CO_CAPITALISM_K

CO_CAPITALISM_K - Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor...

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: Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism K Index – CHS 2010 Generic: Sausage Edition Capitalism K Index – CHS 2010 Generic: Sausage Edition..................................................................................................1 Turn, solve, and outweigh the case. Make their offense go away..........................................................................................7 Other Important Notes...........................................................................................................................................................7 The ORIGINAL generic cap file had a Zizek card in the aff perm block that was literally taken entirely out of context. When Zizek says “the left”, “liberals”, “liberal democrats”, “liberal communists”, “the third way”, “today’s ‘radical’ academics”, etc, he’s referring to what we consider liberals, or democrats. This isn’t to be confused with Capital C Communists, or what Zizek would probably advocate. The whole underlined part of the card is him sarcastically making fun of liberal’s views – it isn’t what he really believes. During crossx, point out that in the un-underlined part, he refutes the strawman, and make sure the ev gets thrown out. I took out the mischaracterized card from this file, and replaced it with a card from an interview where Zizek actually does contradict himself…....................................................................7 Capitalism K 1NC Short Shell (1).........................................................................................................................................8 Capitalism K 1NC Short Shell (2).........................................................................................................................................9 Capitalism K 1NC Short Shell (3).......................................................................................................................................10 Capitalism K 1NC Long Shell (1).......................................................................................................................................11 Capitalism K 1NC Long Shell (2).......................................................................................................................................12 Capitalism K 1NC Long Shell (3).......................................................................................................................................13 Capitalism K 1NC Long Shell (4).......................................................................................................................................14 Capitalism K 1NC Long Shell (5).......................................................................................................................................15 Capitalism K 1NC Long Shell (6).......................................................................................................................................16 Capitalism K 1NC Long Shell (7).......................................................................................................................................17 Capitalism K 1NC Long Shell (8).......................................................................................................................................18 Link – Hegemony (1)..........................................................................................................................................................22 Link – Hegemony (2)..........................................................................................................................................................23 Link – K Aff: AT Turn........................................................................................................................................................24 Link – K Affs......................................................................................................................................................................25 Link – Welfare (1)..............................................................................................................................................................26 Link – Welfare (2)...............................................................................................................................................................27 Link – Welfare Reform.......................................................................................................................................................28 Link – State intervention.....................................................................................................................................................29 Link – Immigration.............................................................................................................................................................30 Link – Natives.....................................................................................................................................................................31 Link – Identity Politics........................................................................................................................................................32 Link – Gender (1)................................................................................................................................................................33 Link – Gender (2)................................................................................................................................................................34 Link – Feminism: AT Turn.................................................................................................................................................35 Link – Democracy (1).........................................................................................................................................................36 Link – Democracy (2).........................................................................................................................................................37 Link – Democracy (3).........................................................................................................................................................38 ...........................................................................................................................................................................................38 Link – Democracy (4).........................................................................................................................................................39 Link – Public Health Care...................................................................................................................................................40 Link – Ethical/Moral Obligation.........................................................................................................................................41 Link – Moral Obligation......................................................................................................................................................43 Link – “Help Them”............................................................................................................................................................44 Link – Multiculturalism.......................................................................................................................................................45 Link – Abortion (1).............................................................................................................................................................46 Link – Abortion (2).............................................................................................................................................................47 Link - Environment.............................................................................................................................................................48 1 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link - Health Care..............................................................................................................................................................49 Links – Prisons (1).............................................................................................................................................................50 Link – Prisons (2)................................................................................................................................................................51 Link – Prisons (3)................................................................................................................................................................52 Links - HUD........................................................................................................................................................................53 Link - Postal Service (1)......................................................................................................................................................54 Link – Postal Service (2).....................................................................................................................................................55 Link – Assets Discourse (1)................................................................................................................................................56 Link – Assets Discourse (2).................................................................................................................................................57 Link – Assets Discourse (3).................................................................................................................................................58 Link - Assets Discourse (4).................................................................................................................................................59 Links - Competitiveness Discourse (1)...............................................................................................................................61 Link – Competitiveness Discourse (2).................................................................................................................................62 Link – Law..........................................................................................................................................................................63 ...........................................................................................................................................................................................63 Link – Environmental sustainability....................................................................................................................................64 Link – Environmental justice (1).........................................................................................................................................65 Link – Environmental justice (2).........................................................................................................................................66 Link - Environmental justice – Alt solves (3)......................................................................................................................67 Link – Internet.....................................................................................................................................................................68 Link – Broadband (1)..........................................................................................................................................................69 Link – Internet/Broadband (2).............................................................................................................................................70 Link - Internet/Broadband (3)..............................................................................................................................................71 Link – The State (1).............................................................................................................................................................72 Link - The State (2)............................................................................................................................................................73 Link – Mental Health...........................................................................................................................................................74 Link - Mental Health..........................................................................................................................................................75 Link - Prostitutes.................................................................................................................................................................76 Capitalism Impacts – War (3)..............................................................................................................................................87 Capitalism Impacts – Ecosystem (1)...................................................................................................................................90 Capitalism Impacts – Ecosystem (2)...................................................................................................................................91 Capitalism Impacts – Ecosystem (3)...................................................................................................................................92 Capitalism Impacts – Ecosystem (4)...................................................................................................................................93 Capitalism Impacts – Democracy (1) .................................................................................................................................94 Capitalism Impacts – Democracy (2) .................................................................................................................................97 Capitalism Impacts – Democracy (3) .................................................................................................................................98 Capitalism Impacts – Laundry List (1) ...............................................................................................................................99 Capitalism Impacts – Laundry List (2) .............................................................................................................................100 Capitalism Impacts – Extinction (1) .................................................................................................................................101 Capitalism Impacts – Extinction (2) .................................................................................................................................102 Capitalism Impacts – Poverty (1) .....................................................................................................................................103 Capitalism Impacts – Poverty (2)......................................................................................................................................107 Capitalism Impacts – Poverty (3)......................................................................................................................................108 Capitalism Impacts – Poverty (4)......................................................................................................................................110 Capitalism Impacts – Poverty (5)......................................................................................................................................111 Capitalism Impacts – Poverty (6)......................................................................................................................................113 Capitalism Impacts – Poverty (7)......................................................................................................................................114 Capitalism Impacts – Poverty (8)......................................................................................................................................116 Capitalism Impacts – Poverty (9)......................................................................................................................................117 Capitalism Impacts – Value to Life (1)..............................................................................................................................118 Capitalism Impacts – Value to Life (2)..............................................................................................................................120 2 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Mental Health (1)............................................................................................................................121 Capitalism Impacts – Mental Health (2) ...........................................................................................................................122 Capitalism Impacts – Genocide/Racism (1).......................................................................................................................123 Capitalism Impacts – Genocide/Racism (2).......................................................................................................................127 Capitalism Impacts – Economy (1)...................................................................................................................................128 Capitalism Impacts – Economy (2)...................................................................................................................................130 Capitalism Impacts – Ethics (1).........................................................................................................................................131 Capitalism Impacts – Social Services (1)..........................................................................................................................133 Capitalism Impacts – Social Services (2)..........................................................................................................................134 The free market alone cannot solve patriarchy – this invites nihilism Long, 97 (Roderick, Beyond Patriarchy: A Libertarian Model of the Family, Spring, http://libertariannation.org/a/f43l2.html) Some libertarians may say that we don't need this last aspect: if there is any serious problem, the market will take care of it, so we don't need to do any cultivating. I think this attitude is a mistake, and tends to encourage discriminatory attitudes (if the market hasn't taken care of it, then it must not be a serious problem; e.g., if women aren't making as much money as men on the market, it must be their own fault). Libertarians are often reluctant to recognize entrenched power structures when they don't come attached to governmental offices; but we should always remember that power and tyranny are older than the state. Indeed, Herbert Spencer intriguingly suggests (in his Principles of Sociology) that the subordination of women by men is the initial form of oppression from which all later ones grew, including the state. We should also remember, when we say "the market will take care of it," that we are the market, that its successful operation depends on the alertness of Kirznerian entrepreneurs, and that we who have noticed a problem are in the best position to fill that entrepreneurial role. Stressing the Hayekian strand within Austrian socioeconomic thought at the expense of the Kirznerian strand can lead to excessive passivity in the face of the omniscient, omnipotent forces of history. ..........................................................................................................................................................................................135 Capitalism Impacts – Racism............................................................................................................................................136 Racism cannot be solved for in a capitalist society – multiple warrants............................................................................136 Alt – Wallis (in shell)........................................................................................................................................................165 Alt – Herod........................................................................................................................................................................166 Alt – Chryssostalis.............................................................................................................................................................167 Alt – Harmen.....................................................................................................................................................................169 Alt solvency – rejection (1)...............................................................................................................................................170 Alt solvency – rejection (2)...............................................................................................................................................171 Alt solvency – rejection (3)...............................................................................................................................................172 Alt solvency – rejection (4)...............................................................................................................................................173 Alt solvency – rejection (5)...............................................................................................................................................174 Alt solvency – rejection (6)...............................................................................................................................................175 .........................................................................................................................................................................................177 Alt solvency – rethink politics (1).....................................................................................................................................177 Alt solvency – rethink politics (2).....................................................................................................................................178 Alt solvency – rethink politics (3).....................................................................................................................................179 Alt solvency – debate (1)...................................................................................................................................................180 Alt solvency – debate (2)...................................................................................................................................................181 Alt solvency – debate (3)...................................................................................................................................................182 Alt solvency – discourse (1)..............................................................................................................................................183 Alt solvency – discourse (2)..............................................................................................................................................184 Alt solvency – discourse (3)..............................................................................................................................................185 Alt solvency – representations...........................................................................................................................................186 Alt solvency – liberalism/compassion...............................................................................................................................187 Alt solvency – action now (1)............................................................................................................................................188 3 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – action now (2)............................................................................................................................................189 Alt solvency – moral obligation........................................................................................................................................190 Alt solvency – individual advocacy...................................................................................................................................192 Alt solvency – local transformation...................................................................................................................................193 Alt solvency – ontology ....................................................................................................................................................195 Alt solves environment......................................................................................................................................................196 Alt solves poverty..............................................................................................................................................................197 Alt solves violence............................................................................................................................................................198 Alt solves authoritarian control.........................................................................................................................................199 Alt Solves – Feminism......................................................................................................................................................200 AT: Cap Inevitable (1).......................................................................................................................................................201 AT: Cap Inevitable (2).......................................................................................................................................................203 ..........................................................................................................................................................................................204 AT: Cap Inevitable (3).......................................................................................................................................................205 AT: Cap Inevitable (4).......................................................................................................................................................206 AT: Cap decreases poverty (1)..........................................................................................................................................207 AT: Cap decreases poverty (2)..........................................................................................................................................208 AT: Cap decreases poverty (3)..........................................................................................................................................209 AT: Cap solves social divisions.........................................................................................................................................210 AT: Cap Key to Heg/ Space..............................................................................................................................................211 AT: Pragmatism................................................................................................................................................................216 AT: Perm (1).....................................................................................................................................................................217 AT: Perm (4).....................................................................................................................................................................220 AT: Perm (5).....................................................................................................................................................................221 AT: Perm (6).....................................................................................................................................................................223 AT: Perm (7).....................................................................................................................................................................224 AT: Perm (8).....................................................................................................................................................................225 AT: Perm (9).....................................................................................................................................................................226 AT: Perm (10)...................................................................................................................................................................227 AT: Perm (11)...................................................................................................................................................................228 AT: Perm (12)...................................................................................................................................................................229 AT: Perm (13)...................................................................................................................................................................230 AT: Perm (14)...................................................................................................................................................................231 AT: Perm (15)...................................................................................................................................................................232 AT: Perm (16)...................................................................................................................................................................233 AT: Perm (17)...................................................................................................................................................................235 AT: Perm (18)...................................................................................................................................................................236 AT: Perm (19)...................................................................................................................................................................237 AT: Perm (20)...................................................................................................................................................................238 AT: Perm (21)...................................................................................................................................................................239 AT: Perm (22)...................................................................................................................................................................240 AT: Perm (23)...................................................................................................................................................................241 AT: Perm (24)...................................................................................................................................................................242 AT: Vague Alternative......................................................................................................................................................243 AT: No alternative.............................................................................................................................................................244 AT No People....................................................................................................................................................................246 The sheer number of people who are exploited by capitalism provides uniqueness to our alternative- capitalism is weak people WANT to resist the system, it’s only a question of organization and commitment to a particular strategy. Burbach, 98 (Roger, Director of the Center for the study of the Americas , The (un)defining of post-modern Marxism: On smashing 4 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. modernization and Narrating New Social and International Actors, Spring, Rethinking Marxism, Vol 10 Number 1, 6263 ) The development of the ethnic and fundamentalist movements dovetails with the building of these postmodern economies. Most nationalist movements are opposed to the dominance of Western and transnational capital; they are demanding control of their own economic resources. The.Indians of. Chiapas, the Muslim Nation of Farrakahn, the Islamic movements in the Middle East—they are all resentful of the economic domination of their societies by foreign or outside interests. They often preach self-reliance, which sometimes appears as a separatist or even conservative message, but this approach is necessary if they are to break with the historic tendency of outside capital to exploit their societies and economies. To the extent that these ethnic and national movements gain control of their lives and resources, they will be in a position to help construct a new global mode of production. As under historic socialism, consciousness of the new project is crucial. To mobilize and consolidate the diverse group of nascent producers, a new narrative needs to counterpose grass-roots economic development to the domination of big capital just as Marx and Engels pitted the working class, against the bourgeoisie. The mere existence of the new economic and social formations is not a sufficient condition for overthrowing the old order. A new approach and a new leadership is needed that roots itself firmly in the economic and social transformations occurring in contemporary societies and that undertakes the long social struggle necessary to overwhelm big capital and its project of modernization. The social movements, broadly defined, could be the major protagonists of this new approach. The representatives of these movements and organizations have the potential to understand and articulate what is going on among the ever swelling numbers of castaways of global capitalism: They already challenge neoliberalism and globalization in many different ways. They fight to stop the destruction of the environment, they are by and large antiauthoritarian and democratic in their structures and principles, they are generally opposed to the domination of multinational capital, and they are based on grass-roots activity. The women's movement, the ethnic rights movements, the human rights organizations, the gay and lesbian movements, the disabled, the Indians, the environmentalists, and others—all demand fundamental changes in the existent world so that humanity can be liberated and freed from exploitation. New leadership and values also are emerging from nongovernmental organizations, especially in the underdeveloped world, and from progressive religious movements, particularly those rooted in exploited societies or ethnic groups. The goal of these social movements and organizations is not simply power, but the alteration of values at the level of civil society. They refuse to be controlled or contained. They provide alternatives to the bankrupt political parties and state authority. Many of the leaders of these movements even question whether it is appropriate to hold state power at present, understanding the need to accumulate more forces, to develop more coherent ideas and values that can really change societies and the global economy. Communism failed in part because it was born prematurely. The same mistakoaches, pushing from below for the advance of popular economic interests. At the same time, we will need to advocate new legislation that empowers all forms of alternative production and commerce while undermining the ascendancy of finance and monopoly capital. Capitalism will enter into a definitive crisis only when enough alternative institutions exist to challenge it. ......................................................................................................................................................................246 AT: Plan is good cap.........................................................................................................................................................247 AT: Gibson-Graham (1)....................................................................................................................................................248 AT: Gibson-Graham (2)....................................................................................................................................................249 AT: Gibson-Graham (3)....................................................................................................................................................250 AT: Gibson Graham (4).....................................................................................................................................................251 AT: Gibson-Graham (5)....................................................................................................................................................252 AT: Gibson-Graham (6)....................................................................................................................................................253 AT: Howard-Hassmann.....................................................................................................................................................254 AT: Cap Sustainable (1)....................................................................................................................................................255 AT: Cap Sustainable (3)....................................................................................................................................................258 AT: Cap Good (1)..............................................................................................................................................................259 AT: Cap Good (2)..............................................................................................................................................................260 AT: Socialism Bad............................................................................................................................................................261 AT: Case outweighs (1).....................................................................................................................................................262 AT: Case Outweighs (2)....................................................................................................................................................263 AT: Role-playing ..............................................................................................................................................................264 5 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Timeframe .................................................................................................................................................................265 AT: Postmodern Marxism (1)............................................................................................................................................266 AT: Postmodern Marxism (2)............................................................................................................................................267 AT: Postmodern Marxism (3)............................................................................................................................................268 AT: Postmodern Marxism (4)............................................................................................................................................269 AT: Postmodern Marxism (5)............................................................................................................................................270 AT: Postmodern Marxism (6)............................................................................................................................................271 Affirmative - Cap inevitable (1)........................................................................................................................................272 Affirmative - Cap inevitable (2)........................................................................................................................................273 Affirmative - Cap inevitable (3)........................................................................................................................................274 Affirmative - Gibson-Graham (1)......................................................................................................................................275 Affirmative - Gibson- Graham (2).....................................................................................................................................276 Affirmative - Perm solvency (1)........................................................................................................................................277 Affirmative - Perm solvency (2)........................................................................................................................................278 Affirmative - Perm Solvency (3).......................................................................................................................................279 Affirmative – Socialism turn.............................................................................................................................................280 Affirmative - Poverty Turn (1/2).......................................................................................................................................282 Affirmative - Poverty Turn (2/2).......................................................................................................................................283 Affirmative - Cap solves poverty (1).................................................................................................................................284 Affirmative - Cap prevents poverty (2).............................................................................................................................285 Affirmative - Cap prevents poverty (3).............................................................................................................................286 Affirmative - Cap prevents poverty (4).............................................................................................................................287 Affirmative – Cap leads to peace.......................................................................................................................................288 Affirmative - Value to Life turn........................................................................................................................................290 Affirmative - Human rights turn........................................................................................................................................291 Affirmative – Environment turn (1/2)................................................................................................................................292 Affirmative - Environment turn (2/2)................................................................................................................................293 Affirmative - A2: Cap not moral.......................................................................................................................................294 Affirmative - A2: Root Cause............................................................................................................................................295 6 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Strategy Turn, solve, and outweigh the case. Make their offense go away. Other Important Notes The ORIGINAL generic cap file had a Zizek card in the aff perm block that was literally taken entirely out of context. When Zizek says “the left”, “liberals”, “liberal democrats”, “liberal communists”, “the third way”, “today’s ‘radical’ academics”, etc, he’s referring to what we consider liberals, or democrats. This isn’t to be confused with Capital C Communists, or what Zizek would probably advocate. The whole underlined part of the card is him sarcastically making fun of liberal’s views – it isn’t what he really believes. During crossx, point out that in the un-underlined part, he refutes the strawman, and make sure the ev gets thrown out. I took out the mischaracterized card from this file, and replaced it with a card from an interview where Zizek actually does contradict himself… 7 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism K 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 selfdisorganizing 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'. 8 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism K 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 accumulation-driven. 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 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. 9 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism K 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. 10 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism K 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 selfdisorganizing 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'. 11 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism K 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. 12 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism K 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 accumulation-driven. 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 surpluslabour-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 selfexpansion 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. 13 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism K 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-4785-8caa66c8c156fe8a%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 forprofit 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. 14 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism K 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. 15 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism K 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 advance-whether 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. 16 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism K 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 question, if the critical instance is 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 ruled by judgemental grammars and logics, which in turn rely on _classical’ configurations of subjectivity, 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 17 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism K 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 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 occupied by whatever is singular, contingent, and the product of arbitrary constraints? 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 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 the question of the limit. Let us move with caution, though. To begin with, it is important to understand that 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 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 we are assigned – that something else is possible, but not that 18 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Other Shell 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 selfdisorganizing 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'. 19 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Other Shell The impact is ontological damnation Simonovic, 07(Ljubodrag Simonovic, Ph.D., Philosophy; M.A., Law; A New World is Possible, Basis of contemporary critical theory of capitalism) The final stage of a mortal combat between mankind and capitalism is in progress. A specificity of capitalism is that, in contrast to "classical" barbarism (which is of destructive, murderous and plundering nature), it annihilates life by creating a "new world" – a "technical civilization" and an adequate, dehumanized and denaturalized man. Capitalism has eradicated man from his (natural) environment and has cut off the roots through which he had drawn life-creating force. Cities are "gardens" of capitalism where degenerated creatures "grow". Dog excrement, gasoline and sewerage stench, glaring advertisements and police car rotating lights that howl through the night - this is the environment of the "free world" man. By destroying the natural environment capitalism creates increasingly extreme climatic conditions in which man is struggling harder and harder to survive – and creates artificial living conditions accessible solely to the richest layer of population, which cause definitive degeneration of man as a natural being. "Humanization of life" is being limited to creation of microclimatic conditions, of special capitalistic incubators - completely commercialized artificial living conditions to which degenerated people are appropriate. The most dramatic truth is: capitalism can survive the death of man as a human and biological being. For capitalism a "traditional man" is merely a temporary means of its own reproduction. "Consumer-man" represents a transitional phase in the capitalism-caused process of mutation of man towards the "highest" form of capitalistic man: a robot-man. "Terminators" and other robotized freaks which are products of the Hollywood entertainment industry which creates a "vision of the future" degenerated in a capitalist manner, incarnate creative powers, alienated from man, which become vehicles for destruction of man and life. A new "super race" of robotized humanoids is being created, which should clash with "traditional mankind", meaning with people capable of loving, thinking, daydreaming, fighting for freedom and survival and impose their rule over the Earth. Instead of the new world, the "new man" is being created - who has been reduced to a level of humanity which cannot jeopardize the ruling order. Science and technique have become the basic lever of capital for the destruction of the world and the creation of "technical civilization". It is not only about destruction achieved by the use of technical means. It is about technicization of social institutions, of interpersonal relations, of the human body. Increasing transformation of nature into a surrogate of "nature", increasing dehumanization of the society and increasing denaturalization of man are direct consequences of capital's effort, within an increasingly merciless global economic war, to achieve complete commercialization of both natural and the social environment. The optimism of the Enlightenment could hardly be unreservedly supported nowadays, the notion of Marx that man imposes on himself only such tasks as he can solve, particularly the optimism based on the myth of the "omnipotence" of science and technique. The race for profits has already caused irreparable and still unpredictable damage to both man and his environment. By the creation of "consumer society", which means through the transition of capitalism into a phase of pure destruction, such a qualitative rise in destruction of nature and mankind has been performed that life on the planet is literally facing a "countdown". Instead of the "withering away" (Engels) of institutions of the capitalist society, the withering away of life is taking place. 20 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Other Shell Our alternative is to do nothing - this opens up space for revolutionary alternatives. Zizek, 04 (Slavoj, Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle, pg 71-74) The stance of simply condemning the postmodern Left for its accommodation, however, is also false, since one should ask the obvious difficult question: what, in fact, was the alternative? If today’s ‘post-politics’ is opportunistic pragmatism with no principles, then the predominant leftist reaction to it can be aptly characterized as ‘principled opportunism’: one simply sticks to old formulae (defence of the welfare state, and so on) and calls them ‘principles’, dispensing with the detailed analysis of how the situation has changed – and thus retaining one’s position of Beautiful Soul. The inherent stupidity of the ‘principled’ Left is clearly discernible in its standard criticism of any analysis which proposes a more complex picture of the situation, renouncing any simple prescriptions on how to act: ‘there is no clear political stance involved in your theory’ — and this from people with no stance but their ‘principled opportunism’. Against such a stance, one should have the courage to affirm that, in a situation like today’s, the only way really to remain open to a revolutionary opportunity is to renounce facile calls to direct action, which necessarily involve us in an activity where things change so that the totality remains the same. Today’s predicament is that, if we succumb to the urge of directly ‘doing something’ (engaging in the anti-globalist struggle, helping the poor . . .), we will certainly and undoubtedly contribute to the reproduction of the existing order. The only way to lay the foundations for a true, radical change is to withdraw from the compulsion to act, to ‘do nothing’ — thus opening up the space for a different kind of activity. Today’s anti-globalization movement seems to be caught in the antinomy of de- and reterritorialization: on the one hand, there are those who want to reterritorialize capitalism (conservatives, ecologists, partisans of the nation-state and champions of local roots or traditions); on the other, there are those who want an even more radical deterritorialization, liberated from the constraints of capital. But is this opposition not too simple? Is it not ultimately a false alternative? Is not the capitalist ‘territory’ (everything must pass through the grid of market exchange) the very form and vector of radical deterritorialization — its operator, as it were? (And does the same not go for the nation-state, this operator of the erasure of local traditions?) Positivity and negativity are inextricably intertwined here, which is why the true aim should be a new balance, a new form of de- and reterritorialization. This brings us back to the central sociopolitical antinomy of late capitalism: the way its pluralist dynamic of permanent deterritorialization coexists with its opposite, the paranoid logic of the One, thereby confirming that, perhaps, in the Deleuzian opposition between schizophrenia and paranoia, between the multitude and the One, we are dealing with two sides of the same coin. Were the Left to choose the ‘principled’ attitude of fidelity to its old programme, it would simply marginalize itself. The task is a much harder one: thoroughly to rethink the leftist project, beyond the alternative of ‘accommodation to new circumstances and sticking with the old slogans. Apropos of the disintegration of ‘state socialism’ two decades ago, we should not forget that, at approximately the same time, Western social-democratic welfarist ideology was also dealt a crucial blow, that it also ceased to function as the Imaginary able to arouse a collective passionate following. The notion that ‘the time of the welfare state has past’ is a piece of commonly accepted wisdom today. What these two defeated ideologies shared was the notion that humanity as a collective subject has the capacity somehow to limit impersonal and anonymous sociohistoric development, to steer it in a desired direction. Today, such a notion is quickly dismissed as ‘ideological’ and/or ‘totalitarian’: the social process is perceived as dominated by an anonymous Fate which eludes social control. The rise of global capitalism is presented to us as such a Fate against which we cannot fight — either we adapt to it or we fall out of step with history, and are crushed. The only thing we can do is to make global capitalism as human as possible, to fight for ‘global capitalism with a human face’ (this, ultimately, is what the Third Way is – or, rather, was – about). 21 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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. 22 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Hegemony (2) The only solution to capitalist hegemony is socialist hegemony- where our relationship to production is qualitatively different. Only way for sustainable growth 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 nightmare of the "stationary state" remains a nightmare even if one tries to alleviate it, as John Stuart Mill proposed, through the illusory remedy of "better distribution" taken in isolation. There can be no such thing as "better distribution" without a radical restructuring of the production process itself. The socialist hegemonic alternative to the rule of capital requires fundamentally overcoming the truncated dialectic in the vital interrelationship of production, distribution, and consumption. For without that, the socialist aim of turning work into "life's prime want" is inconceivable. To quote Marx: In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!15 These are the overall targets of socialist transformation, providing the compass of the journey and simultaneously also the measure of the achievements accomplished (or failed to be accomplished) on the way. Within such a vision of the hegemonic alternative to capital's social reproductive order there can be no room at all for anything like "the stationary state," nor for any of the false alternatives associated with or derived from it." The all-round development of the individuals," consciously exercising the full resources of their disposable time, within the framework of the new social metabolic control oriented toward the production of "co-operative wealth," is meant to provide the basis of a qualitatively different accountancy: the necessary socialist accountancy, defined by human need and diametrically opposed to fetishistic quantification and to the concomitant unavoidable waste. This is why the vital importance of growth of a sustainable kind can be recognized and successfully managed in the alternative social metabolic framework. Such an alternative order of social metabolic control would be one where the antithesis between mental and physical labor -- always vital for maintaining the absolute domination over labor by capital as the usurper of the role of the controlling historical subject -- must vanish for good. Consequently, consciously pursued productivity itself can be elevated to a qualitatively higher level, without any danger of uncontrollable waste, bringing forth genuine -- and not narrowly profit-oriented material -- wealth of which the "rich social individuals" (Marx), as autonomous historical subjects (and rich precisely in that sense) are fully in control. 23 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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. 24 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 militarysocial 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. 25 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 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 non-working 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. 26 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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.'' 27 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Welfare Reform US politics has become entrenched in globalization discourse through discussions of economic competition – this is inherent in discussion of welfare reform 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 2 par 2 – pg3 par 1 Today, the one-sided nature of truth is not most dramaically represented in a worldwide proletariat whose actions, as a class “in-itself" acting "for- itself," were to serve as the basis for universal emancipation, according to Lenin, as Zizek reminds us, and, we should add, according to Marx before him.3 Instead, today, a more questionable one-sided truth is ascendant: the monolithic discourse of globalization that has come to dominate political debate all over the world but especially where I argue it was originally most aggressively championed— in the United States.4 For several decades, U.S. politics has drowned in a torrent of globalization talk, incessantly and consistently drenching us in a fear of the coming global economic competition and our resultant need to attack the alleged problem of "welfare dependency" and to retrench the welfare state. I call this way of framing social welfare policy deliberations "globalization discourse." My argument is that starting as early as the mid1970s, globalization discourse began helping to create the pretext for the U.S. welfare state retrenchment.6 The emerging ideology then was what came to be referred to as "neoliberalism," which championed the idea of freeing local markets from nation-state regulation to pursue greater opportunities for economic growth globally.7 The need to attack welfare dependency by way of welfare retrenchment became a popular corollary in this argument.8 That retrenchment was most significantly represented in the eventual passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The 1996 law ended welfare as an entitlement; imposed time limits, work requirements, and other punitive policies; and eventually resulted in massive declines in the numbers of welfare recipients as growing numbers of them ended up in low-wage jobs that kept them in poverty. It has given birth to a "Work First" welfare reform regime that puts in place a series of "get-tough" policies designed to reduce the problem of welfare dependency. As a result, the number of recipients receiving what is now called TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) fell from 13,242,000 in 1995 to 5,334,000 in 2002—a decline of 59.7 percent.10 And while welfare reform has been widely declared a success, it has largely replaced the welfare poor with the working poor, even though many of the welfare poor were working before welfare reform and many of the work¬ ing poor need more social welfare assistance than they have been getting. 28 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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. 29 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 indigenous colleagues—such 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 working-class 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. 30 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 self-referential 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. 31 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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. 32 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Gender (1) Focusing of sexuality re-entrenches 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. Bourgeois sexuality presupposed the public/private, ouler/inner oppositions. It rested on the structural separation between production and the relatively as-yet-uncommodified social reproduction in industrial capitalism. With the acceleration and expansion of production/consumption and the commodification of social reproduction in latecapitalism we now have a very different sexuality. It cannot be too much emphasized that, with technological advances, sexual pleasure for the first time ever is wholly disconnected from natal reproduction for the population as a whole. This is the obverse side of natal reproduction without sex. (Blank 1990, pp a-8) Separated from social reproduction sexuality thus becomes a sign to energize, in effect to sexualize, late- capitalist consumption. The result is a sexual lifestyle, as distinct from the bourgeois assumption of an interiorized sexual identity. No longer respecting the outer! inner, the public/ private oppositions, the new sexual lifestyle is subverting the opposition between heterosexual norm and its other, i.e., the so-called homosexual vice. We are verging toward polysexuatity, Le. sexual differences without stable sexual identities. Immediately after World War II, politicians appealed to sexual discipline and repression, to restore prewar social mores, Public outcry resumed against the menace of the "sex offender," a broad catch-all term which included everything other than the heterosexual norm, from rapists to consenting homosexuals. Then in the 1950s, with public anxiety focused on the 'homosexual menaces as well as the "sex offender," many state legislatures passed asexual psychopath" laws which increased the policing power of mental health professionals over the sexually a-normal. (Rubin 1984, p. 2-69) 33 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Gender (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. Twcntiethcenturv 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. 34 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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, equal-rights 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. 35 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Democracy (1) Democracy promotion is used to spread global capitalism. Wilkie, member of Red Theory Collective, 09 Rob Wilkie. Member of Red Theory Collective, 2009. http://www.redcritique.org/FallWinter2008/supplychaindemocracyandcircuitsofimperialism.htm The Red Critique. In the substitution of the discourse of "culture" and "values" for class relations what is placed outside the boundaries of "real" discourse by both the left and the right is any theory of globalization as imperialism, in which the primary goal of capital expansion is explained as a necessary effect of the material conditions for the further accumulation of capital. This is what has made "globalization" such an effective concept for global capital—it substitutes for economic imperialism a world of spiritual conflicts and cultural bargains. In this context, while a number on the right are calling for reconsideration of "imperialism" as a way of spreading "democracy," many on the left have simply abandoned the theory of imperialism and argue that "the term imperialism may no longer be adequate to address the present situation […which…] is less coherent and less purposeful than imperialism" (Pieterse 77). Or, as Hardt and Negri put it more succinctly, "imperialism is over" (Empire xiv). To draw connections between the global expansion of capitalism and rising inequality is to be too reductive and trapped in the metanarrative of the past (Waters 186). Instead, the world is described as "multidimensional" (Steger 14), "without borders and spatial boundaries" (Waters 5), and "a complex, overlapping, disjunctive order, which cannot be understood in terms of existing center-periphery models" (Appadurai 221). What is at stake for both the right and the left in deploying the rhetoric of cultural difference as a substitute for class divisions is obscuring the economic realities of imperialism in order to maintain the illusion of the possibility of capitalism without exploitation that works at the level of ideology to divide the global working class against one another and bind them to the capitalist system. 36 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Democracy (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 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 expanding suffrage and the emergence of trade unions and left-wing political 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. 37 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Democracy (3) 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 pre-capitalist 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. Two-thirds of the world do not have liberal states because of the structure of the capitalist world-economy which makes it impossible for them to have such political regimes. 38 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Democracy (4) The public sphere is dominated by capitalist interests-this makes it impossible to get social good from it, turning the advantage Kellner, prof philosophy UCLA, 2000 Douglas Kellner, Philosophy Chair at UCLA, “Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Democracy: An Interview With Douglas Kellner”, http://www.davidtinapple.com/comaff/Habermas_Public_Sphere_Democracy.pdf. Habermas added historical grounding to the Institute theory, arguing that a "refeudalization" of the public sphere began occurring in the late 19th century. The transformation involved private interests assuming direct political functions, as powerful corporations came to control and manipulate the media and state. On the other hand, the state began to play a more fundamental role in the private realm and everyday life, thus eroding the difference between state and civil society, between the public and private sphere. As the public sphere declined, citizens became consumers, dedicating themselves more to passive consumption and private concerns than to issues of the common good and democratic participation. While in the bourgeois public sphere, public opinion, on Habermas's analysis, was formed by political debate and consensus, in the debased public sphere of welfare state capitalism, public opinion is administered by political, economic, and media elites which manage public opinion as part of systems management and social control. Thus, while in an earlier stage of bourgeois development, public opinion was formed in open political debate concerning interests of common concern that attempted to forge a consensus in regard to general interests, in the contemporary stage of capitalism, public opinion was formed by dominant elites and thus represented for the most part their particular private interests. No longer is rational consensus among individuals and groups in the interests of articulation of common goods the norm. Instead, struggle among groups to advance their own private interests characterizes the scene of contemporary politics. 39 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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. 40 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 dialougues. 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 revalua tion 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 world-wide 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 compassion and what it conceals if we are to respond more effectively. In this context it might be said, ***CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE*** 41 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor as zizek argues, that "our Holdin’ it down. 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. 42 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 pre-existing order. 43 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 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 apartheid in South Africa. 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 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 neighbours by giving hundreds of millions of dollars for education, the fight against hunger and malaria etc . 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 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 businessman, destroying or buying out 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. 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 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 enough to eat?’ the opposition between ‘smart’ and ‘non-smart’, 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. 44 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 self-or 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. 45 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Abortion (1) One can’t look to the pro-life vs pro-choice model to reach reproductive justice, the basis for the problems rest with capitalism 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) To develop an independent position, it is necessary to reject the pro-life versus pro-choice model for understanding reproductive justice. Many reproductive advocates have attempted to expand the definitions of either pro-life or pro-choice depending on which side of this divide they may rest. Unfortunately, they are trying to expand concepts that are inherently designed to exclude the experiences of most women, especially poor women, women of color, indigenous women, and women with disabilities. If we critically assess the assumptions behind both positions, it is clear that these camps are more similar than they are different . As I have argued, they both assume a criminal justice regime for adjudicating reproductive issues (although they may differ as to which women should be subjected to this regime). Neither position endows women with inherent rights to their body—the pro-life position pits fetal rights against women’s rights whereas the pro-choice position argues that women should have freedom to make choices rather than possess inherent rights to their bodies regardless of their class standing. They both support positions that reinforce racial and gender hierarchies that marginalize women of color. The pro-life position supports a criminalization approach that depends on a racist political system that will necessarily impact poor women and women of color who are less likely to have alternative strategies for addressing unwanted pregnancies. Meanwhile, the pro-choice position often supports population control policies and the development of dangerous contraceptives that are generally targeted toward communities of color. And both positions do not question the capitalist system—they focus solely on the decision of whether or not a woman should have an abortion without addressing the economic, political, and social conditions that put women in this position in the first place. 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. 46 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Abortion (2) 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. 47 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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. 48 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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/healthcare-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 for-profit 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. 49 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin it down. Links – Prisons (1) Prisons keep communities committed to capitalism alive. 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) In sum, then, Youngstown is a microcosm of a tendency for prisons to take the place of manufacturing in local economies and in the national economy. The closing of the mills represents a disaccumulation of capital. The result is social crisis: kids graduating high school cannot find jobs, public services like street lighting and police protection are curtailed, schools--like the entire Youngstown School District--go bankrupt, and there is an increase in violent crime. Prisons offer the powers that be a means of avoiding a potential social explosion. Although many capitalists profit from prisons, prisons represent not so much a way for capitalists to make money as for communities still committed to capitalism to survive. 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. 50 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Prisons (2) Due to capitalism the current Court and Prison system always rules towards and benefits the rich and middle class, leaving the poor minorities left out to dry. 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 The role of the gulag system and of the police within the grand scheme of capitalism should be discussed, not as separate issues, but as related means of repression used by the state against the workingclass, minorities and the poor. The police are the knuckles on the iron fist of the state and it's first line of defense to protect the few 'haves' from the many 'have nots'. The key role of oppression by the police is complemented by the judiciary, prisons, top elected officials who are placing into law ever more Draconian 'crime bills' and finally capital's last line of defense against dissent, the military, inclusive of the National Guard, a branch of the armed services that has in the past shown an eagerness to shoot down unarmed citizens, historically during black rebellions across this country. The National Guard's role of enforcing state oppression to protect capitalism's interests is easily understood by simply looking at American history. Capitalist democracy perpetuates the myth that the state is neutral and representative of all people with the ultimate goal of protection of the 'rights' of all. Whilst in reality, the state's main goal is to run capitalism for the benefit of profit of the few who hold the vast majority of this nation's wealth under their direct control. The only way that capitalism can operate smoothly and survive is for the state to keep the working class, minorities, poor and those who challenge the status-quo in 'their place' to ensure the security of the economic and political power of the rich. The catch phrase 'law and order' used in reference to police functions means the law and order of capitalism, with far more resources and effort put into silencing dissent, stamping out potential threats to capitalist 'order' and keeping the lower classes down, under police terrorism than is ever paid to solving crimes or preventing criminal activity by antisocial predators against lower class victims. Most police work dealing with everyday crime is merely a smoke-screen, their main function is to defend the capitalist class and their middle class supporters who cringe at the mere thought of decisions or policy being forced on them from those below their station. The police are constantly engaged in conflict, to varying degrees, with members of the working class, minorities, homeless, unemployed and poor people. So the vast majority of the people are placed in an 'us and them' adversary situation with the police, who then use this to justify their wholesale assault on a segment of the population that many of the police ironically originate from themselves. This adversary type psychology manifests itself most clearly with their removal of class identity with the people they come into contact with as a whole, sows the sick seeds of racism and stereotyping, lies and corruption through the ranks of these fictitious 'protectors of society' from the bottom to the top. This cannot seriously be addressed, let alone corrected, by the ruling class because such a massive effort at correction would logically serve to demoralize the very force relied upon to protect it's wealth and power. This is why so few police are prosecuted for their crimes against the working class and in the rare instances when they are convicted it's always of lesser offences no matter what they actually do, even when cops murder citizens which is increasingly becoming more frequent .The police are often brutal, corrupt, prejudiced to the core and elected politicians will never seriously confront this horrific problem as they themselves either benefit from the actions of the police or are bought and paid for lackeys of the ruling class. The judicial branch of capitalist law enforcement is perhaps an even worse farce than the myth about the pigs 'serving the people to protect them'. There is no such thing as 'equal justice under the law'. In the court system money talks, the rich walk and the poor and minorities go to the gulag. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is another shaky concept founded on farce, not reality. Any person ever arrested by the pigs to be later tried before a judge or a judge and jury, will attest to the clear fact that they were never once treated as 'innocent' at any stage of the proceedings against them if they are The mainstream media, owned by the ruling class, is a powerful weapon used by them to present to the public only a very narrow view of the world. It's often intentionally distorted, biased coverage of events is part of the propaganda drive to criminalize the poorest sections of society which makes a laughable joke out of the shroud of innocence allegedly bestowed on all citizens by the Constitution. not wealthy. 51 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Prisons (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 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 52 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin it down. 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 "better-regulated" 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 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. democratize housing 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. (For a full discussion, see Fred Magdoff & Harry Magdoff, “Disposable Workers,” Monthly Review, April 2004.) 53 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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, privately the right to put mail into mailboxes of Americans. However, 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, whereas 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 the Postal Service cost 9 cents per pound. Also 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 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 Conferring a statutory monopoly on a natural monopoly serves only to exaggerate mo nopoly 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. monopoly. 54 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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). 55 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Assets Discourse (1) Their discourse shapes the lives of others to where it entrenches the poor in a never-ending cycle 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 12 par 2 – pg 14 par 2 the conspiracy of discourse is a potent force for making the world the way it is because discourse is more than mere talk or pro¬ paganda. It is also different than ideology. Discourse is arguably more powerful than ideology. Ideology characterizes an alleged preexisting reality, but discourse constitutes that reality.30 Although the distortions of ideology can be challenged by pointing to inconsistent facts, discourse operates more insidiously to constitute those facts, to become those facts. Of his own work on discourse, Foucault wrote: [T]he target of analysis wasn't 'instituions/ 'theories,' or 'ideology,' but Globalization Discourse Is More Than Talk What we can call practices—with the aim of grasping the conditions which make these accept¬ able at a given moment; the hypothesis being that these types of pracice are not just governed by insitutions, prescribed by ideologies, guided by pragmatic circumstances—whatever roles these elements may actually play—but possess up to a point their own specific regulariies, logic, strategy, self-evidence and 'reason.' It is a question of analyzing a 'regime of practices'— practices being understood here as places where what is said and what is done, rules im¬ posed and reasons given, the planned and the taken for granted Discourse is more than talk; it is what is said and what is done. It is lived language that is materialized in practice. Discourse involves discursive practices that we practice in our daily lives as we go about making sense of what we do and doing what we do in terms of how we make sense of it, as when we become convinced that economic growth in an era of globalization is dependent upon workers taking low-wage jobs to the point that there are only low-wage jobs for certain workers to take. And once we move past the point of seeing some jobs as being paid low wages and start seeing those jobs as essentially low-wage jobs, then discourse has made itself real and those jobs become lowwage jobs that will not likely be paid better wages anytime soon. In this sense, hegemonic discourse naturalizes and materializes its reality, via social practices, custom, and the power of economic relations, thereby making it hard to see what is taken as essentially a low-wage job as anything other than that, even though it just happens to be a job for which low wages are paid (probably in no small part because workers are not unionized to right for higher wages). Discourse then not only naturalizes and materializes its reality by giving it an essential nature but also erases and effaces the possibility of alternative natures that reality might have , as in the case of meet and interconnect. unionized workers being paid decent wages for doing what is "essentially" seen as low-wage work. That has now, in an age of globalization, become Paying decent wages to people who work in low-wage jobs would be going against the facts of the situation as they have come to be constituted; it would result in workers earning more than their “true” wage, which of course in the current era of globalization is now in free fall, as unthinkable, at least in the United States. 2 transnational corporations and other firms increasingly "outsource" jobs to low-paying labor markets in the Third World and increase downward pressure on those jobs at home. 56 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Assets Discourse (2) Assets are rooted in the idea of capital on both social and economic grounds 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 111 par 2 – pg 112 par 1 A Capital Idea A genealogy of the idea of asset building in social welfare policy is a good place to start to question this discursive practice. Any genealogy of asset building inevitably would have to involve denaturalizing the very idea of assets itself. We tend to see assets, like capital, as literally wealth that has an objective, material, economic value. Yet, anyone who has tried to sell a home quickly finds that the assessed value of the asset is often not what it will bring in terms of hard cash when finally sold on what is misleadingly called in common parlance the "open market." This is in part because no market, especially housing markets, is entirely open, with vaious restrictions as to who qualifies to buy. And housing markets have historically most oten not been entirely open because they tend to be bounded by class, race, and related lines of privilege and disadvantageness. But another reason why the assessed value of assets is never an entirely reliable or objective indicator of their economic value is that assets are not entirely reliable or immediately convertible into capital , let alone into cash- Assets like owned homes, like all sources of wealth, are subjective in value : you may love your home and ind comfort in that haven, but buyers may see it in less emotional terms and therefore put a lesser value on it, leading them to offer a lower price to complete a sale. Yet, there is a third, even more subjective, dimension to assets. Assets, in social welfare policy, are seen as not just a form of wealth that you can cash out in order to increase your access to liquid economic resources. Instead, assets are oten prized as not just a source of economic capital but also a source of social capital. Families with assets get to network with other families with assets, increasing a family's ability to rely on social relationships for improving their well-being. Owning a home in particular puts a family in touch with other home-owning families and increases the networking possibilities. Now, the idea of social capital has become quite popular in the social sciences in recent years.8 Glenn Loury in economics, Pierre Bourdieu and James Coleman in sociology, and Robert Putnam in political science have all discussed its importance for economic advancement. Families who can access social capital improve the chances for economic success their children in particular. Yet, the idea is actually, older than Loury or Bourdieu, who are at times mentioned as scholars who coined the term. Instead, there is evidence that social capital is a very old idea and was championed by John Dewey in the late 19th century and other proponents of the philosophy of pragmatism. William James was fond of invoking economistic metaphors and asking what was the "cash value" of ideas.9 For James, as a pragmatist, the truth of any idea was contingent upon its ability to be proved useful in the world of action. That was where its cash value was determined and where we found out the real worth of any truth claim. 57 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Assets Discourse (3) 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 individuals can compete in the competition to Today, the hegemony of the market leads to both an increasing interest in commodifying social life and an increased willingness to assume that low-income individuals ought to be expected to act like those in the middle class and to compete with everyone in acquiring wealth. With the extract wealth rom assets is also treated less skepticall y. 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 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 low-income 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 poor will go begging, while others with more attractive homes or bighter, 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 instead they are too impulsive, too present oriented, and too fixated on gratifying immediate wants to save, plan ahead, invest, and watch their assets appreciate. 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 risks saddling the poor with housing costs they cannot cover rather than shinier credentials will see their assets appreciate. 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, 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. leaving them with a bad credit rating and less disposable income to meet basic needs. 58 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link - Assets Discourse (4) 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, assetbuilding 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 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 59 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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. 60 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Links - Competitiveness Discourse (1) 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. 61 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Competitiveness Discourse (2) Globalization discourse is self-legitimating because it structures the lives of those immersed in the 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 14 par 3 – par 4 U.S.-style globalization discourse has singled out welfare dependency as a problem that must be attacked by scaling back social assistance so that local economies can become more competitive internationally. This is a discourse that has made itself real first by iteration in the United States and then by emulation in part elsewhere, making it seem inevitable to the point that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy , especially in the United States. The lesson of this I argue is that the truth, whatever it may be ultimately, comes to us as a self-fulfilling and self-legitimating artifact of discourse. Discourse's self-fulilling and self-legitimating circular causality operates as a potent form of power helping to make what it takes to be true real and determinative, obdurate and factual. The truth is a form of power says Foucault, and globalization discourse would be a primary case in point, especially when it comes to understanding welfare state retrenchment in the United States in recent years. Therefore, not only might the truth be one-sided but its edge cuts deep and hard, for better or, as is often the case, for worse. The truth is not "mushy" after all. Neither is globalization discourse, which operates as its own hardedged self-fulfilling prophecy. 62 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 multimillion-dollar 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. 63 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 solar-powered 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 de-carbonization 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. 64 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 65 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Environmental justice (2) Enacting policies that increase environmental justice necessitate the marriage of positivism and capitalism. This alliance re-entrenches poverty and causes war and environmental degradation Liu, Maryland dept. of Planning, 01 (Feng Liu, “Environmental justice analysis,” http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=89mIV7thbbkC&oi=fnd&pg=PT4&dq= %22Liu%22+%22Environmental+justice+analysis:+theories,+methods,+and+... %22+&ots=UbujH5dvry&sig=4bJ_kCw00dldTTZF3OJhO2TcEdo) Bryant (l995) called for adoption of participatory research as an alternative problem-solving method for addressing environmental justice. He challenged positivism, which has dominated scientific inquiry for more than a century. Acknowledging that the union of positivism and capitalism has brought us modern prosperity and a high quality of life, he also attributed to this alliance poverty, war, environmental destruction, and a close call with nuclear destruction. For environmental justice analysis, "positivism or traditional research is adversarial and contradictory; it often leaves laypeople confused about the certainty and solutions regarding exposure to environmental toxins" (Bryant l998). Reading politics in terms of inter-social and economic divisions exposes the nature of capitalism within the polarization of the ‘under-classes’ Newell, Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation, University of Warwick, 05 (Peter Newell, “Race, Class and the Global Politics of Environmental Inequality,” Global Environmental Politics 5.3, 2005, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/global_environmental_politics/v005/5.3newell.html) It is increasingly unhelpful to view global environmental politics, either in terms of the ecological change processes which it seeks to manage (issue-based analysis) or the institutions that are constructed (regime analysis) in terms of generic categories of North and South, as Marian Miller's work made clear. When the focus moves from reading politics from geography in this way to focus on intra and transnational social and economic divisions, looking for example at "Souths in the North" and "Norths in the South,"1 we have an entry point for assessing the importance of race and class to inequality in global environmental politics. This shift obliges us to relate inequalities within societies to economic injustices between them. From an historical materialist perspective, as Wood argues, the class polarizations of capitalism that have been associated with the North-South divide increasingly also produce "the impoverishment of so-called 'under-classes' within advanced capitalist countries."2 Indeed, working class communities are regarded as convenient depositories of the social and environmental hazards of industrial activity because those communities, as [End Page 70] Bullard and Wright suggest, have a "third world view of development —that is, any development is better than no development at all."3 66 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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. 67 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Internet The internet is integral to opening up new markets and ensuring capitalism’s survival. Schiller Prof. of Communications at UC-San Diego. 1999 (Dan Schiller, Digital Capitalism) I argue that we should be skeptics about the potential of cyberspace. Knowledge carried through the Internet is no less shaped by social forces than it is elsewhere. Far from delivering us into a high-tech Eden, in fact, cyberspace itself is being rapidly colonized by the familiar workings of the market system. Across their breadth and depth, computer networks link with existing capitalism to massively broaden the effective reach of the marketplace. Indeed, the Internet comprises nothing less than the central production and control apparatus of an increasingly supranational market system. "Capitalism has always been an international system," writes the economic historian Richard B. DuBoff, "but globalization now implies an internationalizing of financial and economic flows that is far more integrated In this book, I show that the Internet and, indeed, the greater telecommunications system with which the Internet has intertwined comprise a leading edge of this epic transnationalization of economic activity. In addition to broadening the effective reach of the marketplace, cyberspace is making feasible what Edward S. Herman calls a "deepening of the market"—both for commercial home entertainment and for education, which has long been exempted, at least in part, from commercial imperatives . Networks are directly generalizing the social and cultural range of the capitalist economy as never before. That is why I refer to this new epoch as one of digital capitalism. and puts new constraints on domestic policy options." 3 68 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Broadband (1) Broadband speed is unadulterated excess from USA capitalism Minoofar, University of California, Los Angeles Ph.D., Inorganic Chemistry, 09 (Payam Minoofar, (University of California, Los Angeles. Ph.D., Inorganic Chemistry. February 2004 University of California, Berkeley. Bachelor of Science, Chemistry. May 1992). "First in Capitalism Last in Broadband." Payam's Place. 27 May 2009. <http:// payam.minoofar.com>.) Extolling the virtues of a “pure and unadulterated capitalism” has always been in vogue in the United States, and it has never changed the fact the country is lagging in many critical measures of quality of life, chief among them life expectancy and infant mortality. Now we can add broadband speed to the list, though broadband speed is hardly a measure of quality of life. It is a damn nice measure of excess, that one characteristic for which the USA is best known. It’s nice to know to know that monopoly power is still worshipped in the United States for the excess power and wealth it concentrates in the hands of the few. Who cares that monopoly power never delivers better service at a lower price, innovation (Microsoft still doesn’t get the iPod), improvements in infrastructure, or a functioning marketplace? 69 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Internet/Broadband (2) Digital capitalism makes markets more volatile and prevents capitalism from solving the problems that it creates. Schiller Prof. of Communications at UC-San Diego. 1999 (Dan Schiller, Digital Capitalism) What is historically new, or so it seems to me, is a change in the sweep of corporate rule. For the first time since itsemergence in the early twentieth century, the corporate-led market system no longer confronts a significant socialist adversary anywhere on the planet. Digital capitalism also is free to physically transcend territorial boundaries and, more important, to take economic advantage of the sudden absence of geopolitical constraints on its development. Not coincidentally, the corporate political economy is also diffusing more generally across the social field. Over roughly a century, to be sure, big business has operated as a kind of senior partner in league with a variety of nonbusiness institutions— schools and universities, museums, professional societies, government agencies. Today, by contrast, corporations are committing themselves to a direct takeover of these key functions of social reproduction . This shift is not nominal but substantive. Activities long exempt from the direct workings of the for-profit market economy are being place on a true business basis. A lengthening series of social practices through which we play, educate, and generally provide for one another are more or less rapidly being annexed by capital. Through this "march to the market," as the Wall Street Journal calls it, roughly one in twenty federal inmates in the U.S. is housed in a for-profit prison, and more than one in eight community-hospital beds is now an investor-owned hospital; even background checks on would-be federal employees But if digital capitalism comprises a "purer" and more generalized form than the alloys with which we have lived in the past, then this change does not alleviate, and indeed may well increase, the volatility of the market system. Just one year ago, adherents of a so-called new economy grounded in networks trumpeted the news of a supposed "long boom" in which an unabating prosperity would flourish.3 Even as their rosy forecasts hit the press, the Asian economic firestorm invalidated them. Pundits and columnists had to turn on a dime to engage questions of damage control: How to manage rampant speculative fevers? How to contain the effects of a secular buildup of industrial are performed by a for-profit, privatized government agency. 2 overcapacity? How to avert a full-scale global economic crisis?4 At somewhat longer range, perhaps, issues raised by deepening social inequality are hardly less grave. Disparities in socioeconomic well-being are more difficult to view as mere residues of a prior historical inclemency, when they are so obviously reproduced by the workings of digital capitalism itself. Digital expansion is driven by capitalism Shin, assistant prof @ Penn State University, 05 Dong-Hee Shin, Assistant Professor in the School of Information Sciences and Technology at Penn State University Ph.D. and Master in Information Science and Telecommunication, Spring 2005; Design and Development of Next Generation of Information Infrastructure: Case Studies of Broadband Public Network and Digital City Digital cities are a rapidly growing phenomenon, not only in the U.S. but also worldwide. Many countries energetically embarked on digital city projects in different forms, such as the Digital Park of Ireland, the Multimedia Super Corridor of Malaysia, and the Cyberport of Hong Kong. Design and deployment of such digital cities tend to be shaped by market forces . One such view argues that the forces "shaping the application and development of telecommunications are the political, economic, social and cultural dynamics of capitalism itself. Above all, especially in the neo-Marxist accounts, the development and application of telematics are seen to be driven by the imperative of maintaining capital accumulation of firms..." (Graham & Marvin, 1996, p. 95). A key premise of this view is that technology is not neutral. "Telecommunications are not neutral technologies. They are not equally amenable to all users.., an inherent bias is already locked in to them through the network design process" (Gillespie, 1991, p. 225). This inherent "bias," as I show below, can cause problems for the development of solutions in the public interest. 70 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link - Internet/Broadband (3) Digital expansion increases the idea of social capital Shin, assistant prof @ Penn State University, 05 Dong-Hee Shin, Assistant Professor in the School of Information Sciences and Technology at Penn State University Ph.D. and Master in Information Science and Telecommunication, Spring 2005; Design and Development of Next Generation of Information Infrastructure: Case Studies of Broadband Public Network and Digital City The committee seemed to think the implicit goals (common ground and social capital) could be wellrealized through inter-sectoral relations, for example, link- ages among different sectors like hospitals to county government for Medicaid reimbursement process. The committee members pointed to the strengthening of existing intersectoral relations and the forging of new ones in grantee communities as a Program goal . The idea of diverse institutions and interests working together for the common good was a recurrent theme in their conceptualization of community. They viewed a Program-funded network as a public network (or com- munity network)--an instrument to further social relationships and inter-organizational and cross-sectoral connectivity. 16 For example, a city's public schools could, through the public network, connect not just to other schools, but also to CBOs and the local zoo, as well as to serve a broad cross-section of the local population . The social benefits of such a network were described as "community networking," forg- ing of"coalitions and partnerships," "social capital," and "finding common ground." They believed that inter-organizational and inter-sectoral relations facilitated by Programfunded technological infrastructure would promote social capital, social cohesion, and common ground in the community. Community networks are driven by the idea of social capital Sullivan, prof @ University of Minnesota, 02 John L. Sullivan, University of Minnesota, professor of Political Science @ University of Minnesota, January 2002 Social Capital and Community Electronic Networks Much of the research to date applying the concept of social capital to community electronic networks has been focused on the question of whether online relationships and virtual communities provide the conditions necessary to further the growth of social capital (Calabrese & Borchert, 1996; Kling, 1996; Wellman et al., 1996). The causal arrow is assumed to point from the network to social capital . Blanchard and Horan (1998) argue, however, that whether computer-mediated communication increases social capital depends on whether virtual communities develop around physically based communities in which face-to-face ties have already been established. Fukuyama (1995) claims in a similar vein that “Societies where computer networking will really take off are the ones in which technology can ride on top of existing social networks” (p. 80). Thus, the potential role of an electronic network appears to derive at least in part from the social structures already present in a community that enable diverse entities within the community to cooperate rather than compete to achieve a common goal. 71 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – The State (1) Reforming capital through the state –its role to capital is to secure labour Meszaros, Professor at University of Sussex, England, 95 Istvan Meszaros, 1995, Professor at University of Sussex, England, “Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition” In truth, however, the modern state belongs to the materiality of the capital system, embodying the necessity cohesive dimension of its expansion-oriented and surplus-labour-extracting structural imperative. This is what characterizes all known forms of the state articulated within the framework of capital’s social metabolic order. And precisely because the economic reproductive units of the system are incorrigibly centrifugal in characterwhich happens to be for a long time in history an integral part of the unparalleled dynamism of capital, even if at a certain stage of development it becomes most problematical and potentially destructive,-the cohesive dimension of the overall social metabolism must be constituted as a separate totalizing political command structure. Indeed, as a proof of the substantive materiality of the modern state, we find that in its capacity as the totalizing political command structure of capital it is no less concerned with securing the conditions of surplus-labour extraction than the direct economic reproductive units themselves, though, naturally, it has to bring its contribution to the successful outcome in its own way. None the less, the structuring principle of the modern state, in all its forms-including the postcapitalist varieties-is its vital role in securing and safeguarding the overall conditions of surplus-labour extraction. 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. 72 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link - The State (2) Cap is rooted in structural power discrepancies favoring the wealthy elite 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) 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. Thus, when a coalition of progressive unions and grassroots organizations took out a full-page advertisement in the Times in March 2009, calling for a rally to protest drastic cuts in New York's health and public services, the group's sole demand was for "a modest increase for the top 5 percent of taxpayers." As if worried that even this demand might seem too forward, the group added: "After three decades of tax cuts, it's the fair way to avoid harsh cuts that will hurt all of us." All of us — because the wealthy will also suffer when their garbage isn't picked up, or the police respond slowly to a break-in because of cuts in public safety. Even the grassroots Left (the New York coalition included locals of such groups as the SEIU, the UAW, Acorn, and the Working Families Party) has grown so accustomed to seeing the power structure as inevitable and natural that it believes its only practical recourse lies in begging more crumbs from the tables of the wealthy. 73 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link – Mental Health Therapy judges mental health according to capitalist norms- perpetuates capitalist functioning Lichtman, prof social psychology, ‘01 (Richard Lichtman, social psychology professor at the Wright Institute , the Frankfurt School, March 2001, Capitalism Nature Socialism Volume 12, Issue 1 March 2001 , pages 57 – 86 “On Mental Health and Psychotheraphy in Late Capitalism” http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713603331~db=all) But what it may be able to accomplish to some degree is the obfuscation of the nature of work and the penalties that work exacts from the lives of laborers. For therapy can speak for the ideological claim of capitalist labor, the claim of self-fulfillment, social harmony and reciprocal human recognition. What it is debarred from even seriously attempting, is the actual recognition, let alone realization, of these aims. For the claim of selfrealization through therapy is undermined by the nature of the capitalist system: its collective production and individual isolation, social interdependence and personal atomism; exploitation and alienation of social life; the alienation of human power; and the mystification of lived experience. Capitalism cannot serve the common social good; its entire structural directive is dependent upon increasing class exploitation, alienation, competition, fragmented labor and ideological mystification. The “goods” which emerge from this social order are mediated through a system of market exchange now dominated by powerful transnational corporations systematically entwined in a net of state bureaucracies. It is not necessary to engage in a protracted comparison of capitalist “wellbeing” with that of the thousands of other societies that human beings have constructed to realize that capitalism has introduced the greatest assemblage of productive forces in world history and provided the expanding benefits of that technology for a relatively small portion of the world population. The values that capitalism makes possible are predominantly individualized forms of personal experience or relational forms which tend to be marked by exploitation, fragmentation and social obfuscation. In traditional therapy, the criteria of “mental health” reflects current standards of “normal” functioning, personal identity and interpersonal relationships. These are, of course, aspects of the present social system which are de facto in effect, which determine the definitions that become the standards of therapeutic work. In short, the capitalist system, like all other systems, judges the health of its members in accordance with the basic principles of it own (capitalist) functioning. 74 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link - Mental Health Therapy forces patients to conform to capitalist ideologies- it’s necessary to maintain the capitalist system Lichtman, prof social psychology, ‘01 (Richard Lichtman, social psychology professor at the Wright Institute , the Frankfurt School, March 2001, Capitalism Nature Socialism Volume 12, Issue 1 March 2001 , pages 57 – 86 “On Mental Health and Psychotheraphy in Late Capitalism” http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713603331~db=all) So therapy is grounded in what I previously referred to as “normal pathology,” a degradation of human existence codified as appropriate functioning. It is the average functioning, the normal “adjustment to reality” necessary to maintain the existence of the present capitalist system. When such views are articulated in their darkest form, as in the writings of the Frankfurt School, one is inclined to reject them as caricatures of contemporary life. Certainly there is more vital existence, play, friendship and love, compassion and hope than the pessimism of a total regime of commodity relations will permit. True. However the reasons for this humane divergence are twofold: first, much of what is best in life occurs outside of the system of capitalist domination; and second, capitalism must always hold out the promise of happiness and fulfillment, and so must permit some limited realization of these ends. Were it never to fulfill its promise, it would be reduced to a rule of violence incompatible with its need for participatory subordination. Can therapy resist the prevailing forms of human exploitation? It cannot accomplish this end even if it were to choose to do so. Freud was quite frank about this issue: The function of education, therefore, is to inhibit, forbid and suppress, and it has at all times carried out this function to admiration... It has been said — and no doubt with justice — that every education is partisan; it aims at making the child adapt itself to whatever social system is the established one, without consideration of how valuable or how stable that system may be. If, it is argued, one is convinced of the shortcomings of our present-day arrangements, one cannot think it right to give them the added support of this psycho-analytical education of ours. We must place before it another and a higher aim, one which is emancipated from the social standards that are dominant today. I do not feel, however, that this argument is valid....Psychoanalytic education will be assuming an unwarranted responsibility if it sets out to make its pupils into revolutionaries. It will have done its task if it sends them away as healthy and efficient as possible 34 What, however, is the meaning of “efficiency” if not accommodation to the prevailing structure of capitalist logic? 75 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link - Prostitutes Prostitutes are capitalist and sex is a commodity Permanent Revolution, 07 (Prostitution: Marxism versus moralism (PR3), 07/17, http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/1556) As Engels put it, “Monogamy and prostitution are indeed contradictions, but inseparable contradictions, poles of the same state of society”.5 Bebel, writing on women and socialism in the 1880s explained, “Prostitution thus becomes a necessary social institution of bourgeois society, just as the police, the standing army, the church and the capitalist class”.6 To understand this dialectic, the “interpenetration of opposites”, we need to look first at the essence of prostitution in capitalism, consider how it varies according to the mode of production, and then return to explore the relationship between private and public sex and the oppression of women. Prostitution: the commodity Like most commercial transactions under capitalism, prostitution is based on the sale and purchase of a commodity. In common parlance, a prostitute “sells her body”. But this is a misnomer, since at the end of the transaction the client does not “own” the prostitute’s body. What the client buys is a sexual service. Some feminists and socialists object to the idea that the women sells a service rather than her body, but, recognising that it is temporary, describe it as the sale of the use of her body for their sexual pleasure. But even that is misleading. If you go to any place where prostitution takes place, whether it is on the streets, in a brothel or through an agency, there will be a tariff. It is not generally written down because of legal restrictions, but it is clear: there is a price for masturbation, usually higher prices for oral, vaginal or anal sex. Some escorts will charge by the hour, but will also clearly state what sexual services are, and which are not, included in that fee. The commodity is sex – or rather a particular sexual service. Turning sex into a commodity is regarded by many people as the fundamental “sin” of prostitution. Mhairi McAlpine from the SS P writes, “prostitution is the commodification of sexual relations, taking it out of the sphere of mutual pleasure and into the domain of the market.” 7 I have had similar discussions with many comrades over the years – surely such an intimate behaviour should never be turned into an alienable thing to be bought and sold? This rather romantic view of sex as mutual pleasure is itself an abstraction from social relations. Under capitalism, and previous class societies, sex is highly regulated and has an economic dimension. The regulation is based on the need to defend private property through inheritance. In the Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Engels outlined how monogamy (for women) arose alongside private property. The monogamous family “develops out of the pairing family . . . It is based on the supremacy of the man, the express purpose being to produce children of undisputed paternity; such paternity is demanded because these children are later to come into their father’s property as his natural heirs.” 8 The exact form of the family has changed through different forms of class society, but the centrality of female monogamy has not, which explains the extensive and consistent laws, religions and customs that ensure its defence. It was not prostitution that took sex “out of the sphere of mutual pleasure” but the monogamy required to defend private property. Daughters became property to be bought and sold for their capacity to produce heirs in return for deals of land, cattle or cash.9 Prostitution emerged from the same process, since no society yet has been able to enforce monogamy for men as well as women. Demosthenes, a Greek orator, summed up the attitude to women in the slave society of Athens, “We resort to courtesans for our pleasure, keep concubines to 76 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. look after our daily needs, and marry wives to give us legitimate children and be the faithful guardians of our hearth.” 10 But is this view not outdated? Surely in the 21st century sex is predominantly for mutual pleasure rather than production of heirs or transfer of cash? There has been considerable sexual liberalisation over the past 40 years, due to changes in the social position of women and the development of effective contraception, and prostitution is not the only form of non-marital sex. However, social structures still favour monogamous heterosexual relationships in relation to property, and women worldwide are still condemned as whores and sluts if they openly seek non-monogamous sex. The class structure of prostitution. On the surface prostitution does not appear to fit into standard economic categories. One historian writes: “. . . the prostitute does not behave like any other commodity; she occupies a unique place, at the centre of an extraordinary and nefarious economic system. She is able to represent all the terms within capitalist production; she is the human labour, the object of exchange and the seller at once. She stands as worker, commodity and capitalist and blurs the categories of bourgeois economics in the same way as she tests the boundaries of bourgeois morality . . . As a commodity, therefore, the prostitute both encapsulates and distorts all the classic features of bourgeois economics.” 11 While it is wrong to suggest that a single prostitute can represent all the elements of capitalist production, it does point to the many different roles that prostitutes can play. They can indeed appear as worker, commodity, seller and even capitalist, but this is because different prostitutes can have different relationship to the commodity they sell. Commodities have both a use value and an exchange value. The use value in prostitution is satisfying the client’s desire, the provision of sexual pleasure. The exchange value is the social labour embodied in that commodity, that is, the physical and mental labour involved in providing the sexual service. This is equivalent to what the sex worker needs to reproduce herself under socially average conditions for the industry. 77 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Link - Immigrants Capitalism depends on cheap immigrant labor Esteban, no date given (Juan, The Truth Behind Bush's Immigration "Reform", http://www.socialistappeal.org/ usa/truth_behind_immigration_reform.html) Both the American and Mexican bourgeois benefit from this situation. Not only are the economies, but also the labor forces of the two countries integrated more and more tightly. Revenues sent back home from Mexicans working in the US make up an important part of Mexico’s GDP. Incredibly, it is the second most important source of revenue for the state, with only the state-owned petroleum industry, PEMEX, bringing in more. With hundreds of thousands of would-be job seekers leaving Mexico yearly, pressure on the government and economy there is relieved. Even many conservatives in the US, who are generally anti-immigration and have a racist attitude towards Latinos, understand the vital role played by cheap immigrant labor, especially for large agricultural interests and service-oriented companies such as fast food. U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue is forced to acknowledge the importance of these workers to the US economy: “if they went home, we’d have to shut down the country.” Attempts to include immigrants are intended to prop up capitalism and economic efficiency Esteban, no date given (Juan, The Truth Behind Bush's Immigration "Reform", http://www.socialistappeal.org/ usa/truth_behind_immigration_reform.html) Bush is a “free marketer” and pro-globalization so long as the terms of trade are favorable for US corporations. His plan to expand NAFTA into the FTAA is an effort to control the flow of the Western Hemisphere’s resources and workers in the interests of the US capitalist class. His plan for immigration “reform” is merely an extension of this. Why ship jobs and entire factories to Mexico when you can bring those low-wage workers here instead? By tracking the movement of millions immigrants, the government will be better able to tighten their control over the population as a whole, and will be able to send back these immigrant workers any time they choose. Millions more workers will be brought onto the minimum wage pay and tax-rolls - Millions of workers who will not have the right to vote – true taxation without representation. Any opposition to this plan by “conservatives” is nothing but wool pulled over the eyes of working Americans in an effort to divert attention from the real class interests involved. 78 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Impact Overview Extend Simonovic – Capitalism Ontology outweighs nuclear war. Zimmerman, 94 (Michael, Professor of Philosophy at Tulane University, Contesting Earth's Future, pg 119120) Heidegger asserted that human self assertion, combined with the eclipse of being, threatens the relation between being and human Dasein. Loss of this relation would be even more dangerous than a nuclear war that might “bring about the complete annihilation of humanity and the destruction of the earth.” This controversial claim is comparable to the Christian teaching that it is better to forfeit the world than to lose one’s soul by losing ones relation to God. Heidegger apparently thought along these lines: it is possible that after a nuclear war, life might once again emerge, but it is far less likely that there will ever again occur in an ontological clearing through which life could manifest itself. Further, since modernity’s one dimensional disclosure to entities virtually denies that any “being” at all, the loss of humanity’s openness for being is already occurring. Modernity’s background mood is horror in the face of nihilism, which is consistent with the aim of providing material happiness” for everyone by reducing nature into pure energy. The unleashing of vast quantities of energy in a nuclear war would be equivalent to modernity’s slow destruction of nature: unbounded destruction would equal limitless consumption. If humanity avoided a nuclear war only to survive as contended clever animals, Heidegger believed we would exist in a state of ontological damnation: hell on earth, masquerading as material paradise. Deep ecologists might agree that a world of material human comfort purchased at the price of everything wild would not be a world worth living in, for in killing wild nature, people would be as good as dead. But most of them could not agree that the loss of humanity’s relation to being would be worse than nuclear omnicide, for it is wrong to suppose that the lives of millions of extinct and unknown species are somehow lessened because they were never “disclosed” by humanity. Ontology comes first Dillon, 99 (Professor of Politics, University of Lancaster, moral spaces, JSTOR) Heirs to all this, we find ourselves in the turbulent and now globalized wake of its confluence. As Heideggerhimself an especially revealing figure of the deep and mutual implication of the philosophical and the political4never tired of pointing out, the relevance of ontology to all other kinds of thinking is fundamental and inescapable. For one cannot say anything about anything that is, without always already having made assumptions about the is as such. Any mode of thought, in short, always already carries an ontology sequestered within it. What this ontological turn does to other regional modes of thought is to challenge the ontology within which they operate. The implications of that review reverberate throughout the entire mode of thought, demanding a reappraisal as fundamental as the reappraisal ontology has demanded of philosophy. With ontology at issue, the entire foundations or underpinnings of any mode of thought are rendered problematic. This applies as much to any modern discipline of thought as it does to the question of modernity as such, with the exception, it seems, of science, which, having long ago given up the ontological questioning of when it called itself natural philosophy, appears now, in its industrialized and corporatized form, to be invulnerable to ontological perturbation. With its foundations at issue, the very authority of a mode of thought and the ways in which it characterizes the critical issues of freedom and judgment (of what kind of universe human beings 79 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. inhabit, how they inhabit it, and what counts as reliable knowledge for them in it) is also put in question. The very ways in which Nietzsche, Heidegger, and other continental philosophers challenged Western ontology, simultaneously, therefore reposed the fundamental and inescapable difficulty, or aporia, for human being of decision and judgment. In other words, whatever ontology you subscribe to, knowingly or unknowingly, as a human being you still have to act. Whether or not you know or acknowledge it, the ontology you subscribe to will construe the problem of action for you in one way rather than another. You may think ontology is some arcane question of philosophy, but Nietzsche and Heidegger showed that it intimately shapes not only a way of thinking, but a way of being, a form of life. Decision, a fortiori political decision, in short, is no mere technique. It is instead a way of being that bears an understanding of Being, and of the fundaments of the human way of being within it. This applies, indeed applies most, to those mock innocent political slaves who claim only to be technocrats of decision making. 80 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – War (1) Capitalism leads to extinction – multiple scenarios for nuclear war. Marko, wrote Anarchism and Human Survival: Russell’s problem, 03 Marko (Anarchism and Human Survival: Russell’s problem., May 14, 2003, https://www2.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/05/68173.html)\ 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 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 appreciate the nexus between this threat, globalisation and north-south conflict. 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 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 Earth". 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 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 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 of 81 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 further nuclear proliferation. There exists a "deadly connection" between global weapons of mass destruction proliferation and US foreign policy. 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 projection in, from and through space". Toward this end, Washington has resisted efforts in the UN to create an arms control regime for space. 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 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 missile launch sites. 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. 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 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; 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 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 launcah 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. The militarisation of space is intimately linked with US strategic nuclear forces, for the previous command covering space, known as Space Command, has merged with the command responsible for nuclear forces, Strategic Command. Upon merger, the commander of Strategic Command stated, "United States Strategic Command provides a single war fighting combatant command with a global perspective, focused on exploiting the strong and growing synergy between the domain of space and strategic capabilities." The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff added, "this new command is going to have all the responsibilities of its predecessors, but an entirely new mission focus, greatly expanded forces and you might even say several infinite areas of responsibility ." In other words, we are witnessing the integration of strategic conventional, nuclear and space planning into the command responsible for overseeing US nuclear forces. In turn these forces become an ordinary facet of US strategic planning, severing the break between conventional and nuclear war. The link between the increase in threats to survival and state capitalism (as well as globalisation) was provided for us by the old Space Command as noted above. We may justly also conclude that US nuclear weapons provide a shield, or “shadow”, enabling the deployment of offensive military firepower in what Kennedy era commander General Maxwell Taylor referred to as the key theatre of war, namely "under-developed areas". This shield was made effective by "escalation dominance", as noted above, now known as "full spectrum dominance". It is this facet of US 82 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. The link between US nuclear strategy and the global political economy is intimate. US nuclear weapons, both during and after the cold war, have acted as the ultimate guarantors of US policy, which is concerned with managing the world capitalist system in the interests of dominant domestic elites . Nuclear weapons provide the strategic policy that compels Washington place such a premium on nuclear superiority and nuclear war fighting. umbrella of power under which the system is able to function in much the same way that Karl Polanyi in his classic work, The Great Transformation, argued that the balance of power functioned in the service of the world capitalist system in the 19th century. The “great restoration” of the world capitalist system, under the rubric of “liberal internationalism”, and the onset of the nuclear age in the wake of the second world war, are not merely coincidental. To understand the contours of contemporary world order is to appreciate the deep nexus between the two. Military superiority is necessary because of threats to "stability". It is to be expected that a system of world order constructed for the benefit of an elite core of corporate interests in the US will not go down well with the world's population, especially in key regions singled out for capital extraction such as the Middle East and Latin America. Planners recognise that the pursuit of capital globalisation and the consequent widening of the gap between rich and poor would be opposed by the globe's population. Absolute strategic superiority is meant to keep the world's population quite and obedient out of sheer terror , as Bush administration aligned neoconservative thinkers have argued it is better that Washington be feared rather than loved. As they have asserted, after world war two US hegemony had to be "obtained", now it must be "maintained" (Robert Kagan and William Kristol). It is only natural that this "maintenance operation" should be a militaristic one given that the US has a comparative advantage in the use of force; a nuclear global first strike capability would give Washington an absolute advantage. Should anyone get out of line, possibly threatening to spread the "virus" of popular social and economic development, force is to be used to restore "credibility" to beat down the threat of a better example. The US pursues a dangerous nuclear strategy because such a strategy in its terms is "credible". Anarchists are well aware of this important aspect of international relations given the events of the Spanish Civil War. Such a situation is no joke, for this was precisely the fear of Kennedy era planners that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Washington sought to return Cuba to the "Latin American mode" fearing that Cuba would set an example to the population of Latin America in independent social and economic planning conducted in the interests of the population rather than US capital. In response to the Castro takeover the US engaged in one of the most serious terrorist campaigns of recent times, meant as a prelude to invasion in order to ensure "regime change" thereby teaching the people of the region the lesson that "what we say goes". One of the key reasons why Khrushchev sought to place nuclear missiles in Cuba was to deter a US invasion and to achieve strategic parity with Washington. Throughout the Cuban Missile Crisis many potential flashpoints almost lead to a full-scale nuclear exchange between the Soviet Union and the US, how close we came to annihilation is only now being fully realised. These are not matters for idle speculation: destruction almost occurred in the past and may very well occur in the future; even cats have only nine lives. This is a matter of great contemporary significance because of the current geographical expansion of the US military system. One of the most significant results of the invasion of Afghanistan was the expansion of the US military system into Central Asia, including into some former Soviet republics. The Russians have traditionally considered this to be their version of the Western hemisphere. If a "great game" were to develop in the region between Russia and the US (perhaps also Pakistan, China and India all nuclear powers, Turkey which sits under US "extended deterrence" and Iran, a potential nuclear power) then such a "great game" may become a nuclearised great game. Indeed the standoff in Kashmir may have global consequences if a system of alliance politics were to develop in the region between the globe's nuclear powers, especially as the threshold of nuclear war is being lowered. In this sense Central Asia may develop into a global version of the link between the Balkans and central alliance systems prior to 1914. Of even greater concern is the further expansion of the US military system into the Middle East following the invasion of Iraq. Washington has already foreshadowed a desire to construct permanent military bases in Iraq in order to facilitate intervention into the region. Both Iran and Syria are potential targets of US attack. Iran may decide upon the nuclear option in order to deter the globe’s leading rogue state. This could be potentially explosive because it is well known that Israel posses a significant nuclear force. Israel has always feared that its paymaster would ultimately abandon it. In response Israel has reportedly developed a "samson option" nuclear targeting strategy. The idea is that Israel would target Russia with its nuclear weapons (Israel has developed delivery systems with an excessive range capability), which would lead to a full-scale nuclear exchange between Moscow and Washington. In essence Israel is saying: we should be allowed to continue repressing the Palestinians if not we have the "samson option". Furthermore, in order to facilitate intervention into these regions the US has began a programme to shift the basing of its military forces into "new Europe" that is Eastern Europe. Washington for instance pushed Romania into NATO for this very reason. Placing military forces in Eastern Europe no doubt would give the Russians some cause for concern. After Kosovo Russia conducted large-scale war games assuming an invasion through "new Europe". The game ended with the 83 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. release of nuclear weapons. Indeed, expanding the US military system up to the border of Belarus may be dangerous for it is quite possible that Russia extends nuclear deterrence to Minsk; for instance Russia is building a new ground based strategic early warning radar in Belarus. This may all become a series problem in the future because of what the US Geological Survey refers to as "the big rollover": the time at which the world oil market changes from a buyers market into a sellers market (which may occur in the next 15-20 years). Washington has always regarded the oil resources of the Middle East as "the most stupendous material prize in world history" which is a key lever of US global dominance. The big rollover will ensure that Middle Eastern oil reserves will become an even more significant lever of world control placing greater premium on US control over the political development of the Arab world. In 1967, 1970 and 1973 strategic developments in the Middle East were overshadowed by nuclear weapons. In fact the events of 1970 and 1973 convinced many, such as Henry Kissinger, that the US needed to strive to retain nuclear superiority and reverse the condition of strategic parity with Moscow. This ultimately lead to the Carter-Reagan build-up of the late 1970s and early 1980s; a build-up which easily could have been disastrous. The militarisation of space, the development of so called "useable" nuclear weapons, the globalisation of the US nuclear planning system, the hair trigger alert status of the globe's nuclear forces and the expansion of the US military system into Central Asia and the Middle East possibly triggering a "great game" in these regions between nuclear powers, not to mention military expansion into "new Europe", all seriously increase the threats to our long term (indeed short term) survival. Washington's aggressive nuclear strategy is not only meant to deter democracy abroad; it is also meant to deter democracy at home. In 1956 the author of NSC 68 and one of the chief ideologues behind the CarterReagan nuclear build-up, Paul Nitze, made a distinction between what he referred to as "declaratory" nuclear weapons policy and "actual" nuclear weapons policy. For anybody interested in unravelling truth from fiction the distinction is critical. In Nitze's words, "the word 'policy' is used in two related but different senses. In one sense, the action sense, it refers to the general guidelines, which we believe should and will govern our actions in various contingencies. In the other sense, the declaratory sense, it refers to policy statements which have as their aim political and psychological effects". The most important target audience of declaratory policy is the American population, the so-called "internal deterrent". Consider for instance the key nuclear proliferation planning document of the cold war era, the Gilpatric report delivered to President Johnson. In it Gilpatric spelt out the threat that nuclear proliferation poses to US security: "as additional nations obtained nuclear weapons our diplomatic and military influence would wane, and strong pressures would arise to retreat to isolation to avoid the risk of involvement in nuclear war". So if it were seen by the population that the pursuit of foreign policy, conducted in the interests of domestic elites, would increase the threat of nuclear war then the internal deterrent may become dangerously aroused possibly calling off the show. In the strategic literature this is referred to as “self-deterrence ”. In other words US non proliferation policy was meant to “lock in” US strategic dominance so that the domestic population would not become dangerously aroused whilst providing Washington the freedom of action necessary to brandish its nuclear superiority over others. This sentiment was reflected in the Bush administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, “nuclear capabilities also assure the US public that the United States will not be subject to coercion based on a false perception of U.S. weakness among potential adversaries.” Many strategic thinkers have argued that the greatest threat to US hegemony or "unipolarity" is the internal "welfare role" and the populations lack of understanding for the burdens of Empire, in other words popular democracy. One of the reasons that the Reagan administration pursued "Star Wars" a programme to render nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete" was to outflank the domestic and global peace movements that were gathering pace as a result of the administration's pursuit of potentially apocalyptic nuclear policies (the very same people have their fingers on the button again). It was well recognised that the Star Wars programme would have increased the chances of a nuclear exchange between Moscow and Washington, just as today the pursuit of short term interests is known to have potentially serious international consequences, such as increase in conflict and global weapons of mass destruction proliferation . The ruling class is well aware of the adverse impact the pursuit of its own sectional interests will have on international order. It pursues those interests with renewed zeal anyway. As far as the ruling class is concerned the greatest threat we face is not nuclear war, it is popular democracy. As Adam Smith observed of a previous mercantile system, applicable to today's system of state-corporate mercantilism, "it cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interest has been so carefully attended to; and among this latter class our merchants and manufacturers have been by far the principal architects." Policy Smith observed, "comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." This raises an interesting issue, 84 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. namely that the pursuit of Armageddon is quite rational. The dominant institutions of capitalism place a premium on short-term greed. Rational participatory planning incorporating long-term concerns such as human survival are of no interest to these pathological institutions. What matters is short-term profit maximisation. One can see this most clearly in the case of such “externalities” as ecological change where the desire to pursue short-term profit undermines the long-term viability of the system itself (also us as a species; indeed many have surmised that we are in the era of the sixth great extinction of life on Earth this time human induced). The fact that the institutional structures of society compel the ruling classes to pursue highly dangerous “security” policies that are another “externality” of the system of state capitalism compels the population to constrain and eventually overthrow these institutions because apocalypse is institutionally rational. 85 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – War (2) Capitalism’s inherent greed for profits makes war not only inevitable, but economically desirable - 6 warrants Carchedi, 06 [Guglielimo, The Fallacies of Keynesian Policies, Rethinking Marxism, 18(1):63-81, Electronic] But there are advantages as well. First, if weapons are exported, the producers of weapons appropriate international value from other, foreign capitalists due to the former's higher value composition (unequal exchange).26 Second, science- and technology-based military innovations are the basic driving force in, and directly support, the development of civilian science and technology. Since World War II, practically all the major innovations in the civilian sphere have been first generated by military research and development . This gives the technological leaders a competitive advantage that makes possible the appropriation of international surplus value. Third, the use of public works can become part of the goods considered to be necessary for the reproduction of labor power and thus can lead to an increase in real wages. This danger is avoided if resources are channeled into the military industry. And finally, military might is a necessary condition for imperialist policies, thus for value appropriation from weaker countries. Once imperialism is introduced into the analysis, the positive effects on the ARP attributed to civilian Keynesianism in the imperialist countries can be seen to be in fact, at least partially, the result of the appropriation of surplus value from the world working class, via foreign capitals, thanks also to military Keynesianism. Disregard of this fundamental point gives Keynesian policies much more credit than they deserve. There is thus no contraposition between civilian and military Keynesianism. The former is partly made possible by the appropriation of international value inherent in the latter. If neither civilian nor military Keynesian policies can jump-start the economy, the alternative is war . The use of weapons in time of war is a specific, powerful method of destruction of excess capital in its commodity form, of value that cannot be realized in times of peace. Their main contribution to an upturn is not through employment and the extra production of surplus value (which are modest because of their high value composition) but through the destruction of surplus capital: the more commodity capital is destroyed (both as weapons and as the other commodities that are destroyed by those weapons), the more commodity capital can be subsequently created. At the same time, this expanded reproduction is spurred by the higher rates of exploitation, and thus of profit, induced by wars. Wars make possible the cancellation of the debt contracted with Labor (e.g., inflation destroys the value of money and thus of state bonds) and the extraction of extra surplus value (the laborers, either forced or instigated by patriotism, accept lower wages, higher intensity of labor, longer working days, etc.). Wars thus create the conditions for an economic upturn. Capitalism needs weapons and thus wars. If capitalism needs wars, wars need enemies. The imperialist nations display great ingenuity in finding, or creating, new enemies. Before the fall of the USSR, the pretext for the arms industry was International Communism. After the Fall, International Communism has been replaced by Arab Fundamentalism and International Terrorism. As the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq show, the substitution is now complete. The attacks of September 11, 2001, were a golden opportunity for the arms industry and U.S. imperialism. This shows that political and ideological factors are of paramount importance for the modes and timing of the conflagration, but they themselves are determined by economic factors. The notion that wars are caused by extraeconomic factors is simply wrong. The Western world has exported (created) countless wars in many dominated countries and has engaged in military Keynesian policies for the above-mentioned reasons. 86 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – War (3) 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). 87 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 88 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – War (3) “Globalization” makes war and exploitation inevitable Meszaros, prof Philosophy & Political Theory, 95 Istvan Meszaros, 1995, Professor at University of Sussex, England, “Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition” The term ‘globalization’ has recently become a buzzword. As to what kind of ‘globalization’ is feasible under the rule of capital, this question is carefully avoided. It is much easier to assume, instead, that globalization by its very nature is unproblematical, indeed a necessarily positive development that brings commendable results to all concerned. That the process of globalization as we in fact know it asserts itself through the strengthening of capital's most dynamic centres of domination (and exploitation) bringing in its wake growing inequality and extreme hardship for the overwhelming majority of people, all this is best left outside the framework of legitimate questioning. For the answers of a critical scrutiny might conflict with the policies pursued by the dominant capitalist powers and their willing collaborators in the ‘Third World’. Yet, through the ongoing and allegedly most beneficial globalization the ‘underdeveloped countries’ are offered nothing but the perpetuation of the differential rate of exploitation. 89 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Ecosystem (1) Capitalism destroys planet ecosystem 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) CAPITALISM IS RIGHTLY CREDITED WITH HAVING UNLEASHED ENORMOUS FORCES OF productivity and technology. But it has also reduced much of the world to ruin and squalor. After four centuries of triumph as the dominant mode of global development, capitalism has furnished for itself a world in which one out of two human beings lives on $2 per day or less, and more than one in three still lacks access to a toilet. Most children in the world never complete their education, and most will live out their lives without dependable medical care. As the world economic crisis deepens, already deplorable conditions in the Third World will only deteriorate further. Meanwhile, our planet is dying. Or rather, its flesh and blood creatures are. At the height of the financial crisis last year, a Swiss conversation group released a study showing that as many as one-third of known mammals on earth face imminent extinction, perhaps in a matter of decades, as a result of habitat destruction and mass killing by human beings. Yet not one of the hundreds of bloggers, news analysts, or politicians at the time thought to connect the dots between this and similar warnings of mass species extinctions and the dominant mode of development, capitalism. Yet it is just this metastatic, expansionist system that has imperiled human civilization and the natural world alike. So severely has capitalism disrupted the world's climate (the petroleum economy, let us not forget, has been the main pillar of capitalist industrial development for the last 100 years) that even if all carbon emissions were halted tomorrow, scientists now believe that the earth's atmosphere would warm for another 1,000 years. Hundreds of millions of people, and billions of other animals, will be displaced by rising sea levels, or will starve or suffer malnutrition as a result of flooding, drought, and fire, or else will die from illnesses caused by new plague vectors opened up by sudden climate change and a gravely weakened world health system. 90 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Ecosystem (2) Capitalism is and will destroy the enviorment leading to 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. 91 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Ecosystem (3) Capitalism’s driving force- the constant accumulation of capital- has subjugated man and nature. This leads to global warming Foster, Professor of Sociology ‘08 (John B. Foster, Professor of Sociology at the University of Oregon, November 2008, Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine Vol. 60 Issue 6, p1-12, 12p http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=6&sid=6da22eac-e589-46fe-824d-e2b68d25878a %40sessionmgr11&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=34907572#db=aph&AN=34907572) Capitalism therefore required for its development a new relation to nature, one which severed the direct connection of labor to the means of production, i.e., the earth, along with the dissolution of all customary rights in relation to the commons. The locus classicus of the industrial revolution was Britain, where the removal of the workers from the land by means of expropriation took the form of the enclosure movement from the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries. Under colonialism and imperialism an even more brutal transformation occurred on the outskirts or the external areas of the capitalist world economy. There all preexisting human productive relations to nature were torn asunder in what Marx called the “extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the indigenous population”—the most violent expropriation in all of human history. 6The result was proletarianization within the center of the system as masses of workers were thrown out of work and moved to the city. There they were met by the capital being amassed through organized robbery, giving rise to what Marx called “modern industry.” Simultaneously, various forms of servitude and what we now call precarious work were imposed on the periphery, where social reproduction was always secondary to the most rapacious imperialist exploitation. The surplus forcibly extracted from the periphery, where social reproduction was always secondary to the most rapacious imperialist exploitation. The surplus forcibly extracted from the periphery fed industrialization at the center of the world economy.7 What made this new system work was the incessant accumulation of capital in one cycle after another, with each new phase of accumulation taking the last as its starting point. This meant ever more divided, more alienated human beings, together with a more globally destructive metabolism between humanity and nature. As Joseph Needham observed, the “conquest of Nature” under capitalism turned into “the conquest of man”; the “technological instruments utilized in the dominance of Nature” produced “a qualitative transformation in the mechanisms of social domination.” 8There is no doubt that this dialectic of domination and destruction is now spiraling out of control on a planetary scale. Economically, overall inequality between the center and periphery nations of the world system is increasing together with the intensification of class inequality within each capitalist state. Ecologically, the world’s climate and the life-support systems of the entire earth are being transformed by a process of runaway global warming.9 92 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Ecosystem (4) Capitalism necessitates catastrophe for action and results in disaster. Publishers Weekly 2008 “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism” http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6461567.html?q= The neo-liberal economic policies—privatization, free trade, slashed social spending—that the Chicago School and the economist Milton Friedman have foisted on the world are catastrophic in two senses, argues this vigorous polemic. Because their results are disastrous—depressions, mass poverty, private corporations looting public wealth, by the author's accounting—their means must be cataclysmic, dependent on political upheavals and natural disasters as coercive pretexts for free-market reforms the public would normally reject. Journalist Klein (No Logo) chronicles decades of such disasters, including the Chicago School makeovers launched by South American coups; the corrupt sale of Russia's state economy to oligarchs following the collapse of the Soviet Union; the privatization of New Orleans's public schools after Katrina; and the seizure of wrecked fishing villages by resort developers after the Asian tsunami . Klein's economic and political analyses are not always meticulous. Likening free-market shock therapies to electroshock torture, she conflates every misdeed of right-wing dictatorships with their economic programs and paints a too simplistic picture of the Iraq conflict as a struggle over American-imposed neo-liberalism. Still, much of her critique hits home, as she demonstrates how free- market ideologues welcome, and provoke, the collapse of other people's economies. The result is a powerful populist indictment of economic orthodoxy. Capitalism’s “needs” can’t be met by the environment causing destruction Blühdorn and Welsh, University of Bath, Cardiff University, 07 (Ingolfur Blühdorn and Ian Welsh, Department of European Studies, University of Bath, Bath, UK b Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 4/1/07, “Eco-politics beyond the paradigm of sustainability: A conceptual framework and research agenda” http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/513524_731197592_777048165.pdf Cassettari) We believe so! As the reassuring belief in the compatibility and interdependence of democratic consumer capitalism and ecological sustainability has become hegemonic, different and perhaps counter-intuitive lines of enquiry are not particularly popular. They appear disturbing, even counterproductive. As faith in technological innovation, market instruments and managerial perfection is asserted as the most appropriate means for achieving sustainability, empirical experience reveals the limitations of such approaches. This insistence on the capabilities of these strategies; the denial that the capitalist principles of infinite economic growth and wealth accumulation are ecologically, socially, politically and culturally unsustainable and destructive; the pathological refusal to acknowledge that western ‘needs’ in terms of animal protein, air travel or electric energy, to name but three examples, simply cannot, i.e. can not, be satisfied in ecologically and otherwise sustainable ways, is itself a syndrome that deserves close sociological attention. But more generally, an environmental sociology that opportunistically refrains from pursuing potentially inconvenient lines of enquiry and instead confines itself to serving and enabling the prevailing techno-economic hegemony fails in terms of both academic and eco-political integrity. For these reasons, a new sociological effort to grasp and address what we are calling the post-ecologist era and its politics of unsustainability is in fact imperative what we are calling the post-ecologist era and its politics of unsustainability is in fact imperative. 93 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Democracy (1) Democracy is impossible in a capitalist economy – class differences ensure politicians will be subordinate to corporate interests and the control of the mass media allows the upper class to influence public opinion Schweickart, 93 (David, Professor of Philosophy, Against Capitalism, ph 211) But, above all, the empirical record raises doubts not just about Laissez Faire but about capitalism generally concerning condition 2b: privilege. Lindblom argues that business occupies a privileged position in all contemporary polvarchies.:" In a similar vein, William Domhoff defends the thesis that "there is a social upper class in the United States that is a ruling class.... It is socially cohesive, has its basis in the large corporations and banks, plays a major role in shaping the social and political climate, and dominates the federal government through a variety of organizations and methods." According to both Lindblom and Domhoff, businessmen contribute vastly greater sums of money to political campaigns than do other groups. Moreover, they are better organized to represent their special interests, they have special ease of access to government officials, and they are disproportionately represented at all upper levels of government. In addition, given their control of the mass media, they are in position to exert direct influence on the opinions and perceptions of the general population. The case made by Lindblom and Domhoff (set out by each in fascinating detail) seems to me irrefutable. But we must remember that such empirical arguments do not automatically overturn the classical-liberal position. Friedman, Hayek, Nozick, and others concede, indeed insist, that much is wrong with contemporary capitalism -for it has become infected (they would say) with modem liberalism. So we must interrogate the structures of Laissez Faire. We must ask if the empirical reality points to an inherent incompatibility between democracy and capitalism, rather than an accidental aberration perhaps brought on by too many concessions to the liberal Left. I contend that there is indeed an inherent incompatibility. If it is granted (as it must be) that wealth will be highly concentrated under Laissez Faire, there would seem to be only one plausible case that a classical liberal might make as to why Laissez Faire would not give rise to a politically privileged upper class (such as we find in all existing capitalisl countries). It might be put like this: Laissez Faire will keep economic matters off the political agenda; hence the capitalist class!" will have no reason to undermine democracy. If the government keeps its hands ofl the economy, there will be no reason to suppose that the interests 01 capitalists will be threatened by a democratic process. The central fact that undermines this argument was established ill Chapter 4: Laissez Faire is inherently unstable. Thus it is inevitable that a democratic government will attempt to prevent or mitigate instability. If the electorate is sovereign, it will refuse to allow unemployed people to face idle factories indefinitely. It will demand that the government do something about "the economy." As history well demonstrates, laissez faire ideology cannot contain such discontent. But if the government can be expected to play a significant role in a capitalist economy, then it becomes imperative that businessmen protect their interests. Thus they have a strong motive to press for political power. They also have the means, for two reasons: First, and most obvious, they have wealth. Second, they occupy so strategic a position in the economy that an elected government must acquiesce to most of their demands. Let us reflect briefly on these two points. Consider the first reason: In a polyarchy, wealth can be employed in a variety of ways to enhance the probability that the outcome of a nominally democratic process will reflect the interests of the wealthy. These are well known, but they bear enumerating. There are the mechanisms to ensure that their collective interests are well formulated. 1. Private foundations and institutes can be set up to study ways to protect and advance their interests, and to formulate "model legislation."!" 2. Privately funded "roundtables" can be set up to bring together high government officials, sympathetic academics, and corporate leaders so as to build support for their positions. There are mechanisms to ensure that the general public will acquiesce: 3. The owners of major media (all of which will be in private hands under Laissez Faire) can mobilize against political campaigns that run counter to the general 94 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. interests of their class. Indeed, they can fairly well block even respectful consideration of the arguments. 4. Institutional advertising can be undertaken that will directly advance the interests of the wealthy, or (what is usually more effective) give the "appropriate" slant to issues of popular concern: "People start pollution; people can stop it" (i.e., don't blame the corporations or capitalism). There are mechanisms to get the appropriate acts passed by the legislature: 5. Politicians and other government officials can be bribed. 6. Large contributions can be given to election campaigns. 7. Highly paid professional lobbyists can be employed to put pressure on elected officials. Taken together, these mechanisms constitute a powerful bulwark against any tendency by democracy to encroach on property rights. 95 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Democracy (2) Over $10 trillion have been spent to save capitalism- a severe misdirection of resources for a corrupt system that destroys democracies, destroys the ecosystem, exploits humans, and enslaves animals. 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) As of spring 2009, the leading capitalist states in Europe, North America, and Asia have thus either spent outright or exposed themselves to financial risks totaling, well over $10 trillion — a figure so vast that one searches in vain for any relevant historical parallel. By comparison, the entire Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II cost a mere $9.3 billion (in constant 2005 dollars). According to the United Nations, it would cost $195 billion to eradicate most povertyrelated deaths in the Third World, including deaths from malaria, from malnutrition, and from AIDS. So the amount of money committed by policymakers to save capitalism from itself is already fifty times greater than what it would take to save tens of millions of human beings from terrible daily suffering and premature death. If the wealthy nations instead invested that $10 trillion into the economies, health systems, and infrastructure of the Third World, rather than transferring it to the world's richest banks, private financial institutions, and investors, they could usher in a new epoch in the history of the species — a world community in which every human being would be guaranteed a livable life. That the financial bailout is a colossal misdirection and waste of public resources, however, is not the most scandalous thing about it. What is truly unconscionable is that all this money is being spent to prop up capitalism itself — a mode of economic and social life that has corrupted and hollowed out our democracies, reduced great swaths of the planet's ecosystem to polluted rubble, condemned hundreds of millions of human beings to wretchedness and exploitation, and enslaved billions of other animals in farms that resemble concentration camps. 96 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Democracy (2) 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-41a0-842a-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. 97 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Democracy (3) As the state loses its ability to protect us from the effects of capitalism, it loses its power over the populace. 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-41a0-842a-34a6cf71d67b %40sessionmgr111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=39753533 Cassettari) A second factor likely to confound policymakers this time around is what might be termed the objective natural and political limits of the system. As I have indicated, capitalism has savaged the earth, leaving billions of people without a decent livelihood, and the ecosystem in tatters. But the social and ecological costs of "doing business" are about to grow exponentially greater. Even without a world financial crisis, we can anticipate more, and more devastating, natural disasters, which in turn will mean disruptions in agricultural production, flooding of cities and entire countries, mass starvation, increasing migration pressures, and so on. All of this will in turn exact an increasing toll on the legitimacy of the liberal nation state. The late sociologist Charles Tilley described the modern nation state as functioning like a "protection racket": the state agrees to protect us from harm (most typically, from real or imaginary threats generated by the state itself), in exchange for our consent and obedience as subjects . However, as economic, political, ecological, and hence social costs mount, the state will become less and less able to protect us from harm. As a result, the state is at risk of losing its legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens. (Already, polls have shown a steady decline in the rate of democratic participation around the world, increasing cynicism toward government, and greater openness to extreme ideologies, whether in the form of religious fundamentalism or extreme nationalism.) This in turn will compromise the ability of state leaders to muster the broad political mandate they would otherwise need to make meaningful and urgently necessary macro-level changes in the organization of society and economy. This structural problem in part explains the recent authoritarian turn of the United States under the Bush administration. Bush's seeming indifference to the effects of U.S. actions on foreign and domestic opinion grew out of the Neocons' sense that the state no longer needed the consent of the governed, whether at home or abroad. Bush was, of course, wrong — American hegemony cannot survive long without at least the ion of legitimacy, both at home and abroad. It remains to be seen, however, whether even as adept a politician as Barack Obama will be able to return the ship of state safely to the status quo ante — i.e., to a centrist, liberal, social democratic capitalist order — in the face of a full-blown economic hurricane. 98 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Laundry List (1) 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-4785-8caa66c8c156fe8a%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 forprofit 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. 99 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Laundry List (2) Socialism stops cap which solves poverty, war, famine, crime, disease, and all “social evils” Ayers and Ames, Socialist Party of Canada ,07 (J. Ayers, J. Ames, 9-2-07, J., J., “Wage Slave News – Poverty,” Socialist Party of Canada, http://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/poverty.20070209.htm) The comments of Nash, Clarke, Murphy, and MacKenzie are included in this review because it shows how out of touch with reality these well-meaning people are. The anarchy of production of the capitalist system means there is no overall planning to match production with human need. Anyone can start up or ramp up production when sales and chances for profit are high. Inevitably a saturation point is reached when demand is lower than production and we have an overabundance of goods. Workers must be laid off and factories closed, creating a recession. Since the seeds of the next boom are to be found in that recession - cheap labour, raw materials, machinery, and factory rent - then we have the continual boom and bust cycles familiar to capitalist production. When opportunity presents itself to the capitalist to expand production, he must be able to find the necessary labour. This is where the poor, unemployed and welfare people come in. They are `the reserve army' standing by on minimum benefits ready to be called on as required. In other words, they are a necessary part of the system and they won't go away while the profit system exists, and the people mentioned above are simply attacking the symptoms, not the disease. The source of all social wealth is human labour. The working class produces an abundance of wealth, so much so that poverty could be eliminated very quickly if a Socialist society, based on the common ownership of the means to produce that wealth were established. Poverty is an endemic part of capitalism and it cannot be different. The fundamental aspects of capitalism are the ownership of the tools of production by a tiny minority of the world's population and the consequent wage-slavery of the majority. With production for profit, the capitalist tries to extract as much as possible from his workers, who inevitably resist and organize into unions to improve conditions as best they can, hence the class struggle. Governments, dictatorial or democratic, exist to run the affairs of capitalism and therefore to preserve the status quo, which makes the continuation of poverty inevitable. This does not mean that there are no wellmeaning politicians or political parties, but they cannot succeed in eliminating poverty within capitalism. For more than two centuries the profit system has held sway over this planet and none have succeeded in this endeavour yet. In 1945, the British Labour Party introduced the modern day welfare state which, in 1948, included medicare for all. Nobody would deny today that poverty exists in the UK and even their health system is in a mess and suffering from gross underfunding. Nor does it make sense to argue that we don't have socialism yet, so in the meantime we need to fight for reforms to at least reduce the worst effects of poverty. This argument has been voiced by so many for so long that `in the meantime' has become forever. The time is long past and too many people have suffered, are suffering, and will continue suffering until we attack the disease itself. There is one way, and one way only, to abolish poverty, and that is to establish a socialist society in which the tools of production will be commonly owned and administered by the population as a whole in their own interests. In such a world, not only poverty but all the social evils created by the profit system will be abolished. Who would not want to abolish war, famine, crime, preventable disease, planned obsolescence, people having nervous breakdowns, and a host of other problems engendered by profit motives? Who would not want to replace them with a world where all will live in peace, harmony, and prosperity ? This, dear reader, can be had as soon as people want it. So why not organize politically in the Socialist Party of Canada and its companion parties around the world to bring it to fruition. 100 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Extinction (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 accumulation-driven. 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 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. 101 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Extinction (2) 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 99-100) ‘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 of 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. 102 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Poverty (1) It is our ethico-political responsibility to confront the horrors of capitalism for public scrutinization - the neoliberal system breeds systemic poverty among millions of people around the world Zizek and Daly 04 (Slavoj, professor of philosophy at the Institute for Sociology, Ljubljana, and Glyn, Conversations with Zizek, pg 14-16) JXu For Zizek it is imperative that we cut through this Gordian knot of postmodern protocol and recognize that our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the constitutive violence of today's global capitalism and its obscenenaturalization/anonymization of the millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world. Against the standardized positions of postmodern culture - with all its pieties concerning 'multiculturalist' etiquette - Zizek is arguing for a politics that might be called 'radically incorrect' in the sense that it breaks with these types of positions and focuses instead on the very organizing principles of today's social reality: the principles of global liberal capitalism. This requires some care and subtlety. For too long, Marxism has been bedevilled by an almost fetishistic economism that has tended towards political morbidity. With the likes of Hilferding and Gramsci, and more recently Laclau and Mouffe, crucial theoretical advances have been made that enable the trascendence of all forms of economism. in this new context, however, Zizek argues that the problem that now presents itself is almost that of the opposite fetish. That is to say, the prohibitive anxieties surrounding the taboo of economism can function as a way of not engaging with the economic reality and as a way of implicitly accepting the latter as a basic horizon of existence. In an ironic Freudian-Lacanian twist, the fear of economism can end up reinforcing a de facto economic necessity in respect of contemporary capitalism (i.e. the initial prohibition conjures up the very thing it fears). This is not to endorse any retrograde return to economism. Zizek's point is rather that in rejecting economism we should not lose sight of the systemic power of capital in shaping the lives and destinies of humanity and our very sense of the possible. In particular, we should not overlook Marx's central insight that in order to create a universal global system the forces of capitalism seek to conceal the politico-discursive violence of its construction through a kind of gentrification of that system. What is persistently denied by neo-liberals such as Rorty (1989) and Fukuyama (1992) is that the gentrification of global liberal capitalism is one whose 'universalism' fundamentally reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world's population. In this way, neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes of winning and losing as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgement in a neutral marketplace. Capitalism does indeed create a space for a certain diversity, at least for the central capitalist regions, but it is neither neutral nor ideal andits price in terms of social exclusion is exorbitant. That is to say, the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded 'life-chances' cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and, in consequence, social exclusion remains mystified and nameless (viz. the patronizing reference to the developing world). And Zizek's point is that this mystification is magnified through capitalism's profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity; to redirect (or misdirect) social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation. Instead of Bolshevism, the tendency of today is towards a kind of political boutiquism that is readily sustained by postmodern forms of consumerism and lifestyle. Against this Zizek argues for a new universalism whose primary ethical directive is to confront the fact that our forms of social existence are founded on exclusion on a global scale. While it is perfectly true that universalism can never become Universal (it will always require a hegemonic-particular embodiment in order to have any meaning), what is novel about Zizek's universalism is that it would not attempt to conceal this fact or to reduce the status of the abject Other to that of a 'glitch' in an otherwise sound matrix. 103 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Advanced capitalism is utterly impossible to continue on a global scale—we do not have the resources to keep up with demand. Trainer, 07 (Ted Trainer, Senior Lecturer in the School of Social Work at the University of New South Wales. “Renewable Energy Cannot Sustain a Consumer Society” p. 125) Following are some of the most forceful limits-to-growth arguments. Rich countries, with about one-fifth of the world’s people, are consumingabout three-quarters of the world’s resource production. Our per capita consumption of assets like oil is about 15 to 20 times that of the poorest half of the world’s 126 Chapter 10 people. World population will probably stabilise around 9 billion, somewhere after 2060. If all those people were to have the present Australian per capita resource consumption, then annual world production of resources would have to be eight to ten times as great as it is now.If we tried to raise present world production to that level by 2060, we would by then have completely exhausted all probably recoverable resources of one third of the basic mineral items we use. All probably recoverable resources of coal, oil, gas, tar sand oil, shale oil, and uranium (via burner reactors) would have been exhausted by 2050 (Trainer, 1985, Chapters 4 and 5). Petroleum appears to be especially limited. As was noted at the start of Chapter 1, a number of geologists have concluded that world oil supply will probably peak by 2010 and be down to half that level by 2025–30, with big price increases soon after the peak. None of the limits-to- growth themes is as potentially terminal in the short term for consumer society. If all 9 billion people were to use timber at the rich-world per capita rate, we would need 3.5 times the world’s present forest area. If all 9 billion were to have a rich-world diet, which takes about 0.5 ha of land to produce, we would need 4.5billion ha of food-producing land. But there is only 1.4 billion ha of cropland in use today, and this is not likely to increase. Recent “Footprint” analysis (Wachernagel and Rees, 1996) estimates that it probably takes 7ha of productive land to provide water, energy settlement area and food for one person living in Australia. The US figure is close to 12 ha. So if 9 billion people were to live as we do in rich countries, we would need about 70 billion ha of productive land. But that is about 10 times all the available productive land on the planet. As was explained in Chapter 1, the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that if the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is to be kept to sensible levels, and carbon use was shared equally among the world’s people, then rich-world per capita carbon release would probably have to be reduced to somewhere under 5% of the present amount. These are some of the main limits to growth arguments which lead to the conclusion that there is no possibility of all people rising to anywhere near the living standards we take for granted today in rich countries. 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 104 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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. 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. 105 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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. 106 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Poverty (2) Only the elites in the capitalist system benefit, leaving the poor to help themselves. John Stoltenberg, writer for free speech TV, 9-28-07 John Stoltenberg, writer for free speech TV, 9-28-07 http://community.freespeech.org/how_capitalism_creates_poverty_in_the_world The real purpose of American foreign aid is to expand the American capitalist commercial empire. The war in Iraq to secure Iraqi oil resources for American oil companies, and the war in Afghanistan to secure a safe route for a pipeline for American oil companies from oil fields in Central Asia to a port on the Indian Ocean, are military methods for expanding the American capitalist empire .This article points out that foreign aid is a much more effective way of achieving the same goal. One of the problems with all of this is the American people are paying for building and defending this American capitalist commercial empire that is designed to only benefit the American capitalist class, Corporate America and their political elite. The costs to the American people of expanding and maintaining American capitalisms vast, oppressive commercial empire vastly outweigh any benefits they may receive from this empire. Bottom line: The American people are paying a very high price, and the world is paying a very high price, for the American people's willful ignorance on how American capitalism really works. 107 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Poverty (3) Capitalism has increased poverty excluding China where communism decreased poverty by 130 million people. Cassel, writer for Chicago public radio, 08 Doug Cassel, Doug was special counsel to the United Nations Commission on the Truth for El Salvador. He has also served as a consultant on human rights to the U.S. State Department and the Organization of American States. Writer for CPR, 3/26/08 http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/content.aspx?audioID=19950 According to the United Nations Human Development Report for 2005, the bottom one fifth of Guatemalans make on average $550 per year. That’s $1.50 a day, far below the international poverty line of $2 a day. So the annual earnings of a single subscriber to Trader Monthly could double the incomes of more than a thousand poor Guatemalans. Is this inequality moral? What of the global capitalist system that makes it possible? Being poor, after all, is not merely a matter of not having ten bucks to buy a copy of Trader Monthly. It means that you probably will not live as long. On average in America, men like Wall Street traders, in the top 5% income bracket, live about 25% longer than men in the bottom 5%. Being poor also means that your children are more likely to die. In Guatemala the children of the poorest fifth of the population are more than twice as likely to die before age five as the kids of the most affluent fifth. In Peru the gap is even worse: poor kids are five times as likely to die as the well-off. But hold on. Defenders of global capitalism will say that we tried the alternative – State-planned economies – and they didn’t work. If they had, Vladimir Putin would be running the Soviet Union, not Russia. East Berlin would have been the envy of West Berlin, not the other way round. Defenders may also credit capitalism with alleviating poverty. In the aggregate, reports the UN, "the past two decades have witnessed one of the most rapid reductions in poverty in world history." In 1981 four of every ten people in the world lived below the global poverty line. By 1990 the figure was less than three in ten. By 2001 it was down to two in ten. Even as global poverty rates fell by half, inequality rose. But in most places that is because the rich got richer, not because the poor got poorer. If we look behind global aggregates, however, it turns out that almost all poverty reduction in recent decades took place in East and South Asia. The Asian Tigers, together with China, managed a four-fold reduction in the percentages of their populations living in poverty. They cut East Asia’s poverty rate from 56% in 1981 down to 14% in 2001. China alone lifted 130 million people out of poverty in the decade from 1990 to 2001. Meanwhile the rest of the world did less well. The percentage of poverty in Latin America stayed about the same. In North Africa and the Middle East, poverty dropped during the 1980’s, but not since 1990. And after 1990, the number of poor people in the nations of the former Soviet Union rose by 70 million, and in sub-Saharan Africa, by almost 100 million. These facts temper any temptation to proclaim the triumph of capitalism as an engine of prosperity for most people. They dampen even more the claims of free market capitalism: the biggest gains against poverty were achieved, not by the market economies of the West, but by the planned economies of the East, especially China. China participates in the global capitalist economy, but only within bounds set by the Communist Party. Unemployment is not left to the market, but is carefully planned by Beijing’s leaders, who fear social turmoil if too many Chinese lose their jobs. What we need, then, as economist Jeffrey Sachs argues in his recent book, The End of Poverty, is not to jettison capitalism, but to give it a human face. Consider health care. The US leads the world in health care spending, but we are the only wealthy country with no universal health care system. Over a third of poor 108 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Americans have no health insurance. As a result, our infant mortality rate is about the same as that of Malaysia – a country whose average income is only one quarter of ours. Or compare our health outcomes with those of Cuba. Even though Cuban incomes are only a fraction of ours, Cuba’s infant and child survival rates equal ours. As of 2005, Americans can expect to live 77.4 years; Cubans can expect to live 77.2 years. Not that we should adopt Fidel Castro’s economic – let alone political – model. But clearly, in health care, he is doing more with less, and we have something to learn. China, too, is instructive. Chinese market reforms ended public health care in rural areas. Three quarters of rural Chinese now have no health insurance. While child mortality in Beijing and Shanghai is now no higher than in the US or Cuba, in poor rural China it is seven times higher – comparable to Namibia. In the 1930’s the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- called a traitor to his capitalist class -- saved American capitalism from the excesses of unregulated markets. FDR brought in government to keep tabs on Wall Street traders and to provide a social safety net. Global markets alone will not make capitalism work for most people. We need a New Deal – updated and expanded -- for the world. 109 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Poverty (4) Capitalism limits freedoms and increases poverty. Moore, editor of the tampa tribune, 2009. Brian Moore, editor of the tampa tribune, 5-28-09 http://briansblog.votebrianmoore.com/2009/05/povertyunder-capitalism-too-poor-to-stay-alive/ The connection between capitalism and world poverty and death can be explained in one simple reference: Jean Ziegler, the Geneva sociologist and former United Nations Rapporteur on the “Right to Food” wrote in his book “Empire of Shame” (Editions Fayard, 2005) that about 36 million people die every year from hunger and malnutrition. Even without going into details about the effects of global corporate rule, capitalism is responsible for those deaths by the very fact it is a world economic system that embraces all countries worldwide. Ziegler accuses the global corporations of maintaining (Third-World) famine, of destroying nature and of subverting democracy, and that these capitalist corporations extend their influence over the world. If Stathis wishes not to accept Ziegler’s figures or accusations, then why not consider Columbia University Professor of Economics Jeffrey D. Sachs, who also is a special adviser to the United Nations secretary-general and consultant to a number of foreign countries in matters of international economics. Sachs authored “The End of Poverty” in 2005 and stated a more conservative figure of “eight million people who die of poverty and malnutrition each year, because they are too poor to stay alive.” Sachs reported that World Bank economists Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion estimated that roughly “1.1 billion people were (also) living in extreme poverty in the year 2001.” The economists added another 1.6 billion people, who were living as “moderately poor.” Sachs does not blame capitalism, nor does heabsolve it either. If one acknowledges that world economics is based on capitalism, how can this system escape responsibility? As for Stathis’ question of why Cubans are fleeing their country for the U.S, it is because we have imposed an economic embargo on Cuba for 50 years and on other countries that wish to do business with the Cubans. This has caused Cuba and its citizens to struggle in its economic survival and to live in great poverty. Cubans have admirably survived, despite the unconscionable embargo conditions America has imposed on Cuba’s women, children and senior citizens. It is the monied interests of the Cuban-Americans in Miami, mostly Republicans, who have caused the Republican Party (and the Democrats as well) to kowtow to the Cuban-Americans’ selfish political and economic interests, at the expense of Americans and our country’s own economic benefits. Yes, there is more freedom under socialism, because the citizens and workers set policy, retain authority and ownership and make all decisions for the community and workplaces. Under capitalism, all decisions are made by the owners of the companies or a small group of investors or an elite board, and the workers have no say in the matter. How democratic is that? Granted, there may be more political rights in the U.S., such as free speech and assembly, but once again, that is because of the imminent military threat of the U.S. and its constant efforts to undermine Cuba’s government. Can you blame the Cuban government’s effort to protect its survivability when it experienced the Bay of Pigs attack, 110 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Poverty (5) Capitalism perpetuates poverty through class inequality Koepke, masters information services, 07 (Deanna Koepke, director for Troy University at Malmstrom Air Force Base. Has a masters in information services, Race, Gender, and Class, New Orleans: 2007. Vol. 14, Iss. 3/4; pg. 18, 2007, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink? index=9&did=1470850471&SrchMode=3&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=12482734 15&clientId=4347&aid=1 Cassettari) Most of the "-isms" that we encounter are socially constructed categories of group identity that are located within a social system (Andersen & Collins, 2007). Their populations can change from time to time, but the categories are necessary to promote the idea of the "other" (Madrid, 2007). The "other" is needed because, as Max Weber wrote, power is relative. If everyone has it, then no one has it (Semau, 2001). The wealthy elite use the power they wield through democracy and capitalism to gain more of the valuable resources available (Beeghley, 2000) and then do whatever it takes to keep those resources and stay in power (Marable, 2000). Marable (2000) wrote that capitalism is fraud. It promotes the idea that everyone has a fair and equal chance to succeed, that hard work is all it takes, and that justice is inherent. In fact, most of the advantages and rewards available to people are shaped by race, class, and gender (Rothman, 2005). These include the distribution of earnings and wealth, social prestige, political power, educational opportunities, and justice. Our society is socially stratified with those at the top commanding the respect of all the others. Historically, the United States has perpetuated the ideology of individualism. There are plenty of opportunities, so those who work hard will be fairly compensated. The idea that individuals were responsible for their own fates came from the Protestant Reformation. Wealth was seen as a sign of divine grace because God would never allow an immoral person to prosper. Conversely, failure was seen as a personal flaw. Unfortunately, it remains that the true results of hard work are unequal across class and race (Shapiro, 2007). The social structure sets the range of opportunities available to any one person (Beeghley, 2000). It is true that to a certain extent, individual differences and efforts play a part in the success of an individual. However, there are structural patterns of inequality that go beyond the individual (Sernau, 2001). CLASS, INEQUALITY, AND POVERTY Class is defined as people who are in similar positions or who are relatively equal with respect to the production and distribution of valued resources within a society (Beeghley, 2000; Rothman, 2005). Evolving from capitalist development, relations between classes shape the social institutions in society and affect each group's access to economic, political, cultural, and social resources (Andersen & Collins, 2007). A related concept is that of inequality. As Sernau (2001) wrote, "Inequality begins when someone can claim a position of social power, a central position in a network of exchange that can be exploited for personal...gain" (p. 41). Inequality is legitimized when social beliefs and values that rationalize it seem valid or moral (Rothman, 2005) and is supported by economic theories that state that the country needs a certain amount of unemployment to keep inflation down (Holt, 2000). Unfortunately, over time, class inequality has led to a class living in poverty. The current corporate practice of subcontracting and other measures devised to save money have led to temporary and part time work with lower wages and less job security (Goode & Maskovsky, 2001). Illegal immigrants compete with residents for jobs and this leads to lower wages for all unskilled workers while weakening the bargaining power of unions. The United States is dependent on a class of poorly educated or immigrant workers to do service work that cannot be automated (Sernau, 2001). Poverty is defined by Payne (2005) as ".. .the extent to which an individual does without resources" (p. 7). President Lyndon Johnson said that poverty equals hopelessness because all things are out of reach. Robert Hunter (1965), an American sociologist, said that the essence of poverty is to live in misery for no apparent reason. People can work hard and still have nothing. Some theories of poverty state that people become poor due to a lack of skills. In fa,ct, many are poor because, as Beeghley (2000) writes, "macroeconomic policy restricts the number of jobs that are available whenever it is necessary to control inflation" (p. xi). However, economic theories persist that the free market is the best way to realize economic growth and remove people from situations of poverty. This is based on the idea that economic growth makes more room at the top so workers will become upwardly mobile (Sernau, 2001 ). The culture of poverty theory holds that poverty and an unending lack of opportunities cause people to behave outside the mainstream 111 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor (Conley, 1999). If true, this may serve them when it comes to survival, but it also causes Holdin’ it down. them to be unable to adapt when the economy changes so they can take advantage of any opportunities that do come along . This theory is often used to rationalize why certain citizens are able to make it and others are not (Stack, 1974). The culture is defined as one of unemployment, low wages, crowded living, and crime. Rather than seeing those conditions as definitions of poverty instead of a culture, those not living in the situation come to believe that the poor would not be able to change under any circumstances. Programs to help are cut because the rich and middle class do not like the idea of dumping money in a bottomless pit, and poverty is perpetuated. Unless one has a family with the ability to help out in case of an emergency or job loss, poverty becomes a way of life (Conley, 1999). This ability (or inability) to rely on family during tough times or the luck of an inheritance are actually the main differences between the rich and the poor in this country (Beeghley, 2000), and not one's work ethic. Many feel that education is the key to escaping a life of poverty. However, as James Conant said back in 1961, "It does no good whatever to prepare boys and girls for nonexistent jobs" Conant, 1965:129). Without a way out, a life in the slums perpetuates despair by affecting morale, progress, and even the health of the residents. 112 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Poverty (6) Capitalism ensures inequality Peet, prof. of economics @ London School of Economics, 75 (Richard Peet, prof of economics @ London School of Economics, 1975, “Inequality and Poverty: A Marxist-Geographic Theory”) The Marxist view is that inequality is inherent in the capitalist mode of production. Inequality is inevitably produced during the normal operation of capitalist economies, and cannot be eradicated without altering the mechanisms of capitalism. In addition, it is functional to the system, which means that powerholders have a vested interest in preserving social inequality. There is little point, therefore, in devoting political energies to the advocacy of policies which deal only with the symptoms of inequality without altering its basic generating forces. Hence the call for social and economic revolution, the overthrow of capitalism, and the substitution of a method of production and an associated way of life designed around the principles of equality and social justice. 113 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Poverty (7) Capitalism perpetuates poverty on a global level Parenti, P.H.D. poli-sci @ Yale, 07 (Michael Parenti, received his Ph.D. in political science from Yale University., 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. 2/17/07, http://community.freespeech.org/how_capitalism_creates_poverty_in_the_world, “Mystery: How Wealth Creates Poverty in the World” Cassettari) There is a "mystery" we must explain: How is it that as corporate investments and foreign aid and international loans to poor countries have increased dramatically throughout the world over the last half century, so has poverty? The number of people living in poverty is growing at a faster rate than the world's population. What do we make of this? Over the last half century, U.S. industries and banks (and other western corporations) have invested heavily in those poorer regions of Asia, Africa, and Latin America known as the "Third World." The transnationals are attracted by the rich natural resources, the high return that comes from low-paid labor, and the nearly complete absence of taxes, environmental regulations, worker benefits, and occupational safety costs. The U.S. government has subsidized this flight of capital by granting corporations tax concessions on their overseas investments, and even paying some of their relocation expenses---much to the outrage of labor unions here at home who see their jobs evaporating. The transnationals push out local businesses in the Third World and preempt their markets. American agribusiness cartels, heavily subsidized by U.S. taxpayers, dump surplus products in other countries at below cost and undersell local farmers. As Christopher Cook describes it in his Diet for a Dead Planet, they expropriate the best land in these countries for cash-crop exports, usually monoculture crops requiring large amounts of pesticides, leaving less and less acreage for the hundreds of varieties of organically grown foods that feed the local populations.By displacing local populations from their lands and robbing them of their self- sufficiency, corporations create overcrowded labor markets of desperate people who are forced into shanty towns to toil for poverty wages (when they can get work), often in violation of the countries' own minimum wage laws.In Haiti, for instance, workers are paid 11 cents an hour by corporate giants such as Disney, WalMart, and J.C. Penny. The United States is one of the few countries that has refused to sign an international convention for the abolition of child labor and forced labor. This position stems from the child labor practices of U.S. corporations throughout the Third World and within the United States itself, where children as young as 12 suffer high rates of injuries and fatalities, and are often paid less than the minimum wage. The savings that big business reaps from cheap labor abroad are not passed on in lower prices to their customers elsewhere. Corporations do not outsource to far-off regions so that U.S. consumers can save money. They outsource in order to increase their margin of profit. In 1990, shoes made by Indonesian children working twelve-hour days for 13 cents an hour, cost only $2.60 but still sold for $100 or more in the United States. U.S. foreign aid usually works hand in hand with transnational investment. It subsidizes construction of the infrastructure needed by corporations in the Third World: ports, highways, and refineries. The aid given to Third World governments comes with strings attached. It often must be spent on U.S. products, and the recipient nation is required to give investment preferences to U.S. companies, shifting consumption away from home produced commodities and foods in favor of imported ones, creating more dependency, hunger, and debt. A good chunk of the aid money never sees the light of day, going directly into the personal coffers of sticky-fingered officials in the recipient countries. Aid (of a sort) also comes from other sources. In 1944, the United Nations created the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Voting power in both organizations is determined by a country's financial contribution. As the largest "donor," the United States has a dominant voice, followed by Germany, Japan, France, and Great Britain. The IMF operates in secrecy with a select group of bankers and finance ministry staffs drawn mostly from the rich nations. The World Bank and IMF are supposed to assist nations in their development. What actually happens is another story. A poor country borrows from the World Bank to build up some aspect of its economy. Should it be unable to pay back the heavy interest because of declining export sales or some other reason, it must borrow again, this time from the IMF. But the IMF imposes a "structural adjustment program" (SAP), requiring debtor countries to grant tax 114 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. breaks to the transnational corporations, reduce wages, and make no attempt to protect local enterprises from foreign imports and foreign takeovers. The debtor nations are pressured to privatize their economies, selling at scandalously low prices their state-owned mines, railroads, and utilities to private corporations. They are forced to open their forests to clear-cutting and their lands to strip mining, without regard to the ecological damage done. The debtor nations also must cut back on subsidies for health, education, transportation and food, spending less on their people in order to have more money to meet debt payments. Required to grow cash crops for export earnings, they become even less able to feed their own populations. So it is that throughout the Third World, real wages have declined, and national debts have soared to the point where debt payments absorb almost all of the poorer countries' export earnings---which creates further impoverishment as it leaves the debtor country even less able to provide the things its population needs. Here then we have explained a "mystery." It is, of course, no mystery at all if you don't adhere to trickle-down mystification. Why has poverty deepened while foreign aid and loans and investments have grown? Answer: Loans, investments, and most forms of aid are designed not to fight poverty but to augment the wealth of transnational investors at the expense of local populations. There is no trickle down, only a siphoning up from the toiling many to the moneyed few. In their perpetual confusion, some liberal critics conclude that foreign aid and IMF and World Bank structural adjustments "do not work"; the end result is less self-sufficiency and more poverty for the recipient nations, they point out . Why then do the rich member states continue to fund the IMF and World Bank? Are their leaders just less intelligent than the critics who keep pointing out to them that their policies are having the opposite effect? No, it is the critics who are stupid not the western leaders and investors who own so much of the world and enjoy such immense wealth and success. They pursue their aid and foreign loan programs because such programs do work. The question is, work for whom? Cui bono? The purpose behind their investments, loans, and aid programs is not to uplift the masses in other countries. That is certainly not the business they are in. The purpose is to serve the interests of global capital accumulation, to take over the lands and local economies of Third World peoples, monopolize their markets, depress their wages, indenture their labor with enormous debts, privatize their public service sector, and prevent these nations from emerging as trade competitors by not allowing them a normal development. 115 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Poverty (8) Their discourse of building assets becomes capitalist and confines the poor to a cycle of poverty turning 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) Asset building is even more vulnerable to being assimilated into a capitalistic discourse of exclusion because it can too easily be associated with the dirty little secret of social welfare policy discourse in a market-centered society. Asset building is very much like other proactive metaphors, including perhaps the most thoughtful one in social policy discourse—prevention. The prevention metaphor is most dramatically stated by William Julius Wilson when he states that one strategy for enlisting society's support in developing more generous social welfare policies is where we frame aid to children as investing for the long term in our most important resource—the next generation.40 Pay me now, or pay later, said the mechanic in the old television advertisement for motor oil. Invest now in child well-being or wait and incur the greater costs at the other end in uneducated workers, more unemployed persons, more crime, more drug addiction, and more poverty. The preventive metaphor is compelling... but it almost never seems to work. The dirty little secret of prevention discourse is that those in power have no intentions of ever paying. They will just move to the suburbs or gated apartment complexes, or hire private security forces, or do whatever it is that they are now doing in droves given that they refuse to buy into the prevention metaphor. The prevention metaphor assumes that everyone shares a sense of collective responsibility for what will go wrong due to our failures to develop socially just policies in the present. But the truth is that almost no one does, at least not until they are forced to. It is almost always someone else's fault, and people who have the resources to avoid taking responsibility will often do just that, moving to the suburbs or whatever it takes. It will take more than appealing to their good sense by talking about prevention if we are to develop more just social welfare policies. Asset building is a cousin of the prevention metaphor suggesting that if we help the poor save and acquire assets now they will be less likely to be poor in the future. Both could be proved in the right context to potentially be money-savers in the long run. This, however, is not just an empirical question regarding whether supporting individual savings now in the near term will reap savings for the society as a whole in the long term. Instead, it is a question of what kind of society we have. If helping people now means paying for something we would avoid paying for later, then it is not likely that we will be willing to pay very much. Further, even if we pay, if our society continues to work systematically to create an impoverished class whose property and human capital are not valued, then we will still need to be paying later regardless if we paid now. Any society that continues to marginalize the poor in highly stratified ways geographically, economically, socially, and culturally so that they and their possessions are systematically devalued is not a society where either the prevention or assets metaphor will work as much as we would like. Low-income families will still have a hard time acquiring wealth as they remain segregated in devalued neighborhoods and mired in low-wage work. Such are the limits of asset building as a prevention strategy in the United States today. 116 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Poverty (9) 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 redefined 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. 117 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Value to Life (1) The very nature of the capitalist ideology requires that people prioritize monetary gain over all other pleasures - not only does capitalism negate the value to life, it also necessitates genocide against those who are deemed “unworthy”. Joel Kovel, Former Professor Adjunct Professor of Anthropology at the Graduate Faculty in the New School for Social Research, Green Party Presidential Nominee, 2007 (The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World, Zed Books, Accessed 07-25-2008, pp. 151-153//MUDI-Darxlice) Capital produces egoic relations, which reproduce capital. The isolated selves of the capitalist order can choose to become personifications of capital, or may have the role thrust upon them. In either case, they embark upon a pattern of non-recognition mandated by the fact that the almighty dollar interposes itself between all elements of experience: all things in the world, all other persons, and between the self and its world. Hence nothing really exists except in and through monetization. This setup provides an ideal culture medium for the bacillus of competition and ruthless self-maximization. Because money is all that "counts," a peculiar heartlessness characterizes capitalists, a tough-minded and cold abstraction that will sacrifice species, whole continents (viz Africa) or inconvenient subsets of the population (viz black urban males) who add too little to the great march of surplus value, or may be seen as standing in its way, or simply are suitable objects of demonization to distract the masses. The presence value screens out genuine fellow-feeling or compassion, replacing it with the calculus of profit-expansion. Never has a holocaust been carried out so impersonally. When the Nazis killed their victims, the crimes were accompanied by a racist drumbeat; for global capital, the losses are regrettable necessities or collateral damage. 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 118 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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. 119 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism 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. AntiOedipus 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. 120 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Mental Health (1) Capitalism is destroys people’s mental health. James, writer for the guardian 2008 Oliver James, witer for the guardian and has written several books, 1-3-08 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/03/comment.mentalhealth These increases are very unlikely to be due to greater preparedness to acknowledge distress - the psychobabbling therapy culture was already established. Add to this the astonishing fact that citizens of Selfish Capitalist, English-speaking nations (which tend to be one and the same) are twice as likely to suffer mental illness as those from mainland western Europe, which is largely Unselfish Capitalist in its political economy. An average 23% of Americans, Britons, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians suffered in the last 12 months, but only 11.5% of Germans, Italians, French, Belgians, Spaniards and Dutch. The message could not be clearer. Selfish Capitalism, much more than genes, is extremely bad for your mental health. But why is it so toxic? Readers of this newspaper will need little reminding that Selfish Capitalism has massively increased the wealth of the wealthy, robbing the average earner to give to the rich. There was no "trickle-down effect" after all. The real wage of the average English-speaking person has remained the same - or, in the case of the US, decreased since the 1970s. By more than halving the taxes of the richest and transferring the burden to the general population, Margaret Thatcher reinstated the rich's capital wealth after three postwar decades in which they had steadily become poorer. Although I risk you glazing over at these statistics, it's worth remembering that the top 1% of British earners have doubled their share of the national income since 1982, from 6.5% to 13%, FTSE 100 chief executives now earning 133 times more than the average wage (against 20 times in 1980); and under Brown's chancellorship the richest 0.3% nobbled over half of all liquid assets (cash, instantly accessible income), increasing their share by 79% during the last five years. In itself, this economic inequality does not cause mental illness. WHO studies show that some very inequitable developing nations, like Nigeria and China, also have the lowest prevalence of mental illness. Furthermore, inequity may be much greater in the English-speaking world today, but it is far less than it was at the end of the 19th century. While we have no way of knowing for sure, it is very possible that mental illness was nowhere near as widespread in, for instance, the US or Britain of that time. What does the damage is the combination of inequality with the widespread relative materialism of Affluenza - placing a high value on money, possessions, appearances and fame when you already have enough income to meet your fundamental psychological needs. Survival materialism is healthy. If you need money for medicine or to buy a house, becoming very concerned about getting them does not make you mentally ill. But Selfish Capitalism stokes up relative materialism: unrealistic aspirations and the expectation that they can be fulfilled. It does so to stimulate consumerism in order to increase profits and promote short-term economic growth. Indeed, I maintain that high levels of mental illness are essential to Selfish Capitalism, because needy, miserable people make greedy consumers and can be more easily suckered into perfectionist, competitive workaholism. 121 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Mental Health (2) Capitalism is bad for men’s health Bio-medicine.org, news source for medial information 2007 Biomedicine, news source for medial information, 6-29-07 http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Capitalism-is-Bad-for-Mens-Health-3A-Study-22216-1/ Communism may be oppressive, but it seems as though capitalism is bad for men's health, according to a recent study which found significant increases in mortality rates after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The life expectancy for men freed from the Iron Curtain dropped by six years between 1991 and 1994 amid social disruption, physical hardships and economic instability. The degree to which men were affected depended upon how rough the transition to capitalism was and how much income inequality increased, the new study from the University of Michigan found. And they were significantly more likely to be impacted by the transition than women, the study found. "The inequalities in status and resources that can come with capitalism does lead males to behave in ways that are detrimental to men's health," lead author Daniel Kruger said in a telephone interview. Increased competition can create an environment that encourages risk-taking behavior that results in fatal accidents, he said. An increase in social and economic stress can manifest itself in suicide or homicide and can also cause physical strains which can lead to heart attacks. "It seems as though there is a physiological embodiment of stress from being in a competitive environment," Kruger told AFP. Kruger compared the mortality rates of men and women in 14 post Soviet countries. Male mortality from intentional causes homicides and suicides - doubled in the region, although it varied significantly by country. Poland, which had a relatively smooth transition, saw the rate increase just 15 percent while Estonia, which was much more unstable, saw violent deaths increase 238 percent. More significantly, Kruger said, was that the gap between the male and female mortality rates grew an average of 9.3 percent which showed that "this economic changed was more dam. ging to men than to women." "The impact was really for men who are in their economically prime years," Kruger said. "If you were an adolescent or young adult they may have seen this as an opportunity but those who are say 45 and settled into a routine they might see this as a threat." The countries most affected were Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Albania, which saw the gap widen by 14 to 30 percent in the first five years after the fall of communism. The gap grew by eight to 12 percent in Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and East Germany. It grew a modest one to six percent in Slovenia, Czech Republic, Poland, Bulgaria, and Hungary. The study was published in the current issue of Evolutionary Psychology. 122 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Genocide/Racism (1) 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 genocide as integral features of capitalism in the present epoch. 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 123 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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-Jewish thinker H.G.Adler designated as "the administered man" [Der verwaltete Mensch]. For Adler, 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 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 everything real, all beings, including 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 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 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). 124 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 alterity itself, at those marginal social groups which are designated a danger to the life of the nation, and its population. 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 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 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 125 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 deathworld, 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 topography of the real domination of capital, create the possibility and the need for genocide. We should have no doubt that the survival of capitalism into this new millenium will entail more and more frequent recourse to mass murder. 126 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Genocide/Racism (2) Under the appearance of equality, racism is entrenched in the capitalist system Melamed, American Studies Association, 06 (Jodi Melamed, American Studies Association, Community Partnership Grant, Faculty Development Award, Marquette (2005), Social Science Research Council Fellowship, Winter 2006, Racial Liberalism and Transnational Capitalism, pg 2 Cassettari) I describe Winant’s racial break as a sea change in racial epistemology and politics that follows from the gradual ascendancy of a postwar liberal race formation to a hegemonic position in the United States. In contrast to white supremacy, the liberal race paradigm recognizes racial inequality as a problem, and it secures a liberal symbolic framework for race reform centered in abstract equality, market individualism, and inclusive civic nationalism. Antiracism becomes a nationally recognized social value and, for the first time, gets absorbed into U.S. governmentality. Importantly, postwar liberal racial formation sutures an “official” antiracism to U.S. nationalism, itself bearing the agency for transnational capitalism. I argue that this suturing is decisive for racial discourse and politics in that it produces a situation where official antiracisms themselves deflect and limit awareness of the logics of exploitation and domination in global capitalism . In what follows, I examine the general historical development of the liberal race paradigm, focusing my reading symptomatically on racial liberalism, the first phase of the historical development, and on “neoliberal multiculturalism,” my designation for its latest phase. As historical articulations of race and capitalism have shifted — with white supremacy and colonial capitalism giving way to racial liberalism and transnational capitalism and, eventually, to neoliberal multiculturalism and globalization — race remains a procedure that justifies the nongeneralizability of capitalist wealth. Race continues to fuse technologies of racial domination with liberal freedoms to represent people who are exploited for or cut off from capitalist wealth as outsiders to liberal subjectivity for whom life can be disallowed to the point of death.2 What is new in the postwar period is that an official liberal and nationalist antiracism tied to U.S. ascendancy itself has become one of those liberal freedoms that works to designate some forms of humanity as less worthy than others. While liberal race procedures are unevenly detached from a wholesale white supremacist logic of race as phenotype, they remain deeply embedded in a logic of race as a set of what Nikhil Pal Singh describes as “historic repertoires and cultural, spatial and signifying systems that stigmatize and depreciate one form of humanity for the purposes of another’s health, development, safety, profit or pleasure.”3 Privileged and stigmatized racial formations no longer mesh perfectly with a color line. Instead, new categories of privilege and stigma determined by ideological, economic, and cultural criteria overlay older, conventional racial categories, so that traditionally recognized racial identities — black, Asian, white, or Arab/Muslim — can now occupy both sides of the privilege/stigma Spirit of Neoliberalism opposition. (For example, I will examine how an idea of “black pathology” distinguished stigmatized from privileged African American racial formations in the early Cold War and how the multicultural “Americanness” of Alberto Gonzalez or Condoleezza Rice currently stigmatizes undocumented Mexican immigrants and African American dissenters such as Julian Bond.) The new flexibility in racial procedures after World War II means that racism constantly appears as disappearing according to conventional race categories, even as it takes on new forms that can signify as nonracial or even antiracist. 127 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Economy (1) Capitalism encourages overproduction and cheap labor which collapses economies Parenti, P.H.D. poli-sci @ Yale, 07 (Michael Parenti, received his Ph.D. in political science from Yale University., 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. 2/17/07, http://community.freespeech.org/how_capitalism_creates_poverty_in_the_world, “Mystery: How Wealth Creates Poverty in the World” Cassettari) The corporate capitalists no more encourage prosperity than do they propagate democracy. Most of the world is capitalist, and most of the world is neither prosperous nor particularly democratic. One need only think of capitalist Nigeria, capitalist Indonesia, capitalist Thailand, capitalist Haiti, capitalist Colombia, capitalist Pakistan, capitalist South Africa, capitalist Latvia, and various other members of the Free World--more accurately, the Free Market World. A prosperous, politically literate populace with high expectations about its standard of living and a keen sense of entitlement, pushing for continually better social conditions, is not the plutocracy's notion of an ideal workforce and a properly pliant polity. Corporate investors prefer poor populations. The poorer you are, the harder you will work-for less. The poorer you are, the less equipped you are to defend yourself against the abuses of wealth. In the corporate world of "free-trade," the number of billionaires is increasing faster than ever while the number of people living in poverty is growing at a faster rate than the world's population. Poverty spreads as wealth accumulates. Consider the United States. In the last eight years alone, while vast fortunes accrued at record rates, an additional six million Americans sank below the poverty level; median family income declined by over $2,000; consumer debt more than doubled; over seven million Americans lost their health insurance, and more than four million lost their pensions; meanwhile homelessness increased and housing foreclosures reached pandemic levels. It is only in countries where capitalism has been reined in to some degree by social democracy that the populace has been able to secure a measure of prosperity; northern European nations such as Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark come to mind. But even in these social democracies popular gains are always at risk of being rolled back. It is ironic to credit capitalism with the genius of economic prosperity when most attempts at material betterment have been vehemently and sometimes violently resisted by the capitalist class. The history of labor struggle provides endless illustration of this. To the extent that life is bearable under the present U.S. economic order, it is because millions of people have waged bitter class struggles to advance their living standards and their rights as citizens, bringing some measure of humanity to an otherwise heartless politico-economic order. A Selfdevouring Beast The capitalist state has two roles long recognized by political thinkers. First, like any state it must provide services that cannot be reliably developed through private means, such as public safety and orderly traffic. Second, the capitalist state protects the haves from the have-nots, securing the process of capital accumulation to benefit the moneyed interests, while heavily circumscribing the demands of the working populace, as Debs observed from his jail cell. There is a third function of the capitalist state seldom mentioned. It consists of preventing the capitalist system from devouring itself. Consider the core contradiction Karl Marx pointed to: the tendency toward overproduction and market crisis. An economy dedicated to speedups and wage cuts, to making workers produce more and more for less and less, is always in danger of a crash . To maximize profits, wages must be kept down. But someone has to buy the goods and services being produced. For that, wages must be kept up. There is a chronic tendency-as we are seeing today-toward overproduction of private sector goods and services and underconsumption of necessities by the working populace. In addition, there is the frequently overlooked self-destruction created by the moneyed players themselves. If left completely unsupervised, the more active command component of the financial system begins to devour less organized sources of wealth. Instead of trying to make money by the arduous task of producing and marketing goods and services, the marauders tap directly into the money streams of the economy itself. During the 1990s we witnessed the collapse of an entire 128 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. economy in Argentina when unchecked free marketeers stripped enterprises, pocketed vast sums, and left the country's productive capacity in shambles. The Argentine state, gorged on a heavy diet of free-market ideology, faltered in its function of saving capitalism from the capitalists. Some years later, in the United States, came the multi-billion-dollar plunder perpetrated by corporate conspirators at Enron, WorldCom, Harkin, Adelphia, and a dozen other major companies. Inside players like Ken Lay turned successful corporate enterprises into sheer wreckage, wiping out the jobs and life savings of thousands of employees in order to pocket billions. These thieves were caught and convicted. Does that not show capitalism's self-correcting capacity? Not really. The prosecution of such malfeasance- in any case coming too late-was a product of democracy's accountability and transparency, not capitalism's. Of itself the free market is an amoral system, with no strictures save "caveat emptor." In the meltdown of 2008-09 the mounting financial surplus created a problem for the moneyed class: there were not enough opportunities to invest. With more money than they knew what to do with, big investors poured immense sums into nonexistent housing markets and other dodgy ventures, a legerdemain of hedge funds, derivatives, high leveraging, credit default swaps, predatory lending, and whatever else. 129 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Economy (2) 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 Marxist-Geographic 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 more-and-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. 130 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Ethics (1) 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 passions 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 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 131 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 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 industry, or shelter the purpose of the housing industry. In medicine, making profits is becoming a more important goal than caring for sick people. 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. 132 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism 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) 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. My argument is that 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. Asset-building 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. 133 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism 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. 134 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Patriarchy Patriarchy is inevitable in a capitalist society Hartman, 02 (Spring, http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:G4IpRelC9FwJ:uhaweb.hartford.edu/moen/for %2520WKV%2520site/Hartmann2.doc+capitalism+patriarchy&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) How did this partnership between capitalism and patriarchy develop? Hartmann, in this article, concentrates on the history of the last couple of centuries (although the partnership goes back further). In the late 19th century, the idea of a “family wage” became accepted, along with the more general notion of “separate spheres.” This is a case where capitalism adjust to patriarchy: the capitalist isn’t happy about paying males better than before, but accepts doing so because, after all, (a) it does serve capitalism in various ways to have women taking care of the home front, and (b) by reinforcing the patriarchal “separate spheres” idea, the capitalist is contributing to a gender class system which—like racism and a racial class system—functions as a mechanism of social control, thus serving capitalism again in this indirect way. On the other hand, patriarchy will sometimes adjust to capitalism: e.g. patriarchy isn’t happy about giving mothers more control over children (as in custody cases) than they had been given in earlier times, but in an advanced capitalist economy children are an economic liability more than an economic asset so the practice of commonly granting custody to mothers developed. Today the family wage practice is declining, as we have increasing numbers of families with two income earners. What we have in its place (insofar as it is declining) is job segregation by gender, and the male/female wage differential. These are now the means by which economic class differences and patriarchal social control are maintained. Job segregation and the wage differential tend to keep women connected to and partially dependent on men, so that even though we have a high divorce rate, the practice of marriage is perpetuated. (People may marry for short periods, but they marry—and marry often.) The free market alone cannot solve patriarchy – this invites nihilism Long, 97 (Roderick, Beyond Patriarchy: A Libertarian Model of the Family, Spring, http://libertariannation.org/a/f43l2.html) Some libertarians may say that we don't need this last aspect: if there is any serious problem, the market will take care of it, so we don't need to do any cultivating. I think this attitude is a mistake, and tends to encourage discriminatory attitudes (if the market hasn't taken care of it, then it must not be a serious problem; e.g., if women aren't making as much money as men on the market, it must be their own fault). Libertarians are often reluctant to recognize entrenched power structures when they don't come attached to governmental offices; but we should always remember that power and tyranny are older than the state. Indeed, Herbert Spencer intriguingly suggests (in his Principles of Sociology) that the subordination of women by men is the initial form of oppression from which all later ones grew, including the state. We should also remember, when we say "the market will take care of it," that we are the market, that its successful operation depends on the alertness of Kirznerian entrepreneurs, and that we who have noticed a problem are in the best position to fill that entrepreneurial role. Stressing the Hayekian strand within Austrian socioeconomic thought at the expense of the Kirznerian strand can lead to excessive passivity in the face of the omniscient, omnipotent forces of history. 135 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Racism Racism cannot be solved for in a capitalist society – multiple warrants Bolshevik.org, 93 (Capitalism & Racism, http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no12/no12capitalismandracism.html) The resilience of racism as an ideology stems primarily from its function in preserving and rationalizing the capitalist order. It legitimizes the glaring disparity between the democratic ideology of equal opportunity and the reality of systemic discrimination, prejudice and oppression. Individual capitalists benefit in a direct and immediate fashion by paying some categories of workers (typically non-white, immigrant and female) substandard wages. Such discriminatory practices, in the eyes of the biological determinists, are, if not equitable, evidently "natural" and thus must be accepted. By splitting the workforce along racial and gender lines, the capitalists create the illusion of privileges for white male workers. Yet even in the short term the cost of these "privileges" far outweighs their minimal benefits for white workers; for by dividing the working class, the price of labor is forced down across the board. The racism that pervades capitalist society and infects the working class is not a "natural" thing, nor is it simply the product of ignorance or lack of education. Racist attitudes (like homophobia, sexism and nationalism) are fostered within the working class by the myriad educational and ideological processes of bourgeois society, and are passively accepted (when not enthusiastically promoted) by the class-collaborationist parasites who dominate the unions, and other mass organizations of the working class. Karl Marx once observed that labor in a white skin would never be free while labor in a black skin was branded. For the working class to advance its own interests, it must champion the cause of all the oppressed. Workers who imagine that they benefit from the relatively greater oppression faced by other sectors (blacks, women, immigrants, etc.) forge their own chains. Racism and nationalism are also used to prepare the working class for new military adventures and slaughters. Racist sentiments are being stirred as the pressure of international inter-imperialist competition heats up. Xenophobia is on the upsurge across the globe, as the supposed leaders of the working class in every nation throw in their lot with "their own" rulers against foreign competitors. The treatment of Japan in the capitalist mass media in both Europe and America is crudely and transparently racist. Japanese workers are dismissed as mindless robots—oblivious to the finer things in life and pathetically loyal to their companies. The Japanese capitalists are no better with their depiction of North American workers as lazy and indigent, and their tendency to attribute the decline of U.S. capitalism to race mixing. Exposing the idiocy and vileness of racist ideas is both important and necessary. But ultimately racism cannot be eradicated simply through debate or education. The ideology of race is an inextricable component of the historical development of this exploitative economic system. The fight against racism is therefore organically connected to the revolutionary struggle to up root the capitalist social system, which has created and perpetuated it, and to create an egalitarian socialist world order in which cooperation, not competition, is the norm. Only in such a society, based on the rational planned organization of production sufficient to meet the essential needs of all, will every human being, regardless of color, gender, or nationality have the opportunity to develop themselves to the fullest. Only under socialism will racial prejudice and discrimination be eliminated once and for all. 136 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Racism Capitalism causes racism – 2 reasons Bolshevik.org, 93 (Capitalism & Racism, http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no12/no12capitalismandracism.html) Today racism in its various guises remains an important ideological mainstay for the capitalist elites, providing a rationale for the barbaric oppression of minorities. Racism "explains," for example, why black people in America fail to get a piece of the "American Dream" one generation after another. It can be used to "explain" why Japanese capitalism has been much more successful than its European and North American rivals. The arguments offered by racists, whether the psychotic ravings of a lumpenized skinhead or the "objective," pseudo-scientific scholarship of a Harvard professor, seek to direct popular anger away from the workings of an irrational and decaying capitalist system to some group of "outsiders." Racism has proved integral and necessary for the proper functioning of capitalist society for a variety of reasons. In the first place, it provides one of the essential axes along which the working class can be divided against itself, encouraging one segment of the proletariat to identify with the exploiters. This impedes the development of class consciousness and undermines the unity necessary to challenge capitalist rule. The working class of every imperialist country has been so poisoned with chauvinism and racism (also promoted by pro-capitalist misleaderships within the workers' movement) that in "normal" periods, workers often identify their interests with those of their "own" oppressors and exploiters rather than with those of workers in other countries. Secondly, racism, in common with other forms of biological determinism, has an essential ideological function. The bourgeoisie rose to ascendancy under the banner of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." Yet for hundreds of millions of people daily reality in the world capitalist order is misery, oppression and poverty. Even in the socalled advanced capitalist countries there is a growing cynicism about the electoral process, with most adults recognizing that the "equality" of the ballot box is no different from the "equality of the market place—every dollar is equal, and big money takes all. Racists are not burdened with the obligation to prove that capitalist society is egalitarian. Instead, they openly claim that the inequalities of class society are based on natural distinctions. 137 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Racism Racism postdates both capitalism and slavery Bolshevik.org, 93 (Capitalism & Racism, http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no12/no12capitalismandracism.html) It has been widely observed that the Mediterranean civilizations of antiquity were "color blind": "The Greeks and Romans attached no special stigma to color, regarding yellow hair or blue eyes a mere geographical accident, and developed no special racial theory about the inferiority of darker peoples qua darker peoples. H.L. Shapiro notes that 'modern man is race conscious in a way and to a degree certainly not characteristic previously,' and points out that in earlier societies the ability to see obvious physical differences did not result in 'an elaborate orientation of human relations within a rigid frame of reference." —Frank M. Snowden Jr., Blacks in Antiquity, 1970 The slave societies of the ancients were oppressive and often xenophobic. Yet the entire concept of "race," as it is now commonly understood, was alien to them. Slavery in these societies was not defined by color, but chiefly by military fortune: conquered peoples were enslaved. The rulers of medieval Europe were also largely "color blind." Religion provided the touchstone for the medieval world: the crusades were launched against unbelievers, not against Arabs. Similar wars against "heathens" and heretics were conducted throughout Europe, for example, the campaigns of the Teutonic Knights from the 13th to 15th centuries to crush the Prussians (non-Christian Baltic Slavs), or Pope Innocent III's crusade against the Albigensians 138 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Racism Racism was developed out of the economic necessity of slavery Bolshevik.org, 93 (Capitalism & Racism, http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no12/no12capitalismandracism.html) By the mid-19th century overt racism was mainstream academic orthodoxy. The growth of racialist consciousness in Europe was a direct result of colonial expansion and the resultant demand for cheap labor for the plantations. Chattel slavery, resurrected to exploit the resources of the new world, persisted far into the 19th century in the U.S. The few Europeans who ended up as semi-slaves in the New World had usually lost their citizenship because of convictions for petty crime. The demand for slave labor was not met in the homelands of the colonial powers, largely because the ruling classes feared the resulting social turmoil. The surplus population of European peasants was eventually utilized for wage slavery, whereas the aboriginal peoples of Africa and South America, whose darker skin color was an indelible identifying mark, provided the solution to labor shortages in the New World. Slavery clearly required an ideological justification, for it was contrary both to the formal teachings of Christian charity and the notions of the inalienable "rights of man" propounded by the ideologues of the market and the Enlightenment: "The slaves were in an inferior position economically. Gradually, white slaveowning society constructed a wall of color: that it was not the mode of slave production which was to be despised, but the slave: that the reason the black skin was the mark of the slave was that it was first the mark of human inferiority. "In this manner the class problem of slavery became complicated and confused by the color question. The slaves, besides being an exploited social class, became, in the perverted thinking of the dominant society, an inferior race as well." —Richard Fraser, "The Negro Struggle and the Proletarian Revolution" 139 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Racism Capitalism naturalizes racism Bolshevik.org, 93 (Capitalism & Racism, http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no12/no12capitalismandracism.html) Racism, like other forms of capitalist ideology, reflects the reality of social oppression and exploitation, but it inverts cause and effect. It is bourgeois not only in its historic origins, but also in its social function—providing a rationale for the misery, suffering and injustice which are an inevitable part of the free-market package. Peoples that were enslaved, conquered or dispossessed, are not victims of an irrational social order, but rather doomed by biological predetermination. Racism is one of the key means by which the economic and social hierarchies of the capitalist world are ideologically "naturalized." At the top of the pyramid, because of their fitness to rule, sit white, bourgeois men. The rest of the world—whether female, black, Asian or even the white male working class—are to the ruling class as children to parents. There has always been a close connection between racism and male supremacist ideology. "According to the anthropologist McGrigor Allan in 1869, 'The type of the female skull approaches in many respects that of the infant, and still more that of the lower races."' As an example of the pervasiveness of such attitudes the authors of Not In Our Genes quote Charles Darwin, the greatest scientist of the 19th century, as remarking: "some at least of those mental traits in which women may excel are traits characteristic of the lower races." Liberals, who dismiss such absurdities as evidence of the scientific backwardness of that age, and comfort themselves with the thought that such vicious ignorance has been transcended, fail to see how, at every stage, science is conditioned by the prejudices of the existing social order. 140 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin it down. Capitalism Impacts - Natives Capitalism is the root cause of all Native American oppression – profits come before cultural sovereignty Frambles, 08 (Justin, American Capitalism: The Murder Culture vs The Gift Culture, 7/11, http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/american-capitalism-the-murder-culture-vs-the-gift-culture/) As the United States established itself, so did capitalism and the modern corporate world under the monetary control system. Viewing the continent as a vast source of future wealth and American Indians and their way of life (Gift Culture, sustainability) as “savage,” “antiquated,” and standing directly in its way atop “waste and unappropriated lands” 1, it set upon its mission of removing them and plundering the land for every resource it had. Blinded by greed for the money and power to be obtained through acquisition of all the natural resources and growth of a taxpaying population, it never questioned its predatory way of service to self (where one serves self) at the expense of others — e.g. their disrespect, disregard, and brutality toward other peoples, other customs, animals, and nature itself (indeed, it lived completely out of touch with nature, where its only relationship to it was to prey upon it). Today, 232 years after its inception, the American empire having influenced almost every corner of the world (and led almost all other nations by example), its pursuit of material and financial wealth through capitalism has left the Earth’s air, land, rivers and sea polluted beyond human repair and humanity in a state of misery and disarray. American Indians were (and had always been) free from the monetary control system, living under their humble Gift Culture, but efforts during the 18th and 19th centuries to force them into accepting “civilization”, being American citizens, and ultimately taxpayers subject to the jurisdiction (control) of the United States were relentless and unyielding, and eventually succeeded. What the world largely has today, as a result of the historically costly success of America and capitalism and abandonment of the Gift Culture (excluding the digital world where it still lives), is that of a convenient but ultimately regressive, debt-based, fast-paced, stressful, egocentric, self-important, individualistic, isolationist, unsustainable, anti-communal / anti-tribal, fearbased (fear of losing money, power, importance, normalcy, services, materialism, of death, and so on) way of life disconnected from nature and almost completely devoid of meaning and realism. It is very revealing that most people cannot imagine what life would be like without money. The problem however is not necessarily money itself, it is humanity’s belief in and use of it (via the ego). Unfortunately it demands that life is a perpetual state of debt to someone or something other than oneself, something to be continuously earned until the end (”the cost of living”), and places an arbitrary numerical value on life itself, when in actuality all life is equal and sacred. Furthermore it gives only the illusion of balance; its very existence creates imbalance and poverty, the opposite of its purpose, which is to obtain security. And when accompanied by greed, hatred, or self-centeredness it becomes the tool of corruption, control (through ownership), and leads to destruction and disregard for others and loss of quality and integrity in its pursuit, namely that of profits. 141 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Natives The affirmative's “quick fix” solution, much like casino gaming, fails to solve the underlying cause of Native American social and economic devastation Wood, 2000 (Rick, Games of Chance: Native Americans Roll the Dice on Their Economic Future, 6/01, https:// www.strategicnetwork.org/index.php?loc=kb&view=v&id=5554&printerfriendly=Y&lang=) The roots of the economic devastation seen on many reservations today can be found in the centuries-old practices of ethnic and cultural cleansing conducted by government and missionary alike, compounded by years of government mismanagement of Native American economic policy. This mismanagement has resulted in a stifling economic dependency that has robbed many Native Americans of the belief and hope that they can change their circumstances through good old fashioned thrift and hard work. They too have been tempted by the lure of the easy "get rich quick" fix of Indian gaming. Now, out of compassion for the plight of Native Americans (and perhaps some guilt), significant numbers of Americans are supporting these latest efforts at "economic development." Based on the Indian gaming lobby's positive reports distributed in the media, a majority of Americans are accepting the claims that gaming is an easy answer to the myriad of economic problems besetting the Indian tribes. But these assumptions need to be examined carefully to discover the truth hidden behind the scenes of the slick commercials supporting Indian gaming. 142 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Immigrants Capitalism necessitates the exclusion of the Other - racism toward immigrants is inevitable with capitalism Esteban, no date given (Juan, The Truth Behind Bush's Immigration "Reform", http://www.socialistappeal.org/ usa/truth_behind_immigration_reform.html) Illegal immigrant workers are at the mercy of their employers, with few if any legal, labor, or political rights, and are constantly faced with the uncertainty of deportation back to their country of origin. And heaven forbid they try and fight for improvements in wages and conditions! While the bosses are happy to hire these undocumented workers at low wages, they are quick to call the INS if they cause any “trouble”. Despite all this, the economic incentive for making a successful crossing attracts hundreds of thousands. The treacherous border crossing is fraught with danger - heat, exhaustion, dehydration, hunger, the elements, snakes, and worse. As if this weren’t enough, the number of anti-immigrant militias in the American Southwest has risen dramatically in the recent period, especially in Arizona. Based on their beliefs, there are few differences between these militias and large, well-organized hate groups such as David Duke’s “National Organization for European American Rights”. As many as 60 of these groups exist, the largest of which is Ranch Rescue, which claims 250 volunteers in several states and is most active in Arizona, Texas, California and New Mexico. Many of these groups advocate building concrete walls along the border in certain areas, and even support the idea of using tanks and soldiers to close the U.S.-Mexico border. As Marxists we understand that racism is part and parcel of the capitalist system – and so do many of the militia members. In the words of one of them, “it’s not about racism or vigilantism. It’s about property rights.” As always under capitalism, the “rights of property” are more valuable than human life. Some of these groups have even placed ads in newspapers and on the Internet openly promoting the hunting of illegal immigrants as if it were a sport. A few years ago, a radio DJ from northern California offered a McDonald’s hamburger as a prize to anyone who ran over immigrants on the highway. While no militia groups have been accused of crimes against immigrants, over the past few years several have been found dead for unexplained reasons and others are known to have been “mysteriously” murdered. No arrests have been made, and the U.S. Border Patrol says Mexican drug dealers and human smugglers are to blame. However, human rights groups say the militias should be investigated for possible crimes against migrants. 143 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impacts – Immigrants Under capitalism, immigrants get the short end of the deal – living and working conditions are inferior to other races Esteban, no date given (Juan, The Truth Behind Bush's Immigration "Reform", http://www.socialistappeal.org/ usa/truth_behind_immigration_reform.html) Now, in a transparent bid to attract American-born or naturalized Latino voters, President Bush has proposed a “temporary worker” program that would allow millions of illegal immigrants to work legally in the US. These immigrants would have permission to leave the country and come back as needed, and would be able to renew their three-year visas – provided they can prove they have a job. However, this is not an amnesty or citizenship program. This is in reality an effort to control the already torrentious flow of immigrants, and to provide cheap labor to the big bosses. It’s well-known what kinds of jobs most immigrant workers have: the hardest, most degrading, worst-paying agricultural and service jobs, with long hours, no benefits, and no union or political representation. As the proponents of the program themselves acknowledge, “employers would first have to show the jobs cannot be filled by Americans, who increasingly shun the types of menial labor jobs that immigrants take.” 144 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impact – Obesity Cap is the root cause of obesity - solutions can't be achieved using the state Wells, 08 (Johnathon, Obesity researchers must understand how capitalism works, 7/23, http://www.scidev.net/ en/opinions/obesity-researchers-must-understand-how-capitalism.html What is really driving the obesity epidemic is not increased dietary intake, or decreased activity levels, but the web of economic strategies and commercial interests that cause individual people to change or maintain certain behaviours. The way industry understands and manipulates individuals' behaviour is fundamental to the growth of the obesogenic niche.Heads of industry would probably argue that they are not trying to create an obesity epidemic. Nevertheless, there are enormous profits to be had from obesity. The foods that maximise profit just happen to be those high in sugar or fat. They are cheap to produce, easy to brand and market, and easy to stock in supermarket aisles. And there are numerous ways to encourage people who are pre-obese to buy these foods.Sedentary behaviour is also profitable, and encouraged by industry. A moped is more glamorous than a bicycle. A new computer game will re-invigorate peoples' interest, but not their bodies.Clever researchUntil now, obesity research has concentrated on measuring the numbers of obese people, and attempting to identify the predisposing risk factors. This tends to identify individual behaviours, but not the push and pull factors that encourage or oblige people to display them. We can count the number of hours spent in a car or playing video games, but if we don't understand comprehensively why the car was used or the game was played, efforts to tackle obesity are doomed to failure.Every new moped or litre of petrol sold, every new supermarket product purchased, is one more small step along the economic transition — and one more turn of the screw by the profit-led industries. These industries need people to indulge in obesity-causing behaviours in order to achieve their quarterly targets. Until commercial practices become the target, first of research studies and then of interventions, we are likely to retain our role of documenting, rather than truly understanding and preventing, the obesity epidemic.Understanding the obesogenic niche, rather than what happens to the people in the niche, is an urgent but relatively ignored priority. The kind of research needed to probe this issue is very different from conventional biomedical research. Ideally, researchers should have expertise in the same skills that the companies use to maximise their profits — advertising, economics, and forecasting social trends.Public health scientists need to take on commercial companies at their own game. Perhaps researchers should begin by measuring the same outcomes that companies use to maximise their profit. If the company knows how to sell more biscuits, health researchers need to know how to achieve the opposite.Government strategiesAs yet, governments have been very reluctant to go on the offensive against commercial interests, because the two parties are interconnected. With substantial tax revenues deriving directly from corporate profits, the financial risks to national economies are obvious.At the simplest level, only when the cost of treating obesity and its comorbidities exceeds the tax levied from the obesogenic companies is there an economic logic for taking action. Something similar has already happened with smoking in Europe. A more sophisticated approach suggests it would be prudent to act before this tipping point is reached. Obesity is so difficult to treat that prevention is the crucial target. Maximising profit and incessantly maintaining economic growth are central to the western industrial economic model. This is our mode of capitalism, and the same model is driving the nutritional transition. As countries are absorbed into this model and pass through the transition, an increasing proportion of the population are drawn into new behavioural patterns, altering their physical activity and their access to food. And the obesogenic niche is not exclusive to adults, it also affects foetuses, infants, toddlers, children and adolescents. Each stage of the life-course is a target for commercial interests. 145 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impact – Obesity Cap is key to soda pop which is the root cause of obesity Dawson, 07 (Michael, Capitalism's Beverage and the Obesity Epidemic, 11/14, http://www.monthlyreview.org/ mrzine/dawson141107.html) The primary cause of this epidemic (which is very closely and inversely correlated with individuals' class positions) is corporate capitalism. As I explain in my book The Consumer Trap, as the system churns on, its normal operation compels all big businesses to extend and refine their marketing operations, which are neither more nor less than history's most detailed and expensive behavioral-control campaigns. As this generates an expanding marketing race, it increasingly commercializes and commodifies off-the-job life. Along the way, less capitalist-friendly practices and products give way to more capitalist ones. One of corporate capitalism's ultimate (and hence most important) products is soda pop: It preys upon human weaknesses for sugar and caffeine and sensory titillation. It is impossible to make at home or obtain for free. It is mildly addictive. It is highly packageable and marketable. Along with the reign of the automobile (another of corporate capitalism's core products), soda pop is a chief cause of the horrifying obesity epidemic in the United States. Soda pop has roughly 150 empty calories per 12-oz serving. In 1900, Americans drank the equivalent of 12 12oz cans of soda per capita annually. In 1929, they drank 26 cans per person per year. 1949 = 158; 1957 = 200. In 2004? 535 cans of pop per person per year! Soda now far surpasses water as the #1 thing Americans drink. Between 1980 and 2005, its per capita ingestion in the United States increased every single year! 146 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Capitalism Impact - Disease The lust for profits means the U.S. actively stifles innovation and competition for cheap, generic drugs – this makes disease spread inevitable Feeney, 01 (Chekov, TRIPS and the WTO - killing millions for massive profits, May, http://www.struggle.ws/ ws/2001/64/trips.html) In Africa millions of people are sick and dying from AIDS although drugs exist which could significantly improve their health and lengthen their lifespan. However, even though these drugs could be produced cheaply enough to fight against the epidemic, they are currently far too expensive for virtually any African to afford. The reason that they are denied any chance of lifesaving treatment is the lust for profits of the pharmaceutical multinationals, which own patents for the drugs. The World Trade Organisation's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) was created to allow multinational corporations to demand that their 'ownership' of intellectual patents be respected in all countries. Among other things, it allows them to prevent third world countries from making cheap versions of the AIDS drugs which are currently the only hope of survival for tens of millions of Africans. The cost of manufacturing patented drugs is a tiny fraction of their price. Before the TRIPS agreement, India, Brazil and several other countries developed industries capable of copying the formulas of drugs and mass producing cheap generic versions which could then be distributed all over the third world. These generic drugs often cost less than one-tenth the price of the patented drugs. However, the 4 enormous multinationals, which dominate the pharmaceutical industry, didn't like this. Despite the fact that they already made fat profits, they argued that they needed to be protected against these generic manufacturers and that their high prices were needed to reward their innovations. They neglected to add that they in fact spend far less money on research than on marketing and only a tiny amount of money is spent on combating the serious diseases of the third world. The dirty work for the drug companies is done by the US government, which was responsible for the TRIPS clause of the WTO. This clause grants them a global 20-year monopoly over the drugs, which they develop, and provides for trade sanctions against any country which doesn't protect this monopoly. However, the TRIPS agreement did allow for some exceptions to this law of patents on drugs. In cases of national epidemics, governments can unilaterally take over the production of certain drugs and produce them locally at a price set by the government. This is known as 'compulsory licensing'. Yet this small concession is too much for the multinationals. The US government has used aggressive tactics against any country that makes use of these licences, threatening them with sanctions and loss of trading privileges. India, Brazil and the Dominican Republic have already faced these threats. In Africa, despite the fact that AIDS is clearly a rampant epidemic, the US government did everything it could to prevent the development of generic AIDS drugs. It was only a few months before the presidential election, after Al Gore had been embarrassed by protestors during his campaign, that Clinton reversed the US policy and promised not to 'retaliate' against African countries which attempted to make generic AIDS drugs. Now, with the elections over, and Bush at the helm it seems likely that this reversal won't last long. TRIPS is concerned with all elements of intellectual property rights, life-saving drugs are only the most emotive and obviously unjust part of the agreement. The agreement essentially copper-fastens the monopoly of developed countries, especially the US, over all aspects of technology. Developing countries are forbidden from copying the products and processes of the developed world, ensuring that they will never be able to challenge their position at the bottom of the global economic order. 147 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. This private ownership of ideas and innovation is a detriment to all scientific advance. Innovation and new technologies are never the product of one mind or one company; rather they build on a multitude of minuscule advances achieved over many years of rational inquiry. For one company to claim ownership of an idea, which is built upon the discoveries of countless scientists working over centuries, is preposterous. The corporations who own these ideas are thieves, stealing the product of centuries of thought from humanity and repackaging it to safeguard their massive profits. If property is theft, intellectual property is grand larceny 148 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Impact - Prisons Capitalism makes crime and harsh prison sentences economically desirable Maher, 7/24 (Bill, Health Care Problem Isn't Socialism, It's Capitalism, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/24/health_care_problem_isnt_socialism_its_capitalism_9761 0.html) Prisons used to be a non-profit business, too. And for good reason -- who the hell wants to own a prison? By definition you're going to have trouble with the tenants. But now prisons are big business. A company called the Corrections Corporation of America is on the New York Stock Exchange, which is convenient since that's where all the real crime is happening anyway. The CCA and similar corporations actually lobby Congress for stiffer sentencing laws so they can lock more people up and make more money. That's why America has the world;s largest prison population -- because actually rehabilitating people would have a negative impact on the bottom line. 149 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Impact – Environmental Justice Cap is the root cause of environmental racism Scattergood, 03 (Wendy, A Structural Argument for the Causes and Persistence of Environmental Racism: A World Systems Approach, 08/27, http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/6/2/6/4/p62645_index.html) It is within this market structure that a system of environmental and human exploitation evolved and continues today because people think it is natural; ‘it’s just the way things are.’ This first section of the paper will attempt to describe the evolution of this system of exploitation and explain its naturalization and institutionalization: why exploitative practices continue despite general acknowledgement of the externalities (ill- effects) the system produces. Why focus on structure? I came to use structuralism because evidence in the US showed poor minorities were significantly more exposed to environmental hazards than whites. 1 It is hard to believe that all current siting decisions with racially biased outcomes are deliberately racist. Yet the siting distribution of environmental hazards is clearly racially inequitable. It seemed that the current research on causation was identifying variables that were symptoms of some greater underlying influence. 2 This led to the investigation of institutional racism; the “exclusionary practices arising from…a racist discourse but which may no longer be explicitly justified by such a discourse, such that it is the defense of a system of advantage which was historically based on racist exclusion” (Miles 1989, 84). Therefore, while overt racism was a historical practice that is no longer supposed to be part of governmental policies and may not legally be used in siting hazards, racially biased outcomes continue. This seemed more satisfying but I could not find the root cause and how this system worked, so I went next to structuralism. The following study is built from Wallerstein’s (1993) worldsystems approach in that I use a globalized system of capitalism to show a particular division of labor that crosses nation-state lines. This allows analysis of how global trading and production patterns disparately affect sub-national groups by class, rather than focusing on nation- states. Wallerstein argues that commodities are a chain of markets where centripetal force moves production from the periphery (developing countries whose "comparative advantage" is in low surplus raw material extraction and cash crop agriculture), to the semiperiphery (mixed economies of raw materials and traditional manufacturing), to the core (developed countries with high-tech manufacturing and service sectors). Wallerstein analyzed differential development rates to conclude that modern development in the highly industrialized countries and the globalization of capitalism came at the expense of the periphery - both within states and in the developing countries. "Contrary to the liberal economic notion of specialization based on comparative advantage, this division of labor requires as well as increases inequality between regions" (quoted from Viotti and Kauppi 1993, 459). While Wallerstein acknowledges race and gender as distinct groups within the division of labor who have been most exploited, the use of class as unit of analysis limits the focus and does not allow for examination of common roots between environmental and human degradation. Also, concentration on economic relations ignores how the Western cultural systems of science and religion rose simultaneously with capitalism to symbiotically rationalize and justify exploitative practices. Marxists argue that economic relations are the societal base upon which the cultural superstructure is built to rationalize the base. Regardless of which is a rationalization of which, the simultaneous formation of economic and cultural systems and their synergistically reproduced global socioeconomic system resulted in present forms of domestic and international environmental racism (here defined as inequitable distribution of environmental hazards among different groups of people). As mentioned in the introduction, it is not my intent to discount the relevance of autonomous state, group, and individual power in favor of structural power, it is merely to isolate structural power for more thorough scrutiny. 150 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Impact – Prostitution Prostitutes are economically exploited and oppressed under capitalism Permanent Revolution, 07 (Prostitution: Marxism versus moralism (PR3), 07/17, http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/1556) It is at this rather high level of abstraction – of commodities, use values and exchange values – that Marx identified the nature of exploitation. Workers are exploited by capitalists not through deceit or trickery, but by the nature of wage labour itself: workers exchange a commodity for a wage. The commodity is not the product of their labour but their capacity to labour, their labour power. The exploitation exists in the difference between the value of that labour power and the value of the commodities they produce during the time their labour power is used by the capitalist. Exploitation results from the fact that the worker does not own the product of their labour but merely their capacity to labour. Even when the wage is paid at the full value of the labour power, a fair exchange in capitalist terms, the worker is exploited. Roberta Perkins, writing about the sex industry in Australia, provides a useful description of how this operates in sex work businesses: “Brothels, or parlours (bordellos, bagnios, stews, seraglios) are the equivalent in structure to a small to medium sized factory, a hotel, or other building used solely as a workplace, involving large capital expenditure, high overheads and a large regular profit. The ‘owner of the means of production’ may be an individual, a partnership, or a company of shareholders, who employ auxiliary salaried staff, such as managers, receptionists, barmaids, or cleaners and commissioned staff, or the prostitutes. The prostitutes here work in the proletariat tradition in which their labour is hired and exchanged for cash. The prostitute’s exchange-value is usually half the exchange value of the goods (sex) purchased by the client (customer or consumer). This is her commission [or wage – HW] in a shared arrangement with the owner, whose share is a surplus value from which wages for auxiliaries, rent, power, telephones, advertisements and other overheads, and capital for re-investment into the business (for example, improvements or expansion) must be extracted. The balance of this surplus value is the profit for the owner(s).” 14 As with other wage labourers, exploitation and profit lies in the difference between what it costs to employ the sex worker and the income she can generate through the commodity she delivers. For the petit bourgeois there is no exploitation in that sense, and profit comes from raising the price above the costs of the business. This analysis is rejected by feminists who argue that the client also directly exploits the sex worker. Certainly in the prostitute-client relationship, the client is almost always in a privileged economic position, but he is not exploiting the prostitute. His role in the relationship is that of consumer. There are many others who exploit her – the employer who may be a pimp, a business or a madame – but in economic terms it is not the client.15 Here Engels’ analogy about prostitution and monogamy is relevant. In the family the husband has many advantages over his wife in terms of power within the household, disposable income and freedom from many mundane tasks. But he has not in general achieved this through economic exploitation of his wife – he has “inherited” this from the general position of men and women within capitalism.16 To say that prostitutes are not exploited by clients is not the same as saying they are not oppressed by them. Many sex workers are brutally oppressed by clients who treat them in a degrading and often violent way. The state also treats sex workers in this way, often denying them basic human and legal rights. For example, until recently in the UK, a woman who had previous convictions for soliciting was labeled a “common prostitute”. Once this was on her record she had fewer rights that anyone. 151 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Impact – Terrorism Capitalism creates poverty, which is the root cause of terrorism Presbey, 07 (Gail M., Philosophical Perspectives on the “War on Terrorism”, pg 71-72) The second front is not the first front of direct military force but the immense struggle for global liberty and equality. The struggle is about structural regulations to reign in capitalism’s exploitation excesses, to win fair wages in the global market, and to distribute more fairly the profits from capitalism’s productive plentitude. The ultimate goal of the second from is to create a global participatory democracy, one socially, politically, and economically just. Undercutting terrorist appeal it aims to replace hopelessness with hope, exploitation with economic parity, political marginalization with a public voice”, remarks Barber, “turns out to be the voice of civil society, the voice of an American forum, a Russian civic forum, or a global civic forum. Barber defines citizen as “an individual who has acquired a public voice” and who actualizes the liberties and meets the obligations of civil society, civil society that grounds democracy, that precedes and makes possible a politically structured democracy. “Citizenship,” claims Barber, “whether global or local, comes first.” To prepare the ground for democracy – in transnational societies or globally – is first to create citizens “who will demand democracy: this means laying a foundation in civil society and civic culture.” To this end, Barber asks, “How can civil society be constructed in an international arena? How does the second front in the struggle for those who are targets of terrorist recruitment finally create a global democracy? To those questions four categories are most central in Barber;s thought: the critical need to eliminate exploitation and poverty resulting from wild, unregulated global capitalism; to move from national independence to international interdependence, to create civil society with civic institutions and responsible citizens; and for higher education to return to the mission o educating for citizenship with focus on academic-based community service. I will briefly set out these lines of thought and consider each in terms of the war against terrorism. 152 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Impact – Morality Cap is immoral - exploitation Conway, 87 (David, Marxism, Capitalism, and Exploitation, http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/marx.htm) According to proponents of the justice interpretation, Marx believed that capitalism involves exploitation because he believed it was unjust that the capitalist appropriates the surplus value created by the worker without making a reciprocal return to the worker. On this view, Marx believed that a person was morally entitled to the full product of his labour, minus certain deductions that are necessary for replenishing and expanding means of production and for providing public goods and welfare for the disabled. Workers in socialism will receive such a product of their labour. In capitalism, workers receive less than this. Some surplus value that the worker produces which rightly ought to go to the worker goes to the capitalist. On this view, the deductions made from the product of the labour of the able-bodied for the provision of welfare for the disabled are not instances of exploitation because such deductions are not unjust. The disabled are morally entitled to them. 153 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT Economy Turns Economic collapse is inevitable - it's better sooner versus later Barry, 08 (Glen, Dr., Economic Collapse And Global Ecology , Jan. 14, http://www.countercurrents.org/barry140108.htm) Economic growth is a deadly disease upon the Earth, with capitalism as its most virulent strain. Throw-away consumption and explosive population growth are made possible by using up fossil fuels and destroying ecosystems. Holiday shopping numbers are covered by media in the same breath as Arctic ice melt, ignoring their deep connection. Exponential economic growth destroys ecosystems and pushes the biosphere closer to failure. Humanity has proven itself unwilling and unable to address climate change and other environmental threats with necessary haste and ambition. Action on coal, forests, population, renewable energy and emission reductions could be taken now at net benefit to the economy. Yet, the losers -- primarily fossil fuel industries and their bought oligarchy -- successfully resist futures not dependent upon their deadly products. Perpetual economic growth, and necessary climate and other ecological policies, are fundamentally incompatible. Global ecological sustainability depends critically upon establishing a steady state economy, whereby production is right-sized to not diminish natural capital. Whole industries like coal and natural forest logging will be eliminated even as new opportunities emerge in solar energy and environmental restoration. This critical transition to both economic and ecological sustainability is simply not happening on any scale. The challenge is how to carry out necessary environmental policies even as economic growth ends and consumption plunges. The natural response is going to be liquidation of even more life-giving ecosystems, and jettisoning of climate policies, to vainly try to maintain high growth and personal consumption. We know that humanity must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% over coming decades. How will this and other necessary climate mitigation strategies be maintained during years of economic downturns, resource wars, reasonable demands for equitable consumption, and frankly, the weather being more pleasant in some places? If efforts to reduce emissions and move to a steady state economy fail; the collapse of ecological, economic and social systems is assured. Bright greens take the continued existence of a habitable Earth with viable, sustainable populations of all species including humans as the ultimate truth and the meaning of life. Whether this is possible in a time of economic collapse is crucially dependent upon whether enough ecosystems and resources remain post collapse to allow humanity to recover and reconstitute sustainable, relocalized societies. It may be better for the Earth and humanity's future that economic collapse comes sooner rather than later, while more ecosystems and opportunities to return to nature's fold exist. Economic collapse will be deeply wrenching -- part Great Depression, part African famine. There will be starvation and civil strife, and a long period of suffering and turmoil. 154 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Many will be killed as balance returns to the Earth. Most people have forgotten how to grow food and that their identity is more than what they own. Yet there is some justice, in that those who have lived most lightly upon the land will have an easier time of it, even as those super-consumers living in massive cities finally learn where their food comes from and that ecology is the meaning of life. Economic collapse now means humanity and the Earth ultimately survive to prosper again. Human suffering -- already the norm for many, but hitting the currently materially affluent -- is inevitable given the degree to which the planet's carrying capacity has been exceeded. We are a couple decades at most away from societal strife of a much greater magnitude as the Earth's biosphere fails. Humanity can take the bitter medicine now, and recover while emerging better for it; or our total collapse can be a final, fatal death swoon. A successful revolutionary response to imminent global ecosystem collapse would focus upon bringing down the Earth's industrial economy now. As society continues to fail miserably to implement necessary changes to allow creation to continue, maybe the best strategy to achieve global ecological sustainability is economic sabotage to hasten the day. It is more fragile than it looks. 155 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT Alt = Violence/ Transition Wars Reject the affirmative's plea for safety and security - only taking the risk of the alternative in the face of it's possible violence can give life meaning Zizek, 02 (Slavoj, Welcome to the Desert of the Real, pg 88-90) What if we are ‘really alive’ only if we commit ourselves with an excessive intensity which puts us beyond ‘mere life’? What if, when we focus on mere survival, even if it is qualified as ‘having a good time’, what we ultimately lose is life itself? What if the Palestinian suicide bomber on the point of blowing him- or herself (and others) up is, in an emphatic sense, ‘more alive’ than the American soldier engaged in a war in front of a computer screen against an enemy hundreds of miles away, or a New York yuppie jogging along the Hudson river in order to keep his body in shape? Or, in psychoanalytic terms, what if a hysteric is truly alive in his or her permanent excessive questioning of his or her existence, while an obsessional is the very model of choosing a ‘life in death’? That is to say, is not the ultimate aim of his or her compulsive rituals to prevent the ‘thing’ from happening this ‘thing’ being the excess of life itself? Is not the catastrophe he or she fears the fact that, finally, something will really happen to him or her9 Or, in terms of the revolutionary process what if the difference that separates Lenin’s era from Stalinism is, again, the difference between life and death? There is an apparently marginal feature which makes this point clearly: the basic attitude of a Stalinist Communist is that of following the correct Party line against the ‘Rightist’ or ‘Leftist’ deviation—in short, steering a safe middle course; for authentic Leninism, in clear contrast, there is ultimately only one deviation, the Centrist one that of ‘playing it safe’, of opportunistically avoiding the risk of clearly and excessively taking sides’ There was no deeper historical necessity’ in the sudden shift of Soviet policy from ‘War Communism’ to the ‘New Economic Policy’ in 1921, for example—it was just a desperate strategic zigzag between the Leftist and the Rightist line, or as Lenin himself put it in 1922 — the Bolsheviks made ‘all the possible mistakes. This excessive ‘taking sides this permanent zigzagging imbalance, is ultimately (revolutionary political) life itself— for a Leninist, the ultimate name of the counterrevolutionary Right is the ‘Centre’ itself the fear of introducing a radical imbalance into the social edifice It is thus a properly Nietzschean paradox that the greatest loser in this apparent assertion of Life against all transcendent Causes is actual life itself. What makes life ‘worth living’ is the very excess of life: the awareness that there is something for which one is ready to risk one’s life (we may call this excess freedom , honour , ‘dignity’ autonomy etc) Only when we are ready to take this risk are we really alive Chesterton makes this point apropos of the paradox of courage carelessness about dying He must not merely cling to life, for then he will be a coward and will not escape He must not merely wait for death for then he will be a suicide and will not escape He must seek his life in a spirit of furious indifference to it he must desire life like water and yet drink death like wine The post-metaphysical survivalist stance of the Last Men ends up in an anemic spectacle of life dragging on as its own shadow. It is within this horizon that we should understand today's growing rejection of the death penalty we should be able to discern the hidden ‘biopolitics which sustains this rejection Those who assert the ‘sacredness of life’ defending it against the threat of transcendent powers which are parasitical upon it end up in a ‘supervised world in which we’ll live painlessly, safely — and tediously’, a world in which, for the sake of its very official goal — a long and pleasurable life — all real pleasures are prohibited or strictly controlled (smoking drugs food ) Spielberg s Saving Private Ryan is the latest example of this survivalist attitude towards dying with its demystifying’ presentation of war as a meaningless slaughter which nothing can really justify — as such it provides the best possible justification for Colin Powell s no-casualties-on our-side military doctrine Here we are not confusing the overtly racist Christian fundamentalist ‘defense of the West and the tolerant liberal version of the war on terrorism which ultimately wants to save Muslims themselves from the fundamentalist threat; important as the difference between them is, 156 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. they get caught up in the same self-destructive dialectics. Their transition wars are inevitable – only embracing the violence inherent to our alternative and the capitalist system will allow for true liberation. Zizek, 04 (Revolution at the Gates, pg 250-253) The thing to do, therefore, is not aggressively to protect the safety of our Sphere, but to shake ourselves out of the fantasy of the Sphere – how? David Fincher’s Fight Club (1999), an extraordinary achievement for Hollywood, tackles this deadlock head-on. The film’s insomniac hero (superbly played by Edward Norton) follows his doctor’s advice and, in order to discover what true suffering is, joins a support group for victims of testicular cancer.107 He soon discovers, however, how such practice of love for one’s neighbour relies on a false subjective position (of voyeurist compassion), and soon gets involved in a much more radical exercise. On a flight, he meets Tyler (Brad Pitt), a charismatic young man who shows him the futility of a life filled with failure and empty consumer culture, and offers him a solution: why don’t they fight, beating each other to pulp? Gradually, a whole movement develops out of this idea: secret after-hours boxing matches are held in the basements of bars all over the country. The movement quickly gets politicized, organizing terrorist attacks against big corporations…In the middle of the film there is an almost unbearably painful scene, reminiscent of the most bizarre David Lynch moments, which serves as a kind of clue to the surprising final twist: in order to blackmail his boss into paying him for not working, the narrator throws himself around the man’s office, beating himself bloody before security staff arrive; in front of his embarrassed boss, the narrator thus enacts on himself the boss’s aggressivity towards him. After-wards, the narrator muses in a voice-over: “For some reason, I thought of my first fight – with Tyler.” This first fight between the narrator and Tyler, which takes place in a parking lot outside a bar, is watched by five young men who laugh and exchange glances in wondrous amusement:Because the fight is being watched by people who do not know the partici-pants, we are led to believe that what we are seeing is what they are seeing: that is, a fight between two men. It isn’t until the end that we are shown that they were watching the narrator throw himself around the parking lot, beating himself up.108 Towards the end of the film, we thus learn that the narrator did not know that he had been leading a second life until the evidence became so overwhelming that he could no longer deny the fact: Tyler has no existence outside the narrator’s mind; when other characters interact with him, they are really interacting with the narrator, who has taken on the Tyler persona. However, it is obviously not sufficient to read the scene of Norton beating himself in front of his boss as an indication of Tyler’s nonexistence – the unbearably painful and embarrassing effect of the scene bears witness to the fact that it discloses (stages) a certain disavowed fantasmatic truth. In the novel on which Fight Club is based, this scene is written as an exchange between what is really going on (Norton is beating himself up in front of his boss) and Norton’s fantasy (the boss is beating up Tyler): At the projectionist union office, Tyler had laughed after the union president punched him. The one punch knocked Tyler out of his chair, and Tyler sat against the wall, laughing. “Go ahead, you can’t kill me,” Tyler was laughing. “You stupid fuck. Beat the crap out of me, but you can’t kill me.” …“I am trash,” Tyler said. “I am trash and shit and crazy to you and this whole fucking world.” … His honor short the wingtip into Tyler’s kidneys after Tyler curled into a ball, but Tyler was still laughing. “Get it out,” Tyler said. “Trust me. You’ll feel a lot better. You’ll feel great.” … I am standing at the head of the manager’s desk when I say, what? You don’t like the idea of this? And without flinching, still looking at the manager, I roundhouse the fist at the centrifugal force end of my arm and slam fresh blood out of the cracked scabs in my nose. … Blood gets on the carpet and I reach up and grip monster handprints of blood on the edge 157 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. of the hotel manager’s desk and say, please, help me, but I start to giggle. …You have so much, and I have nothing. And I start to climb my blood up the pinstriped legs of the manager of the Pressman Hotel who is leaning back, hard, with his hands on the windowsill behind him an even his thin lips retreating from his teeth. … There’s a struggle as the manager screams and tries to get his hands away from me and my blood and my crushed nose, the filth sticking to the blood on both of us, and right then at our most excellent moment, the security guards decide to walk in.109 What does this self-beating stand for? On the first approach, it is clear that its fundamental function is to reach out and re-establish the connection with the real Other – to suspend the fundamental abstraction and coldness of capitalist subjectivity, best exemplified by the figure of the lone monadic individual who, alone in front of the PC screen communicates with the entire world. In contrast to the humanitarian compassion which enables us to retain our distance towards the other, the very violence of the fight signals the abolition of this distance. Although this strategy is risky and ambiguous (it can easily regress into a proto-Fascist macho logic of violent male bonding), this risk has to be taken – there is no other direct way out of the closure of capitalist subjectivity. The first lesson of Fight Club is thus that we cannot go directly from capitalist to revolutionary subjectivity: the abstraction, the foreclosure of others, the blindness to the other’s suffering and pain, has first to be broken in a gesture of taking the risk and reaching directly out to the suffering other – a gesture which, since it shatters the very kernel of our identity, cannot fail to appear extremely violent. However, there is another dimen-sion at work in self-beating: the subject’s scatological (excremental) identification, which is equivalent to adopting the position of the proletarian who has nothing to lose. The pure subject emerges only through this experience of radical self-degradation, when I allow/provoke the other to beat the crap out of me, emptying me of all substantial content, of all symbolic support which could confer a modicum of dignity on me. So when Norton beats himself up in front of his boss, his message to the boss is: “I know you want to beat me, but you see, your desire to beat me is also my desire, so if you were to beat me, you would be fulfilling the role of the servant of my perverse masochistic desire. But you’re too much of a coward to act out your desire, so I’ll do it for you – here it is, you’ve got what you really wanted. Why are you so embarrassed? Aren’t you ready to accept it?”110 The gap between fantasy and reality is crucial here: the boss, of course, would never actually have beaten Norton up, he was merely fantasizing about doing it, and the painful effect of Norton’s self-beating hinges on the very act that he stages the content of the secret fantasy his boss would never be able to actualize. Paradoxically, such a staging is the first act of liberation: by means of it, the servant’s masochistic libidinal attachment to his master is brought to light, and the servant thus acquires a minimal distance towards it. Even on a purely formal level, the fact of beating oneself up reveals the simple fact that the master is superfluous: “Who needs you to terrorize me? I can do it myself!” So it is only through first beating up (hitting) oneself that one becomes free: the true goal of this beating is to beat out that in me which attaches me to the master. When, towards the end, Norton shoots at himself (surviving the shot, in fact killing only “Tyler in himself”, his double), he thereby also liberates himself from the dual mirror-relationship of beating: in this culmination of self-aggression, it’s logic cancels itself; Norton will no longer have to beat himself – now he will be able to beat the true enemy (the system).111 And, incidentally, the same strategy is occasionally used in political demonstrations: when a crowd is stopped by the police, who are ready to beat them, the way to bring about a shocking reversal of the situation is fort he individuals in the crowd to start beating each other. 158 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt Solvency Block Extend Zizek – Capitalism only survives because of rescue calls to action, such the affirmative. We should do nothing in order to open space for more radical alternatives – rejecting the need to act within the system makes revolution inevitable. Doing nothing solves – capitalism only exists because want it to – refusing to support capital implodes the system Zizek, 08 (Slavoj, Violence, pg 155-57) Last but not least, the lesson of the intricate relationship between subjective and systemic violence is that violence is not a direct property of some acts, but is distributed between acts and their contexts, between activity and inactivity. The same act can count as violent or non-violent, depending on its context; sometimes a polite smile can be more violent than a brutal outburst. A brief reference to quantum physics might be of some help here; one of the most unsettling notions in quantum physics is that of the Higgs field. Left to their own devices in an environment to which they can pass their energy, all physical systems will eventually assume a state of lowest energy. To put it in another way, the more mass we take from a system, the more we lower its energy, till we reach the vacuum state at which the energy is zero. There are, however, phenomena which compel us to posit the hypothesis that there has to be something (some substance) that we cannot take away from a given system without RAISING that system's energy-this "something" is called the Higgs field: once this field appears in a vessel that has been pumped empty and whose temperature has been lowered as much as possible, its energy will be further lowered. The "something" which thus appears is a something that contains less energy than nothing. In short, sometimes zero is not the "cheapest" state of a system, so that, paradoxically, "nothing" costs more than "something." In a crude analogy, the social "nothing" (the stasis of a system, its mere reproduction without any changes) "costs more than something" (a change), that is, it demands a lot of energy, so that the first gesture to provoke a change in the system is to withdraw activity, to do nothing. Jose Saramago's novel Seeing (the literal translation of the original title is An Essay on Lucidity)3 can effectively be perceived as a mental experiment in Bartlebian politics.4 It tells the story of the strange events in the unnamed capital city of an unidentified democratic country. When the election day morning is marred by torrential rain, voter turnout is disturbingly low, but the weather breaks by mid-afternoon and the population heads en masse to their voting stations. The government's relief is short lived, however, when vote counting reveals that over 70 per cent of the ballots cast in the capital have been left blank. Baffled by this apparent civic lapse, the government gives the citizenry a chance to make amends just one week later with another election day. The results are worse: now 83 per cent of the ballots are blank. The two major political parties-the ruling party of the right (p.o.t.r.) and their chief adversary, the party of the middle (p.o.t.m.)-are in a panic, while the haplessly marginalised party of the left (p.o.t.l.) produces an analysis claiming that the blank ballots are essentially a vote for their progressive agenda. Is this an organised conspiracy to overthrow not just the ruling government but the entire democratic system? If so, who is behind it, and how did they manage to organise hundreds of thousands of people into such subversion without being noticed? When asked how they voted, ordinary citizens simply respond that such information is private, and besides, is not leaving the ballot blank their right? Unsure how to respond to a benign protest but certain that an anti-democratic conspiracy exists, the government quickly labels the movement "terrorism, pure and unadulterated" and declares a state of emergency, allowing the government to suspend all constitutional guarantees. Five hundred citizens are seized at random and disappear into secret interrogation sites, and their status is coded red for secrecy. Their families are informed in Orwellian style not to worry about the lack of information concerning their loved ones, since "in that very silence lay the key that could guarantee their personal safety." When these moves bear no fruit, the 159 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. right-wing government adopts a series of increasingly drastic steps, from declaring a state of siege and concocting plots to create disorder to withdrawing the police and seat of government from the capital, sealing all the city's entrances and exits, and finally manufacturing its own terrorist ringleader. The city continues to function near-normally throughout, the people parrying each of the government's thrusts in inexplicable unison and with a truly Gandhian level of non-violent resistance. In his perspicacions review of the novel, Michael Wood noted a Brechtian parallel: In a famous poem, written in East Germany in 1953, Brecht quotes a contemporary as saying that the people have lost the trust of the government. Would it not therefore be easier, Brecht slyly asks, to dissolve the people and have the government elect another one? Saramago's novel is a parable of what happens when neither government nor people can be dissolved.5 While the parallel holds, the concluding characterisation seems to fall short: the unsettling message of Seeing is not so much the indissolubility of both people and government as the compulsive nature of democratic rituals of freedom. What happens is that by abstaining from voting, people effectively dissolve the government-not only in the limited sense of overthrowing the existing government, but more radically. Why is the government thrown into such a panic by the voters' abstention? It is compelled to confront the fact that it exists, that it exerts power, only insofar as it is accepted as such by its subjects-accepted even in the mode of rejection. The voters' abstention goes further than the intra-political negation, the vote of no confidence: it rejects the very frame of decision. In psychoanalytic terms, the voters' abstention is something like the psychotic Verwerfung (foreclosure, rejection/repudiation), which is a more radical move than repression (Verdrdngung). According to Freud, the repressed is intellectually accepted by the subject, since it is named, and at the same time is negated because the subject refuses to recognise it, refuses to recognise him or herself in it. In contrast to this, foreclosure rejects the term from the symbolic tout court. To circumscribe the contours of this radical rejection, one is tempted to evoke Badiou's provocative thesis: "It is better to do nothing than to contribute to the invention of formal ways of rendering visible that which Empire already recognizes as existent."6 Better to do nothing than to engage in localised acts the ultimate function of which is to make the system run more smoothly (acts such as providing space for the multitude of new subjectivities). The threat today is not passivity, but pseudo-activity, the urge to "be active," to "participate," to mask the nothingness of what goes on. People intervene all the time, "do something"; academics participate in meaningless debates, and so on. The truly difficult thing is to step back, to withdraw. Those in power often prefer even a "critical" participation, a dialogue, to silence-just to engage us in "dialogue," to make sure our ominous passivity is broken. The voters' abstention is thus a true political act: it forcefully confronts us with the vacuity of today's democracies. If one means by violence a radical upheaval of the basic social relations, then, crazy and tasteless as it may sound, the problem with historical monsters who slaughtered millions was that they were not violent enough. Sometimes doing nothing is the most violent thing to do. 160 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt Solvency Block Questions of solvency miss the point - out alternative is its own truth Zizek, 04 (Slavoj, Revolution at the gates, pg 260) As Deleuze saw very clearly, we cannot provide in advance an unambiguous criterion which will allow us to distinguish "false" violent outburst from the "miracle" of the authentic revolutionary breakthrough. The ambiguity is irreducible here, since the "miracle" can occur only through the repetition of previous failures. And this is also why violence is a necessary ingredient of a revolutionary political act. That is to say: what is the criterion of a political act proper? Success as such clearly does not count, even if we define it in the dialectical terms of Merleau-Ponty: as the wager that the future will retroactively redeem our present horrible acts (this is how Merleau-Ponty, in Humanism and Terror, provided one of the more intelligent justifications of the Stalinist terror: retroactively, it will become justified if its final outcome is true freedom);129 neither does reference to some abstract-universal ethical norm. The only criterion is the absolutely inherent one: that of the enacted utopia. In a genuine revolutionary breakthrough, the utopian future is neither simply fully realized, present, nor simply evoked as a distant promise which justifies present violence – it is rather as if in a unique suspension of temporality, in the short circuit between the present and the future, we are – as if by Grace – briefly allowed to act as if the utopian future is (not yet fully here, but) already at hand, there to be seized. Revolution is experienced not as a present hardship we have to endure for the sake of the happiness and freedom of future generations, but as the present hardship over which this future happiness and freedom already cast their shadow – in it, we are already free even as we fight for freedom; we are already happy even as we fight for happiness, no matter how difficult the circumstances. Revolution is not a Merleau-Pontyan wager, an act suspended in the futur anterieur, to be legitimized or de-legitimized by the long-term outcome of present acts; it is, as it were, its own ontological proof, an immediate index of its own truth. 161 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt Solvency Block Finally, we realize that our movement may fail, but that’s irrelevant. True revolutionary actions can never be rationalized - take a leap of faith Dean, 05 (Jodi, Professor of Political Theory, Zizek Against Democracy, http://74.125.95.132/search? q=cache:AW63pG-vA-8J:jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/files/zizek_against_democracy_new_version.doc+ %22the+only+way+to+break+out+of+this%22+ zizek&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us) For Zizek, the only way to break out of this stultifying deadlock is through a radical political act.75 As Zizek conceives it, the act is a radical, uncertain gesture that breaks through the symbolic order. From the standpoint of this order, then, and like the very foundation of the order itself, the act is shattering, unethical—and this is the point, to break through the boundaries of the situation, to change its basic contours. In this way, the act is nondemocratic; it is not democratically legitimized in advance. Rather, it is a risk.76 There are no guarantees of success. Only retroactively, in light of what follows, can there be any sense of the act. Zizek writes: “an act is always a specific intervention within a socio-symbolic context; the same gesture can be an act or a ridiculous empty posture, depending on this context.”77 Rather than a radical step toward freedom, the Boston Tea Party could well have been a pathetic act of vandalism by men in unfortunate costumes.Likewise the Los Angeles riots could have been the moment when the structures of class and race were radically transformed rather than merely the moment when rage combusted into violence and looting. Zizek emphasizes two features of the political act. First, it is external to the subject. The act is not something that the subject figures out and decides to do having rationally considered a number of different options. On the contrary, insofar as the act is an intrusion of the Real, “the act is precisely something which unexpectedly ‘just occurs.’’78 An act is not intentional; it is something that the subject had to do, that it could not do otherwise, that just happened. Second, simply some sort of transformation of the subject. Zizek explains: “an authentic act is not simply external with regard to the hegemonic field disturbed by it: an act is an act only with regard to some symbolic field, as an intervention into it.”79 To the genuinely political act intervenes from the position of the social symptom; it is not transform in this field, rather than remain trapped within it, an act has to intervene from the standpoint of its hidden structuring principle, of its inherent exception. For example, the political strategy of the Democratic Leadership Council in the United States has for all intents and purposes been to race the Republicans to the right. Clinton Democrats, then, emphasized “welfare reform” (turning it into workfare and capping lifetime receipt of benefits at five years) as they tried to appeal to what they perceived to be average or middle class Americans. Lost in this strategy are the poor: the exclusion of the poor was necessary for the restructuring of the Democratic party. The poor, then, would constitute the symptom of the Democratic Party and an act would intervene from this position. 162 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 163 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor consensus - any criticism of it willingly or unwillingly helps the new Right!" This is the key line of separation: Holdin’ it down. one should [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... 164 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt – Wallis (in shell) The alternative is to reject the affirmative. 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) 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. 165 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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) embed ourselves instead in cooperative labor and cooperatively produced goods. Another clarification is needed. and some (usually short-lived) improvements in our lives as its victims, but we cannot reform it piecemeal. Hence, our strategy of gutting and eventually 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 everyone knows what a lifestyle is, or a way of life, and that is the way we should approach it. 166 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 grammars and logics, which in 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 turn rely on _classical’ configurations of subjectivity, 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 of judgemental grammars and logics; second, a re-casting of the critical in terms of the 167 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. [Chryssostalis 05 continued – no text removed] 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 _[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 crucial. This is a point where, to begin with, Foucault affirms that 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 168 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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. 169 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – rejection (1) The “representations of corporate capital” by the 1ac misrepresent what is politically “realistic” and mitigate any possibility of performing our alternative. Our criticism of their representations in this round is key to the political education necessary to make the alternative true 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) An adequate response to the crisis will ultimately involve addressing all these dimensions. Given the range, widespread acceptance, and presumed normality of the existing power-patterns that this would call into question, however, such a response will require an unprecedentedly thoroughgoing process of mass political education. We are still only in the earliest stages of the necessary awareness. This means that we must first address convincingly the arguments of those who would downplay the depth of the transformation that long-term species-survival will require. One part of this task—responding to those who deny human agency in the climate crisis—is a matter of pitting straightforward scientific reasoning against assertions made principally by representatives of corporate capital.1 But another challenge to socialist ecology comes from those on the left who, out of a misplaced sense of what is politically “realistic,” put forward the view that the only feasible “green” agenda is a capitalist one. We need to examine (in context) some of the more recent expressions of this view before returning to address the larger practical challenges that capitalism of whatever hue is incapable of meeting. 170 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – rejection (2) 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 legitimacy, 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 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 revolution — on the way that to the threshold of Hope. 171 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – rejection (3) 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. 172 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – rejection (4) Capitalism can’t be ended all at once, but through a series of refusals to follow capitalism’s dictates 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 all-encompassing 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? 173 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – rejection (5) Communism is not ideal, but reacts to actual contradictions. The revolution will come when we identify the problems with capitalism. Zizek, Senior Researcher at the University of Sociology at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia and a professor at the European Graduate School, ‘09 (Slavoj Zizek, Senior Researcher at the University of Sociology at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia and a professor at the European Graduate School, May-June 2009, New Left Review “HOW TO BEGIN FROM THE BEGINNING” http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=2779) One should be careful not to read these lines in a Kantian way, conceiving of communism as a regulative Idea, and thereby resuscitating the spectre of ‘ethical socialism’, with equality as its a priori norm or axiom. Rather, one should maintain the precise reference to a set of social antagonisms which generates the need for communism; the good old Marxian notion of communism not as an ideal, but as a movement which reacts to actual contradictions. To treat communism as an eternal Idea implies that the situation which generates it is no less eternal, that the antagonism to which communism reacts will always be here. From which it is only one step to a deconstructive reading of communism as a dream of presence, of abolishing all alienating representation; a dream which thrives on its own impossibility. Though it is easy to make fun of Fukuyama’s notion of the End of History, the majority today is Fukuyamaist. Liberal-democratic capitalism is accepted as the finally found formula of the best possible society; all one can do is to render it more just, tolerant and so on. The simple but pertinent question arises here: if liberal-democratic capitalism is, if not the best, then the least bad form of society, why should we not simply resign ourselves to it in a mature way, even accept it wholeheartedly? Why insist on the communist hypothesis, against all odds? It is not enough to remain faithful to the communist hypothesis: one has to locate antagonisms within historical reality which make it a practical urgency. The only true question today is: does global capitalism contain antagonisms strong enough to prevent its indefinite reproduction? Four possible antagonisms present themselves: the looming threat of ecological catastrophe; the inappropriateness of private property for so-called intellectual property; the socio-ethical implications of new techno-scientific developments, especially in biogenetics; and last, but not least, new forms of social apartheid—new walls and slums. We should note that there is a qualitative difference between the last feature, the gap that separates the excluded from the included, and the other three, which designate the domains of what Hardt and Negri call ‘commons’—the shared substance of our social being, whose privatization is a violent act which should be resisted by force, if necessary. 174 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – rejection (6) Rejecting the politics of possibility prevents sustained capitalism. Gibson-Graham, professors, 2006. (Julie Graham & Katherine Gibson, professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst Department of Geosciences, 2006, Postcapitalist Politics) TJ If the successes of second-wave feminism give us confidence that indeed “another world is possible” and offer the global outlines of a practical politics, specific projects of economic transformation suggest guidelines for how to proceed in an everyday sense. Locally based social movement interventions all over the world are already embodying many of the features of the political imaginary we have been tracing, building new economic futures within a clearly enunciated commitment to a politics of possibility. One such project is a slum dwellers' initiative, the Alliance, in Mumbai, India, where half of the 12 million citizens are slum and pavement dwellers; another is an overseas migrant worker initiative, the Migrant Savings for Alternative Investment (MSAI) program, which targets vulnerable Asian workers, especially those from the Philippines, where 7.5 million people (10 percent of the population) support their families by migrating overseas for employment. Against the "tyranny of the emergency"-the poverty and privation that find people living on the street or working for years with no political rights in a foreign country-these initiatives practice a "politics of patience" and "utility" (Appadurai 2002, 30). What distinguishes the two initiatives is the constructive content of their actions. The Alliance enrolls slum dwellers in saving for and constructing housing and in producing knowledge of their situation through self-surveying and enumeration. This contributes to a politics of visibility and self-affirmation, as well as giving them control of a large part of the housing policy process in Mumbai." The MSAI program enrolls contract migrant domestic servants and seafarers in the practice of investing in community-based enterprises in their home countries. Migrant indentured laborers are trained in social entrepreneurship and in conducting alternative business feasibility studies, and helped to negotiate with officials from their home provinces to obtain business advice and assistance. Savings groups are the consciousness-raising groups of the Alliance and the MSAI program. It is in these small groups that individuals embark on a project of ethical selftransformation in Foucault's (1997) terms, or a micropolitics of (re)subjectivation in Connolly's terms (1995, 1999). To join such a group is to engage in new practices of the self-setting aside savings from what is already too little to live on in the case of the women slum dwellers, or in the case of the migrant workers denying themselves or their families some portion of the enhanced consumption usually associated with migration." In the process, new senses of self are instituted-through self-development as citizens, house designers, investors, or entrepreneurs, through self-recognition of their survival capacities as poor women and migrants, through daily recommitment to the cultivation of solidarity. The savings groups focused on individual self-transformation are the foundation on which alternative economic interventions are built. In both instances, the transformation of the conditions of poverty is spearheaded by the poor themselves. Poverty and seeming powerlessness become the base from which daily action is sustained, rather than a grounds for its postponement. Possibilities for influencing change are identified in the face of a realistic understanding of the extent and limits of the forces that constrain them. Particulars of authority, domination, and coercion that might neutralize or negate their interventions are examined and ways to exercise power are found. In an environment where domestic workers are legally denied freedom of movement or association for six days out of seven, domestic servants involved in the MSAI program meet in public spaces on their one day off to discuss investment and enterprise development plans. In a city where public demonstrations are viewed (and often suppressed) as an incitement to riot, the slum dwellers hold toilet festivals to inaugurate functioning public toilets with invitations offered to state officials, World Bank representatives, and the middle classes. Through this action, a daily public act of humiliation and major cause of disease is transformed into a scene of "technical innovation, collective celebration, and carnivalesque play" (Appadurai 2002, 39), as well as a site for policy promotion. From the work of the Alliance and MSAI there is a lesson to be learned about the potential global reach of locally focused activities and organizations. The Alliance participates with similar federations in fourteen countries on four continents in the Shack/Slum Dwellers International. The federations make site visits to one another to learn from each other and to hasten the 175 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. pace of innovation. Migrant savers and investors from all over the world who participate in the MSAI program also meet annually to share experiences and gain the knowledge and inspiration to further replicate the savings-investment-enterprise model." The site visits and annual meetings facilitate supportive feedback and debate questions and criticisms raised by a distant partner are often more fruitful than those of local allies, which may produce or exacerbate wounds and divisions. In general, international visits and gatherings are used to strengthen the organizations in place; the global scale of activities exists to facilitate success at the local level, rather than being the ultimate locus of transformative politics. These interventions/organizations teach us about the freedom to act that is at the core of a politics of possibility. Each of them works with and accepts funding from governments, international agencies, foundations, or collaborating partners that may not share their values and goals. While recognizing the risk of co-optation that such relationships pose, they refuse to see co-optation as a necessary condition of consorting with power. Instead it is an everpresent danger that calls forth vigilant exercises of self-scrutiny and self-cultivation –ethical practices, one might say, of "not being co-opted." More generally, each groups understanding of power enlarges the field of their own effectivity. There is little if any representation of a global-scale apparatus of power that must be addressed and transformed before their activities can succeed or be extended. Indeed they could be seen as refusing to root their poverty and problems in any ultimate origin (such as capitalism) that might displace their antagonism from those problems themselves. As such, theirs is a political and ethical practice of theory, and an everyday practice of freedom.. In the theoretical practices and practical commitments of the Alliance and the MSAI, we can discern the lineaments of the emerging political imaginary that we have identified with a politics of possibility in the here and now: the centrality of subjects and ethical practices of self-cultivation; the role of place as a site of becoming, and as the ground of a global politics of local transformations; H the uneven spatiality and negotiability of power, which is always available to be skirted, marshaled, or redirected" through ethical practices of freedom: and the everyday temporality of change and the vision of transformation as a continual struggle to change subjects, places, and conditions of life under inherited circumstances of difficulty and uncertainty. All these things are part of the ontology of a politics of possibility, and the theoretical commitment to such an ontology is an ethical act of enabling such a politic: The (feminist) imaginary of possibility that underpins and motivates our politics did not arrive fully formed in our imaginations, but has been distilled from various experiences over the past decade and more. It has been crystallize in thought through our activities in the field and through interactions with ideal projects, NGOs, and many people. In our various attempts to enact a noncapital its economic politics, we have experienced the pushing back of dominant discourses and our own fears and feelings (see chapter 1 for an exploration of these) It is dear to us that a politics of possibility (and the theoretical choices that constitute it) cannot simply be put "out there" in the world with the hope that it will flourish. It needs to be sustained by the continual work of making and remaking a space for it to exist in the face of what threatens to undermine and destroy it This work has involved addressing the materiality of other ways of thinking other ontologies, competing political imaginaries, and sedimented affective and intellectual stances that claim superior status as approaches to theory. lust as members of the Alliance and participants in MSAI have to work daily on cultivating themselves as subjects able to enact new futures-as thinkers of possibility, as strategic activists who confront all kinds of specific forms of domination, authority, manipulation, coercion, and seduction (Allen 2003) and who nevertheless continue to mobilize their local capacities for change-we must similarly cultivate ourselves as activists and subjects of noncapitalist economies. The self-education and formation of ourselves as thinkers of theorized possibility are crucial to this practice. 176 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – rethink politics (1) Capitalism has made a mockery of political agency that can only be addressed by rethinking politics 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) Under the reign of neoliberalism with its growing commercialization of everyday life, the corporatization of higher education, the dismantling of the welfare state, the militarizing of public space, and the increasing privatization of the public sphere, it has become more difficult to address not only the complex nature of social agency and the importance of democratic public spheres, but also the fact that active and critical political agents have to be formed, educated, and socialized into the world of politics. Lacking a theoretical paradigm for linking learning to social change, existing political vocabularies appear increasingly powerless about how to theorize the crisis of political agency and political pessimism in the face of neoliberal assaults on all democratic public spheres. As the vast majority of citizens become detached from public forums that nourish social critique, political agency not only becomes a mockery of itself, it is replaced by market-based driven form of cultural politics in which private satisfactions replace social responsibilities and confessional culture become a substitute for systemic change. This paper argues that in the face of a virulent neoliberalism that spawns a vast educational propaganda machine, educators, cultural workers, and others need to rethink the entire project of politics within the changed conditions of a global political/pedagogical sphere. This article attempts to address the current crisis of meaning and political agency as a fundamental challenge to educators, public intellectuals, social movements, and others who believe in the promise of global democracy. In addressing this challenge, it argues that the urgency of the times demands a notion of global politics in which pedagogy, international alliances, and new forms of solidarity play a prominent role in the call for educators and others to be able to imagine otherwise in order to act otherwise. 177 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – rethink politics (2) We must constantly interrupt the political with the ethical-exposing the other’s face in all available venues is key to creating a more ethical state. Stollenbosch, prof Poli Sci at Stellenbosch, 2006, we do not endorse the genedered language in this card Eduard Jordaan, Professor of Political Science at Stellenbosch, 2006, “Responsibility, Indifference, and Global Poverty: A Levinasian Perspective” [Luke] In light of the above preliminaries, every self has a responsibility to bring about a society that maintains and treats the other as complexly and as sensitively as possible. Since much injustice and cruelty are committed unwittingly and unintentionally, a political strategy that emphasizes and describes human complexity will help us to become aware of the (unnoticed) ways in which we have neglected and oppressed the other, and of all the ways in which he should be protected and cared for . However, an element is missing, that of activating our concern for the other. For Levinas, it is imperative that the political be forever interrupted by the ethical; the question is how? Awakening us to our responsibility for the other is the second function of the proposed strategy, which is intended to describe and emphasize human complexity to the greatest extent possible.Throughout this study, authors in the cosmopolitan-communitarian debate have been criticized for suppressing various aspects of the ethical relation with the other, which has resulted in us being left in good conscience, despite having failed the global other. At the start of this chapter it was argued that the cosmopolitan strategy to convince us of our guilt and responsibility for the global poor is counterproductive given that its emphasis on human equality numbs that which incites us to responsibility for the other, namely glimpses of him as inexpressibly different from everyone else, unique. So, it seems as though our task is to confront the world with the ‘face’ of the other, to accuse the world of having left the other to quite literally ‘die alone’. It is imperative that we “expose” the ‘skins’ of complacent selves to “wounds and outrage,” that we elicit a “suffering for the suffering of the other” (CPP 146). In order to bring the world into proximity to the other, to expose third parties to his ‘face,’ it is claimed that actions aimed at conveying the other in as great a complexity as possible can help us do this. Human complexity/difference/dissimilarity is therefore not important for its own sake (and therefore to be maintained at all costs), but insofar as it insinuates the uniqueness of the other.Of course, this ‘strategy’ immediately has to confront the objection that all representations of the other betray his alterity and suppress his otherness (see Broody, 2001). Granting this, the claim made here is that there are representations (and positionings) of the other and articulations of his situation that are more suggestive of his otherness and therefore of my ethical responsibility for him. That this is so is suggested by the opposite, namely an extreme form of negating the other’s alterity, his de-humanisation through racist and stereotyped representations whereby the way is paved for social and political disregard, maltreatment, or ‘disciplining’ . Though one cannot be sure of the direction of causality, there seems to be a direct correlation between the fullness with which people are viewed and the extent of the concern we have for them . Is it not generally the case that the people we are most indifferent towards are also those most absent from our imaginations, those persons/groups we know least about? Returning to the group of people I am most concerned with in this study, the global poor, is it not the case that we generally know very little about tem, compared to say, Americans? And, for example , is this not part of the reason that while the world reacted with great sympathy for the victims of the September 11th attacks in which approximately three thousand people died, we do not pay much attention to the fact that every day approximately 30,000 children die from preventable illnesses, which translates into more than 10 million deaths per year (UNDP 2003: 5; World Bank, 2004)? It is my contention that there is a relationship between the fullness with which we view people and the concern we have for them, and a large part of the reason is that a fuller conception of the other person is a stronger suggestion of his altery and the ethical command that issues from the fact of his otherness. 178 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – rethink politics (3) Capitalism is failing - we must create a new form of politics for the interests of all people in order to solve. Wilsdon, writer for the socialist party, 2005 (Tony Wilsdon, writer for the socialist party , September 18, 2005, http://www.socialistalternative.org/literature/katrina/logic.html) We should be under no illusions that the capitalist system can do this. The sizeable period of economic growth of the 1950s and 1960s is over. It was based on the period of the explosive emergence of U.S. capitalism during the turn of the last century, and a temporary period of worldwide superiority of U.S. manufacturing in the aftermath of World War II. Today, we see a world economic slowdown, with U.S. corporations shutting down production here in search of areas that produce higher rates of profit. The economic engine of jobs, which helped some workers in previous generations to get out of the ghettos, will not be reoccurring. The vast majority of jobs created under Clinton and Bush have been low-wage jobs, which have replaced higher-wage jobs. Under the rule of capitalism, the majority of the public faces further sharp attacks on their living standards and quality of life, with a growing number being forced into dire poverty, homelessness, and destitution. Capitalism is a system designed to produce for private profit, not for public need. It is only by taking decision-making out of the corporate boardrooms and placing them under the democratic control of the majority that the economy can provide for our needs. To do that, we need to bring into public ownership the largest 500 corporations and financial institutions. If the assets of these giant companies were under our democratic control, then investment and resources could be democratically controlled by working-class people. Resources would be available to address our most pressing social problems and allocated to areas of most need. To achieve this means breaking from giving any support to the two big-business political parties - the Republicans and Democrats. They are both fully implicated in creating the present mess we are in. We need to build a new political party to represent our interests as workers, the poor, and young people, and which points a finger at the real villains, the superrich and the capitalist system. Freed from control by corporate sponsors, this workers' party could put forward a program that addresses our needs. It would be able to end this system of capitalism, which has been responsible for enriching a tiny group of billionaires at a time of massive need and poverty. We could then create a new democratic socialist society, where the working-class majority would have the power rather than the 1% who are rewarded under this system. 179 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – debate (1) 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. 180 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – debate (2) We don’t have a revolution because we don’t have a revolutionary subject. Our fear of finding it justifies inactivity. Debate must be the catalyst for change. Zizek, Senior Researcher at the University of Sociology at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia and a professor at the European Graduate School, ‘09 (Slavoj Zizek, Senior Researcher at the University of Sociology at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia and a professor at the European Graduate School, May-June 2009, New Left Review “HOW TO BEGIN FROM THE BEGINNING” http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=2779) But how? The defining problem of Western Marxism has been the lack of a revolutionary subject: how is it that the working class does not complete the passage from in-itself to for-itself and constitute itself as a revolutionary agent? This question provided the main raison d’être for Western Marxism’s reference to psychoanalysis, which was evoked to explain the unconscious libidinal mechanisms preventing the rise of class consciousness that are inscribed into the very being or social situation of the working class. In this way, the truth of the Marxist socio-economic analysis was saved: there was no reason to give ground to revisionist theories about the rise of the middle classes. For this same reason, Western Marxism has also engaged in a constant search for others who could play the role of the revolutionary agent, as the understudy replacing the indisposed working class: Third World peasants, students and intellectuals, the excluded. It is just possible that this desperate search for the revolutionary agent is the form of appearance of its very opposite: the fear of finding it, of seeing it where it already stirs. Waiting for another to do the job for us is a way of rationalizing our inactivity. 181 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – debate (3) Capitalism evolves in EVERY SINGLE ITERATION – this round is a unique resistance point Balibar, Professor of Political Philosophy, University of Paris 1996 Etienne Balibar, Professor of Political Philosophy, University of Paris, 1996, Postmodern Materialism and the Future of Marxist Theory, p. 116-9 Now, if we take some distance from Althusser's text, we might perhaps suggest the following interpretation: the root of antagonism, first of all, is the fact that exploitation is something unbearable for individuals and, above all, for collectivities. This would mean that, although capitalism actually succeeds in imposing the forms of "real subsumption" upon the labor force—that is, transforming labor power into a commodity—there is an actual limit to this process. In the last analysis, the form of human labor (both individual and collective) remains irreducible to the condition of a commodity, which is exactly what we must understand under the name of "the unbearable." This would mean, then, that the capitalist mode of production can never be reproduced in an identical manner. It is impossible for capitalism to keep the relations of production in the same form in which they existed at a certain moment in history, in a certain phase of accumulation. I agree on this point with all those Marxists who insist on the necessity of "historicizing" the analysis of the capitalist mode and relations of production . Capitalism is forced to transform itself, its own modes of exploiting the labor force, its mode of socializing individuals. It is therefore impossible for capitalism not to evolve, and this is the only possible form of its "reproduction." This is capitalism's necessity. As a consequence, for us, too, it is impossible not to evolve. At every moment (not only in some "final" or "catastrophic" stage) the capitalist system is moving at its edges. A basic instability is underlying its apparent stability (or in less naturalistic, more political, Machiavellian terms, the reason for its stability is not its intrinsic coherence or its productivity; it is only its ability to gain social strength through antagonism, its success in using antagonistic forces as its own means of reproduction in the class struggle ). We must admit, therefore, that the necessity for capitalism to continuously transform its own relations of production is also the possibility of a social practice that is incompatible with the "system." 182 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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. 183 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – discourse (2) Discourse is ineffective unless it is backed up by concrete action. Endorsing the critique is a first step towards creating movements that will destroy capitalism Monbiot, Professor of Philosophy at Bristol and Professor of Politics at Keele, 04 (George Monbiot, Professor of Philosophy at Bristol and Professor of Politics at Keele. Author, columnist, and political activist. “Manifesto for a New World Order.” p. 249) If, having read the previous six chapters, you have concluded that 'something ought to be done', then I have succeeded in one respect, and failed in another. I may have convinced you that radical change is necessary, perhaps also that it is possible, even inevitable. But the measure of my failure is the placidity of your response. It costs nothing to agree that something should be done; indeed people like us have been accepting this proposition for decades, and waiting for someone else to act on it. Constitutional change will begin only when we reach the more dangerous conclusion that 'I must act'. There have been many occasions over the past few years on which we have won the argument and lost the war. The campaigners who have exposed the injustices of the current global system often succeed in generating a widespread demand for change, and just as often discover that this demand has no outlet. Our opinions, in these circumstances, count for nothing until we act upon them. Until we present a direct constitutional challenge to its survival, or, through such measures as a threatened conditional default, alter the circumstances in which it operates, those who maintain the dictatorship of vested interests will read what we write and listen to what we say without the slightest sense of danger. In 16-19, after recoiling from the satisfaction he felt upon completing one of his revolutionary pamphlets, Gerrard Winstanley noted 'my mind was not at rest, because nothing was acted, and ... words and writings were all nothing. and must die, for action is the life of all, and if thou dost not act, thou dost nothing'. This manifesto, and all the publications like it, is worthless unless it provokes people to action. There are several reasons why we do not act. In most cases, the personal risk involved in the early stages of struggle outweighs the potential material benefit. Those who catalyse revolution are seldom the people who profit from it. In this struggle, most of us are not yet directly confronting armed force (though this may well change as we become effective), so the risks to which we expose ourselves and our families are, as yet, slighter than those encountered by other revolutionaries. Nor, of course, are the potential benefits of resistance as obvious, for those activists who live in the rich world, as the benefits of overthrowing Nazi occupation or deposing an indigenous tyrant, or breaking away from a formally constituted empire. While most of the people of the poor world have an acute need to change the circumstances which govern the way they live, the problems the protesters in rich nations contest belong to the second order of concern: we are not confronted by imminent starvation or death through waterborne disease, but by distant wars, economic instability, climate change and the exhaustion of resources; issues which seldom present immediate threats to our survival. But while the proposals in this manifesto offer little by way of material self-advancement to activists in the rich world, there is, in collective revolutionary action, something which appears to be missing from almost every other enterprise in modern secular life. It arises, I think, from the , intensity of the relationships forged in a collective purpose All those with agency are confronted by a choice. We can use that agency to secure comfortable existence. We can for ourselves a safe and use our life, that one unrepeatable product of concentrated by adversity. It is the exultation which Christians call 'joy', but which, in the dry discourse of secular politics, has no recognized equivalent. It is the drug for which, once sampled, you will pay any price. four billion years of serendipity and evolution, to earn a little more, to save a little more, to win the approval of our bosses and the envy of our neighbours. We can place upon our walls those tombstones which We can, quite rationally, subordinate our desire for liberty to our desire for security. Or we can use our agency to change the world, and, in changing it, to change ourselves. We will die and be forgotten with no less certainty than those who sought to fend off death by enhancing their the living erect to themselves: the framed certificates of their acceptance into what Erich Fromm has called the 'necrophiliac' world of wealth and power. material presence on the earth, but we will live before we die through the extremes of feeling which comfort would deny us. I do not presume to lecture those who have little agency -among them the majority who live in the poor world on how to manage their lives. Over the past five years in many of the countries of the poor world -though this is seldom reported in the West - people have tried to change their circumstances through explosive demonstrations of grief, anger and hope. I have sought, with this manifesto, simply to enhance that hope, by demonstrating that there may be viable alternatives to the systems that subjugate them. But for most of the people of the rich world, and the more prosperous people of the poor world, revolution offers the possibility of freedom from the constraints we impose upon ourselves. Freedom is the ability to act upon our beliefs. It expands, therefore, with the scope of the action we are prepared to contemplate. If we know that we will never act, we have no freedom: we will, for the rest of everyone has some sense that other people should be treated as she would wish to be. Almost everyone, in other words, has a notion of justice, and for most people this notion, however formulated, sits somewhere close to the heart of their system of beliefs. If we do not act upon this sense of justice, we do not act upon one of our primary beliefs, and our freedom is restricted accordingly. To be truly free, in other words, we must be prepared to contemplate revolution. Another reason why we do not act is that, from the days of our birth, we are immersed in the political situation into which we are born, and as a result we cannot imagine our way through it; we cannot envisage that it will ever come to an end. This is why imagination is the first qualification of the revolutionary. A revolutionary is someone who recognizes the contingency of power. What sustains coercive power is not force of arms, or even capital, but belief. When people cease to believe -to believe in it as they would believe in a god, in its omnipotence, its unassailability and its validity -and when they act upon that belief, an empire can collapse, almost overnight. Those who possess power will surrender it only when they see that the costs -physical or psychological –of retaining it are higher than the costs of losing it. There have been many occasions on which rulers possessed the means of suppressing revolt -the necessary tanks and planes or cannons and cavalry divisions -but chose not to deploy them, because they perceived that the personal effort of retaining power outweighed the effort of relinquishing it. our lives, do as we are told . Almost 184 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – discourse (3) Bringing down the discourse of the economy will nubpwn cap Gibson-Graham, professors, 2006. (Julie Graham & Katherine Gibson, professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst Department of Geosciences, 2006, Postcapitalist Politics) This theory of politics helps us to see the way in which a certain discourse of the economy (as real, as capitalist) has become hegemonic, and how alternative and different understandings of economy have been enrolled into the hegemonic projector outlawed as a threat to the hegemonic discourse. The representation of the capitalist economy as extradiscursive, as the ultimate real and natural form of economy, has gained additional ideological force since the demise of capitalism's "other." This is not to say that with the "disappearance" of communism and socialism social antagonisms that constitute the unity of neoliberal global capitalist discourse (and thus its hegemony) have been eliminated. The locus of antagonism has simply shifted and is now made up of multiple threats to the "free market," such as remnant public sector involvement in the economy. "democratic welfare statism" (Torfing 1999, 299), and the insistent "failures" of development-spaces where abject poverty and social disintegration have increased during the "age of development" and now harbor "terrorist threats" to wealthy nations. 3.' The theory of politics advanced by Laclau and Mouffe suggests ways in which a counterhegemonic political project could be pursued through destabilization and dislocation of the seeming unity of the hegemonic discursive formation. We can, for example, uncover the condensations and displacements that have contributed to the understanding of the economy as extradiscursive and dominantly capitalist. We can begin to "unfix" economic identity by deconstructing the dominant capitalocentric discourse of economy in which capitalist economic activity is taken as the model for all economic activity. We can dislocate the unity and hegemony of neoliberal global capitalist economic discourse through a proliferative queering of the economic landscape and construction of a new language of economic diversity. This dislocation is a crucial prerequisite to the project of cultivating different subjects of economy. 185 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – representations Only by representing capitalist economic activity in a way that dislodges it from its discursive dominance can we reclaim our economy. Gibson-Graham, professors, 2006. (Julie Graham & Katherine Gibson, professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst Department of Geosciences, 2006, Postcapitalist Politics) TJ We are convinced that the answers to these questions are connected to the almost total naturalization of "the economy" that has taken place in public discourse over recent decades, coinciding with the demise of socialism as an actually existing "alternative" and growing alarm that, with globalization, the autonomy of national economies, and therefore their manageability, is being undermined . This shift from an understanding of the economy as something that can be transformed, or at least managed (by people, the state, the IMP), to something that governs society has involved a hegemonic move by which representations of economy have slipped from their locations in discourse and landed "on the ground," in the "real," not just separate from but outside of society. In these postmodern times, the economy is denied the discursive mandate given to other social spheres and the consequences for the viability of any political project of economic innovation are dire. If we are to enact new economies, we need to imagine "the economy" differently-as something that is created in specific geographical contexts and in historically path-dependent ways, but this is not an easy or straightforward project. As Timothy Mitchell argues, we are up against an already existing economic object materialized in socio-technical networks of calculation that have, since the 1930s, produced the economy as a "singular and self-evident totality" (forthcoming).' The economic landscape has been molded according to the imaginary functionings of a "self-contained and dynamic mechanism" known as "the economy," and this representation is difficult to dislodge. The advent of globalization and the failure of socialist economies have further compounded the identification of capitalism with this obdurate object. This chapter outlines a strategy for taking back the economy, for representing it in a way that dislodges the discursive dominance of capitalist economic activity and reclaims it as a contested space of representation. We propose to repoliticize the economy by challenging the representation of capitalism as the necessarily and naturally dominant form (or identity) of economy.' Others, such as Ernesto Ladau and Chantal Mouffe (1985), have de-economized the political by detaching it from its traditional identification with class struggles over the mode of production. opening revolutionary politics up to a wider array of social and cultural issues. We take up Callari's (1991) challenge to turn the tables and to repoliticize the economy by opening it up to potential interventions that are both class and nonclass focused. In this chapter we construct a language of the diverse economy in which the economic landscape is represented as populated by a myriad of contingent forms and interactions. The thinking practice employed here is the technique of reading for difference rather than dominance (see the Introduction).' To read a landscape we have always read as capitalist as a landscape of economic difference, populated by various capitalist and noncapitalist institutions and practices, is a difficult task, for we must contend not only with our colonized imaginations; but with our beliefs about politics, understandings of power, naturalized conceptions of economy, and structures of desire (as we have argued in the Introduction and chapter 1).We are attempting to promote "collective disidentification" with capitalism, much as Judith Butler and other queer theorists have tried to do with heterosexuality and the binary gender categories that are its support (1993, 4). To do this we call on the theory of politics that Ladau and Mouffe (1985) have developed to help understand and dislodge forms of hegemony. Seen from their political perspective, our reading experiment is a counterhegemonic project. 186 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – liberalism/compassion Compassionate liberalism solves the aff by overcoming ethical and moral barriers 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 163 par 3 – pg 164 Perhaps this is what makes harm reduction an exemplar of what I am calling compassionate liberalism. It bespeaks of the liberal commitment to tolerance rather than the conservative commitment to insisting on strict standards for distinguishing good from bad in moral terms. Compassionate liberalism practices a tolerance that is informed by a kind of situational ethics, resisting the temptation to judge right and wrong for all time in clear terms of command ethics.27 Compassionate conservatism wants to help the poor by teaching them the difference between good and evil and then getting them to practice what is good and resist what is evil. Compassionate conservatism is interested in abolishing poverty by saving one soul at a time, usually through charitable efforts in the private sector. Compassionate liberalism is interested in helping people live better without judging whether they themselves are engaged in practices or behaviors that are good or bad in absolute moral terms.28 An alternative of compassion solves aka I have no clue how to tag this card 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 177 par 3 – pg 179 par 1 A Loving Antagonism Loving resistance to the state's processes of marginalization is therefore its own form of agonistic politics that pushes for what changes in the existing standards of deservingness can be gained at any one point in time . Jane Addams famously argued with John Dewey at Hull House about her refusal to accept the idea that antagonism was fundamental to life and that conflict was essential to getting change.63 It was her attempt to express a philosophy of love as fundamental to producing social change. She essentially put ethics above politics. Yet, it could be that real love animates an ongoing agonistic politics that resists the processes of marginalization at work in the welfare state. A politics of loving therefore actually values the role of conlict and antagonism. Antagonism need not involve violence and need not insist on only working for a total overhaul of the existing juridical order. Instead, we must learn to work both within and outside the system simultaneously.64 This means pushing for more legal rights to entitlements even as we work within the system to make it more likely to allow for acts of compassion that compensate people ight now within a system of enti¬ tlements that leaves them unable to meet their basic needs. We must work to make incremental reforms possible now in the short run even as we work to produce structural reforms in the long run. While the continuing struggle for a basic income for all is imperative, this needs to be supplemented with building in more compassionate and more generous assistance to those who are currently excluded from the entitlement system.65 This would be a politics of compassion worth fighting for. Such a politics of compassion would work within liberal institutions to humanize them while at the same time plotting to transform them beyond the limits of liberal capitalism. It would practice harm reduction, offering aid without passing judgment, working to incrementally make things better for people even as it planned to overcome the systemic sources that marginalized and oppressed those who did not conform to the standards of deservingness in a society that insisted on particularly narrow understandings of who was a personally responsible, self-sufficient member of that society. This politics of compassion would not be anything like the compassionate conservatism that has been promoted in recent years. It would not be a compassion that can be used to rationalize the substitution of entitlement rights with the disciplinary practices of the new forms of governance that work through civil society to regiment people into the emerging social order. It would instead be a politics that recaptures compassion from those who seek to exploit it to justify painting the welfare state as cold, heartless, uncaing, and not worth fighting for . It would do that in the name of rebuilding the welfare state. And in an era of globalization, this is a most urgent task. 187 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – action now (1) 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 the fascist leader, Benito Mussolini. If 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 legitimacy, acceptance, or fascism and world war were the products of the last depression, what will the next one bring? 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, 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. through which the Messiah could enter. Benjamin was reflecting on the temporality of socialist revolution — on the way that 188 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – action now (2) 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 the fascist leader, Benito Mussolini. If 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 legitimacy, acceptance, or fascism and world war were the products of the last depression, what will the next one bring? 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, 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. through which the Messiah could enter. Benjamin was reflecting on the temporality of socialist revolution — on the way that 189 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 fact. If, on the other hand, my dialectical phenomenological definition of reason is correct 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 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 instances of "triangle," "justice," 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 eidetically an experiencing, "beauty," respectively, are not perfect; they have cracks, blemishes, and impurities.8 Further, 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 such a rational, free subject and 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 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 "utopia" as essential and implied by ''rationality" in the full sense just completes and fills out our affirmation of exteriority as linked to 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 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 We begin to suspect and see that science and technology appear as the highest and only forms of reason because 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. 190 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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.12 191 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – individual advocacy Taking back our economy from the grasp of capitalism is vital, small political projects solve. Gibson-Graham, professors, 2006. (Julie Graham & Katherine Gibson, professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst Department of Geosciences, 2006, Postcapitalist Politics) TJ From our locations in academia at two ends of the world, we have a sense that events have overtaken us. Ten years ago, when we were writing The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy, we imagined it as an invitation and perhaps a prelude to a new economic politics. Such a politics, we hoped, would venture along the obscure byways of noncapitalist repertoire of what was considered legitimate political action. Feeling suffocated and disempowered by prevailing conceptions of what was possible, and when and how it was to be achievable, we located our dissatisfaction within the dead-end time-space of capitalism as it was usually theorized. We see ourselves as part of a movement that is actively retheorizing capitalism and reclaiming the economy here and now in myriad projects of alternative economic activism. Our project has been gathered up in the whirlwind of inventions and interventions, resonating with some, amplifying or amplified by others, and above all sharing sentiments n stances with respect to the tasks of transformation. The distinctive contribution we hope to make to this wider project stems from our starting point, as elaborated in The End of Capitalism. Wanting an economic politics that allowed us to think creatively and to start now and here to make new economies, we focused our attentions in The End o f Capitalism on ways of thinking that distanced the economy from politics. These included the tendency to represent economy as a space of invariant logics and automatic unfolding that offered no field for intervention; the tendency to theorize economy as a stable and self-reproducing structure impervious to the proliferative and desultory wanderings of everyday politics; the tendency to constitute "the" economy as a singular capitalist system or space rather than as a zone of cohabitation and contestation among multiple economic forms; and the prevailing substantive framings.' We noted that these tendencies contributed to an affect and attitude of entrenched opposition (on the left, at least), a habit of thinking and feeling that offered little emotional space for alternatives, and that instead focused the political imagination-somewhat blankly-on a millennial future revolution. If the "revolution" were to occur in a time-world discontinuous with this one, it would not be possible to talk about steps and strategies for getting there. In the a profusion of alternative economic research that has challenged these representations, some of it inspired by our own deconstruction and queering of Capitalism, much of it welling up from the same productive dissatisfactions we had experienced with essentialist and abstracted thinking about economy. Here we years since the appearance of The End of Capitalism, we have been gratified and encouraged by acknowledge the proliferation of work in our own field of economic geography, and in cultural and political geography, as well as in the fields of economic Sociology and anthropology, cultural studies, politics, feminism, Marxian political economy, and science studies." If capitalism is still a dominant signifier in social analysis, it is, for many of us, less taken for granted in its character and configurations than ever before." The heady and hopeful message of The End of Capitalism was that our economy is what we (discursively and practically) make it." The salutary and grounded message of A Post Capitalist Politics is that we must be ready with strategies for confronting what forcefully pushes back against the discursive imaginings and practical enactments we associate with building a different economy. What we feel is needed, and what we present here, is our own, admittedly idiosyncratic, practical guide to the politics of “taking back the economy.” 192 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – local transformation Local transformations allow us to theorize a new global form of economic policies Gibson-Graham, professors, 2006. (Julie Graham & Katherine Gibson, professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst Department of Geosciences, 2006, Postcapitalist Politics) From the earliest days of this political exploration. we recognized the special challenges of economic politics-the obduracy of the economic object as it had been discursively framed and practically constructed; the poverty of economic subjectivity, with its few identity positions and contracting (if also intensifying) desires; and the persistent conviction that large-scale. Coordinated action was required for the task of economic transformation. In the search for successful political projects and practices to encourage and inspire us. we have turned primarily to second-wave feminism ." We never fail to be amazed at how the feminist movement has transformed and continues to transform households, lives, and livelihoods around the world to different degrees and in different ways, rendering the life experiences of many women literally unrecognizable in the terms of a generation ago. Here we are thinking of everything from the increased participation of women in public life, to the social recognition of and responsibility for domestic violence, to the proliferation of options of gendered embodiment. This is not to deny that these achievements are partial and embattled, but rather to affirm that they are recognizable and widespread."The crucial role of alternative discourses of "woman" and gender in this process of transformation cannot be overestimated. But second-wave feminism also offered new practices of the self and of intersubjective relation that enabled these new discourses to be inhabited in everyday life . The decentralized, uncoordinated. and place-based consciousness-raising groups that became the movement's signature intervention (at least in the English-speaking world) acted as the foundational site for a "politics of becoming" (Connolly 1999, 57), unleashing myriad practices and performances of "woman." The slogan "the personal is political" authorized women to speak of their intimate concerns in legitimate tones. enabling them to connect the private and public, the domestic and national, shattering forever the rigid boundaries of established political discourse. The practice of feminism as "organizational horizontalism" fostered alternative ways of being (powerful), including “direct” and equitable participation, non-monopoly of the spoken word or of information, the rotation of occasional tasks and responsibilities, the non-specialization of functions, the non-delegation of power" (Alvarez, Dagnino, and Escobar 1998,97).Feminism linked feminists emotionally and semiotically rather than primarily through organizational ties. Without rejecting the familiar politics of organizing and networking within groups and across space, individual women and collectivities pursued local paths and strategies that were based on avowedly feminist visions and values, but were not otherwise connected. The "upscaling" or globalization of a feminist politics did not involve formal organization at the global scale to challenge global structures of patriarchal power. " It did not rely on (though it did not eschew) coordinated actions and alliances. The movement achieved global coverage without having to create global institutions, though some of these did indeed come into being. Ubiquity rather than unity was the ground of its globalization. We are intrigued at the way the loosely interrelated struggles and happenings of the feminist movement were capable of mobilizing social transformation at such an unprecedented scale, without resort to a vanguard party or any of the other "necessities" we have come to associate with political organization. The complex intermixing of alternative discourses, shared language, embodied practices, self-cultivation, emplaced actions, and global transformation associated with second-wave feminism has nourished our thinking about a politics of economic possibility-impressing us with the strikingly simple ontological contours of a feminist imaginary: if women are everywhere, a woman is always somewhere, and those places of women are transformed as women transform themselves . The vision of feminist politics as grounded in persons yet (therefore) potentially ubiquitous has been extended in our 193 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. thinking to include another ontological substrate: a vast set of disarticulated "places"-households, communities, ecosystems, workplaces. civic organizations. bodies, public arenas, urban spaces, diasporas, regions, government agencies, occupations-related analogically rather than organizationally and connected through webs of signification. A feminist spatiality embraces not only a politics of ubiquity (its global manifestation), but a politics of place (its localization in places created, strengthened, defended, augmented, and transformed by women). In this admittedly stylized rendering, feminism is not about the category "woman" or identity per se, but about subjects and places. It is a politics of becoming in place." The achievements of second-wave feminism provide, for us, the impetus for theorizing a new global form of economic politics. Its remapping of political space and possibility suggests the ever-present opportunity for local transformation that does not require (though it does not preclude and indeed promotes) transformation at larger scales. Its focus on the subject prompts us to think about ways of cultivating economic subjects with different desires and capacities and greater openness to change and uncertainty. Its practice of seeing and speaking differently encourages us to make visible the hidden and alternative economic activities that everywhere abound, and to connect them through a language of economic difference. If we can begin to see noncapitalist activities as prevalent and viable, we may be encouraged here and now to actively build on them to transform our local economies. 194 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solvency – ontology Only through ontological reframing can we reshape our economic future from repressive state policies. Gibson-Graham, professors, 2006. (Julie Graham & Katherine Gibson, professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst Department of Geosciences, 2006, Postcapitalist Politics) TJ The new political imaginary we have sketched presumes certain forms of being, enactments of power. modes of aggregation and connection. and pathways of change. Traversing the distance from a more familiar world (one perhaps structured by stable and inherently reproducible relations of domination) to this emergent one relies on ontological reframing as a technique of thinking. Reframing can create the fertile ontological ground for a politics of possibility, opening the field from which the unexpected can emerge, while increasing our space of decision and room to move as political subjects . In The End of Capitalism we used one principal technique of ontological reframing, Althusser's (1972) concept of overdeterrnination," which presumes that each site and process is constituted at the intersection of all others, and is thus fundamentally an emptiness, complexly constituted by what it is not, without an enduring core or essence . Adapted and extended by Resnick and Wolff (1987) to provide a provisional ontology for un-thinking economic determinism, overdetermination brings a rigorous anti-essentialism to the understanding of causation, working against the nearly ubiquitous impulse to reduce complex processes of eventuation to the operation of one or several determinants. Any attempt to assert centrality or simple causality in a complicated landscape confronts the practice of "thinking overdeterrnination' as an almost insurmountable obstacle. This has made it invaluable to us in our positive project of rethinking economic identity and dynamics: Through the theoretical lens of overdetermination, a capitalist site is an irreducible specificity. We may no more assume that a capitalist firm is interested in maximizing profits or exploitation than we may assume that an individual woman wants to bear arid raise children, or that an American is interested in making money. When we refer to an economy-wide imperative of capital accumulation, we stand on 'the 'same unsafe ground (in the context of the anti-essentialist presumption of overdetermination) that we tread on when we refer to a maternal instinct or a human drive to acquisition. (Gibson-Graham 1996, 16) As we begin to conceptualize contingent relationships where invariant logics once reigned, the economy loses its character as an asocial body in lawful motion and instead ·becomes a space of recognition and negotiation. The economic certainties and generic stories of development discourse are effectively dislodged, as are the macronarratives of capitalist development (including most recently globalization) that loom in the vicinity of most social theorizing. We have found that we need technologies for a more reticent yet also more ebullient practice of theorizing, one that tolerates "not knowing" and allows for contingent connection and the hiddenness of unfolding; one that at the same time foregrounds specificity, divergence, incoherence, surplus possibili ty. the requisite conditions of a less predictable and more productive politics. Here the underlaboring of Many of these install difference and differentiation as a generative ontological centripetal force working against the pull of essence or identity." Others attempt to theorize dynamics not as the simplicity of an unfolding logic that is "already within" an object, but as a very concrete process of eventuation, path-dependent and nonlinear, where a global system that explains its parts is not the privileged and predicted form of emergence (Law 2004)." What is bizarre about this theorizing (from the standpoint of common theoretical practice) is that it does not collapse what it aggregates into fewer categories, 'but spreads everything out to the limits of our tolerance for dimensionality and detail. Lest ontological refrarning be mistaken for a simplistic assertion that we can think ourselves out of the materiality of capitalism or repressive state practices. we should affirm that our orientation toward possibility does not deny the forces that militate against it-forces that may work to undermine, constrain, destroy, or sideline our attempts to reshape economic futures. The practice of thinking overdetermination as a mode of ontological reframing simply encourages us to deny these forces a fundamental, structural, or universal reality and to instead identify them as contingent outcomes of ethical decisions, political projects, and sedimented localized practices, continually pushed and pulled by other determinations. contemporary social theorists and philosophers like Deleuze and Guattari has been particularly valuable. 195 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solves environment Alt key to saving the environment Callinicos, prof of politics at University of York, 01 Alex Callinicos, 2001, Professor of Politics at the University of York, "Against the Third Way" It is hard to see how the measures required to save the environment can be made consistent with the requirements of capitalist reproduction. At the national level, phasing out the private automobile, or at least drastically reducing its use, would require, on the one hand, large-scale investment in public transport that would bust the spending targets required by neo-liberal economic policies and more generally raise the profile, and prestige of the public sector in policy-making and political debate, and, on the other, confronting the constellation of capitalist interests bound up with the status quo, above all the fossil fuel corporations - the oil companies, car manufacturers, and the like. The steps required internationally to reverse the greenhouse effect - monitoring the reduction of polluting emissions, reforestation, promoting alternative forms of transport and energy supply, etc. - would entail some sort of system of collectively agreed resource-allocation that it would be tempting to call planning had this not become an idea whose time, all are apparently agreed, has definitively gone. 'Life politics' today can only be anti-capitalist politics."1 196 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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." 197 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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. 198 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Alt solves authoritarian control Politics has been depoliticized to expand authoritarian control over citizens – rethinking solves 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) We live at a time when the conflation of private interests, empire building, and evangelical fundamentalism brings into question the very nature, if not the existence, of the democratic process . Under the reign of neoliberalism, capital and wealth have been largely distributed upwards, while civic virtue has been undermined by a slavish celebration of the free market as the model for organizing all facets of everyday life (Henwood 2003). Political culture has been increasingly depoliticized as collective life is organized around the modalities of privatization, deregulation, and commercialization . When the alleged champions of neoliberalism invoke politics, they substitute "ideological certainty for reasonable doubt," and deplete "the national reserves of political intelligence" just as they endorse "the illusion that the future can be bought instead of earned" (Lapham 2004a, 9, 11). Under attack is the social contract with its emphasis on enlarging the public good and expanding social provisions-such as access to adequate health care, housing, employment, public transportation, and education- which provided both a safety net and a set of conditions upon which democracy could be experienced and critical citizenship engaged. Politics has been further depoliticized by a policy of anti-terrorism practiced by the Bush administration that mimics the very terrorism it wishes to eliminate. Not only does a policy of all-embracing anti-terrorism exhausts itself in a discourse of moral absolutes and public acts of denunciation that remove politics from the realm of state power, it also strips community of democratic values by defining it almost exclusively through attempts to stamp out what Michael Leeden, a former counter-terror expert in the Reagan administration, calls "corrupt habits of mind that are still lingering around, somewhere" (qtd. in Valentine 2001, para.33). The appeal to moral absolutes and the constant mobilization of emergency time coded as a culture of fear configures politics in religious terms, hiding its entanglement with particular ideologies and diverse relations of power. Politics becomes empty as it is reduced to following orders, shaming those who make power accountable, and shutting down legitimate modes of dissent (Giroux 2004). The militarizing of public space at home contributes to the narrowing of community, the increasing suppression of dissent, and as Anthony Lewis argues, a growing escalation of concentrated, unaccountable political power that threatens the very foundation of democracy in the United States (2002, A15). Authoritarianism inarches forward just as political culture is being replaced with a notion of national security based on fear, surveillance, and control rather than a vibrant culture of shared responsibility and critical questioning. Militarization is no longer simply the driving force of foreign policy, it has become a defining principle for social changes at home. Catherine Lutz captures the multiple registers and complex processes of militarization that has extensively shaped social life during the 20th century. She is worth quoting at length: By militarization, I mean . . . an intensification of the labor and resources allocated to military purposes, including the shaping of other institutions in synchrony with military goals. Militarization is simultaneously a discursive process, involving a shift in general societal beliefs and values in ways necessary to legitimate the use of force, the organization of large standing armies and their leaders, and the higher taxes or tribute used to pay for them. Militarization is intimately connected not only to the obvious increase in the size of armies and resurgence of militant nationalisms and militant fundamentalisms but also to the less visible deformation of human potentials into the hierarchies of race, class, gender, and sexuality, and to the shaping of national histories in ways that glorify and legitimate military action. (Lutz 2002, 723) 199 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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. 200 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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. The argument that we cannot overcome capitalism is another link - it saps the critical energy from revolution forcing us to settle for ineffectual reformations of capital instead of total rejection Zizek, 95 (Slavoj, Ideology Between Fiction and Fantasy, Cardozo Law Review, lexis) The problematic of "multiculturalism" that imposes itself today is therefore the form of appearance of its opposite, of the massive presence of Capitalism as universal world system: it bears witness to the unprecedented homogenization of today's world. It is effectively as if, since the horizon of social imagination no longer allows us to entertain the idea of an eventual demise of Capitalism - since, as we might put it, everybody seems to accept that Capitalism is here to stay - the critical energy found a substitute outlet in fighting for cultural differences which leave the basic homogeneity of the capitalist world-system intact. So we are fighting our PC battles for the right of ethnic minorities, of gays and lesbians, of different "life-styles," etc., while Capitalism pursues its triumphant march - and today's critical theory, in the guise of "cultural studies," is doing the ultimate service to the unrestrained development of Capitalism by actively contributing in the ideological effort to render its massive presence invisible: in a typical postmodern "cultural critique," the very mention of Capitalism as world system tends to give rise to the accusation of "essentialism," "fundamentalism," etc. 201 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. Discourse about the inevitability of capitalism makes it inevitable – Capitalism is self-constructed that can be changed. Gibson-Graham 06 (Graham is Professor of Geography for Clark University, Gibson Prof. Geosciences University of Mass. Amherest,“A Postcapitalist Politics”, p. 53-54) Why has Economy become an everyday term that denotes a force to be reckoned with existing outside of politics and society-a force that constitutes the ultimate arbiter of possibility? How is it that waged labor, the commodity market, and capitalist enterprise have come to be seen as the only "normal" forms of work, exchange, and business organization? When was it that capitalism assumed dis-cursive dominance, becoming the only present form of economy and all that. could be imagined as existing in the proximate future? And why do we have little to say these days about an expansive and generative politics of noncapitalist construction ?l We are convinced that the answers to these questions are connected to the almost total naturalization of "the economy" that has taken place in pub¬lic discourse over recent decades, coinciding with the demise of socialism as an actually existing "alternative" and growing alarm that, with globalization, the autonomy of national economies, and therefore their manageability, is being undermined, This shift from an understanding of the economy as something that can be transformed, or at least managed (by people, the state, the IMF), to something that governs society has involved a hegemonic move by which representations of economy have slipped from their locations in discourse and landed "on the ground," in the "real," not just separate from but outside of society. In these postmodern times, the economy is denied the discursive mandate given to other social spheres and the consequences for the viability of any political project of economic innovation are dire. If we are to enact new economies, we need to imagine "the economy" differently-as something that is created in specific geographical contexts and in historically path-dependent ways, but this is not an easy or straightforward project. As Timothy Mitchell argues, we are up against an already existing eco¬nomic object materialized in socio-technical networks of calculation that have, since the 1930s, produced the economy as a "singular and self-evident totali¬ty" (forthcoming)." The economic landscape has been molded according to the imaginary functionings of a "self-contained and dynamic mechanism" known as "the economy," and this representation is difficult to dislodge. 202 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Cap Inevitable (2) This economic crisis will mostly result in the financial collapse of the US; we no longer have the resources to cope with- leads to even worse disasters and loss of US legitimacy and heg. Obama still committed to capitalism 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) NO ONE CAN KNOW HOW THE PRESENT CRISIS WILL PLAY OUT. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE United States will continue to benefit from an inflated currency, as money from around the world continues to shelter in what is still the safest investment haven around — U.S. Treasury bills. In that case, it is possible, if unlikely, that the Obama administration will be able to ride the tiger and keep things from falling apart utterly. But it is also possible that some unforeseen event or sequence of events might induce foreign investors to suddenly pull their money out of the United States. If that were to happen, the dollar could become worthless and we might see a replay of the Deutsche Mark in 1923, when ordinary Germans paid for loaves of bread with wheelbarrows of money. Either way, the structural contradictions in the world system are profound, and they are not going to go away any time soon. Unlike in the 1930s, when the advanced industrialized nations essentially spent themselves out of depression, either through massive state investment in public works, coupled with a new social compact with labor (as in the United States, with the New Deal), or through a massive arms buildup and military expansionism at the direction of a corporatized (fascist) and authoritarian state (as in Germany, Italy, and Japan), the capitalist states have far fewer resources at their command this time around. First, the state sector already accounts for a large portion of the national economies of the United States, Japan, and Europe. (The United States alone already spends half a trillion dollars per annum on war-making — and that's not counting its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.) In the 1920s, the U.S. national debt (relative to GDP) was flat and even declined, while GDP per capita grew at an extraordinary rate, ushering in higher wages, improvements in agricultural productivity, and vast improvements in quality of life for millions of Americans, including electricity in the home, increasing availability of rail travel, and the introduction of automobiles into everyday life. During the latest economic expansion, by contrast, debts public and private soared at every level of society. The national deficit grew, banks and corporations assumed mind-boggling amounts of risk (often in the form of obscure financial instruments like derivatives), and ordinary working people piled up trillions of dollars of debt in the form of home and car loans and credit card debt. At the same time, wages and quality of life fell. It is therefore difficult to see how the United States and other nations will be able to spend their way out of the present crisis , when, even before the collapse of Lehman Brothers last year, the population was already tapped out, and government expenditures hovered near record highs. A second factor likely to confound policymakers this time around is what might be termed the objective natural and political limits of the system. As I have indicated, capitalism has savaged the earth, leaving billions of people without a decent livelihood, and the ecosystem in tatters. But the social and ecological costs of "doing business" are about to grow exponentially greater. Even without a world financial crisis, we can anticipate more, and more devastating, natural disasters, which in turn will mean disruptions in agricultural production, flooding of cities and entire countries, mass starvation, increasing migration pressures, and so on. All of this will in turn exact an increasing toll on the legitimacy of the liberal nation state. The late sociologist Charles Tilley described the modern nation state as functioning like a "protection racket": the state agrees to protect us from harm (most typically, from real or imaginary threats generated by the state itself), in exchange for our consent and obedience as subjects. However, as economic, political, ecological, and hence social costs mount, the state will become less and less able to protect us from harm. As a result, the state is at risk of losing its legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens. (Already, polls have shown a steady decline in the rate of democratic participation around the world, increasing 203 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. cynicism toward government, and greater openness to extreme ideologies, whether in the form of religious fundamentalism or extreme nationalism.) This in turn will compromise the ability of state leaders to muster the broad political mandate they would otherwise need to make meaningful and urgently necessary macro-level changes in the organization of society and economy. This structural problem in part explains the recent authoritarian turn of the United States under the Bush administration. Bush's seeming indifference to the effects of U.S. actions on foreign and domestic opinion grew out of the Neocons' sense that the state no longer needed the consent of the governed, whether at home or abroad. Bush was, of course, wrong — American hegemony cannot survive long without at least the ion of legitimacy, both at home and abroad. It remains to be seen, however, whether even as adept a politician as Barack Obama will be able to return the ship of state safely to the status quo ante — i.e., to a centrist, liberal, social democratic capitalist order — in the face of a full-blown economic hurricane. Regrettably, notwithstanding President Obama's otherwise admirable sympathies for the union movement and for some meaningful social democratic reforms, his administration is doing everything in its power to preserve — and strengthen — corporate monopoly capitalism, in spite of that system s moral enormities and its ever-widening structural fissures. Though the political Right has taken to vilifying the president as a "socialist," Obama has in reality surrounded himself with economic advisers groomed from the most elite ranks of capitalist finance. 204 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Cap Inevitable (3) 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. 205 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Cap Inevitable (4) 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. 206 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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."33 207 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Cap decreases poverty (2) Econ growth doesn’t decrease poverty Chris Harman, Marxist, 2001 (ANTI-CAPITALISM: THEORY AND PRACTICE, http://www.marxists.de/anticap/theprax/part1.htm) (PDOCSS2333) The critics of neo-liberalism and globalization have exposed hole after hole in these doctrines. They have shown that embracing markets does not usually lead to any improvement in Third World countries. For two decades most of the peoples of Africa and Latin America have seen their conditions deteriorate, not improve. The turning over of vast tracts of land to the production of a single crop ("monoculture") for multinationals does not raise revenues (since world prices are driven down as the same crops are produced in the same way in several other countries). The revenues that are earned are eaten up by interest payments on loans, and ecological degradation all too often follows. Empirically, global capitalism has not reduced poverty Sam Gindin, holds the Packer Chair in Social Science, Department of Political Science at York University in Toronto. He was, for many years, Director of Research and Assistant to the President of the Canadian Auto Workers, 2002 (MONTHLY REVIEW, May-June, http://www.monthlyreview.org/0602gindin.htm) (PDOCSS2334) The discouraging state of the present tends, however, to a wishful enhancement of the past. That "golden age" of capitalism, in fact, fell far short of any ideal of social justice: internal poverty persisted; the gap between the first world and the third, in spite of decolonization, widened; it was hardly a "golden age" for women or for U.S. blacks; workers still sold their labor and potentials to others, gaining the power to consume but not actively to shape their community; and corporate rule was not reduced but reinforced. The youth rebellions of the 1960s, we should remember, went beyond opposition to the war in Vietnam and reacted against the empty materialism of the times and-in the case of young factory workers-reacted against the contrast between their civil rights in society and the authoritarianism of their workplaces. 208 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Cap decreases poverty (3) The benefits of capitalism do not trickle-down Sam Gindin, holds the Packer Chair in Social Science, Department of Political Science at York University in Toronto. He was, for many years, Director of Research and Assistant to the President of the Canadian Auto Workers, 2002 (MONTHLY REVIEW, May-June, http://www.monthlyreview.org/0602gindin.htm) (PDOCSS2335) This sham argument ignores, first, that where growth has come, it has come not with a general improvement in social justice but with costs in terms of internal democracy, human rights, and equality. In the mid-fifties, a Latin American general, when asked about economic development in his country, responded with words that still capture so much of the present reality in third world so-called success stories like Brazil and Mexico: "The economy is doing great, but the people in it aren't." Success stories turn into failures Sam Gindin, holds the Packer Chair in Social Science, Department of Political Science at York University in Toronto. He was, for many years, Director of Research and Assistant to the President of the Canadian Auto Workers, 2002 (MONTHLY REVIEW, May-June, http://www.monthlyreview.org/0602gindin.htm) (PDOCSS2336) Second, the few success stories, like those in South East Asia, have proved to be fragile, and in any case have been rooted in particular circumstances that can't be duplicated. The most prominent example, South Korea, did not achieve what it did because its policies were so clever-though they were relevant-but because of its special importance to the United States during the Cold War. This meant that, like Europe before (and unlike the third world more generally) it received a form of Marshall Aid (military spending during the Korean and Vietnam wars) and was also given free access to the U.S. market even as it protected its own markets. There will only be winners if there are losers Sam Gindin, holds the Packer Chair in Social Science, Department of Political Science at York University in Toronto. He was, for many years, Director of Research and Assistant to the President of the Canadian Auto Workers, 2002 (MONTHLY REVIEW, May-June, http://www.monthlyreview.org/0602gindin.htm) (PDOCSS2337) Third, as long as the successful development model is focused on poor countries competing to export to the West, universal development is a contradiction in terms. Some "winners" might indeed emerge, but only by condemning other countries to being losers (not to mention the losers within their own countries). The third world can only move towards overall development if there is a focus on mobilizing and developing their human and natural resources to address internal needs. They do not have to cut themselves off from trade and investment, though they must insist on tightly regulating them to strengthen their internal development. 209 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Cap solves social divisions Cap sets classes against each other. Capitalism relies on an impossible postulate of homogeneity and perfect economic equilibrium. Aglietta, Economist & Prof of Economic Science, ‘98 (Michel Aglietta; French Economist, Professor of Economic Science at the University of Paris X: Nanterre, Scientific Counselor at CEPII, member of the University Institute of France, and a consultant to Groupama-AM; November-December 1998; New Left Review “Capitalism at the Turn of the Century: Regulation Theory and the Challenge of Social Change” http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=1974) The neo-classical theory inspired by liberalism, which amounts to a representation of the system as a pure economy in a natural state of equilibrium, stretches the postulate of homogeneity to its very limits. Not only does the axiom of rationality assign the same identity to all individuals in pursuit of their goals by defining an economic behaviour pattern that can be applied to any domain of social practice, but the characterization of the whole system as an equilibrium created by perfect competition implies that each player is totally aware of the web of their relations with all other players, and that this web presents itself to the individual in the form of constraints on the use of their resources. Marxism, as an economic theory, is built upon a radical separation which explains capitalism by rejecting the postulate of homogeneity. Not only is market exchange no longer perceived as a symmetrical relation between contracting parties; the labour force is also put on one side of a basic social division which sets one class of individuals against the other. Nevertheless, the Marxist view of the economy remains strongly homogeneous because capitalism is supposed to move in accordance with general laws which lead to its overthrow, whatever the nature of the society in which it develops. Furthermore, the overthrow of capitalism heralds the coming of a transparent and homogeneous system of perfect planning. Perfect competition does not exist and maximum competition is disadvantageous- Capitalism leads to unequal development. Aglietta, Economist & Prof of Economic Science, ‘98 (Michel Aglietta; French Economist, Professor of Economic Science at the University of Paris X: Nanterre, Scientific Counselor at CEPII, member of the University Institute of France, and a consultant to Groupama-AM; November-December 1998; New Left Review “Capitalism at the Turn of the Century: Regulation Theory and the Challenge of Social Change” http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=1974) there is no such thing as a general equilibrium of perfect competition. Nor is there any reason why maximum competition should be the best possible form of relationship between economic agents, for competition in these contexts entails the adoption of behavioural strategies, the effects of which could be socially and even individually disadvantageous. This is the environment in which the problems of regulation arise. Regulation theory is concerned with heterogeneous economic processes in which necessity and contingency, the constraint of the past and the creation of the new are intertwined. It deals with processes that emerge, are reproduced, then wither away under the effects of the unequal development inherent in capitalism. In a world in which information is an issue and in which externalities are laden with significance, 210 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Cap Key to Heg/ Space Capitalism’s desire for short term profits necessitates global military dominance leading to several scenarios for arms races and global nuclear wars Marko 03 (Anarchism and Human Survival: Russell’s problem, May 14, 2003, https://www2.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/05/68173.html) 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 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 appreciate the nexus between this threat, globalisation and north-south conflict. 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 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 Earth". 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 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. "the US twice contemplated using nuclear weaponsin 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 pursuingthe 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 211 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 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 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 further nuclear proliferation. There exists a "deadly connection" between global weapons of mass destruction proliferation and US foreign policy. 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 projection in, from and through space". Toward this end, Washington has resisted efforts in the UN to create an arms control regime for space. 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 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 missile launch sites. 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. 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 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; 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 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. The militarisation of space is intimately linked with US strategic nuclear forces, for the previous command covering space, known as Space Command, has merged with the command 212 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. responsible for nuclear forces, Strategic Command. Upon merger, the commander of Strategic Command stated, "United States Strategic Command provides a single war fighting combatant command with a global perspective, focused on exploiting the strong and growing synergy between the domain of space and strategic capabilities." The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff added, "this new command is going to have all the responsibilities of its predecessors, but an entirely new mission focus, greatly expanded forces and you might even say several infinite areas of responsibility." In other words, we are witnessing the integration of strategic conventional, nuclear and space planning into the command responsible for overseeing US nuclear forces. In turn these forces become an ordinary facet of US strategic planning, severing the break between conventional and nuclear war. The link between the increase in threats to survival and state capitalism (as well as globalisation) was provided for us by the old Space Command as noted above. We may justly also conclude that US nuclear weapons provide a shield, or “shadow”, enabling the deployment of offensive military firepower in what Kennedy era commander General Maxwell Taylor referred to as the key theatre of war, namely "underdeveloped areas". This shield was made effective by "escalation dominance", as noted above, now known as "full spectrum dominance". It is this facet of US strategic policy that compels Washington place such a premium on nuclear superiority and nuclear war fighting. The link between US nuclear strategy and the global political economy is intimate. US nuclear weapons, both during and after the cold war, have acted as the ultimate guarantors of US policy, which is concerned with managing the world capitalist system in the interests of dominant domestic elites. Nuclear weapons provide the umbrella of power under which the system is able to function in much the same way that Karl Polanyi in his classic work, The Great Transformation, argued that the balance of power functioned in the service of the world capitalist system in the 19th century. The “great restoration” of the world capitalist system, under the rubric of “liberal internationalism”, and the onset of the nuclear age in the wake of the second world war, are not merely coincidental. To understand the contours of contemporary world order is to appreciate the deep nexus between the two. Military superiority is necessary because of threats to "stability". It is to be expected that a system of world order constructed for the benefit of an elite core of corporate interests in the US will not go down well withthe world's population, especially in key regions singled out for capital extraction such as the Middle East and Latin America. Planners recognise that the pursuit of capital globalisation and the consequent widening of the gap between rich and poor would be opposed by the globe's population. Absolute strategic superiority is meant to keep the world's population quite and obedient out of sheer terror, as Bush administration aligned neo-conservative thinkers have argued it is better that Washington be feared rather than loved. As they have asserted, after world war two US hegemony had to be "obtained", now it must be "maintained" (Robert Kagan and William Kristol). It is only natural that this "maintenance operation" should be a militaristic one given that the US has a comparative advantage in the use of force; a nuclear global first strike capability would give Washington an absolute advantage. Should anyone get out of line, possibly threatening to spread the "virus" of popular social and economic development, force is to be used to restore "credibility" to beat down the threat of a better example. The US pursues a dangerous nuclear strategy because such a strategy in its terms is "credible". Anarchists are well aware of this important aspect of international relations given the events of the Spanish Civil War. Such a situation is no joke, for this was precisely the fear of Kennedy era planners that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Washington sought to return Cuba to the "Latin American mode" fearing that Cuba would set an example to the population of Latin America in independent social and economic planning conducted in the interests of the population rather than US capital. In response to the Castro takeover the US engaged in one of the most serious terrorist campaigns of recent times, meant as a prelude to invasion in order to ensure "regime change" thereby teaching the people of the region the lesson that "what we say goes". One of the key reasons why Khrushchev sought to place nuclear missiles in Cuba was to deter a US invasion and to achieve strategic parity with Washington. Throughout the Cuban Missile Crisis many potential flashpoints almost lead to a full-scale nuclear exchange between the Soviet Union and the US, 213 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. how close we came to annihilation is only now being fully realised. These are not matters for idle speculation: destruction almost occurred in the past and may very well occur in the future; even cats have only nine lives. This is a matter of great contemporary significance because of the current geographical expansion of the US military system. One of the most significant results of the invasion of Afghanistan was the expansion of the US military system into Central Asia,including into some former Soviet republics. The Russians have traditionally considered this to be their version of the Western hemisphere. If a "great game" were to develop in the region between Russia and the US (perhaps also Pakistan, China and India all nuclear powers, Turkey which sits under US "extended deterrence" and Iran, a potential nuclear power) then such a "great game" may become a nuclearised great game. Indeed the standoff in Kashmir may have global consequences if a system of alliance politics were to develop in the region between the globe's nuclear powers, especially as the threshold of nuclear war is being lowered. In this sense Central Asia may develop into a global version of the link between the Balkans and central alliance systems prior to 1914. Of even greater concern is the further expansion of the US military system into the Middle East following the invasion of Iraq. Washington has already foreshadowed a desire to construct permanent military bases in Iraq in order to facilitate intervention into the region. Both Iran and Syria are potential targets of US attack. Iran may decide upon the nuclear option in order to deter the globe’s leading rogue state. This could be potentially explosive because it is well known that Israel posses a significant nuclear force. Israel has always feared that its paymaster would ultimately abandon it. In response Israel has reportedly developed a "samson option" nuclear targeting strategy. The idea is that Israel would target Russia with its nuclear weapons (Israel has developed delivery systems with an excessive range capability), which would lead to a full-scale nuclear exchange between Moscow and Washington. In essence Israel is saying: we should be allowed to continue repressing the Palestinians if not we have the "samson option". Furthermore, in order to facilitate intervention into these regions the US has began a programme to shift the basing of its military forces into "new Europe" that is Eastern Europe. Washington for instance pushed Romania into NATO for this very reason. Placing military forces in Eastern Europe no doubt would give the Russians some cause for concern. After Kosovo Russia conducted large-scale war games assuming an invasion through "new Europe". The game ended with the release of nuclear weapons. Indeed, expanding the US military system up to the border of Belarus may be dangerous for it is quite possible that Russia extends nuclear deterrence to Minsk; for instance Russia is building a new ground based strategic early warning radar in Belarus. This may all become a series problem in the future because of what the US Geological Survey refers to as "the big rollover": the time at which the world oil market changes from a buyers market into a sellers market(which may occur in the next 15-20 years). Washington has always regarded the oil resources of the Middle East as "the most stupendous material prize in world history" which is a key lever of US global dominance. The big rollover will ensure that Middle Eastern oil reserves will become an even more significant lever of world control placing greater premium on US control over the political development of the Arab world. In 1967, 1970 and 1973 strategic developments in the Middle East were overshadowed by nuclear weapons. In fact the events of 1970 and 1973 convinced many, such as Henry Kissinger, that the US needed to strive to retain nuclear superiority and reverse the condition of strategic parity with Moscow. This ultimately lead to the Carter-Reagan build-up of the late 1970s and early 1980s; a build-up which easily could have been disastrous. The militarisation of space, the development of so called "useable" nuclear weapons, the globalisation of the US nuclear planning system, the hair trigger alert status of the globe's nuclear forces and the expansion of the US military system into Central Asia and the Middle East possibly triggering a "great game" in these regions between nuclear powers, not to mention military expansion into "new Europe", all seriously increase the threats to our long term (indeed short term) survival. Washington's aggressive nuclear strategy is not only meant to deter democracy abroad; it is also meant to deter democracy at home. In 1956 the author of NSC 68 and one of the chief ideologues behind the Carter-Reagan nuclear build-up, Paul Nitze, made a distinction between what he referred to as "declaratory" nuclear weapons policy and "actual" 214 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. nuclear weapons policy. For anybody interested in unravelling truth from fiction the distinction is critical. In Nitze's words, "the word 'policy' is used in two related but different senses. In one sense, the action sense, it refers to the general guidelines, which we believe should and will govern our actions in various contingencies. In the other sense, the declaratory sense, it refers to policy statements which have as their aim political and psychological effects". The most important target audience of declaratory policy is the American population, the so-called "internal deterrent". Consider for instance the key nuclear proliferation planning document of the cold war era, the Gilpatric report delivered to President Johnson. In it Gilpatric spelt out the threat that nuclear proliferation poses to US security: "as additional nations obtained nuclear weapons our diplomatic and military influence would wane, and strong pressures would arise to retreat to isolation to avoid the risk of involvement in nuclear war". So if it were seen by the population that the pursuit of foreign policy, conducted in the interests of domestic elites, would increase the threat of nuclear war then the internal deterrent may become dangerously aroused possibly calling off the show. In the strategic literature this is referred to as “self-deterrence”. In other words US non proliferation policy was meant to “lock in” US strategic dominance so that the domestic population would not become dangerously aroused whilst providing Washington the freedom of action necessary to brandish its nuclear superiority over others. This sentiment was reflected in the Bush administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, “nuclear capabilities also assure the US public that the United States will not be subject to coercion based on a false perception of U.S. weakness among potential adversaries.” Many strategic thinkers have argued that the greatest threat to US hegemony or "unipolarity" is the internal "welfare role" and the populations lack of understanding for the burdens of Empire, in other words popular democracy. One of the reasons that the Reagan administration pursued "Star Wars" a programme to render nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete" was to outflank the domestic and global peace movements that were gathering pace as a result of the administration's pursuit of potentially apocalyptic nuclear policies (the very same people have their fingers on the button again). It was well recognised that the Star Wars programme would have increased the chances of a nuclear exchange between Moscow and Washington, just as today the pursuit of short term interests is known to have potentially serious international consequences, such as increase in conflict and global weapons of mass destruction proliferation. The ruling class is well aware of the adverse impact the pursuit of its own sectional interests will have on international order. It pursues those interests with renewed zeal anyway. As far as the ruling class is concerned the greatest threat we face is not nuclear war, it is popular democracy. As Adam Smith observed of a previous mercantile system, applicable to today's system of state-corporate mercantilism, "it cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interest has been so carefully attended to; and among this latter class our merchants and manufacturers have been by far the principal architects." Policy Smith observed, "comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." This raises an interesting issue, namely that the pursuit of Armageddon is quite rational. The dominant institutions of capitalism place a premium on short-term greed. Rational participatory planning incorporating long-term concerns such as human survival are of no interest to these pathological institutions. What matters is short-term profit maximisation. One can see this most clearly in the case of such “externalities” as ecological change where the desire to pursue short-term profit undermines the long-term viability of the system itself (also us as a species; indeed many have surmised that we are in the era of the sixth great extinction of life on Earth this time human induced). The fact that the institutional structures of society compel the ruling classes to pursue highly dangerous “security” policies that are another “externality” of the system of state capitalism compels the population to constrain and eventually overthrow these institutions because apocalypse is institutionally rational. 215 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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. 216 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (1) Severance – The alt is to do nothing – doing both severs out of the whole 1ac - voter because it makes them a moving target and all advocacies become noncompetitive Perm links – extend Hall – the capitalist system is inherently unstable - social services are necessary to mask and legitimize the ongoing economic exploitation. And, the perm links hardest because it legitimizes capitalism in certain instances while accepting that it’s necessary to act. True escape from capitalism requires a rejection of the form, not just the content of capital Zizek 02 [Slavoj, Slovene philosopher, Doctor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Ljubljana, "Revolution at the Gates," 2002] The first thing to strike the eye of today's reader is how directly readable Lenin's texts from 1917 are. There is no need for long explanatory notes--even if the strange-sounding names are unknown to us, we immediately get what was at stake. From today's distance the texts display an almost classical clarity of the contours of the struggle in which they participate. Lenin is fully aware of the paradox of the situation: in the spring of 1917, after the February Revolution which toppled the Tsarist regime, Russia was the most democratic country in the whole of Europe, with an unprecedented degree of mass mobilisation, freedom of organisation and freedom of the press--and yet this freedom rendered the situation non-transparent, thoroughly ambiguous. If there is a common thread that runs through all Lenin's texts written 'in between the two revolutions' (the February one and the October one), it is his insistence on the gap which separates the 'explicit' formal contours of the political struggle between the multitude of parties and other political subjects from its actual social stakes (immediate peace, the distribution of land, and, of course, 'all power to the soviets', ie the dismantling of the existing state apparatus and its replacement with the new commune-like forms of social management). This gap--the repetition of the gap between 1789 and 1793 in the French Revolution--is the very space of Lenin's unique intervention: the fundamental lesson of revolutionary materialism is that revolution must strike twice, and for essential reasons. The gap is not simply the gap between form and content. What the 'first revolution' misses is not the content, but the form itself--it remains stuck in the old form, thinking that freedom and justice can be accomplished if we simply put to use the already existing state apparatus and its democratic mechanisms. What if the 'good' party wins the free elections and 'legally' implements socialist transformation? (The clearest expression of this illusion, bordering on the ridiculous, is Karl Kautsky's thesis, formulated in the 1920s, that the logical political form of the first stage of socialism, of the passage from capitalism to socialism, is the parliamentary coalition of bourgeois and proletarian parties.) The parallel here is perfect with the era of early modernity, in which the opposition to the church's ideological hegemony first articulated itself in the very form of another religious ideology, as a heresy. Along the same lines, the partisans of the 'first revolution' want to subvert the capitalist domination within the very political form of capitalist democracy. This is the Hegelian 'negation of the negation': first the old order is negated within its own ideologico-political form; then this form itself has to be negated. Those who oscillate, those who are afraid to make the second step of overcoming this form itself, are those who (to repeat Robespierre) want a 'revolution without revolution'--and Lenin displays all the strength of his 217 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (2) 'hermeneutics of suspicion' in discerning the different forms of this retreat.In his writings of 1917 Lenin saves his utmost acerbic irony for those who engage in the endless search for some kind of 'guarantee' for the revolution. This guarantee assumes two main forms: either the reified notion of social necessity (one should not risk the revolution too early; one has to wait for the right moment, when the situation is 'mature' with regard to the laws of historical development: 'it is too early for the socialist revolution--the working class is not yet mature') or the normative ('democratic') legitimacy ('the majority of the population is not on our side, so the revolution would not really be democratic')--as Lenin repeatedly puts, as if, before the revolutionary agent risks the seizure of state power, it should get permission from some figure of the big Other (organise a referendum which will ascertain that the majority supports the revolution). With Lenin, as with Lacan, the point is that the revolution can only be authorised by itself: one should assume the revolutionary act is not covered by the big Other--the fear of taking power 'prematurely', the search for a guarantee, is the fear of the abyss of the act. Therein resides the ultimate dimension of what Lenin incessantly denounces as 'opportunism', and his wager is that 'opportunism' is a position which is in itself inherently false, masking fear to accomplish the act with the protective screen of 'objective' facts, laws or norms. The perm’s reliance on the state dooms it to failure - the state has one objective - to protect capitalism. Only the alternative allows the revolution to be fully natural and to struggle freely. Holloway 05 (John, professor at Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences at the Autonomous University of Puebla, Can We Change The World Without Taking Power?, http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=98) The state is not a thing, it is not a neutral object: it is a form of social relations, a form of organisation, a way of doing things which has been developed over several centuries for the purpose of maintaining or developing the rule of capital. If we focus our struggles on the state, or if we take the state as our principal point of reference, we have to understand that the state pulls us in a certain direction. Above all, it seeks to impose upon us a separation of our struggles from society, to convert our struggle into a struggle on behalf of, in the name of. It separates leaders from the masses, the representatives from the represented; it draws us into a different way of talking, a different way of thinking. It pulls us into a process of reconciliation with reality, and that reality is the reality of capitalism, a form of social organisation that is based on exploitation and injustice, on killing and destruction. It also draws us into a spatial definition of how we do things, a spatial definition which makes a clear distinction between the state’s territory and the world outside, and a clear distinction between citizens and foreigners. It draws us into a spatial definition of struggle that has no hope of matching the global movement of capital. There is one key concept in the history of the state-centred left, and that concept is betrayal. Time and time again the leaders have betrayed the movement, and not necessarily because they are bad people, but just because the state as a form of organisation separates the leaders from the movement and draws them into a process of reconciliation with capital. Betrayal is already given in the state as an organisational form. Can we resist this? Yes, of course we can, and it is something that happens all the time. We can refuse to let the state identify leaders or permanent representatives of the movement, we can refuse to let delegates negotiate in secret with the representatives of the state. 218 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (3) Perm won’t solve – we must fully commit to critical reflection 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 xii par 3 Finally, there is also a tension that arises from the postmodern assault on any kind of certainty . The deconstruction of regimes of Truth as socially and culturally manufactured has effectively put paid to the credibility of dogmatic assertions about both knowledge and values. We have, we hope, learned to be cautious and tentative in the claims we make for our theoretical analyses and our prescriptions for practice . But the authors of this book also believe that such uncertainty must surely have its limits. If we are to engage as moral agents in the struggles for social justice that are integral to critical social work theory and practice, we must depend on strong ethical beliefs, even though such beliefs may no longer be able to claim universal or transcendental moral guarantees. And while we, as social work educators, researchers and practitioners need, perhaps, less intellectual certainty, we might reflect on the fact that most clients of social workers - those living with poverty, racism and social exclusion - are in need of more certainty in their material and emotional lives. 219 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (4) The aff is a reformist gesture that domesticates the kritik Zizek, 2008 (Slavoj, In Defense of Lost Causes, pp. 106-107) Thus all the dangers that lurk in democracy can be understood as grounded in these constitutive inconsistencies of the democratic project, as ways of dealing with these inconsistencies, but with the price that, in trying to get rid of the imperfections of democracy, of its non-democratic ingredients, we inadvertently lose democracy Itself—recall simply how the populist appeal to a direct expression of the people's General Will, bypassing all particular interests and petty conflicts, ends up stifling democratic life itself. In a Hegelian mode, one is thus tempted to classify Brown's version as the extreme aggravation of the "democratic paradox" to the point of direct self-inconsistency. What, then, would be the (re)solution of this opposition between "thesis " (Lacan as a theorist of democracy) and "antithesis" (Lacan as its internal critic)? We suggest that it is the risky but necessary gesture of rendering problematic the very notion of "democracy, " of moving elsewhere — of having the courage to elaborate a positive Iweable project "beyond democracy." Is Brown not all too un-Nletzschean in her reduction of "Nietzsche" to a provocative correction of democracy which, through his exaggeration, renders visible the inconsistencies and weaknesses of the democratic project? When she proclaims Nietzsche's implicit (and also explicit) anti-democratic project "unliveable," does she not thereby all too glibly pass over the fact that there were very real political projects which directly referred to Nietzsche, up to and including Nazism, and that Nietzsche himself constantly referred to actual political events around him — say, the "slave rebellion" of the Paris Commune that he found so shattering?' Brown thus accomplishes a domestication of Nietzsche, the transformation of his theory into an exercise in "inherent transgression": provocations which are not really "meant seriously," but aim, through their "provocative" character, to awaken us from our democratic-dogmatic slumber and thus contribute to the revitalization of democracy itself . . . This is how the establishment likes its "subversive" theorists: harmless gadflies who sting us and thus awaken us to the inconsistencies and imperfection of our democratic enterprise — God forbid that they might take the project seriously and try to live it . . The perm simply reframes the alternative to match the aff—this leaves the main problem unaddressed Khanna, Professor of English and Literature at Duke, 2003 (Ranjana, “Frames, Contexts, Community, Justice,” diacritics, Volume 33, No. 2, Summer) Culler also writes of negative framing: the police frame-up, or manufacturing evi- dence. The frame-up compromises the legal system, leading to wrongful accusation and condemnation of an innocent. The compromise is negatively viewed because the accused may subsequently be condemned on “wrongful grounds.” Here, the theft is of the legal framework, and the frame itself (whether it protects or not) has become the thing of value. On the occasions when the “frame-up” is discovered (usually through some supplementary information that exceeds the frame-up), legal structures are validated and sanctified. There is little provision for assessing the “frame” itself—the claims it makes, and its ability to adapt to damage caused by the supplement challenging of its norms. The discovery of a frame-up leads to a liberal response—to save the frame— even if those it apparently protects are not protected by it. But this would always leave the supplement outside of the frame. And the frame would remain unresponsive to its own corruptibility and exclusionary framework. 220 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (5) 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 221 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. principle carries and holds us in its ineffectiveness which would consume and destroy us in its effectiveness"?'*'^ 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 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 . . . 222 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (6) The aff ushers in neoliberal governance as the normal way of ordering society – this move disposes things such that market norms dictate struggles and social actualization, shutting down alternatives to capitalism. Massimo De Angelis ‘7 Lecturer, University of East London The Beginning of History 88-9 This double function can be described, in general terms, using Foucault's term `governmentality'. This is an art of government that, unlike `enclosures', is not based on decree but on management, although this, as we shall see, is also predicated on the iron fist of the state. With governmentality, the question is 'not of imposing law on men but of disposing things: 9 that is of employing tactics rather than laws, or even of using laws themselves as tactics – to arrange things in such a way that, through a certain number of means, suchand-such ends may be achieved' (Foucault 2002: 211). We cannot here discuss this category in detail, as Foucault's work on this issue is dense with historical details and insights. 10 For our purposes here, governmentality is the management of networks of social relations on the front line of conflicting value practices." This management does not come from a transcendental authority that is external to the network itself, such as in the problematic of the Machiavellian prince. Rather, the problem and solution of authority is all internal to the network, and it is for this reason that it deploys tactics rather than laws: tactics and strategies aimed at creating a context in which the nodes interact without escaping the value practices of capita1. Social stability compatible with the priorities and flows necessary for accumulation is one of the rationales of capitalist governmentality. Examples of these practices are post-war Keynesianism and the current discourses of neoliberal governance. A classic example of this `governmentality' is the productivity deals that were at the heart of the Keynesian era. These where the result of a long institutional process grounded on the crisis and struggles of the 1930s, the worldwide revolutionary ferments following the Russian Revolution, and became the kernel not only of Keynesian policies, but also the hidden parametric assumptions of post-Second World War Keynesian models. Here the state did not implement laws establishing prices and wages (when it tried this in emergency situations it usually failed), but promoted guidelines and an institutional context in which unions and capital would negotiate within an overall framework. In other words, 'social stability' in the case of Keynesianism was seen as the output of a production process that had `government' as its 'facilitator' and class struggle as its enforcer on the global scene. While I refer the reader to the literature for a discussion of Keynesianism,12 in what follows I want to deal with the modern form of governmentality: neoliberal governance. Neoliberal governance What today is called 'governance' is the name given to the neoliberal strategies of governmentality. As in the case of the Keynesian form, governance too emerges out of a crisis that increasingly presents itself as a problem of 'social stability', a crisis that actualises the predisposition towards the rupture of accumulation, towards the interruption, slowing down, or refusal to maintain and increase the speed of flows which are necessary for the expansion of capital within the M-C-M' cycle. Neoliberal governance emerges as an attempt to manage clashing value practices in line with the requirements of capitalist priorities in an increasingly integrated world. Neoliberal governance is a central element of the neoliberal discourse in a particular phase of it, when neoliberalism and capital in general face particularly stringent problems of accumulation, growing social conflict and a crisis of reproduction. Governance sets itself the task of tackling these problems for capital by attempting to relay the disciplinary role of the market through the establishment of a 'continuity of powers' based on normalised market values as truly common values across the social body. Governance thus seeks to embed these values in the many ways in which the vast array of social and environmental problems are addressed. It thus promotes active participation of society in the reproduction of life and of our species on the basis of this market normalisation. It depends on participation on the basis of the shared values and discourse of the market. According to this logic, every problem raised by struggles can be addressed on condition that the mode of its addressing is through the market: for example, the environmental catastrophe can be dealt with by marketing pollution rights and the human catastrophe of poverty can be dealt with by microcredit and export promotion. 223 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (7) The perm operates in the democratic framework which dooms it to fail because of the binary created by democracy Žižek, Institute for Social Sciences at the University of Ljubljana, 2004 [Slavoj, Appendix I: canis a non canendo, iraq the borrowed kettle pg.112-113 ] (This passage is worth quoting in extenso, since it presents, in a clear and concise way, the whole line of reasoning that we should question — everything is here, right up to the simplistic parallel b D. etween Nazism and Communism a la Ernst Nolte. The first thing that strikes us is the ‘binary logic’ on which Stavrakakis relies: on the one hand, in one big arch, premodern millenarian utopias, Communism and Nazism, which all imply the localization of the origin of Evil in a particular social agent (Jews, kulaks . . .) — once we have eliminated these 'thieves of (our) enjoyment', social harmony and transparency will be restored; on the other hand, the 'democratic invention', with its notion of the empty place of power, nontransparency and the irreducible contingency of social life, and so on. Furthermore, in so far as the utopia of a harmonious society is a kind of fantasy, which conceals the structural 'lack in the Other' (irreducible social antagonism), and in so far as the aim of psychoanalytic treatment is to traverse the fantasy — that is to say, to make the analysis and accept the nonexistence of the big Other — is the radical democratic politics whose premises is that 'society doesn't exist' (Laclau) not eo ipso a post-fantasmatic politics? There is a whole series of problems with this line of reasoning. First, in its rapid rejection of utopia, it leaves out of the picture the main utopia of today, which is the utopia of capitalism itself —it is Francis Fukuyama who is our true utopian. Second, it fails to distinguish between, on the one hand, the contingency and impenetrability of social life, and, on the other, the democratic logic of the empty place of power, With no agent who is 'naturally' entitled to it. It is easy to see how these two phenomena are independent of each other: if anything, a functioning democracy presupposes a basic stability and reliability of social life. Third, such a simplified binary opposition also ignores the distinction between the traditional functioning of power grounded in a `naturalized' authority (king) and the millenarian radical utopia which strives to accomplish a radical rupture. Is not Stavrakakis's dismissal of millenarian radicalism all too precipitate, overlooking the tremendous emancipatory potential of millenarian radicals, of their explosion of revolutionary negativity? The very least we should do here is to complicate the picture by introducing two couples of opposites: first the opposition full/empty place of power, then the opposition difference/ antagonism as the fundamental structuring principle (to use Laclau's own terms). While the traditional hierarchical power presupposes a 'natural' bearer of power, it asserts difference (hierarchical social order) as the basic structural principle of social life, in contrast to millenarian 'fundamentalism', which asserts antagonism. On the other hand, democracy combines the assertion of contingency (the empty place of power) with difference: while it admits the irreducible character of social antagonisms, its goal is to transpose antagonisms into a regulated agonistic competition. So what about the fourth option: the combination of contingency and antagonism? In other words, what about the prospect of a radical social transformation which would not involve the well-worn scarecrow 'complete fullness and transparency of the social'? Why should every project of a radical social revolution automatically fall into the trap of aiming at the impossible dream of 'total transparency'? ) 224 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (8) This makes the aff ethically indistinct from, and politically more dangerous than, even the most base conservatisms. The may marginally contribute to the remediation of some of the violence symptomatic of global power relations, but they do so while fundamentally reinforcing the very structures which maintain them. Zizek, Prof. of Sociology at Univ. Ljubljana, 2006. [Slavoj, “Nobody Has to be Vile,” London Review of Books, Vol. 28 No. 7] We should have no illusions: liberal communists are the enemy of every true progressive struggle today. All other enemies – religious fundamentalists, terrorists, corrupt and inefficient state bureaucracies – depend on contingent local circumstances. Precisely because they want to resolve all these secondary malfunctions of the global system, liberal communists are the direct embodiment of what is wrong with the system. It may be necessary to enter into tactical alliances with liberal communists in order to fight racism, sexism and religious obscurantism, but it’s important to remember exactly what they are up to. Etienne Balibar, in La Crainte des masses (1997), distinguishes the two opposite but complementary modes of excessive violence in today’s capitalism: the objective (structural) violence that is inherent in the social conditions of global capitalism (the automatic creation of excluded and dispensable individuals, from the homeless to the unemployed), and the subjective violence of newly emerging ethnic and/or religious (in short: racist) fundamentalisms. They may fight subjective violence, but liberal communists are the agents of the structural violence that creates the conditions for explosions of subjective violence. The same Soros who gives millions to fund education has ruined the lives of thousands thanks to his financial speculations and in doing so created the conditions for the rise of the intolerance he denounces. 225 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (9) 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. 226 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (10) 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. 227 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (11) We cannot combine things – we must clearly stake out positions Žižek, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Social Studies (Ljubljana), 2004 [Slavoj, Conversations with Žižek, p. 45] On the one hand, I do consider myself an extreme Stalinist philosopher. That is to say, it’s clear where I stand. I don’t believe in combining things. I hate this approach of taking a little but from Lacan, a little but from Foucault, a little bit from Derrida. No, I don’t believe in this; I believe in clear cut positions. I think that the most arrogant position is this apparent, multidisciplinary modesty of ‘what I am saying is not unconditional, it is just a hypothesis’, and so on. It is really the most arrogant position. I think that the only way to be honest and to expose yourself to criticism is to state clearly and dogmatically where you are. You must take the risk and have a position. Piecemeal reform legitimizes capitalism – radical action is needed. 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 To disentangle the origins and functions of welfare policies let us begin with Marx's own study of the British Factory Acts in the nineteenth century.' He demonstrated how the Ten Hours Act and other factory legislation was the result of unremitting struggle by the working class against their exploitation, yet ultimately served the longer-term interests of capital by preventing the over-exploitation and exhaustion of the labour force. The short-term economic interests of each individual capitalist conflicted with their longer term collective interests: Capital takes no account of the health and length of life of the worker, unless society forces it to do so . . . under free competition, the immanent laws of capitalist production confront the individual capitalist as a coercive force external to him. The outside intervention of the state was necessary to nullify the anonymous pressures of the market on each firm, Yet Marx was clear that this intervention was not initiated by representatives of the capitalist class, indeed it was persistently and fiercely opposed by them: 'The establishment of a normal working day is the result of centuries of struggle between the capitalist and the worker.'2 Paradoxically then, it would appear that labour indirectly aids the long-term accumulation of capital and strengthens capitalist social relations by struggling for its own interests within the state. One could apply this approach to much welfare policy this century. 3 The core of truth here lies in the fact that the working class is both an element of capital ('variable' capital) and a living class of human beings struggling to enlarge their needs and living standards. But this still leaves us with several problems. 228 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (12) Reject the permutation – any degree of acceptance of the “big other” – or social structure’s intelligibility – colonizes the entirety of the aff’s gesture. The big other manages the aff’s interaction with others to reproduce an inherently unethical configuration Zizek, 2007 (Slavoj, How to Read Lacan, Ch 2 Empty Gestures and Performatives) There are, however, many features of the "big Other" which get lost in this simplified notion. For Lacan, the reality of human beings is constituted by three mutually entangled levels: the Symbolic, the Imaginary, and the Real. This triad can be nicely illustrated by the game of chess. The rules one has to follow in order to play it are its symbolic dimension: from the purely formal symbolic standpoint, "knight" is defined only by the moves this figure can make. This level is clearly different from the imaginary one, namely the way different pieces are shaped and characterized by their names (king, queen, knight), and it is easy to envision a game with the same rules, but with a different imaginary, in which this figure would be called "messenger" or "runner" or whatever. Finally, real is the entire complex set of contingent circumstances which affect the course of the game: the intelligence of the players, the unpredictable intrusions that may disconcert one of the players or directly cut the game short The big Other operates at a symbolic level. What, then, is this symbolic order composed of? When we speak (or listen, for hat matter), we never merely interact with others; our speech activity is grounded on our accepting of and relying on a complex network of rules and other kinds of presuppositions. First, there are the grammatical rules I have to master blindly and spontaneously: if I were to bear in mind all the time these rules, my speech would come to a halt. Then there is the background of participating in the same life-world which enables me and my partner in conversation to understand each other. The rules that I follow are marked by a deep split: there are rules (and meanings) that I follow blindly, out of custom, but of which, upon reflection, I can become at least partially aware (such as common grammatical rules), and there are rules that I follow, meanings that haunt me, unbeknownst to me (such as unconscious prohibitions). Then there are rules and meanings I am aware of, but have to act on the outside as if I am not aware of them - dirty or obscene innuendos which one passes over in silence in order to maintain the proper appearances. This symbolic space acts like a standard against which I can measure myself. This is why the big Other can be personified or reified in a single agent: "God" who watches over me from beyond and over all real individuals or the Cause which addresses me (Freedom, Communism, Nation) and for which I am ready to give my life. While talking, I am never merely a "small other" (individual) interacting with other "small others," the big Other always has to be there. 229 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (13) The permutation taints the kritk – the gestures we symbolize meaning with coproduce the symbolic rules that limit us Zizek, 2007 (Slavoj, How to Read Lacan, Ch 2 Empty Gestures and Performatives) We can see now how, far from conceiving the Symbolic which rules human perception and interaction as a kind of transcendental a priori (a formal network, given in advance, which limits the scope of human practice), Lacan is interested precisely in how the gestures of symbolization are entwined with and embedded in the process of collective practice. What Lacan elaborates as the "twofold moment" of the symbolic function reaches far beyond the standard theory of the performative dimension of speech as it was developed in the tradition from J.L. Austin to John Searle: The symbolic function presents itself as a twofold movement in the subject: man makes his own action into an object, but only to return its foundational place to it in due time. In this equivocation, operating at every instant, lies the whole progress of a function in which action and knowledge alternate. The historical example evoked by Lacan to clarify this "twofold movement" is indicative in its hidden references: in phase one, a man who works at the level of production in our society considers himself to belong to the ranks of the proletariat; in phase two, in the name of belonging to it, he joins in a general strike. Lacan's (implicit) reference here is to Georg Lukacs' History and Class Consciousness, a classic Marxist work from 1923 whose widely acclaimed French translation was published in the mid1950s. For Lukacs, consciousness is opposed to mere knowledge of an object: knowledge is external to the known object, while consciousness is in itself 'practical', an act which changes its very object. (Once a worker "considers himself to belong to the ranks of the proletariat," this changes his very reality: he acts differently.) One does something, one counts oneself as (declares oneself) the one who did it, and, on the base of this declaration, one does something new - the proper moment of subjective transformation occurs at the moment of declaration, not at the moment of act. This reflexive moment of declaration means that every utterance not only transmits some content, but, simultaneously, renders how the subject relates to this content. Even the most down-to-earth objects and activities always contain such a declarative dimension, which constitutes the ideology of everyday life. One should never forget that utility functions as a reflective notion: it always involves the assertion of utility as meaning. A man who lives in a large city and owns a land-rover (for which he obviously has no use), doesn't simply lead a no-nonsense, down-to-earth life; rather, he owns such a car in order to signal that he leads his life under the sign of a nononsense, down-to-earth attitude. To wear stone-washed jeans is to signal a certain attitude to life. 230 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (14) Detachment DA—The permuation is just another distancing strategy that promotes a false reconciliation with the trauma of our desires and our complicity in suffering Edkins, Lecturer in Politics at the University of Wales, 2000 [Jenny, Whose Hunger? Concepts of Famine, Practices of Aid p. 120] If facing images of distant hunger is an experience of the traumatic real, what follows, in the response that we make, is the reconstitution of subjectivity and community through a reinstatement of what we call social reality/social fantasy. For Zizek, social fantasy is to be seen as an escape from the traumatic real, a way of concealing antagonism and the impossibility of the social order. It produces the master signifier and masks the "nothing" behind the curtain. Critics point to the role of the ideological in Live Aid. The discourse of charitable response to disaster, the narrative of the West as rescuer, performs the ideological role of concealing the "true" causes of famine and suffering that lie in the dominance of the West and its exploitation of Africa. For these critics, famine has deep causes, for example, in the effects of colonization and structural inequalities, and the Live Aid narrative is ideological in that it provides a way of avoiding the need to confront these truths. This view of famine as a disaster with a scientific cause—whether the science in question is Marxist economics or natural science—leads to a detachment from disaster relief in favor of a search for further knowledge, which alone can provide a reason to act. It contrasts with the humanitarian approach that calls for action without knowledge to save lives in the immediate future without waiting for a political analysis. This approach is validated by a different detachment or objectivity, one that in its own way equally repudiates involvement and empathy with suffering. It is based on a strict separation of humanitarian and political actions, on an assumption of neutrality, and on a valuation that holds the preservation of human life to be above and distinct from any political The link between capitalism and the nation-state ensures the failure of socialism John Kay ‘01, retired Professor of Management at Oxford, AN EXCHANGE ON A SOCIALIST APPROACH TO THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT, January 10, 2001, p. http:// www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jan2001/corr-j10.shtml. (DRGOC/E303) Capitalism further precludes the ability to address the environment in that it remains tied to a system of competing nation-states. Environmental problems are inherently global in nature and must be addressed on a global scale. Only by cooperatively mobilizing the world's scientific, technological and economic resources can such an immense challenge be confronted. The international agreements that have been reached, such as the Kyoto agreement on global warming, are generally of an extremely weak character, and even these have floundered on the rocks of national competition. The problems created by the development of production under capitalism can be solved only through the rational and international control of production, i.e., the conscious direction of the dynamic interaction between man and the rest of the natural world. 231 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (15) Changing the capitalist system is key, minor alterations lack effectiveness David Korten ‘02, President of the People-Centered Development Forum, ETHIX MAGAZINE, September-October 2002, p. http://iisd1.iisd.ca/pcdf/2002/ethix_magazine_issue_25.htm. (DRGOC/E305) Gill: So you are not blaming these problems on individual evil capitalists but on an organizational structure and a system of relationships? Korten: My focus is on the economy as an organizational system that is structured to reward the worst in us. There are certainly some extraordinarily dishonest and greedy people who use this system. But most in the corporate system are ordinary decent people, many of them with deep spiritual and ethical values. They are caught in a system that gives them very little scope to behave in any way other than what the system demands. Capitalism is inescapable without complete rejection Meszaros 95 Istvan Meszaros, 1995, Professor at University of Sussex, England, “Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition” Moreover, a closer look at the internal power structure of even the capitalistically most advanced countries revealed that notwithstanding the relative privileges of their working people, as compared to the conditions of countless millions in the former colonial territories - they have preserved fundamentally unaltered the exploitative class relations of the alienating capital system. For, despite all theoretical obfuscation, the deciding issue, applying to all grades and categories of workers everywhere, was and remains the structural subordination of labour to capital, and not the relatively higher standard of living of working people in the privileged capitalist countries. Such relative privileges can easily disappear in the midst of a major crisis and escalating unemployment, the sort we are experiencing today. The class position of no matter how varying groups of people is defined by their location in the command structure of capital, and not by secondary sociological characteristics, like 'life-style' As regards their necessarily subordinate location in the command structure of capital, there is no difference between the workers of the most 'underdeveloped' countries and their counterparts in the most privileged capitalist societies. A worker in the U.S. or in Great Britain may own a handful of nonvoting shares in a private company, but the Robert Maxwells of this world, protected by the legal loopholes of the capitalist state, can rob him or her with the greatest ease even of their hard earned pension funds, * as we have found out after the curious death of Maxwell, subjecting them to the conditions of grave existential insecurity, totally at the mercy of the alien power- capital - to which, as the nasty tale devised to frighten the children goes, 'there can be no alternative'. 232 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (16) The aff’s commitment to undecidability undermines any serious political commitment erecting an inevitable and antagonistic barrier of identity between self and other. Real politics requires making risky decisions, and standing firmly behind them. These decisions are capable, though, of making new relationships possible. Their version of postmodern uncertainty prevents decision, which is key to accessing this form of politics. Rens Van Munster, 2004 Department of International Politics, University of Wales. “The Desecuritisation of Illegal Migration: The Case for a European Belonging without Community. Marie Curie Working Papers, No 7 There is one crucial problem with the deconstructivist position, however. For while deconstructivism embraces the objective of desecuritisation, its theoretical maxim that identity is always constituted in the dialectics between two opposing terms which function as each other’s negation hampers them in reaching this goal. For if one accepts, if only tacitly, that identity is always constituted through an antagonistic relationship with the other, it becomes unclear how one can envisage desecuritised ways of mediating belonging between self and other (cf. Fierke, 2001; Hansen, 1997). Ole Wæver observes in this context that “[m]any [poststructuralist] authors – including Campbell – balance between, on the one hand, (formally) saying that identity does not demand an Other, does not demand antagonism, only difference(s) that can be non-antagonistic and, on the other, actually assuming that identity is always based on an antagonistic relationship to an other, is always constituted as an absolute difference” (Wæver, 1996: 122; cf. Fierke, 2001: 119). Indeed, the theoretical maxim that identity always requires a constitutive outside logically entails that only the particular contents of a specific friend/enemy figuration can be questioned, but never the antagonistic logic itself (see also Norval, 2000). If identity presupposes otherness, then every positive articulation of identity will automatically lead to the institutionalisation of a new, yet equally absolute, difference. Thus although deconstructivists are right to stress the principle openness of all articulations of belonging, they have so far not adequately theorised the reverse move from deconstruction to the decision as an ethical act. But without a theory of how to break free from the us/them dichotomy, there is nothing to guarantee that the deconstruction of a security story will contribute to political forms of identification that are less exclusive towards the other (Wyn Jones, 1999; Wæver, 2000). Thus while it is no doubt true that the deconstruction of security stories is a necessary precondition for desecuritisation and the repoliticising of belonging, it does not in itself provide a guarantee against totalising discourses of closure. Hence Derrida’s claim that “deconstruction is, in itself, a positive response to an alterity which necessarily calls, summons or motivates it” (cited in Campbell, 1998a: 182) makes little sense as long as it is not supplemented theoretically with an account of how to bridge the gap between openness on the one hand and closure on the other. For without such a theory, deconstructivism risks getting caught on the abstract level of meta-politics in which its philosophical preferences for opening up and transgression are translated as something equally desirable on the less abstract level of politics (see also Wæver, 2000: 283). Which is why Moran rightly objects that “deconstruction runs the risk of appearing either as a critical Puritanism or as a series of empty, if largely unobjectionable platitudes” (Moran, 2002: 125). Hence the deconstructive emphasis on the importance of ontological openness/ undecidability as the necessary precondition for every closure/decision needs itself to be supplemented with a theory of the decision if it is not appear “either as substanceless cant or a new moral absolutism” (Moran, 2002: 129). For if “without the radical structural undecidability that the deconstructive intervention brings about, many strata of social relations appear as essentially linked by necessary logics”, Laclau correctly observes that deconstruction in turn “requires hegemony, that is, a theory of the decision taken in an undecidable terrain: without a theory of decision, that distance between structural undecidability and actuality would remain untheorised” (Laclau, 1996: 59-60). In a similar critique, Critchley – who agrees with Laclau that deconstruction is a necessary move against closure and for politics – has pointed out that making politics possible is not the same as providing a politics. For him, the gap between undecidability and actuality points to the limits of deconstructivism as a political strategy: “Decisions have to be taken. But how? And in virtue of what? How does one make a decision in an undecidable terrain?” (Critchley, 1992: 199 Prozorov, too, comes to similar 233 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor conclusions. For him, Holdin’ it down. the idea that any decision presupposes contingency and undecidability is not just “lamenting the obvious”; it is also problematic from an ethical point of view. For if it is true that every decision requires undecidability, “all decisions are responsible and hence ‘ethical’ in Derridean terms. Yet, since all decisions effect a closure of the radical openness …, they are all equally irresponsible and hence unethical.” Thus, while it was argued that security is undesirable because it performs its ordering function in an exclusionary way that closes off for alternative ways of deciding on belonging, it is at the same time also ethical because, like any other decision, it passages through the moment of undecidability. As a result, deconstructivism remains frustratingly caught above “the abyss of undecidability in the desire to refrain from the closure that every decision inaugurates” (Prozorov, 2004: 13). What is needed, therefore, is not only a deconstructivist position that highlights the impossibility of a decision, but also a theory that can affirm the decision as an ethical act in a radically undecidable terrain. To put this differently, in focusing upon the substance of the decision, a deconstructivist stance risks ignoring the ethicality of deciding as such. Thus to move beyond deconstructivism, it is necessary not focus too narrowly “on the impossible attempt to establish the fact of ethicality of decision, but on affirming the decision itself as an ethical act, whose authenticity is conditioned by ‘going through’ both the traversal of undecidability and its closure. The ethical injunction … concerns not the substance of the decision, but the responsibility for the decision as an act” (Prozorov, 2004: 13). In contrast to deconstructivist thought which explicitly separates the ethical (the unconditional injunction of undecidability) from the domain of politics (the domain of practical interventions which always fail to live up to this ethical injunction), the move towards desecuritisation as an act requires that we accept the inherently political character of every ethical 234 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (17) 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 advance-whether 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. 235 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (18) Policymakers defend cap when it benefits them, allowing them to manipulate reform movements and making them useless Meszaros 95 Istvan Meszaros, 1995, Professor at University of Sussex, England, “Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition” AS mentioned before, capital's historical ascendancy in its broad outlines has been brought to its conclusion . Significantly, this process could unfold only in a most contradictory form, storing up enormous problems for the time ahead of us. As a result of the slanted global development accomplished in the last hundred years, under the domination of a handful of capitalistically advanced countries, the terms of Marx's original equation have fundamentally changed. The way in which this process has been brought to its conclusion pronounces a very severe judgement on it. For the consummation of the capital system's global ascendancy, despite five centuries of expansion and accumulation, carried with it the condemnation of the overwhelming majority of humankind to a hand-to-mouth existence. There are, of course, those who can see nothing wrong with the existing state of affairs. Heads of governments -like John Major in England - declare with smug selfcomplacency that 'capitalism works'. They refuse to entertain the questions: for whom? (certainly not for 90 percent of the world's population) and for how long? Curiously, though, when they have to defend themselves on account of their miserably failed policies and constantly broken promises, they can only repeat like a broken record that the problems which forced them ‘off the rails’ are not of their own making but shared by every 'industrial economy' (a euphemism for capitalist countries), from Japan to Germany and from the United Stares to France, not to mention Italy and all the other members of the European Economic Community. Thus they refuse to see the blatant contradiction between their self-confident declaration of faith that 'capitalism works' and the forced admission that after all it doesn't (a conclusion which they never explicitly draw, although it stares them in the face). In the course of the last century capital has certainly invaded and subdued every corner of our planet, little and large alike. However, it proved quite incapable of solving the grave problems which people must confront in their everyday life all over the world. If anything, the penetration of capital into every single corner of the 'underdeveloped' world only aggravated these problems. It promised 'modernization', but after many decades of loudly trumpeted intervention it only delivered intensified poverty, chronic indebtedness, insoluble inflation, and crippling structural dependency. So much so in fact that it is now highly embarrassing to remind the ideologists of the capital system that not so long ago they nailed their flags to the mast of 'modernization'. Things have significantly changed in the last few decades, as compared to the expansionary past. The displacement of capital's inner contradictions could work with relative ease during the phase of the system's historical ascendancy. It was possible to deal under such conditions with many problems by sweeping them under the carpet of unfulfilled promises, like modernization in the 'Third World' and ever greater prosperity and social advancement in the 'metropolitan' countries, predicated on the expectation of producing an endlessly growing cake. However, the consummation of capital's historical ascendancy radically alters the situation. It is then not only no longer possible to make plausible new sets of vacuous promises but the old promises too must be wiped out of memory, and some real gains of the working classes in the privileged capitalist countries must be 'rolled back' in the interest of the survival of the ruling socioeconomic and political order. This is where we stand today. The triumphalist celebrations of a few years ago now sound very hollow indeed. The slanted development of the last century brought no solutions on the model of'mobile property's civilized victory' (Marx), in that it simply multiplied the privileges of the few and the misery of the many. However, a radically new condition has emerged in the course of the last few decades, gravely affecting the prospects of development in the future. For what is particularly grave today from the point of view of the capital system is that even the privileges of the few cannot be sustained any longer on the backs of the many, in sharp contrast to the past. As a result, the system as a whole is being rendered quite unstable, even if it will take some time before the hill implications of this systemic instability transpire, calling for structural remedies in place of manipulative postponement. 236 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (19) Complete rejection is essential – post-politics prevents any movement ground in status quo systems. Zizek 1999 (Slavoj Zizek, The Ticklish Subject pp 198-9) 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 Today, however, negotiation of interests, a compromise is reached in the guise of a more or less universal Conesus. Post-politics 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. 237 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (20) 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. 238 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (21) Perm never solves – social movements that reject capitalist domination cannot occur within the realm of the methodology of oppressors similar to that of the 1ac Quinney and Shelden ‘01, prof. of sociology at Northern Illinois U and founder of critical criminology 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 The contradictions of capitalism do not inevitably lead to the collapse of the existing order. Indeed, the state can continue to consolidate existing arrangements through the various means of repression, including crime control. The movement toward a socialist society can occur only with a political consciousness on the part of the oppressed and the correct political action. The liberating social institutions will only grow out of the struggles against the oppression of capitalism and the construction of a new world. In other words, a socialist society cannot be willed into being, but requires the conscious activity of those who seek a new existence. We ask at this point: How will this movement take place? From our analysis thus far we know that the existing capitalist society — with its state, ruling class, and legal system — effectively suppresses resistance that threatens its survival. We realize also that the consciousness of the public has traditionally been manipulated by an official ideology that serves the existing order. Therefore, any change must come about with a new consciousness among the oppressed. A beginning is the realization of the alienation we suffer under capitalism. The contradiction of capitalism itself — the disparity between possibility and actuality — makes large portions of the population ready to consider alternatives to the capitalist system. When we beome conscious of the extent to which we are dehumanized under the capitalist mode of production and consumption, when we realize the source and nature of our alienation, we become active in a movement to build a new society. Sooner or later, then, the oppressed begin to struggle against their oppression. As Paulo Freire has written in Pedagogy of the Oppressed: Who are better prepared than the oppressed to understand the terrible significance of an oppressive society? Who suffer the effects of oppression more than the oppressed? Who can better understand the necessity of liberation? They will not gain this liberation by chance but through the praxis of their quest for it, through their recognition of the necessity to fight for it."' How, then, are the oppressed to move beyond the ideology and social reality of the oppressor? There is need of a critical consciousness, led by those who are oppressed. To surmount the situation of oppression, men must first critically recognize its causes, so that through transforming action they can create a new situation, one which makes possible the pursuit of a fuller humanity. But the struggle to be more fully human has already begun in the authentic struggle to transform the situation. Although the situation of oppression is a dehumanized and dehumanizing totality affecting both the oppressors and those whom they oppress, it is the latter who must, from their stifled humanity, wage for both the struggle for a fuller humanity; the oppressor, who is himself dehumanized because he dehumanizes others, is unable to lead this struggle.“ 239 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (22) The unrestrainable nature of capital makes reforming the system impossible Meszaros 95 Istvan Meszaros, 1995, Professor at University of Sussex, England, “Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition” The key remedial role of the state is defined in relation to the state imperative of unrestrainability. What is important to stress here is that the positive potentialities of capital’s unrestrainable dynamics cannot be realized if the basic reproductive units are taken in isolation, abstracted from their sociopolitical setting. For although the inner drive of the productive microcosms is irrepressible, its character is totally indeterminate-i.e. it could also be utterly destructive and self-destructive by itself. This is why Hobbes wants to impose Leviathan as the necessary corrective-in the form of a politically absolute controlling power-on his world of bellum omnium contra omnes. To make the productive potentiality of capital’s unrestrainable drive prevail, the manifold interacting reproductive units must be turn into a coherent system whose overall defining principle and orienting objective is the highest practicable extraction of surplus-labour. (In this respect it does not matter at all whether the extraction of surplus labour is regulated economically or politically, or indeed by any feasible combination and proportionality of the two.) Without an adequate-firmly surplus-labour-extraction oriented-totalizing command structure the given units of capital do not constitute a system, but only a more or less haphazard and unsustainable aggregate of economic entities exposed to the dangers of slanted development or outright political suppression. (This is why some promising capitalistic beginnings are halted and even completely reversed in certain countries in the course of European historical development.) Post-Renaissance Italy offers a striking example in this respect. Reform empirically fails-the necessary choice between co-option and complete rejection always results in co-option Callinicos 01 Alex Callinicos, 2001, Professor of Politics at the University of York, "Against the Third Way" The bankruptcy of the Third Way is not, therefore, equivalent to the death of social democracy. As long as capitalism continues to generate injustice and instability, movements seeking its reform will emerge to challenge it. In my view, however, these movements will still face the classical difficulties inherent in reformism. In particular, as I have already argued, the imperatives of capitalist reprodution set limits to what any reformist movement can achieve. Confronted with these limits, the movement will have to choose between abandoning its attempt to achieve a fairer and more humane world or seeking the removal of the system itself. Pursuing the latter option once again poses the question of agency. It requires the development of a mass movement centred on the organized working class that seeks the democratic reconstruction of society. Only in this way can the centres of concentrated capitalist power in the economy and the state be effectively challenged.4 It is the tragedy of social democracy, however, that usually it is the first option that is taken. The disillusionment caused by reformist governments' surrender to capital has helped to create the context in which first the New Right and the Third Way could force through neo-liberal policies. But history is not a prison. There is no reason why the past need endlessly repeat itself. The anti-capitalist movement that began at Seattle is creating the conditions in which a new Afterword 125 left can emerge. Through seeking a democratic transformation of society, in which the mass of people develop the political forms required for them to take control of their lives and begin to address the problems of the planet, this left could offer a genuine alternative to the dead-end into which the Third Way leads. 240 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (23) Perm doesn’t solve- we need a complete overthrow, not modest reforms Sanbonmatsu ‘09, 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) WOLIN SUGGESTS THAT WHILE OBAMA may be "well meaning… he inherits a system of constraints that make it very difficult to take on these major power configurations." The forces resisting change appear to be "too powerful to be challenged." While that is true, it is still only an appearance. These forces could be overcome — if only there were sufficient pressure from the grassroots to do so. The question, though, is whether anyone is challenging the defenders of the status quo at all. Certainly conservatives aren't — they would like to see less government regulation of the market, not more. Nor, however, are liberal intellectuals, who as a body have taken pains not to call into question the fundamental structures of the existing order. Even Paul Krugman, notwithstanding his aforementioned call for an end to securitization, has called for only modest reforms, urging the Obama administration to rally to the call of a kinder, gentler capitalism — chiefly by adopting a new New Deal, a Keynesian strategy of massive public investments infrastructure and education, coupled with the imposition of more stringent regulatory controls on the financial sector. The economist Robert J. Shiller, similarly, writes that the "best thing that… Obama can do is to set up permanent new structures to harness the innovations of finance to improve people's lives on Main Street." What is more surprising, perhaps, is that even more radical thinkers on the left have said little about the need for an alternative to capitalism. In a recent article for the radical economics journal Dollars and Sense, for example, economist Marie Duggan argues that we need to "fix the financial sector," not do away with it. "Yes," she writes, "the United States needs a functioning financial sector so that small businesses, students, and even GM have access to credit. But not one as large as it was before the crisis." Similar perspectives have echoed throughout the alternative media — a willingness to reform the tax code, or to increase government regulation, or to reform the Federal Reserve, but not to challenge the true prerogatives of the powerful, nor to question the basic division of the world into owners and workers, haves and have-nots. In fact, the Left has yet to organize a single significant conference on what a successor system to capitalism might look like. Nor has anyone begun to make the case for why such an alternative is desirable to the public at large. In 1982, the Nuclear Freeze movement inspired 1 million people to march against nuclear war in Central Park. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the National Organization of Women and other liberal feminist groups sponsored pro-choice rallies in Washington that regularly drew hundreds of thousands. During the rampup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, millions of people staged anti-war rallies around the world. But where are the demonstrations today against the bailout of the banks and brokerage firms, let alone against the capitalist system that is ruining our planet? Who is out there trying to build a vibrant, broad-based socialist movement? Ironically, the unfolding crisis directly or indirectly encompasses every conceivable social movement issue the Left could ever care about — war and peace, individual liberties, feminism, ecology, labor, and animal rights. Yet the Left as such is dead — or might as well be. As Sheldon Wolin laments: "The left is amorphous… I despair over the left. Left parties may be small in number in Europe but they are a coherent organization that keeps going. Here… we don't have that. We have a few voices here, a magazine there, and that's about it. It goes nowhere." 241 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Perm (24) The perm promotes the illusion that capitalism can solve its own problems – preventing radical politics from occurring. MESZAROS (Prof. Emeritus @ Univ. Sussex) 1995 [Istavan, Beyond Capital: Towards a Theory of Transition] p. 930 the ‘moment’ of radical politics is strictly limited by the nature of the crises in question and the temporal determinations of their unfolding. The breach opened up at times of crisis cannot be left open forever and the measures adopted to fill it, from the earliest steps onwards, have their own logic and cumulative impact on subsequent interventions. Furthermore, both the existing THE difficulty is that socioeconomic structures and their corresponding framework of political institutions tend to act against radical initiatives by their very inertia as soon as the worst moment of the crisis is over and thus it becomes possible to contemplate again ‘the line of least resistance’. And no one can consider ‘radical restructuring’ the line of least resistance, since by its very nature it necessarily involves upheaval and the disconcerting prospect of the unknown. No immediate economic achievement can offer a way out of this dilemma so as to prolong the lifespan of revolutionary politics, since such limited economic achievements made within the confines of the old premises — act in the opposite direction by relieving the most pressing crisis symptoms and, as a result, reinforcing the old reproductive mechanism shaken by the crisis. As history amply testifies, at the first sign of ‘recovery’, politics is pushed back Into its traditional role of helping to sustain and enforce the given socio-economic determinations. The claimed ‘recovery’ itself reached on the basis of the ‘well tried economic motivations’, acts as the self-evident ideological justification for reverting to the subservient, routine role of politics, in harmony with the dominant institutional framework. Thus, radical politics can only accelerate its own demise (and thereby shorten, instead of extending as it should, the favourable ‘moment’ of major political intervention) if it consents to define its own scope in terms of limited economic targets which are in fact necessarily dictated by the established socioeconomic structure in crisis. 242 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Vague Alternative 1. Not vague – the alt HAS A TEXT. 2. No abuse – we won’t shift our advocacy. 3. Cross-x checks – we clarified the function of the alternative and answered any questions. 4. Infinitely regressive – it’s impossible to know exactly how vague we are and what we can do to fix it – just as vague as the plan. 5. Mixing burdens – they know what the alternative DOES and WHAT IT IS, they have questions of how the alternative SOLVES. That’s not a theoretical objection to the k, it’s just a misnamed solvency argument. 6. Don’t vote aff – don’t vote aff when there’s no abuse. Make them PROVE we abused them. Keep a high threshold when evaluating theoretical objections to the alternative Even if we are abusive, reject the argument not the team 243 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: No alternative Capitalism naturalizes itself by saying that there are no alternatives. The capitalist system is vulnerable and there are alternatives – even if we can’t imagine them rejection is key to create them. Zizek, prof. of sociology at the Institute for Sociology, 00 (Slavoj, professor of sociology at the Institute for Sociology, Ljubljana, Contingency, Hegemony, Universality, pg 324 – 326, http://books.google.com/books?id=dPgrG4KE6d0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22+%09+%09+Contingency,+hegemony, +universality%22&ei=cmdoSpONLorEM5uK0MEB) The first thing to note about this neoliberal cliché is that the neutral reference to the necessities of the market economy, usually invoked in order to categorize grand ideological projects as unrealistic utopias, is itself to be inserted into the great modern utopian projects. That is to say – as Fredric Jameson has pointed out – what characterizes utopia is not a belief in the essential goodness of human nature, or some similar naive notion, but, rather, belief in some global mechanism which, applied to the whole of society, will automatically bring out the balanced state of progress and happiness one is longing for – and, in this precise sense, is not the market precisely the name for such a mechanism which, properly applied, will bring about the optimal state of society? So, again, the first answer of the Left to those – Leftists themselves – who bemoan the loss of the utopian impetus in our societies should be that this impetus is alive and well. The second answer should be a clear line of distinction between utopia and ideology: ideology is not only a utopian project of social transformation with no realistic chance of actualization; no less ideological is the anti-utopian stance of those who `realistically' devalue every global project of social transformation as `utopian,' that is, as unrealistic dreaming and/or harbouring 'totalitarian' potential – today's predominant form of ideological 'closure' takes the precise form of mental block which prevents us from imagining a funndamental social change, in the interests of an allegedly 'realistic' and 'mature' attitude. In his Seminar on the Ethics of Psychoanalysis,13 Lacan developed an opposition between 'knave' and 'fool' as the two intellectual attitudes: the right wing intellectual is a knave, a conformist who considers the mere existence of the given order as an argument for it, and mocks thee Left for its 'utopian' plans, which necessarily lead to catastrophe; while the left-wing intellectual is a fool, a court jester who publicly displays the lie of the existing order, but in a way which suspends the performative efficiency of this speech. In the years immediately after the fall of Socialism, the knave was a neoconservative advocate of the free market who cruelly rejected all forms of social solidarity as counterproductive sentimentalism; while the fool was a deconstructionist cultural critic who, by means of his ludic procedures destined to 'subvert' the existing order, actually served as its supplement. Today, however, the relationship between the couple knave–fool and the political opposition Right/Left is more and more the inversion of the standard figures of Rightist knave and Leftist fool: are not the Third Way theoreticians ultimately today's knaves, figures who preach cynical resignation, that is, the necessary failure of every attempt actually to change something in the basic functioning of global capitalism? And are not the conservative fools – those conservatives whose original modern model is Pascal and who as it were show the hidden cards of the ruling ideology, bringing-to light its underlying mechanisms which, in order to remain operative, have to be repressed – far more attractive? Today in the face of this Leftist knavery it is more important than ever to hold this utopian place of the global alternative open, even if it remains empty, living on borrowed time, awaiting the content to fill it in. I fully agree with Laclau that after the exhaustion of both the social democratic welfare state imaginary and the 'really-existing-Socialist' imaginary, the Left does need a new imaginary (a new mobilizing global vision). Today, however, the outdatedness of the welfare state and socialist imaginaries is a cliché – the real dilemma is what to do with – how the Left is to relate to – the predominant liberal democratic imaginary. It is my contention that Laclau's and Mouffe's 'radical democracy' comes all too close to merely 'radicalizing' this liberal democratic imaginary, while remaining within its horizon. Laclau, of course, would probably claim that the point is to treat the democratic imaginary as an 'empty signifier', and to engage in the hegemonic battle with the proponents of the global capitalist New World Order over what its content will be. Here , however, I think that Butler is right when she emphasizes that another way is also open: it is not 'necessary to occupy the dominant norm in order to produce an internal subversion of its terms. Sometimes it is important to refuse it terms to let the term itself wither, to starve it of its strength' (JB, p. 177). This means that the Left has a choice today: either it accepts the predominant liberal democratic horizon (democracy, human rights and freedoms . . .), and engages in a hegemonic battle within it, or it risks the opposite gesture of refusing its very terms, of flatly rejecting today's liberal blackmail that courting any prospect of radical change paves the way for totalitarianism. It is my firm conviction, my politico-existential premise that the old '68 motto Soyons réalistes demandons l'impossible! still holds: it is the advocates of changes and resignifications within the liberal-democratic horizon who are the true utopians in their belief that their efforts will amount to anything more than cosmetic surgery that will give (Cont. no text deleted.) 244 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. us capitalism with a human face. In her second intervention, Butler superbly deploys the reversal that characterizes the Hegelian dialectical process: the aggravated 'contradiction' in which the very differential structure of meaning is collapsing, since every determination immediately turns into its opposite, this 'mad dance', is resolved by the sudden emergence of a new universal determination. The best illustration is provided by the passage from the 'world of self-alienated Spirit' to the Terror of the French Revolution in The Phenomenology of Spirit: the pre-Revolutionary 'madness of the musician "who heaped up and mixed together thirty arias, Italian, French, tragic, comic, of every sort; now with a deep bass he descended into hell, then, contracting his throat, he rent the vaults of heaven with a falsetto tone, frantic and soothed, imperious and mocking, by turns" (Diderot, Nephew of Rameau)' , 14 suddenly turns into its radical opposite: the revolutionary stance pursuing its goal with an inexorable firmness. And my point, of course, is that today's 'mad dance', the dynamic proliferation of multiple shifting identities also awaits its resolution in a new form of Terror. The only 'realistic' prospect is to ground a new political univeralisty by opting for the impossible, fully assuming the place of the exception with no taboos, no a priori norms ('human rights', `democracy'), respect for which would prevent us also from 'resignifying' terror, the ruthless exercise of power, the spirit of sacrifice … if this radical choice is decried by some bleeding-heart liberals as Linksfaschismus, so be it! 245 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT No People The sheer number of people who are exploited by capitalism provides uniqueness to our alternativecapitalism is weak - people WANT to resist the system, it’s only a question of organization and commitment to a particular strategy. Burbach, 98 (Roger, Director of the Center for the study of the Americas , The (un)defining of post-modern Marxism: On smashing modernization and Narrating New Social and International Actors, Spring, Rethinking Marxism, Vol 10 Number 1, 62-63 ) The development of the ethnic and fundamentalist movements dovetails with the building of these postmodern economies. Most nationalist movements are opposed to the dominance of Western and transnational capital; they are demanding control of their own economic resources. The.Indians of. Chiapas, the Muslim Nation of Farrakahn, the Islamic movements in the Middle East—they are all resentful of the economic domination of their societies by foreign or outside interests. They often preach self-reliance, which sometimes appears as a separatist or even conservative message, but this approach is necessary if they are to break with the historic tendency of outside capital to exploit their societies and economies. To the extent that these ethnic and national movements gain control of their lives and resources, they will be in a position to help construct a new global mode of production. As under historic socialism, consciousness of the new project is crucial. To mobilize and consolidate the diverse group of nascent producers, a new narrative needs to counterpose grass-roots economic development to the domination of big capital just as Marx and Engels pitted the working class, against the bourgeoisie. The mere existence of the new economic and social formations is not a sufficient condition for overthrowing the old order. A new approach and a new leadership is needed that roots itself firmly in the economic and social transformations occurring in contemporary societies and that undertakes the long social struggle necessary to overwhelm big capital and its project of modernization. The social movements, broadly defined, could be the major protagonists of this new approach. The representatives of these movements and organizations have the potential to understand and articulate what is going on among the ever swelling numbers of castaways of global capitalism: They already challenge neoliberalism and globalization in many different ways. They fight to stop the destruction of the environment, they are by and large antiauthoritarian and democratic in their structures and principles, they are generally opposed to the domination of multinational capital, and they are based on grass-roots activity. The women's movement, the ethnic rights movements, the human rights organizations, the gay and lesbian movements, the disabled, the Indians, the environmentalists, and others—all demand fundamental changes in the existent world so that humanity can be liberated and freed from exploitation. New leadership and values also are emerging from nongovernmental organizations, especially in the underdeveloped world, and from progressive religious movements, particularly those rooted in exploited societies or ethnic groups. The goal of these social movements and organizations is not simply power, but the alteration of values at the level of civil society. They refuse to be controlled or contained. They provide alternatives to the bankrupt political parties and state authority. Many of the leaders of these movements even question whether it is appropriate to hold state power at present, understanding the need to accumulate more forces, to develop more coherent ideas and values that can really change societies and the global economy. Communism failed in part because it was born prematurely. The same mistakoaches, pushing from below for the advance of popular economic interests. At the same time, we will need to advocate new legislation that empowers all forms of alternative production and commerce while undermining the ascendancy of finance and monopoly capital. Capitalism will enter into a definitive crisis only when enough alternative institutions exist to challenge it. 246 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 single-issue campaign I can wholehearted endorse: the total and permanent eradication of capitalism. 247 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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.33 248 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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. 249 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Gibson-Graham (3) Gibson-Graham are sketchy – they’re grounded in capitalism 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/ While their excavation of important cooperative projects provides worthwhile lessons for people interested in socialist alternatives to capitalism and imperialism that look beyond no longer existing models for a broader socialist concept, there is a disturbing element to this book as evidenced by the location of this book within the framework of those very relationships that Gibson-Graham ignore . For example, in the preface to this book, Gibson-Graham acknowledge the receipt of a grant from the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) for the research on Jagna. While Gibson-Graham are likely to regard their relationship to AusAID as an innocent one – something like, we used their money for our own subversive purposes – the relationship is fraught with negative implications. According to Australian economist Tim Anderson, under the right-wing Howard government, AusAID’s explicit mission has been transformed from promoting general international "poverty reduction" projects to providing resources to such projects linked to Australia’s "national interest." Anderson notes that prior to Howard AusAID served as a mechanism (within the international jurisdiction of the IMF and World Bank) to impose neoliberal imperatives on regional countries . In other words, aid from AusAid came with "good governance" conditions that have come to typify neoliberal projects funded by wealthy countries. Under Howard, however, this role has shifted from merely forcing aided countries to adhere the general principles of the globalizing project (austerity, shrinking public sectors, etc.) to also promoting specific Australian interests such as Australian based corporate enterprises. To be blunt, the role of AusAid, according to Anderson, has become one of promoting Australian imperialism among its neighbors in the Asian Pacific islands. Reading Gibson-Graham and their affiliation with Australian imperialism in the light of Said’s project mentioned at the opening of this review is revealing. Thus we may see why Gibson-Graham’s relationship to AusAID is not innocent. Indeed, read with the linkage Said sought to expose in mind, it is possible to understand why Gibson-Graham have rejected socialist alternatives to capitalism and national liberationist alternatives to imperialism. Specifically, by mapping non-capitalist and underdeveloped sectors in Jagna and discouraging socialist, broad class, international and national alternatives, Gibson-Graham’s work aids in opening the Philippines to Australia’s imperialist agenda. 250 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Gibson Graham (4) Postmodern Marxism revamps capitalism – Gibson-Graham indict Politevin, doctoral program of UC Davis, 01 Rene Francisco Poitevin, member of the SR editorial collective. His political background and work experience include low-incomehousing 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 But by far the most anticlimactic and disappointing outcome of the postmodern Marxist approach is that in its desire to get rid of "capitalocentrism,"44 they end up actually reconfiguring the very beast they seek to eliminate by disguising liberal reform as "noncapitalism." Nowhere is this more obvious than in J.K. Gibson-Graham's celebratory reading of The Full Monty, a film about a group of British steelworkers who lose their jobs due to deindustrialization, and end up refashioning themselves as strippers as a way to reclaim their economic agency.45 The movie shows how the tragic loss of the town's steel mill creates a cascade effect that ends up reconfiguring the social fabric of that community. By the end of the movie, the ex-steelworkers are forced to rethink and renegotiate many types of relationships and identities, from constructions of masculinity and gender roles to economic identities even their wives have to get service jobs to make ends meet. Of particular interest for J.K. Gibson-Graham are the ways in which the movie overlaps with some of the themes of The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It), especially with the ways in which The Full Monty "hinted at different narratives of class transformation, new awareness of class politics and an expanded range of class emotions."46 They also welcomed the way in which the unemployed men "are unable to draw sustenance from old models of resistance-style politics" (i.e., they cannot use the "old" labor/capital class struggle thing) and the way in which the characters in the film pursue what J.K. Gibson-Graham call "non-- capitalist economic relations." Never mind that old predictable "feeling of regret that the climactic one-night-stand striptease is so economically inconsequential" to the well-being of the ex-steelworker strippers, their families, and the community. Even though the ex-steelworkers are still poor at the end of the movie, what matters, according to J.K. Gibson-Graham, is that there was a process of "becoming" that allowed the community to come together, not as ex-workers and ex-managers, or as husbands and wives, but as a "communal economic identity based upon self-value and identification across difference."47 This is important because it is the "communal economic identity" of the successful striptease venture that constitutes the precondition for imagining and engaging in "noncapitalist commodity production," such as worker collectives or self-employed workers. A key part of the ex-steelworkers' success, and an important strategy in postmodern Marxist politics, is that the ex-steelworkers do not pursue the "orthodox" line of worker's challenging capitalist control of industrial property, nor do they seem to care about circuits of capital or structural needs of accumulation. The problem with J.K. Gibson-Graham's celebratory reading of The Full Monty is that regardless of how sound the process of "becoming" might be for that community, and regardless of how well they might manage to get along afterwards, calling their striptease enterprise a "noncapitalist commodity production" that is "full of potential and possibilities" is wishful thinking at best and totally ludicrous at worst. Am I the only one who realizes that what JK. Gibson-Graham refer to as "noncapitalist commodity production" is actually sex work? Would JK. Gibson-Graham still embrace as "noncapitalist economic relations" ex-maquila workers along the U.S.-Mexican border deciding to do sex work a la The Full Monty as long as it brings the community together? Is prostitution OK as long as the prostitute's surplus is not being appropriated by someone else? My main point here is that throughout The Full Monty - and in J.K. Gibson-Graham's review of the film as well - property relations are never questioned or challenged. In the postmodern/post-Marxist "noncapitalist" world, corporations get to keep ownership of the means of production and their profits, while working class communities continue to lap dance their way through "identification across difference" rather than doing union organizing. That this kind of argument can be presented not only as "noncapitalist" but also as Marxist thinking should be enough to demonstrate the political bankruptcy of this paradigm. It is also interesting that JK Gibson-Graham maintain that challenging their analysis of The Full Monty, or not endorsing the politics of the film, "is inherently conservative and capitalocentric ."48 I disagree strongly. The politics advocated by J.K. Gibson-Graham through their reading of The Full Monty is nothing but liberal politics with post-structuralist delusions of grandeur. It is one thing to say that we are at a political conjuncture in which the thing to do is to work hard for reform, not "revolution." But it is another thing to argue that revolutionary practice cannot happen on epistemological grounds, and that all we can do is make capitalism as user friendly as possible while obscuring and co-opting the Marxist tradition. J.K. Gibson-Graham's reading of The Full Monty is both liberal and reactionary. 251 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Gibson-Graham (5) Gibson-Graham oversimplify the process of rejecting 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-incomehousing 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 first thing that jumps out after reading The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy is the way in which there are at least two ways of smashing the capitalist state: we can have the Leninist revolution or we can change the definition of capitalism and make it disappear . J.K. Gibson-Graham succeeds in doing the latter: in a kind of theoretical abracadabra, capitalism is definitely gone by the end of their book. But despite the theoretical sophistication of their work - a no-holds barred embracing of poststructuralist theory - once the epistemological fireworks dissipate, the argument of the book is actually rather simple. If what is wrong with Left politics "is the way capitalism has been 'thought' that has made it so difficult for people to imagine its supersession,"16 then it logically follows that what is to be done is to change its definition so that it can be "thought" differently - and therefore be made easier to get rid of. And if the problem of why U.S. radical politics has been so ineffective for the last two decades is the stubborn Marxist insistence upon "the image of two classes locked in struggle," a situation that "has in our view become an obstacle to, rather than a positive force for, anticapitalist endeavors,"17 then how about getting rid of this whole class struggle thing and "reimagine" labor and capital as allies rather than enemies?18 Would not that make the whole task of social transformation much easier? Perhaps, but as we will see shortly, getting rid of capitalism is easier said than done. 252 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Gibson-Graham (6) 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-incomehousing 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."20 253 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Howard-Hassmann 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 1. (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/v027/27.1howardhassmann.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. 254 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Cap Sustainable (1) Capitalism is unsustainable – competition and technological efficiencies result in a society where labor power is unnecessary and profits are impossible Internationalist Perspective, 07 (The Roots of Capitalist Crisis - Part 3: From Decline to Collapse, http://internationalist-perspective.org/IP/ip-archive/ip_32-33_cap-crisis-3.html) Capitalism transformed everything into a market and thereby extended the rule of the law of value over all economic activity and, eventually, over every aspect of society, every human relation. Integrating labor power into the realm of the commodity is what made capitalism capitalism. "Its special and essential product" as the Communist Manifesto puts it, is the proletarian, dependent on the sale of his labor power to survive. Like the value of every commodity, the value of his labor power is determined by the labor time needed to produce it. What makes it such a splendid commodity is that the labor time needed to maintain him as a producer, is lower than the labor time he performs. "Freed" from their land and feudal obligations, the proletarians could be hired and integrated in a production process, which through its social, collective nature enormously increased their productivity and thus also the difference between the labor time they performed and the labor time needed to produce their necessities. The more proletarians were hired, the longer they were made to work and the lower the value of their formation and maintenance, the more unpaid labor time was pooled and the more surplus value was created. Employment, productivity and profit grew hand in hand. The more proletarians were allowed in by the development of the productive forces, the more productivity and value creation increased. They therefore seemed synonymous. The more material wealth, the more profit. There was a balance between the creation of exchange value and of use values, which shows the law of value was in harmony with the productive forces of that period, the ascendancy of capitalism. Every capitalist not only has a strong incentive to introduce technological innovations, he is also forced to adopt them, and thus to create an insatiable demand for them. They allow him to produce more (and better) commodities in less labor time. Commodities made in less labor time contain less value than the average, but it's this average which determines the market-value and -price. So the capitalist with the better, more efficient technology not only produces more use values, he also obtains more exchange value, because he sells his commodities at the market value, that is, above the value they contain, and pockets the difference, a surplus-profit. This surplus-profit is not created out of thin air. Like all profit, it is surplus Never was there a mode of production that made a more fertile soil for the development of science and technology. value. But in this case, the capitalist with the competitive advantage obtains surplus value extracted by other capitalists. If he produces commodities with less value than the market-value, then others produce commodities with more value than the market-value, since competition drives the marketprice towards the average. Those who produce above the market-value therefore see their profits shrink. Furthermore, the capitalist with the technological edge (with the higher organic composition of capital) needs a larger market, since his production has expanded. His exchange value is embodied in more commodities, each containing less value. So by selling them at their value, he realizes his normal profit, and undersells his competitors, conquering their market-share. If he wouldn't be able to expand his market sufficiently, he couldn't recuperate the value of those commodities that remain unsold, but he still would obtain compensation from selling the rest above their value. But to the degree that the market-value approaches the value of the production of the technologically advanced, the latter lose their competitive advantage, and these others have no choice but to join the technological rat-race. It's do or die. Either you stay close to the market-value or you're out. So every capitalist is forced to raise the productivity of his capital through technological change, and thereby make use values grow at an ever more rapid pace than exchange value. The same technological development which makes the production of use values grow ever faster, makes the creation of exchange value grow ever slower. Since it reduces the labor power used in production, it also reduces the unpaid part of that labor power, even though the unpaid part grows in relation to the paid part. Since the growth of the exchange value consists entirely of this unpaid part, the surplus value, it is bound to grow ever slower, to the degree production becomes more technologically intensive. The contradictory effect of technological development on the growth rate of use values and exchange value creates a gap, which hence their surplus-profits. These surplus profits are only other capitalist's losses, anyway. So grows ever wider. And with it, grows a conflict between the very nature of the productive process, and the law of value which rules it. The nature of the production process changed over the course of capitalist development. As Marx foresaw: "The creation of real wealth comes to depend less on labor time and on the amount of labor employed, than on the power of the agencies set in motion during labor time, whose 'powerful effectiveness' is itself in turn out of all proportion to the direct labor time spent on their production, but depends rather on the general state of science and on the progress of technology (..) the human being comes to relate more as watchman and regulator to the production process itself (..) He steps to the side of the production process instead of being its chief actor. In this transformation, it is neither the direct labour time he himself performs, 255 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. nor the time during which he works, but rather the appropriation of his own general productive power, his understanding of nature and his mastery over it by virtue of his presence as a social body -it is, in a word, the development of the social individual which appears as the great foundation-stone of production and of wealth." (4) Material wealth is more and more the result of technology performing tasks that were done by human labor and tasks that humans never could perform. But capitalist wealth, exchange value, grows only through the creation and realization of surplus value. The law of value, forces capitalism to see all wealth as commodities, to measure all commodities in labor time, imprisoning surplus value in surplus labor, no more than a part of the total labor power, which continuously shrinks in relation to the technology it sets in motion. More surplus value can be squeezed out by intensifying the labor process and driving down wages, but "its barrier always remains the relation between the fractional part of the day which expresses necessary labor (for the reproduction of the worker -Sander) and the entire working day. It can only move within these boundaries." (5) So if the total decreases, than the part must too. The development of the production forces becomes such that the creation of real wealth results from a process of change in the production process by which labor power is subtracted. But the law of value (the basic rule of capitalism) keeps the creation of capitalist wealth dependent on a process in which labor power is added. This conflict, created by the transformation of the productive forces, changed capitalism from a progressive socio-economic order into a decaying one.(6) In the first two parts of this text we saw that this conflict rages in both phases of the capitalist reproduction process. In part one, we have seen how the transformation of Since the accumulation of capital goes hand in hand with a rising organic composition of capital, the labor power used in production continuously declines in proportion to the technology it sets in motion, so that the unpaid part of that labor power, the surplus value and thus profit, declines also. We have seen that this decline of the profit-rate is neither offset by a rise in the total mass of profit nor by an apparent cheapening of the means of production. If we imagine the inherent trend in the transformation of the production process to be pushed to a theoretical extreme, its irreconciliability with the capitalist law of value becomes crystal clear. Let's say that technological innovation results in an economy in which everything is produced in abundance, without human labor. Machines and automata do everything, from extracting raw materials, reproducing and even improving themselves, to delivering the goods to consumer outlets. But these goods could no longer be commodities. Their value could not be compared, since they wouldn't contain any. On what basis could the sale of these goods realize a profit? Since the supply would be plentiful, nobody would have a competitive advantage. Since production would require no labor power, the value of the production could not be higher than the value of the means of production. So, no profit could be made. Since production for profit is the very basis of capitalism, it could no longer exist. However distant this theoretical extreme is from today's reality, it clearly shows that capitalism's tendency to produce more and more use values with less and less exchange value is at war with capitalism itself. In this war, the enemy of capital is the capitalist. Paradoxically, he is rewarded for getting capitalism in greater trouble. The more he technifies his production process, the more he obtains a competitive advantage which yields him a surplus profit. Yet simultaneously, he drives the general rate of profit down, diminishing the total yield of profit for capital. the production process inevitably erodes the creation of surplus value. Because competition rewards the capitalists with the higher organic composition (the most technified production methods) and punishes those with the lowest organic composition, the effect of the tendential fall of the profit-rate is very unequal. The former obtain an ever larger share of the (declining) total profit, the latter an ever smaller. For the former, the general decline of the profit-rate may seem non-existent, while the latter increasingly lose their capacity to compete, to valorize their capital. Every new technological push accelerates this unequal effect: the most developed capitals see their profits temporarily increase while the more backward capitals collapse and are excluded from the production process. The very cause of the decline of the profit-rate, the technification of production, appears then to be the exact opposite, the way to increase profits. Therefore, the more the apparent cure to the tendential fall of the profit-rate is applied, the worse the disease becomes over time. 256 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Cap Sustainable (2) 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) Adrian Pollock portrays Money” 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. Capitalism needs to continually expand- not sustainable and is the root cause of climate change. We need to act now. 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” There are many C-words relating to the problem of climate change and its possible solutions: carbon trading, carbon sequestration – and now corn-based biofuels, according to George W. Bush (3 February, p 15). The C-word missing from everyone’s lips is the one that matters: capitalism. By its nature, capitalism needs continually to expand – to find new markets, new resources and new ways to accumulate to maintain profit for its investments. It cannot, therefore, offer a sustainable future. The only country that has achieved a sustainable economy is Cuba (see the WWF’s Living Planet Report 2006, p 19 – based on data Cuba supplies to the United Nations). Cuba would be perceived, at least in western nations, as having a relatively low standard of living: it is clear that an extraordinarily large change in our way of life is necessary to achieve a sustainable future. Maybe that is why another C-word is missing: communism. Capitalism will have to be replaced with a system that does not depend on expansion but is based on the real needs of people and the planet. Call this what you will, but it is not capitalism or anything resembling it. 257 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Cap Sustainable (3) 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 profit-maximizing 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. 258 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Cap Good (1) 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-fully-born 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. 259 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Cap Good (2) Globalization discourse shapes their politics and leads to retrenchment of social services 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 9 par 2 – pg 10 par 1 My thesis includes the idea that economic globalization is neither objective nor external in the sense that its effect is captured in quantitative indicators of international economic activity . I am more interested in what I am calling globalization discourse, which operates within and across national policy arenas to structure choices about what responses policymakers will choose to internal factors like a surplus of retirees and a lack of low-wage workers. Analysts who insist that welfare cutbacks have occurred because policymakers in each country are responding in a linear causal way to internal economic and demographic changes, each in their own pathdependent way, overlook that globalization discourse structures and limits the choices that policymakers make to scale back the welfare state in each country, each in their own way. Policymakers may be responding to internal demographic and economic pressures more so than to objective, external economic pressures stemming from globalization, and they may indeed be relying on past practices to respond to these internal changes. Yet, I argue that this is at best an incomplete explanation that represents a classic case of "missing the forest for trees." Statistically, it might be true that the welfare states most integrated into the world economy are not the most likely to be making welfare state cutbacks. But those statistics need to be placed in context. First, policymakers are making choices at least as much as they are being forced inexorably to respond to internal demographic and economic pressures. Second, their choices are being structured by a politically convenient and self-serving globalization discourse that implies welfare state retrenchment is the inevitable necessary consequence of increased international economic competition. The rationality of policy choice needs to be appropiately contextualized. Capitalism is falsely justified as the best possible world-this blindness to alternative risks extinction Meszaros Professor at University of Sussex 95 Istvan Meszaros, 1995, England, “Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition” The pernicious marginalization of human rationality and personal responsibility in the course of capital's historical unfolding repeatedly underlined the system's uncontrollability. Yet after every belatedly acknowledged change in the control structure of capital the problematical character of the underlying process whereby enormous shifts occur without prior human design was never queried by the defenders of the system. Quite the contrary, the accomplished facts were always presented as change for the better, indeed as the best possible state of affairs destined to endure - and rightfully so - forever in the future, and maybe even thereafter. It could never be admitted that the ultimate logic of such blind, uncontrollable transformations which periodically had to be recognized (and of course after every forced recognition immediately celebrated) as the ultimate 'revolution' in economic affairs may be in fact the destruction of humanity, and therefore some meaningful alternative to the prevailing trends should be contemplated. 260 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Socialism Bad The argument that Stalinesque socialism is the only alternative is a capitalist construction the process of the critique opens up new alternatives. Callinicos Professor of Politics at the University of York 01 Alex Callinicos, 2001 "Against the Third Way" Socialist planning was, of course, discredited by the collapse of the bureaucratic command economies of the Soviet Union and the other Stalinist states. This failure provides defenders of neoliberalism with their standard response to anti-capitalists - the demand that they explain what their alternative would be. As we saw in the introduction, what Giddens described as 'the death of socialism' - by which he meant the death of what 1 called economic statism, that is, an economic system steered by the nation-state - provides the Third Way with its starting point. At one level, the demand that anti-capitalist critics specify their alternative to capitalism is a perfectly legitimate request that no one could reasonably reject. But the discourse in which this question has tacitly figured since the collapse of 'existing socialism' has been one that serves, in effect, to close down the debate about alternatives. Implicitly the choice presented is that between neo-liberalism and economic statism (usually in its Stalinist version). Not simply does this suppress the whole range of other possibilities extending between, and indeed beyond, these two options, but the disintegration of one purported variant of socialism is held to discredit all the others - reformist, revolutionary, utopian and anarchist - even though they are united in their quarrelsome diversity chiefly by hostility to Stalinism. The emergence of the anti-capitalist movement provides an opportunity to end this stultified debate . The very incoherence of the movement - that is, the presence within it of a variety of ideological currents, Green, socialist, Third Worldist, anarchist - that are themselves internally complex is likely to encourage the elaboration of different, mutually incompatible alternative models. Through attempts theoretically to articulate and practically to implement these models we are likely to develop a much clearer sense of how we can transcend capitalism. 261 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. 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 self-preservation 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 selfpreservation. 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. 262 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Case Outweighs (2) The free market necessitates things like “progress” and “growth,” and therefore must create a framework within which these things are good. You should hold all of their impact claims suspect Levin, Professor of Sociology at Northwestern University, 02 (Peter, “Pollution Futures: Commensuration, Commodification, and the Market for Air,” Organizations, Policy and the Natural Environment: Institutional and Strategic Perspectives, 2002) Commensuration is a process for comparing and integrating different objects and practices. It constructs relations among disparate things by uniting them based on their shared relationship to a third thing—a metric. Common products of commensurative processes include votes, standardized test scores, rankings, opinion polls, batting averages, and cost-benefit ratios. In markets, prices and quantities are the most prominent forms of commensuration. [end page 124] Commensuration transforms qualitative differences into quantitative ones, where the difference between things is subsumed and expressed as magnitude. By emphasizing differences in magnitude, and by obscuring differences or similarities along other dimensions (such as form, history, geographical contexts), commensuration directs attention in patterned ways. For example, this emphasis on magnitude facilitates stratification in the form of hierarchical rankings. We get used to thinking about the world in terms of precise, hierarchical distinctions, such that someone is thought of as the second-best rebounder or in the top 3 percent of her class. Commensuration systematically organizes and discards information. It simplifies complex cognitive tasks in two general ways: by reducing how much information we have to pay attention to, and by integrating into one, comprehensive form, information that was originally produced in many different forms. Numbers that are the culmination of commensurative processes (such as prices) are highly portable and easy to compare. The simplification that commensuration produces also facilitates control. Simplification is a fundamental feature of state domination (Scott, 1998: 2–3). Commensuration, as one prominent form of simplification, renders complex, heterogeneous relations more legible and more available for scrutiny. Such legibility makes it easier to manipulate and “manage” people and objects, and is a prerequisite for regulation. Commensuration is a powerful means of classifying the world. It is radical for its capacity to create new objects or subjects. “Futures options” are new objects that emerge from commensuration in the form of prices, standardized grading, precise measurement regimes, and careful bookkeeping. As Marc Ventresca (1995) has argued, “citizens,” as a meaningful category, and “nation states,” as reified social entities, depend on the commensuration of disparate peoples that a census produces. Whatever arbitrariness characterized the origins of these classifications, once they become inscribed in law, enshrined in politics, routinized in organizations, or taken for granted in culture, their influence is profound and hard to dislodge. These few examples suggest how commensuration can, as Theodore Porter has shown (1995: 41– 45), refashion the world. Commensuration is also radical for what it renders invisible or irrelevant. When so much public policy relies on cost-benefit analyses as a means of evaluating alternatives, things without market prices or things for which it is hard to establish prices often disappear from analysis. The symbolic value of something, the moral implications of action, the importance of something whose value is defined against market values (that is, sacred or incommensurable things), or value that is explicitly derived from the location of some activity outside of markets, get ignored (Waring, 1988; Espeland, 1998). [end page 125] Part of the appeal of commensurative practices is that they seem to offer a technical solution to a core problem in politics: how to adjudicate between people's conflicting values. If all values can be expressed according to the same metric, commensuration can turn complex decisions into simple choices that hinge on selecting the biggest number. As expressions of value, the relationship that commensuration constructs and expresses between things is fundamentally relative: the value of something is always determined in relation to other things as expressed on a metric. This means that commensuration cannot accommodate particular forms of value: absolute or intrinsic value, value that is defined as “priceless,” or sacred values which cannot legitimately be expressed in terms of tradeoffs or in relation to other valued things. But commensuration as a form of value integration is just one of its core dimensions. 263 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Role-playing Role playing is integral to the capitalist system – they aff’s reliance on the political system prevents them from solving the problems of capitalism. Herod, activist, 04 (James, “Getting Free,” University of Massachusetts Boston, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/C.htm) We can’t destroy capitalism by running for office. It hasn’t been done and it won’t be done, even though numerous governments have been in socialist hands in Europe, sometimes for decades. It won’t be done because governments don’t have the last say, they don’t control society. Capitalists do. The government doesn’t control capitalists; capitalists control the government. Modern government (i.e., the nation-state system) is an invention of capitalists. It is their tool and they know how to use it and keep it from being turned against them. Although building worker-controlled political parties, and then using those parties to win elections and get control of governments, and then using those governments to establish socialism, seemed like a plausible enough strategy when it was initiated in the mid-nineteenth century, it's way past time for us to recognize and admit that it simply hasn't worked. Capitalism goes rolling on no matter who controls the government. 264 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Timeframe Our analysis of the problem outweighs their case impacts. The Affirmative’s manipulation of emergency is a trap- it cynically exploits fear to prop up an unsustainable system. Lissovov, Assistant Professor- Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies- University of Texas at San Antonio, 2008 Noah De Lissovoy Capitalism Nature Socialism, 19:1, 2008, 27 — 40. A number of contemporary thinkers have argued that public discourse has become corrupted by an anxious preoccupation with what is immediate or shortterm. Thus Je´roˆme Binde´ claims that an orientation to time dominated by emergency thinking neglects our collective responsibility to the future and atrophies the critical imagination.1 The decline of utopian thinking, in this analysis, is associated with a decline in the capacity for relationships with others across past and future generations. Likewise, Henry Giroux argues that the state of paranoia instituted by the ‘‘war on terror’’ should be replaced with a revitalized ‘‘public time’’ that would permit both a critical examination of how history has produced present crises, as well as a democratic deliberation about shared worlds and futures.2 And according to Hasana Sharp, the rule of fear in the present precludes an affirmation of sociality itself, as well as the exercise of democracy.3 I contend in this essay that the shadow cast over contemporary culture by the notion of crisis and emergency is materially grounded within the structure of capitalism itself. Therefore, the present condition cannot simply be redrawn by changing the public conversation. It has been produced, rather, over a considerable amount of time by objective processes. As Binde´ points out, the urgency of challenging the irresponsibility of an exclusive orientation to the short term is precisely that we need to respond, over the long term, to a very real social and ecological emergency. It is important to recognize the extent to which the sense of emergency time projected by the Bush and Blair administrations after the events of September 11, 2001 is a cynical manipulation*a distraction from both the real reasons for this catastrophe and the real ravages wrought by the system these administrations represent, as well as an excuse for a new phase of imperialist adventurism. The extended paroxysm of fear of the unknown, the Other, and the outside for which this attack has served as the excuse has also become the platform for an energetic expansion of the military and security apparatus, as Mike Davis predicted.5 At another level, however, these proliferating interventions and fortifications themselves, along with a dramatic series of disasters both political and natural, produce a temporality of emergency in the present that is very real. Indeed, the effectiveness of the control over communications by elites depends on the reality that we do experience this other, deeper emergency, in an unarticulated way; thus it becomes an instinctual sense that can be exploited precisely to the extent that it is not properly explored and understood. In this way, the scale and frequency of disaster solicits not only a fanatical millenarianism, but also an immanently rational foreboding and anxiety. The task is to follow the lead of that anxiety in order to discover its real connections, including both its dangers and possibilities. However exploited, redirected, or hystericalized, this underlying intuition is at some level truly responsive and indicates an actual crisis, the terms of which are essential to specify. What can we make of this collective ‘‘common sense,’’ in Gramsci’s terms?6 How can it be interrogated and developed into an actual and useful knowledge that might respond to the questions that our historical moment proposes? The essential task of analysis, in this regard, is to move from a simple description of breakdown and mere measurement of panic to the illumination of a problem. Chaos refuses an explanation, but a crisis has causes*it represents a contradiction, a clash of imperatives and principles that can be identified. My approach to the analysis of crisis in this essay is situated in a critical theoretical and Marxist framework, although I also suggest that the contradictions foregrounded by this tradition need to be partly rethought in light of current transformations in the nature of power and resistance to power. At the same time that we confront an objective social emergency, we are also faced with a crisis of familiar explanations. Popular concerns about a decline in democratic engagement, as well as progressive and even radical denunciations of creeping corporatization, often seem unable to comprehend the most salient features of power in the present* its destructiveness, its irrationality (defying even, it sometimes seems, capitalism’s own distorted reason), and its global reach and scale. Likewise, in the context of these tendencies, the kinds of democratic agency proposed by familiar explanations seem incapable of constituting an opposition adequate to the present moment. In the latter part of this paper, I outline the principles of an emerging form of oppositional praxis, one that inverts the negativity of emergency time while appropriating irruption and unpredictability as figures of a revolutionary process. 265 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Postmodern Marxism (1) 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-incomehousing 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 Althusser’s concept of overdetermination when describing capitalism must be rejected Politevin, doctoral program of UC Davis, 01 Rene Francisco Poitevin, member of the SR editorial collective. His political background and work experience include low-incomehousing 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 Amherst School's sleight of hand is made possible in part because Althusser actually never fully developed his concept of overdetermination beyond some rather cryptic comments.13 But fortunately for the Amherst School, this is where post-structuralist theory can come to the rescue, making it possible for Althusserian thought to become more clear. Take for example J.K. Gibson-Graham's approach, when they say that "Althusser's overdetermination can be understood as signaling the irreducible specificity of every determination... the openness and incompleteness of every identity; the ultimate unfixity of every identity ...."14 People familiar with Derrida's work will recognize immediately that what Gibson-Graham have done is attribute to Althusser what is in fact Derrida's definition of the "sign," which for him is one of the fundamental building blocks of language. What this seemingly innocent trick by the Amherst School does is to effectively transform Althusser's "overdetermination" into a problem of language and discourse - and therefore into a post-structuralist agenda.15 This kind of post-structuralist-wolves-dressed-up-in-Marxist-clothes trick, so entrenched within the postmodern Marxist tradition, needs to be rejected and denounced. To substitute Derrida for Althusser might be a clever trick that allows postmodern Marxism to sound legitimate, but it is certainly not Althusserian Marxism. 266 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Postmodern Marxism (2) Postmodern Marxism morph the class system into a relational process Politevin, doctoral program of UC Davis, 01 Rene Francisco Poitevin, member of the SR editorial collective. His political background and work experience include low-incomehousing 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 Also left out is the rich Marxist scholarship that was addressing their concerns long before there was a postmodern Marxist school. The fact is that postmodern Marxist's "contributions" are not as original nor as profound as they might have us believe. For example, what about the bulk of the Western Marxist tradition since the Frankfurt School? Has it not been predicated on a rejection of the economic reductionism embedded in the passage from the Preface to the Introduction to A Critique of Political Economy in which the (in)famous base/superstructure metaphor of society gets set in stone as the "official" definition of historical materialism? Or what about Horkheimer and Adorno's relentless critique of instrumental rationality? Marxism, in spite of what the postmodern Marxists want us to believe, has long been making the case for the centrality of culture and its irreducibility to economic laws, as anybody who has read Walter Benjamin or Antonio Gramsci can certify. Furthermore, postcolonial Marxism and critical theory have also been theorizing at more concrete levels of analyses the irreducibility of subjectivity to class.22 And despite the postmodern Marxist excitement when talking about class as a relational process, in fact it is impossible to tell that they are not the first ones to talk about class as a relational process, lots of Marxists before the Amherst School have been theorizing and clarifying the relational mechanisms embedded in class politics.23 267 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Postmodern Marxism (3) Postmodern Marxism surrenders the Marxist project by simply focusing on discourse to shape reality – this collapses their project Politevin, doctoral program of UC Davis, 01 Rene Francisco Poitevin, member of the SR editorial collective. His political background and work experience include low-incomehousing 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 A 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 post-structuralism, 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 offirms 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.33 268 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Postmodern Marxism (4) Postmodern Marxist epistemology is flawed – the nondiscursive is not addressed Politevin, doctoral program of UC Davis, 01 Rene Francisco Poitevin, member of the SR editorial collective. His political background and work experience include low-incomehousing 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 key point in assessing the postmodern/post-Marxist epistemological and ontological viability is this: None of Foucault's subtleties in theorizing the "nondiscursive" are present in the postmodern/postMarxist model. Not only is Foucault's notion of "discourse" more complex and nuanced than the one presented in postmodern/post-Marxism, the "nondiscursive" is defined as constituted by "institutions, social relations, economic and political conjuncture" - and as explicitly nonreducible to discourse.38 This is why the postmodern/post-Marxist's incapability and/or refusal to account for the irreducibility of the nondiscursive aspects of institutions and the economy ultimately disqualifies them from articulating a viable Left project. To retort by saying that it is OK to not deal with the centrality of the nondiscursive (e.g., the institutional) because "every object is constituted as an object of discourse" 39 misses the point that the moment of the nondiscursive and extradiscursive is both irreducible and essential. How many more Ptolemaic circles of "discursive fixings" is it going to take before it becomes clear that postmodern Marxism's bankrupt epistemology/ontology cannot articulate a viable project for radical politics? 269 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Postmodern Marxism (5) Postmodern Marxism disregards the working class – the hypereducated are the only ones in power Politevin, doctoral program of UC Davis, 01 Rene Francisco Poitevin, member of the SR editorial collective. His political background and work experience include low-incomehousing 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 First, in the postmodern/post-Marxist world, it is the (white, middleclass) postmodern intellectual who gets constituted as the new "revolutionary subject."40 In a political universe controlled by postmodern Marxist physics, where there are no longer objective mechanisms of oppression, but what matters is "rather how... we wish to think of the complex interaction between these [sic] complexities,"" the postmodern intellectual becomes the de facto new vanguard. In a political practice that denies the possibility of objective criteria in deciding what constitutes social phenomena, postmodern intellectuals are the agency in charge of allocating legitimacy to political claims. It is no longer the material conditions or the historical conjuncture of a particular situation that determine what is to be done, but as JK. Gibson-Graham claim, it is "rather how we wish to think" about social problems that constitutes the defining criteria for validity and politics - in a context where the "we" is constituted by a postmodern intelligentsia. Simply put, it is no longer up to the working class, or queer people of color, or women, or the party intellectual, or any other subjectivity to decide which project is legitimate enough to merit recognition - and commitment. In the postmodern Marxist world, the hypereducated postmodern scholar is the one in charge of leading and defining which struggles count and how they will be fought. Simply put, the postmodern intellectual is the new revolutionary subject. 270 Capitalism K Chelmsford HS Arjun/Conor Holdin’ it down. AT: Postmodern Marxism (6) Postmodern Marxism consolidates capitalism and makes it more “user friendly” Politevin, doctoral program of UC Dav