants is often regarded as the cause of rising rents and increased overcrowding in the cities. By making immigrants the scapegoats for the insecurity and inadequate conditions which the capitalist system inevitably provides for workers, attention is diverted from the real causes. Workers often adopt racialism as a defence mechanism against a real or apparent threat to their conditions. It is an incorrect response to a real problem. By preventing working-class unity, racialism assists the capitalists in their strategy of ‘divide and rule’. The function of racialism in the capitalist system is often obscured by the fact that racialist campaigns usually have petty-bourgeois leadership and direct their slogans against the big industrialists. The Schwarzenbach Initiative in Switzerland—which called for the deportation of a large proportion of the immigrant population—is an example, 50 as are Enoch Powell’s campaigns indigenous colleagues—such Last printed 192 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 193 for repatriation. Such demands are opposed by the dominant sections of the ruling class. The reason is clear: a complete acceptance of racialism would prevent the use of immigrants as an industrial reserve army. But despite this, racialist campaigns serve the interests of the ruling class: they increase tension between indigenous and immigrant workers and weaken the labour movement. The large workingclass following gained by Powell in his racialist campaigns demonstrates how dangerous they are. Paradoxically, their value for capitalism lies in their very failure to achieve their declared aims. The presence of immigrant workers is one of the principal factors contributing to the lack of class consciousness among large sections of the working class. The existence of a new lower stratum of immigrants changes the worker’s perception of his own position in society. Instead of a dichotomic view of society, in which the working masses confront a small capitalist ruling class, many workers now see themselves as belonging to an intermediate stratum, superior to the unskilled immigrant workers. Such a consciousness is typified by an hierarchical view of society and by orientation towards advancement through individual achievement and competition, rather than through solidarity and collective action. This is the mentality of the labour aristocracy and leads to opportunism and the temporary decay of the working-class movement. Last printed 193 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 194 2NC Link Wall – Postal Service 1. Exploitation – the Postal Service empirically disadvantages low-income people and privileges people of higher income through means of delivery. This exacerbates the control of the capitalist system on society and our lives 2. Capitalism restores space to facilitate dynamics. The 1AC embarks of a centralized and authoritarian model of city-planning, making the post service tailored to the needs of capital which treats individuals as economic production. Their attempt creates a state of collective isolation and consumerist pseudocommunity that allows the smooth functioning of capitalism and the social forces that make nuclear war possible. Debord, wrote the book “Society of the Spectacle”, 1967 (Guy Debord, Marxist theorist, wrote “Society of the Spectacle,” 172-180, 1967, http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/ debord/7.htm) The society that reshapes its entire surroundings has evolved its own special technique for molding its own territory, which constitutes the material underpinning for all the facets of this project. Urbanism — “city planning” — is capitalism’s method for taking over the natural and human environment. Following its logical development toward total domination, capitalism now can and must refashion the totality of space into its own particular decor. The capitalist need that is satisfied by urbanism’s conspicuous petrification of life can be described in Hegelian terms as a total predominance of a “peaceful coexistence within space” over “the restless becoming that takes place in the progression of time.” While all the technical forces of capitalism contribute toward various forms of separation, urbanism provides the material foundation for those forces and prepares the ground for their deployment. It is the very technology of separation. Urbanism is the modern method for solving the ongoing problem of safeguarding class power by atomizing the workers who have been dangerously brought together by the conditions of urban production. The constant struggle that has had to be waged against anything that might lead to such coming together has found urbanism to be its most effective field of operation. The efforts of all the established powers since the French Revolution to increase the means of maintaining law and order in the streets have finally culminated in the suppression of the street itself. Describing what he terms “a one-way system,” Lewis Mumford points out that “with the present means of long-distance mass communication, sprawling isolation has proved an even more effective method of keeping a population under control” (The City in History). But the general trend toward isolation, which is the underlying essence of urbanism, must also include a controlled reintegration of the workers base d on the planned needs of production and consumption. This reintegration into the system means bringing isolated individuals together as isolated individuals. Factories, cultural centers, tourist resorts and housing developments are specifically designed to foster this type of pseudocommunity. The same collective isolation prevails even within the family cell, where the om nipresent receivers of spectacular messages fill the isolation with the ruling images — images that derive their full power precisely from that isolation. In all previous periods architectural innovations were designed exclusively for the ruling classes. Now for the first time a new architecture has been specifically designed for the poor. The aesthetic poverty and vast proliferation of this new experience in habitation stem from its mass character, which character in turn stems both from its function and from the modern conditions of construction. The obvious core of these conditions is the authoritarian decisionmaking which abstractly converts the environment into an environment of Last printed 194 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 195 abstraction. The same architecture appears everywhere as soon as industrialization has begun, even in the countries that are furthest behind in this regard, as an essential foundation for implanting the new type of social existence. The contradiction between the growth of society’s material powers and the continued lack of progress toward any conscious control of those powers is revealed as glaringly by the developments of urbanism as by the issues of thermonuclear weapons or of birth control (where the possibility of manipulating heredity is already on the horizon). Last printed 195 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 196 2NC Link Wall – Census 1. Exploitative underpinnings – the intentions of the plan are to have accurate census’ given so that state budgets can be solved. The plan, therefore, is a means of promoting capitalism and viewing the poor as economic commodities to be used for economic gains. (THIS NEXT CARD IS IN LONG 1NC SHELL) Davies and Leonard, profs @ McGill University, 04 Linda Davies and Peter Leonard, professors in the School of Social Work @ McGill University, 2004 Introduction; in Social Work in a Coporate Era: Practices of Power and Resistance edited by Linda Davies and Peter Leonard, Pg x par 1 – par 2 A striking feature of the objectives and organization of social services in many Western countries at the present time is the extent to which market relations and the commodification of social care 'packages' has permeated social welfare systems. New technologies are being introduced into the management of services that objectify and make more measurable the relationship between state service providers and those who use these services. Risk management increasingly dominates conceptions of how parents and children living in a milieu of poverty, racism and exclusion are to be defined and responded to. Increasing bureaucratic control, together with reductions in resources, furnish the ideological and material spaces within which social workers are expected to practice as risk assessors and case managers. The role of the social worker as one who engages with the client in a supportive, nurturing encounter appears, at least officially, to be dying. Regrettably, there are also professional discourses within social work that appear to be eager to adapt to this technocratic managerialism and to the claims to scientific and objective knowledge which accompany it. Within this view, the future of social work is tied to 'masteing' scientific knowledge and new technical skills, those latest and most glamorous forms of expertise that provide the grounds on which, in a world of uncertainty and occupational competition, social work can stake its claim to professional competence. Social work can best defend itself, it is suggested, by claiming to be a science-based profession with an important role in the monitoring and control of problematic populations at risk - the bad, the mad, and the difficult. The classification of 'client problems' becomes a major tool within this scientisric conception of social work. It is a mechanism of objectification and often parallels the reification and stereotyping of 'cultural communities.' Although all social workers and social work educators, including those who practice from a critical position, are daily confronted with their complicity in structures of domination, the perspective that celebrates social work as a socially useful scientific practice proclaims, in effect, its unambiguous and unreflective contribution to the reproduction of the existing capitalist social order. (READ IF THEY READ THE DEMOCRACY ADV) 2. Democracy is key to the sustainability of capitalism-welfare masks the true evil of the system and quells dissent. Almond, prof emeritus Stanford, 1991 Gabriel Almond, former professor at Stanford and Yale, formerly in Office of War Information, since deceased, 9/2001, http://www.jstor.org/stable/420091 My fourth theme, democracy as fostering and sustaining capitalism, is not as straightforward as the first three. Historically there can be little doubt that as the suffrage was extended in the last century, and as mass political parties developed, democratic development impinged significantly on capitalist institutions and practices. Since successful capitalism requires risk-taking entrepreneurs with access to investment capital, the democratic propensity for redistributive and regulative policy tends to reduce the incentives and the resources available for Last printed 196 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 197 risk-taking and creativity. Thus it can be argued that propensities inevitably resulting from democratic politics, as Friedman, Olson and many others argue, tend to reduce productivity, and hence welfare. But precisely the opposite argument can be made on the basis of the historical experience of literally all of the advanced capitalist democracies in existence. All of them without exception are now welfare states with some form and degree of social insurance, health and welfare nets, and regulatory frameworks designed to mitigate the harmful impacts and shortfalls of capitalism. Indeed, the welfare state is accepted all across the political spectrum. Controversy takes place around the edges. One might make the argument that had capitalism not been modified in this welfare direction, it is doubtful that it would have survived. This history of the interplay between democracy and capitalism is clearly laid out in a major study involving European and American scholars, entitled The Development. This history of the interplay between democracy and capitalism is clearly laid out in a major study involving European and American scholars, entitled The Development of Welfare States in Western Europe and America and America (Flora and Heidenheimer 1981). The book lays out the relationship between the development and spread parties, and the gradual introduction of the institutions and practices of the welfare state. The early adoption of the institutions of the welfare state in Bismarck Germany, Sweden, and Great Britain were all associated with the rise of trade unions and socialist parties in those countries. The decisions made by the upper and middle class leaders and political movements to introduce welfare measures such as accident, old age, and unemployment insurance, were strategic decisions. They were increasingly confronted by trade union movements with the capacity of bringing industrial production to a halt, and by political parties with growing parliamentary representation favoring fundamental modifications in, or the abolition of capitalism. As the calculations of the upper and middle class leaders led them to conclude that the costs of suppression exceeded the costs of concession, the various parts of the welfare state began to be put in place-accident, sickness, unemployment insurance, old age insurance, and the link. The problem of maintaining the loyalty of the working classes through two world wars resulted in additional concessions to working class demands: the filling out of the social security system, free public education to higher levels, family allowances, housing benefits, and the like. Social conditions, historical factors, political processes and decisions produced different versions of the welfare state. In the United States, manhood suffrage came quite early, the later bargaining process emphasized free land and free education to the secondary level, an equality of opportunity version of the welfare state. The Disraeli bargain in Britain resulted in relatively early manhood suffrage and the full attainment of parliamentary government, while the Lloyd George bargain on the eve of World War I brought the beginnings of a welfare system to Britain. The Bismarck bargain in Germany produced an early welfare state, a postponement of electoral equality and parliamentary government. While there were all of these differences in historical encounters with democratization and “welfarization,” the important outcome was that little more than a century after the process began all of the advanced capitalist democracies had similar versions of the welfare state, smaller in scale in the case of the United States and Japan, more substantial in Britain and the continental European countries. We can consequently make out a strong case for the argument that democracy has been supportive of capitalism in this strategic sense. Without this welfare adaptation it is doubtful that capitalism would have survived , or rather, its survival, “unwelfarized,” would have required a substantial repressive apparatus. The choice then would seem to have been between democratic welfare capitalism, and repressive undemocratic capitalism. I am inclined to believe that capitalism as such thrives more with the democratic welfare adaptation than with the repressive one. It is in that sense that we can argue that there is a clear positive impact of democracy on capitalism. of capitalist industry, democratization in the sense of an expanding suffrage and the emergence of trade unions and left-wing political Last printed 197 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 198 2NC Link Wall – Needle Exchange 1. Reproduction of the Labor Force – public health services are a tool of the capitalist system to keep the low-income working class healthy so the labor force may be reproduced. This sustains capitalism by allowing the working force to be used as a commodity for the profit-driven evils of capitalism – That’s the Hall evidence from the 1NC 2. New public health still locked into the motivation to support the capitalist system by creating productive workers Lupton, lecturer @ University Western Sydney, 95 Deborah Lupton, Social Sciences Lecturer- University Western Sydney, 1995, The Imperative of Health: public health and the regulated body, p. 28 An attempt to draw a distinction between the “old” and the “new” public health is thus somewhat difficult to justify, as the “new” public health continues to be characterized by some approaches that date back centuries as well as those that can be more readily identified with contemporary concerns. Just as the early public health movement was mobilized by economic concerns, the objective of health promotion in ensuring productive citizens still dominates public health discourse. The bottom-line of the logic of all these “preventive” actions is not simply human happiness achieved through the minimization of illness and pain, by preserving and redirecting the limited resources available for health care. For example, Ashton and Seymour quote the goal of the World Health Organization’s Health for All by the Year 2000 report issued in 1981, which stated that “the main social target of governments and WHO in the coming decades should be the attainment by all citizens of the world by the year 2000 or a level of health that will permit them to lead a socially and economically productive life.” 3. Public health program driven by state economic needs Lupton, lecturer @ University Western Sydney, 95 Deborah Lupton, Social Sciences Lecturer- University Western Sydney, 1995, The Imperative of Health: public health and the regulated body, p. 28 Like other caring professions associated with liberalism and the welfare state (for example, social work and health care visiting), the ideologies and practices of health promotion are strongly underpinned by economic rationalities. Such activities involve techniques of alignment, where “governmental strategies try to link individual aspirations with collective goals.” This is particularly evident in health promotion. Health promotion is legitimized both by its idealistic search after improved health for all and its promise of reducing the amount of resources spent by the state for medical treatment and the loss of human power due to days spent off work because of illness. Last printed 198 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 199 2NC Link Wall – Prostitution 1. Reproduction of the labor force – In the process of helping prostitutes the affirmative recreates the labor force, which allows for the continuation of capitalism, because it prevents social disintegration. This seeks to exploit the lower class in order for the capitalistic machine to be sustained. As a result, more problems are created, turning case. That’s the Hall in 89 evidence from the 1NC. 2. Discourses of sexuality promote capitalism. Lowe, editor of Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique, 95 Donald M. Lowe. Ed. Of positions: east asia cultures critique. 1995 The Body in Late Capitalist USA. The new discourse and semiotics of sexual pleasure took off in late capitalism because, with such commodities as the oral contraceptive pill (introduced in 1960), and then the IUD, we can, for the first time ever, have sex without worrying about natal reproduction. The obverse side of this is natal reproduction without sex, i.e., in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and ovum transfers. Freed from social reproduction, the new sexuality came to be exploited for the sake of late-capitalist consumption. This is what distinguishes the new sexuality of late capitalism from the bourgeois sexual regulations of industrial capitalism studied by Foucault. It publicizes the promise of sexual pleasure, contradicting the repressive. disciplinary sexuality. The new sexuality is not only discursive and semiotic, but also consumptuary. Quite aptly, the successful sex manual, Alex Comfort's The Joy of Sex (1972), was subtitled "A Cordon Bleu Guide to love-making," and its contents were organized into "Starters" "Main Courses," and Sauces & Pickles." New commodities are packaged and produced specifically for the new sexuality. Pat Califia has said, “S/M is not about pain, but about power." (quoted in Ehrenreich, Hess, and Jacobs 1986, p. 130) But sadomasochism 353 ritual of dominance and submission, a theater of fantasy, requires such paraphernalia as handcuffs, straps, whips, leathers, etc. Thus, Ehrenreich, Hess, and Jacobs report that S1M theater, previously the practice of a few, is now available to even the midwestern housewife through mail-order catalogues. From a strictly capitalist viewpoint, it is the ideal sexual practice .... S/M owes its entrance into the sexual mainstream to its paraphernalia: The symbols arid gear precede the actual practice into the homes and imaginations of millions. (p. ia-s) Besides the direct consumption of sexual implements. late-capitalist production/consumption is able to tap the reservoir of sexual fantasy which the new semiotics of sexuality stimulate. A Lou Harris study reports that sixty-five thousand sexual references a year arc broadcast during the prime afternoon and evening hours on television alone. "'That's an average of 27 an hour. . including 9 kisses, hugs, 10 sexual innuendos and between i and a references each to sexual intercourse and to deviant or discouraged sexual practices.'" Thus a typical American viewer sees nearly fourteen thousand instances of sexual material during the popular time slots each year. (New York Times, January 27, 1988) I propose that the technologies of the look and the relay of juxtaposed images and signs (cf., supra, chapter a. sec. Li) are at the center of this semiotics of sexuality. The two techniques, together with the design and production of commodities as packages of changing product characteristics, contribute to the construction of sexual lifestyle as a signifier for late capitalist production and accumulation of exchange value. The look in the modern West is sexual It is an aspect of the primacy of sight in the modern Western hierarchy of sensing. (Lowc toz) This primacy of sight is culturally arid historically specific not universal. Nor does sex have to be visual in orientation, since seeing is the most distancing of the five human senses. Specific to the modern West is the look constituted as the male gaze-visually subjugating and territorializing the female body. Underneath this look are all the binary oppositions in bourgeois culture which construct the power of male over female. Last printed 199 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 200 Twcntieth-centurv visuality is very much a masculinist one. Photography, cinematography, and television are the technologies of the look, working to enhance the visualization of sexuality. But technologies are not neutral. Their applications depend on the assumptions and purposes of the addressers Photography, cinematography, and television do not simply extend the male gaze. With their different techniques of shots, montage, and narrativity, they repackage and transform the hegemony of the mate gaze in late capitalism. Last printed 200 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 201 2NC Link Wall – Welfare 1. Reproduction of the labor force – In the process of extending and/or reforming welfare the affirmative recreates the labor force, which allows for the continuation of capitalism, because it prevents social disintegration. This seeks to exploit the lower class by making sustaining them enough so they can be a useful clog in the capitalistic machine and capitalism is sustained. As a result, more problems are created, turning case. That’s the Hall in 89 evidence from the 1NC. 2. Welfare manipulates the workforce to further capitalism Gough, prof @ University of Bath, 79 Ian Gough Prof. of Social Policy at the University of Bath. 1979. “The Political Economy of the Welfare State” Macmillan Press LTD What then are the defining features of social policy or the welfare activities of the modern state? For the purposes of this work we shall characterise the welfare state as the use of state power to modify the reproduction of labour power and to maintain the non-working population in capitalist societies. The remainder of this section elaborates this approach. The major means available to the state were discussed in Chapter 5: the direct provision of benefits and services, the parallel use of the taxation system, and state regulation over the private activities of individuals and corporate bodies. The welfare state or social policy does not here refer to benefits with similar characteristics that are provided by other agencies, such as occupational welfare provision, insofar as they are completely independent of state control. However, as we noted in Chapter 1 there has been a continual tendency for the public domain to encroach on the private, and there must be few occupational, charitable or voluntary forms of welfare provision in contemporary Britain, say, that are financially independent of and totally unregulated by the state. 3. Social services are necessary for the functioning of capitalism. Gough, prof @ University of Bath, 79 Ian Gough Prof. of Social Policy at the University of Bath. 1979. “The Political Economy of the Welfare State” Macmillan Press LTD In all these ways the welfare state increasingly controls the level, distribution and pattern of consumption in contemporary capitalist society. (These matters are further developed in Chapter 6.) But the role of the state in the reproduction of labour power extends beyond these quantitative aspects. The type of labour power required in the 1970s differs from that required in the 1870s. Work in modern capitalist society requires certain kinds of abilities, motivation, self-discipline and so forth. So the reproduction of labour power also involves a qualitative element-specific patterns of socialisation, behaviour, specific capacities and personality structures. Among the social services, education, social work and manpower programmes are perhaps most specifically directed to this end. Family allowances and insurance benefits of various kinds, housing policies and health services are perhaps more concerned with the quantitative aspects. Furthermore, the reproduction of labour power clearly involves not only daily reproduction but generational reproduction; that is, the rearing and socialisation of children. Here the family and the labour of housewives is still all-important, but again it is increasingly augmented and regulated by the welfare state. Almost all social policies have a bearing on the capacity of the family to bring up children and many are specifically directed at the minority of families that at any given time are doing so: not only education, but specific health services for Last printed 201 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 202 example; and within maintenance and housing policies special regard is given to those families with children. Children form the workforce of the next generation and this is one reason for the growth of state intervention in this process. In the rapidly changing society of contemporary capitalism their productive capacities must be adapted to changing requirements, such as the changing division of labour (see Chapter 2). In all these ways the contemporary welfare state modifies the reproduction of labour power within capitalism. But this does not exhaust its functions, for the population also contains individuals that are not part of the workforce. The second arm of the welfare state serves to maintain non-working groups in society. All societies contain groups that are unable to work for their living (aside from those who, in class societies, do not need to): children, the elderly, the sick and disabled, the mentally handicapped and so forth. Of course the boundaries between working and nonworking groups are not fixed; they will predominantly be determined by the prevailing mode of production. The sharp boundaries separating working life from childhood on the one side and old-age retirement on the other are in fact specific to capitalism. Last printed 202 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 203 2NC Link Wall – Prisons 1. Class divisions – having exhausted all other profit-seeking measures, prisons are a way for the capitalist system to make money. Prisons drive the profit-seeking expansionism of capitalism leading to further exploitation. Inmates are viewed solely as a commodities for profit-making – That’s our Hall in 89 evidence. 2. Prisons manage the social discontent caused by capitalism and seek to maximize profits Lynd & Lynd, Political Activist, Historian, Lawyer, Professor at Spellman College & Yale University, ‘01 (Lynd, Staughton, Lynd, Alice, Political Activist, Historian, Lawyer, Professor at Spellman College & Yale University, July/August 2001, Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine, 00270520, Jul/Aug2001, Vol. 53, Issue 3) The words "prison-industrial complex," then, have by implication the same meaning. The message is: "Don't believe the proffered rationale that society has a need to put criminals behind bars in more and more restrictive and expensive facilities. What is really going on is that the capitalist system, having exhausted other opportunities for profit-making, is trying to make a buck on building and operating prisons. Watch the growth of prison production of goods and prison performance of services for profit. Notice the efflorescence of so-called private prisons which, laying aside the mask, make clear that their primary purpose is to maximize profits. (When the authors toured the first private prison in Ohio, on the occasion of its opening in spring 1997, the first words to be seen inside the prison doors were on a wall display entitled, "The price of our stock on the New York Stock Exchange yesterday," or words to that effect.) We think the implicit analysis encoded in the term prison-industrial complex is inaccurate. We believe that the prison boom derives primarily from capitalist society's need to control a labor force that is no longer economically required. It seems to us that prisons are explained less by a desire to accumulate profit than by a concern to manage the social discontent engendered by capital flight and disinvestment: in a word, by disaccumlulation. 3. Capitalism allows the rich to gain up on the poor and confine the poor to prisons. Jackson, Black Panther, 70 George Jackson, member of the Black Panthers who wrote about his and others experiences with the prison system and capitalism, 1970 http://www.haroldhthompson.uwclub.net/role_of_prisons_in_the_scheme_of.htm Politicians have a self-serving field day whipping up public hysteria in the mainstream media about the 'crime crisis' in America, perpetrating the great lie in order to enhance their images to concerned voters of being tough on crime. "The prisons are full of dangerous criminals, keep them there! Three strikes and your out! We have to build more prisons to hold them all! We need the prisons to control these animals!.." they rant and rage while lying through their pearl white teeth. The truth is easily discovered by anyone willing to do some preliminary research on the crime and prisons. Their great lie is merely just another vote grabbing fabrication which social vermin like politicians are known for coming up with in desperation to seize public office to fleece the flock! The national population has increased since the fifties and sixties where most comparison statistics are drawn from to match with the 90's crime rates. Crime has risen comparatively with the population increase. Almost at the same rate of growth during the fifties and sixties. Some categories of violent crime have increased a bit but only because of the increased availability of automatic weapons during the 90's era. The simple concrete Last printed 203 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 204 fact remains, the vast majority of people imprisoned today in the united states of America's state and federal gulags are incarcerated for economic crimes relating to survival. The largest percentage of these people are poor, unemployed, working class and/or members ethnic minorities. Prisons are racist, sexist environments, designed to dehumanise those within them, strip people of their identities to be replaced with numbers like warehoused spare parts. Prisons provide no treatment to solve any problems which led a person to prison. The only treatment provided is to control conduct or behavior of a person while in prison, if any treatment is offered at all. It is meant to isolate the prisoner from family and friends, break down their personalities to force them, through varying degrees of brain washing techniques, into becoming another obedient robot for capitalism. Prisons are being utilized increasingly to simply warehouse people, society's throwaway segments; the homeless, unemployed, those seeking to bring political change through methods unacceptable to the elite few, the 'unwashed' or perpetrating class, defined as us. Prisons are violent institutions by design and teach lessons of violence through abuse to those confined within them. This taught violence is often, later misdirected and unleashed upon society in general after the person is released. Bitterness, pent-up rage, anger has to go somewhere so it explodes, most often at unexpected times and often in self destructive ways to the individual, sending them back for a second drink at the well of the gulags. The victims of the prison's institutionalised brutality create new victims of the system, thus ensuring the vicious cycle continues after their release to gentler society to send them back for a rerun of the original dehumanising penal experience. Prison neither deters crime nor protects anybody from crime. Prison perpetuates crime. Prisons provide no realistic rehabilitation and the person is often a worse threat to society when they leave prison than when they entered it in the first place .So why are people continued to be dehumanised in these steel and concrete gulags? Why are people still locked away for years in these tombs of the undead. Why? Because prisons are a booming growth industry and as with other large capitalist ventures are propped up with dollars taken from the working class in the form of taxes Last printed 204 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 205 2NC Link Wall – Guantanamo 1. Recreation of the Labor Force – having exhausted all other profit-seeking measures, the states sees Guantanamo prisoners as a way for the capitalist system to make money. The state seeks to assist in the remedying the mess in commodity production by keeping commodities viewed as unproductive excluded from society. That’s our Hall in 89 evidence from the 1NC. 2. US hegemony is a tool to sustain capitalist growth through endless genocidal wars Meszaros, prof @ U. Sussex, 7 (Professor Emeritus(Istvan Meszaros, Hungarian Marxist philosopher and Professor Emeritus at U. Sussex. “The Only Viable Economy,” Monthly Review, http://www.monthlyreview.org/0407meszaros.htm) The quixotic advocacy of freezing production at the level attained in the early 1970s was trying to camouflage, with vacuous pseudo-scientific model-mongering pioneered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the ruthlessly enforced actual power relations of U.S. dominated postwar imperialism. That variety of imperialism was, of course, very different from its earlier form known to Lenin. For in Lenin's lifetime at least half a dozen significant imperialist powers were competing for the rewards of their real and/or hoped for conquests. And even in the 1930s Hitler was still willing to share the fruits of violently redefined imperialism with Japan and Mussolini's Italy. In our time, by contrast, we have to face up to the reality -- and the lethal dangers -- arising from global hegemonic imperialism, with the United States as its overwhelmingly dominant power.7 In contrast to even Hitler, the United States as the single hegemon is quite unwilling to share global domination with any rival. And that is not simply on account of political/military contingencies. The problems are much deeper. They assert themselves through the ever-aggravating contradictions of the capital system's deepening structural crisis. U.S. dominated global hegemonic imperialism is an -- ultimately futile -- attempt to devise a solution to that crisis through the most brutal and violent rule over the rest of the world, enforced with or without the help of slavishly "willing allies," now through a succession of genocidal wars. Ever since the 1970s the United States has been sinking ever deeper into catastrophic indebtedness. The fantasy solution publicly proclaimed by several U.S. presidents was "to grow out of it." And the result: the diametrical opposite, in the form of astronomical and still growing indebtedness. Accordingly, the United States must grab to itself, by any means at its disposal, including the most violent military aggression, whenever required for this purpose, everything it can, through the transfer of the fruits of capitalist growth -- thanks to the global socioeconomic and political/military domination of the United States -- from everywhere in the world. Could then any sane person imagine, no matter how well armored by his or her callous contempt for "the shibboleth of equality," that U.S. dominated global hegemonic imperialism would take seriously even for a moment the panacea of "no growth"? Only the worst kind of bad faith could suggest such ideas, no matter how pretentiously packaged in the hypocritical concern over "the Predicament of Mankind." For a variety of reasons there can be no question about the importance of growth both in the present and in the future. But to say so must go with a proper examination of the concept of growth not only as we know it up to the present, but also as we can envisage its sustainability in the future. Our siding with the need for growth cannot be in favor of unqualified growth. The tendentiously avoided real question is: what kind of growth is both feasible today, in contrast to dangerously wasteful and even crippling capitalist growth visible all around us? For growth must be also positively sustainable in the future on a long-term basis. Last printed 205 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 206 2NC Link Wall – Food Stamps 1. Recreation of Labor Force – food stamps are given to the poor people to sustain them so that a workforce may be recreated and reproduced. This feeds the capitalist system by providing a consistent and sustained low-income workforce that is commodified for profit-seeking measures – That’s our Hall evidence from the 1NC. 2. US hegemony is a tool to sustain capitalist growth through endless genocidal wars Meszaros, prof @ U. Sussex, 7 (Professor Emeritus(Istvan Meszaros, Hungarian Marxist philosopher and Professor Emeritus at U. Sussex. “The Only Viable Economy,” Monthly Review, http://www.monthlyreview.org/0407meszaros.htm) The quixotic advocacy of freezing production at the level attained in the early 1970s was trying to camouflage, with vacuous pseudo-scientific model-mongering pioneered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the ruthlessly enforced actual power relations of U.S. dominated postwar imperialism. That variety of imperialism was, of course, very different from its earlier form known to Lenin. For in Lenin's lifetime at least half a dozen significant imperialist powers were competing for the rewards of their real and/or hoped for conquests. And even in the 1930s Hitler was still willing to share the fruits of violently redefined imperialism with Japan and Mussolini's Italy. In our time, by contrast, we have to face up to the reality -- and the lethal dangers -- arising from global hegemonic imperialism, with the United States as its overwhelmingly dominant power.7 In contrast to even Hitler, the United States as the single hegemon is quite unwilling to share global domination with any rival. And that is not simply on account of political/military contingencies. The problems are much deeper. They assert themselves through the ever-aggravating contradictions of the capital system's deepening structural crisis. U.S. dominated global hegemonic imperialism is an -- ultimately futile -- attempt to devise a solution to that crisis through the most brutal and violent rule over the rest of the world, enforced with or without the help of slavishly "willing allies," now through a succession of genocidal wars. Ever since the 1970s the United States has been sinking ever deeper into catastrophic indebtedness. The fantasy solution publicly proclaimed by several U.S. presidents was "to grow out of it." And the result: the diametrical opposite, in the form of astronomical and still growing indebtedness. Accordingly, the United States must grab to itself, by any means at its disposal, including the most violent military aggression, whenever required for this purpose, everything it can, through the transfer of the fruits of capitalist growth -- thanks to the global socioeconomic and political/military domination of the United States -- from everywhere in the world. Could then any sane person imagine, no matter how well armored by his or her callous contempt for "the shibboleth of equality," that U.S. dominated global hegemonic imperialism would take seriously even for a moment the panacea of "no growth"? Only the worst kind of bad faith could suggest such ideas, no matter how pretentiously packaged in the hypocritical concern over "the Predicament of Mankind." For a variety of reasons there can be no question about the importance of growth both in the present and in the future. But to say so must go with a proper examination of the concept of growth not only as we know it up to the present, but also as we can envisage its sustainability in the future. Our siding with the need for growth cannot be in favor of unqualified growth. The tendentiously avoided real question is: what kind of growth is both feasible today, in contrast to dangerously wasteful and even crippling capitalist growth visible all around us? For growth must be also positively sustainable in the future on a long-term basis. Last printed 206 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 207 2NC Link Wall – Puerto Rico 1. Recreation of Labor Force – the earned income tax credit is given to the poor people to sustain them so that a workforce may be recreated and reproduced. This feeds the capitalist system by providing a consistent and sustained low-income workforce that is commodified for profit-seeking measures – That’s our Hall evidence from the 1NC. 2. The Affirmative’s moral imperative constitutes a totalitarian paralysis and continuity of conservative politics which replicate your case harms. Stavrakakis, Prof Psychoanalysis @ U Essex, 03 Yannis Stavrakakis, Prof Psychoanalysis @ U Essex, 03 parallax, 2003, vol. 9, no. 2, 56–71 Re-Activating the Democratic Revolution: The Politics of Transformation Beyond Reoccupation and Conformism This brings us to the whole discussion around the ethical turn in contemporary political philosophy. Even if one concludes that radical democracy can be a viable and fruitful project for a politics of transformation, what about the prioritization of ethics within recent radical democratic discourse? For example, at a fairly superficial level, it seems as if Zizek questions the importance of ethics in this field, and thus would also seem to question the deployment of the radical democratic attitude at the ethical level. Consider, for example, his outright condemnation of the ethical turn in political philosophy: ‘The ‘‘return to ethics’’ in today’s political philosophy shamefully exploits the horrors of Gulag or Holocaust as the ultimate bogey for blackmailing us into renouncing all serious radical engagement’.60 Surely, however, this cannot be a rejection of ethics in toto. Even if only because Zizek himself has devoted a considerable part of his work elaborating the ethics of psychoanalysis in the Lacanian tradition.61 It follows then that it must be a particular form of ethical discourse that constitutes his target. The same is true of Alain Badiou’s argument, to which we will now turn. Badiou’s target is a particular type of ethics, of ethical ideology, which uses a discourse of ‘human rights’ and ‘humanitarianism’ in order to silence alternative thought and politics and legitimize the capitalist order. This is an ethics premised on the principle that ‘good is what intervenes visibly against an Evil that is identifiable a priori’.62 What Badiou points to here, is what appears as a strange inversion; here the Good is derived from the Evil and not the other way round.63 The result of such an inversion is significant for the theory and politics of transformation: If the ethical ‘‘consensus’’ is founded on the recognition of Evil, it follows that every effort to unite people around a positive idea of the Good, let alone identify Man with projects of this kind, becomes in fact the real source of evil itself. Such is the accusation so often repeated over the last fifteen years: every revolutionary project stigmatized as ‘‘utopian’’ turns, we are told, into totalitarian nightmare. Every will to inscribe an idea of justice or equality turns bad. Every collective will to the Good creates Evil […] In reality, the price paid by ethics is a stodgy conservatism.64 This ethic, which is revealed as nothing but a mindless catechism, a miserable moralism,65 is an ethics that can have no relation to a transformative political agenda. 66 This ethics is presented in Badiou’s argument as a distortion of a real ethic of truths, which attempts to restore the logical priority of Good over Evil. Badiou’s ethic of truths is an ethics related to the idea of the event, a category central for his whole philosophical and political apparatus. To put it briefly, the event here refers to a real break which destabilizes a given discursive articulation, a preexisting order. Last printed 207 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 208 2NC Link Wall – Full Employment 1. Recreation of Labor Force – jobs are given to the poor people to sustain them so that a workforce may be recreated and reproduced. This feeds the capitalist system by providing a consistent and sustained low-income workforce that is commodified for profit-seeking measures – That’s our Hall evidence from the 1NC. 2. Ends don’t justify the means – while the means of the plan may be trying to break down class divisions, the intent of the plan is to stimulate the capitalist economy, which causes the working poor to become commodified and stimulates the profit-driven expansionism of capitalism. 3. Their calls of equality under the democratic system are false democracy reinforces the binaries that capitalism created by only including those who are of the social class to participate the exclude have not vote in the democracy and are extorted Zizek, University of Ljubljana, 04 Slavoj, Žižek, Institute for Social Sciences at the University of Ljubljana, 2004 Appendix I: canis a non canendo, iraq the borrowed kettle pg.86-87 However, are things really that simple? First, direct democracy is not only still alive in many places, such as the favelas , it is even being 'reinvented' and given a new boost by the rise the 'post industrial' digital culture (do not the descriptions of the new `tribal' communities of computer-hackers often evoke the logic of conciliarly democracy?). Secondly, the awareness that politics is a complex game in which a certain level of institutional alienation is irreducible should not lead us to ignore the fact that there is still a line of separation which divides those who are 'in' from those who are 'out', excluded from the space of the polis — there are citizens, and then there is the spectre of the excluded homo sacer haunting them all. In other words, even 'complex' contemporary societies still rely on the basic divide between included and excluded. The fashionable notion of the 'multitude' is insufficient precisely in so far as it cuts across this divide: there is a multitude within the system and a multitude of those excluded, and simply to encompass them both within the scope of the same notion amounts to the same obscenity as equating starvation with dieting. The excluded do not simply dwell in a psychotic non-structured Outside: they have (and are forced into) their own self-organization (or, rather, they are forced into organizing themselves) — and one of the names (and practices) of this selfor organization was precisely 'conciliary democracy). Last printed 208 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 209 2NC Impact Overview Vs. Gender Impacts Capitalism profit-driven and expansion oriented which will inevitably get stuck and the results will be dire and devastating. The twentieth century is proof of what can happen when capitalism fails, world wars and conflagration will devastate humanity. Under the conditions of capitalism’s inevitable structural crisis, its destructive constituents will come to the forefront with a vengeance and seek destruction. This o/w the gender impacts of the 1AC, because the destruction of capitalism will bring the whole world down with it in devastating destruction with certain probability – last two world wars prove. That’s the Mezaros in 95 evidence from the 1NC 2. Feminist movements fail to solve the primary contraction of capitalism. Lowe, editor of Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique, 95 Donald M. Lowe. Ed. Of positions: east asia cultures critique. 1995 The Body in Late Capitalist USA. The 1950s reinforced traditional gender attribution. But in the 1960s, middle-class women, trained to fill dichotomous gender roles, found themselves in new positions of production and social reproduction, and yet they were still expected to maintain their internalized gender attributes The second feminist movement responded to the resulting contradiction between traditional gender construction and the changing position of women in production consumption and social reproduction. Equal-rights feminism and radical feminism were two such responses. Equal-rights feminism derives from a liberal tradition stretching all the way back to Mary Wollstonecraft, and is concerned with the problem of gender discrimination in the public sphere. it promotes such reforms as affirmative action, special protection for women in the workplace, reproduction rights, and welfare. More recently, equalrights feminists are arguing for equal pay for comparable work, However, the discourse of equal rights clots not directly confront the problems between traditional gender roles and new positions in production and social reproduction, which many women face- Equal-rights feminism, in upholding the ideal of equality does not challenge gender construction outside the public sphere. In that sense, it is a customary liberal response to a new problem. Last printed 209 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 210 2NC Impact Overview – Econ/Heg Impacts 1. Cap o/w - Capitalism profit-driven and expansion oriented which will inevitably get stuck and the results will be dire and devastating. The twentieth century is proof of what can happen when capitalism fails, world wars and conflagration will devastate humanity. Under the conditions of capitalism’s inevitable structural crisis, its destructive constituents will come to the forefront with a vengeance and seek destruction. This o/w the nuclear war impacts of the 1AC, because capitalism will inevitably collapse and result in the death of humanity. That’s the Mezaros in 95 evidence from the 1NC. 2. Capitalism is the root cause of their impacts – economic collapse and nuclear war are possibilities because of capitalism. Capitalism’s profit-drive expansionism causes countries to exploit others for resources and leads to arms build-up and eventual economic collapse – that’s Mezaros in 95 from the 1NC 3. The methodology of the capitalist system creates prisons of oppression that deny value to life and make the actions like “final solutions” possible – only through the complete rejection of this mode of thought is liberation possible Deleuze and Guattari, prof philosophy @ University of Paris & psychoanalyst, 72 (Gilles Deleuze AND Felix Guattari, professor of philosophy at the University of Paris and psychoanalyst, worked at La Borde. Anti-Oedipus 1972 pg 373) "There is not one of these aspects---not the least operation, the least industrial or financial mechanism--that does not reveal the insanity of the capitalist machine and the pathological character of its rationality: not at all a false rationality, but a true rationality of this pathological state, this insanity, "the machine works too, believe me". The capitalist machine does not run the risk of becoming mad, it is mad from one end to the other and from the beginning, and this is the source of its rationality, Marx's black humor, the source of Capital, is his fascination with such a machine: how it came to be assembled, on what foundation of decoding and deterritorialization; how it works, always more decoded, always more deterritorialized; how its operation grows more relentless with the development of the axiomatic, the combination of the flows; how it produces the terrible single class of gray gentlemen who keep up the machine; how it does not run the risk of dying all alone, but rather of making us die, by provoking to the very end investements of desire that do not even go by way of a deceptive and subjective ideology, and that lead us to cry out to the very end, Long live capital in all its reality, in all its objective dissimulation! Except in ideology, there has never been a humane, liberal, paternal, etc., capitalism. Capitalism is defined by a cruelty having no parallel in the despotic regime of terror. Wage increases and improvements in the standard of living are realities, but realities that derive from a given supplementary axiom that capitalism is always capable of adding to its axiomatic in terms of an enlargement of its limits: let's create the New Deal; let's cultivate and recognize strong unions; let's promote participation, the single class; let's take a step toward Russia, which is taking so many toward us; etc. But within the enlarged reality that conditions these islands, exploitation grows constantly harsher, lack is arranged in the most scientific of ways, final solutions of the "Jewish problem" variety are prepared down to the last detail, and the Thrid World is orgainized as an integral part of capitalism. the reproduction of the interior limits of capitalism on an always wider scale has several consequences: it permits increases and improvements of standards at the center, it displaces the harshest forms of exploitation from the center to the peripher, but also multiplies enclaves of overpopulation in Last printed 210 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 211 the center itself, and easilty tolerates the so-called socialist formations. (It is not kibbutz-style socialism that troubles the Zionist state, just as it is not Russian socialism that troubles world capitalism.) There is no metaphor here: the factories are prisons, they do not resemble prisons, they are prisons. Last printed 211 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 212 2NC Impact Overview – Poverty 1.Capitalism o/w - Capitalism profit-driven and expansion oriented which will inevitably get stuck and the results will be dire and devastating. The twentieth century is proof of what can happen when capitalism fails, world wars and conflagration will devastate humanity. Under the conditions of capitalism’s inevitable structural crisis, its destructive constituents will come to the forefront with a vengeance and seek destruction. This o/w the poverty impacts of the 1AC, because capitalism will inevitably collapse and result in the death of humanity. That’s the Mezaros in 95 evidence from the 1NC. 2. Capitalism is the root cause of poverty. Ostapiak, writer at Northland College, 2008, Mark OStapiak, writer at Northland College, 2008, http://www.geocities.com/youth4sa/hunger.html We all know that world hunger and world poverty are paramount problems for our young generation to address. What could be more problematic than the systematic denial of basic needs such as food, shelter, clothing and clean drinking water? What’s irking is that these basic needs could be provided for all, yet still there are billions of people in this world who continue to suffer from poverty and malnutrition. In my talk this evening I hope to convey to you, number one, the seriousness of these problems; two, to explain from a class conscious perspective explain why these problems exist, and three, what can be done, since yes, there is a solution.First, I’d like to elaborate on the seriousness of poverty today. Right now there are more than 3.1 billion people in the world living on less than $2 a day. Another telling fact is that the net worth of the 358 richest billionaires is equal to the combined income of the poorest 45% of the world’s population. 45% translates into 2.3 billion people! Nearly a billion people in just the Third World are landless or have too little land available to them to feed their households. In the advanced countries, 100 million people live below the poverty line, 5 million of them without homes. Closer to home, here in the United States, the income disparity is now the widest it has been since the 1929 stock market crash and it is continuing to grow. These previous examples illustrate the unequal distribution of wealth, an irreversible symptom of the ailing capitalist system. Capitalism is characterized by perpetuated poverty that results from, among other attacks on the working class, workers’ wage cuts, an increase in the cost of living without an increase in minimum wage and layoffs, all motivated by capitalism’s drive for profit profit. Remember, the income disparity continues to grow, so it’s true that, as the old saying goes, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.But, one may ask, doesn’t the government provide poor and hungry people with social programs such as welfare and health care? Yes and no. Programs exist, but they were never adequate and the capitalists cutting federal funding for these benefits and this makes many people feel hopeless and angry. Yet, their sentiment is quickly pacified when a somber and seemingly sincere politician is quoted, “that there isn’t enough in the budget to cover these benefits for the poor.”This is entirely false. Did you know that “wealthfare” for the rich costs us about 3.5 times as much as the $130 billion we spend each year on welfare for the poor? And since the publication of that figure, the 1996 welfare “reform” bill has cut that amount of money given out for welfare dramatically. We weren’t able to end poverty before the welfare reform bill, so how does one expect the poor to feed themselves and get out of poverty when there is even less money and less social programs spent than before?So where are the priorities of the United States, the wealthiest, and supposedly, the most benevolent and free of nations? Taking a look at where the majority of U.S. subsidies end up we can see a telling reflection of those priorities. A total of $327 billion a year is spent on the military for example. Of course the argument goes that the military provides semi-decent jobs, but let’s look at what $1 billion can do when spent on the military compared to more socially beneficial purposes. $1 billion to the military created 25,000 jobs. If that same figure were spent on social programs it could create 30,000 jobs in mass transit, 36,000 jobs in housing, 41,000 jobs in education or 47,000 jobs in health care.U.S. military spending is far from the best solution for the Third World as well. And while countries that are made are made subordinate to the U.S. by having their cities and coutnrysides bombed and destroyed end up needing their infrastructure rebuilt, this is a very double edged sword in terms of creating jobs to say the least. But the U.S. doesn’t just utilize the weapons they make; they sell them and are in fact the largest seller of weapons in the world. These weapons are used by U.S. puppet governments in other countries to ensure the poor are kept poor, subordinate, landless and hungry.Let me give you a good example of what I mean. During the 1950s in Nicaragua there was a cotton bonanza. Campesinos who worked the land to grow crops and Last printed 212 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 213 feed their families were forced off their land. When they resisted, the Somoza dictatorship’s National Guard burned their homes and crops. None other than the U.S. Marines set up the Nicaraguan National Guard. Why? In order to secure a highly profitable market at the expense of land that provided Campesinos both with life giving food and some money from the corps they grew to sell. This, once again, is the nature of capitalism, folks. They compromise the meeting of basic human needs to ensure an increased profit.Another product of capitalism that sinks countries further into poverty is the policies of the IMF and World Bank. These institutions are intended to smooth world commerce by reducing foreign exchange restrictions and tariffs, among other things. By using its funds to bail out governments that are confronting problems these bastions of capitalism ensure that trade can continue with minimum interruption. Basically, money is lent to these bankrupt countries, which are already deeply in debt, and place as conditions for these loans economic restructuring that involves cutting or eliminating food and social programs for the poor and hungry.I hope I’ve shown that the system of capitalism is exploitative and oppressive. That only the rich benefit from this system while the poor are further trampled under its heel. From all of this we can surely deduce that it is, above all, not a democratic system. It does not represent the interests of the majority, because the majority are the poor and hungry. This is just is. According to Joseph Collins of Food First, the root cause of hunger isn’t scarcity of food or land; rather, it’s a scarcity of democracy! Democracy has everything to do with hunger because democracy carries with it the principle of accountability. Democratic structures are those in which people have a say in decisions that affect their well being. Leadership can be kept accountable to the needs of the majority. The U.S., the world’s self-appointed policeman, has lacked the fundamentals of democracy from the beginning. Alexander Hamilton, one of our founding fathers, went so far as to say “the mass of people seldom judge or determine right,” and therefore “a permanent body composed of the rich and well-born should check the imprudent of democracy.”There are examples, though of how this unfair and unjust state of affairs has been overcome to benefit the poor and huddled masses of hungry and homeless. Here is how a revolution overcame poverty and hunger. In 1959, the Cubans defeated the U.S. backed Batista dictatorship. And afterward, they threw off the chains of capitalism with a socialist revolution. After the revolution, Cuba is still considerably less wealthy than its neighbor 90 miles north, but through a planned socialist economy, according to a Food First report, all citizens are guaranteed enough rice, pulses, oil, sugar, meat and other food to provide them with 1,900 calories a day. And this is the face of the ongoing U.S. embargo against Cuba. Listen, the world today produces enough grain to provide every human being on the planet with 3,600 calories a day, but the U.S. still has upwards of 1 million homeless and hungry. Last printed 213 GT Capitalism Alex Blank Dartmouth 2k9 214 2NC Alternative Overview 1. Revolutionary persuasion - our alternative is to reject the affirmative through revolutionary persuasion. What seem like “realistic solutions” of the 1AC will not work because these proposals give reasonableness to other political forces causing them to be co-opted. This debate acts a resistant point for capitalism by showing the inability of capitalism and the environment to coincide, which is key to starting a revolution, because it opens up pubic discussion on the dangers of capitalism – That’s our Wallis in 08 evidence 2. Alternative solves the 1AC – the alternative eliminates the capitalist machine, which is the root cause of the harms of the 1AC. Capitalism is the cause of all of our problems because it creates conflicts and tension between classes and nation states. Only by completely rejecting capitalism can we hope to solve the harms of the 1AC – That’s our Wallis in 08 evidence Last printed 214 ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/19/2010 for the course COMM 180 taught by Professor Kemp during the Fall '08 term at Wake Forest.

Page1 / 214

DDI09-GT-Capitalism-Revised - GT Capitalism Alex Blank...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online