Cap K FLHS

Fort Lauderdale Debate
2009-10
1 Capitalism K
Its The Revolution!!!

Its The Revolution!!! .................................................................................... 1 Overview- Impact .......................................................................................... 3 Overview- Alternative ................................................................................... 4 Overview- Morality ....................................................................................... 5 AT- Author Qualifications............................................................................. 6 2NC- AT: Perm ............................................................................................. 7 Framework- Capitalism ................................................................................. 8 2nc AT: Utopian Fiat/Alt Vague ................................................................... 9 Link- Abortions Bad Affirmative ................................................................ 10 Link Overview- Abortions Bad Affirmative (Sharp) ................................... 11 Link- Biotechnology.................................................................................... 12 Link- Biotechnology.................................................................................... 13 Link Overview- Biotechnology (Sharp) ...................................................... 14 Link- Black Feminism ................................................................................. 15 Link- Black Feminism (1/2) ........................................................................ 16 Link- Black Feminism (2/2) ........................................................................ 17 Link- Competitiveness................................................................................. 18 Link Overview- Competitiveness (Passavant) ............................................. 19 Link- Cosmetic Surgery .............................................................................. 20 Link Overview- Cosmetic Surgery (Sharp) ................................................. 21 Link- Cyborgs ............................................................................................. 22 Link Overview Cyborgs (Sharp)............................................................... 23 Link- Democracy Promotion ....................................................................... 24 Link Overview- Democracy Promotion (Cox, Ikenberry, and Igonuchi) ..... 25 Link- Education ........................................................................................... 26 Link Overview- Education (Gebhard) ......................................................... 27 Link- Education (Literacy) .......................................................................... 29 Link- Education (Vocational) ...................................................................... 30 Link- Family................................................................................................ 31 Link- Fetuses (Stem Cell/Reproductive Rights Affs) .................................. 32 Link- Food Stamps ...................................................................................... 33 Link- Homeland Security (1/2) .................................................................... 34 Link- Homeland Security ............................................................................ 35 Link- Housing ............................................................................................. 36 Link- Housing ............................................................................................. 37 Link- Hunger ............................................................................................... 38 Link- Law .................................................................................................... 39 Link- Legal Services (First Amendment) .................................................... 40 Link- Legal Services ................................................................................... 41 Link- Magic................................................................................................. 42 Link- Marriage (1/2).................................................................................... 43 Link- Marriage (2/2) .................................................................................... 44 Link- Marriage ............................................................................................ 45 Link- Mental Healthcare.............................................................................. 46 Link- Organ Transplants.............................................................................. 47 Link- Organ Transplants.............................................................................. 48 Link- Overpopulation (1/2) ......................................................................... 49 Link- Overpopulation (2/2) ......................................................................... 50 Link- Prison Reforms (1/2).......................................................................... 52 Link- Prison Reforms (2/2).......................................................................... 54 Link- Reparations ........................................................................................ 55 Link- Securitizing ........................................................................................ 56 Link- Social Services................................................................................... 57 Link- Technology (1/2) ............................................................................... 58 Link- Technology (2/2) ............................................................................... 59 Link- Telecommunications 1/2 .................................................................... 60 Link- Telecommunications 2/2 .................................................................... 61 Link- Telecommunications (Global Advantage).......................................... 62 Link- Transgender ....................................................................................... 63 Link- Transgender ....................................................................................... 64 Link- Transgender Surgery Affirmatives ..................................................... 65 Link- Welfare .............................................................................................. 66 Link- Welfare (PWORA) ............................................................................ 67 Link Welfare (Queen)................................................................................ 68 Link- WTO .................................................................................................. 69 Link- WTO .................................................................................................. 70 Link- AT: We Help the Proletariat .............................................................. 71 Link- AT: Social Services Help the Movement (Walt) ................................ 73 Impact- Laundry List ................................................................................... 74 Impact- Laundry List (Marko) ..................................................................... 75 Impact- Laundry List (Marko) ..................................................................... 76 Impact- Laundry List (Marko) ..................................................................... 78 Impact- Laundry List (Marko) ..................................................................... 79 Impact- Root Cause...................................................................................... 81 Impact- Democracy...................................................................................... 82 Impact- Dehumanization .............................................................................. 83 Impact- Disease............................................................................................ 84 Impact- Environment ................................................................................... 85 Impact- Environment ................................................................................... 86 Impact- AT: Cap Good- Environment (Smith) ............................................. 87 Impact- Inequality ........................................................................................ 88 Impact- Genocide ......................................................................................... 89 Impact- Panopticon ...................................................................................... 90 Impact- Poverty............................................................................................ 91 Impact- AT: Cap Good- Poverty (Bast and Walberg) .................................. 92 Impact- Privacy Rights (1/2) ........................................................................ 93 Impact- Privacy Rights (2/2) ........................................................................ 94 Impact- Swine Flu (1/2) ............................................................................... 95 Impact- Swine Flu (2/2) ............................................................................... 96 Impact- Terrorism ........................................................................................ 97 Impact- Terrorism ........................................................................................ 98 Impact- Warming ......................................................................................... 99 Impact- ZPH .............................................................................................. 100 Impact- AT: Cap Good- Coercion (Meltzer) .............................................. 101 Impact - AT: Cap Good- Freedom ............................................................. 102 Impact- AT: Cap Good- Innovation ........................................................... 103 Impact- AT: Terrorism Studies (Krueger, Laitin, Piazza) .......................... 104 Impact- AT: Transition Wars ..................................................................... 105 Impact- AT: Transition Wars (Pritchard and Taylor) ................................. 106 Impact- AT: Utilitarianism ......................................................................... 107 Turns Case- Biopower ............................................................................... 108 Turns Case- Democracy Promotion ........................................................... 109 Turns Case- Education (1/2) ...................................................................... 110 Turns Case- Education (2/2) ...................................................................... 111 Turns Case- Disabilities ............................................................................. 112 Turns Case- Natives ................................................................................... 113 Turns Case- Social Services ....................................................................... 114 Turns Case- Womens Rights .................................................................... 115 Turns case- Womens Rights ..................................................................... 116 Alternative- Withdrawal............................................................................. 117 Alternative- The Scream ............................................................................ 118 The Scream- Solvency ............................................................................... 119 The Scream- AT: Capitalism is Natural (1/2)............................................. 120 The Scream- AT: Capitalism is Natural (2/2)............................................. 121 The Scream- AT: Foucault (1/3) ................................................................ 122 The Scream- AT: Foucault (2/3) ................................................................ 123 The Scream- AT: Foucault (3/3) ................................................................ 125 The Scream- AT: Marxism Bad ................................................................. 126 The Scream- AT: Pragmatism .................................................................... 127 The Scream- AT: Scream =/= Action (1/2) ................................................ 128 The Scream- AT: Scream =/= Action (2/2) ................................................ 129 Alternative- Do Nothing ............................................................................ 130 Alternative Solvency- Foucault [maybe?rehighlight] ................................. 132 Alternative Solvency- Law ........................................................................ 134 Alternative Solvency- Mental Healthcare .................................................. 135 Alternative- AT: Permutation..................................................................... 137 Alternative- AT: Permutation..................................................................... 138 Alternative- AT: Utopian (1/2) .................................................................. 139 Alternative- AT: Utopian (2/2) .................................................................. 140 2NC- Capitalism- AT: Alternative Fails (Kliman) ..................................... 141 2NC- Capitalism- AT: Alternative Fails- Cohen ........................................ 142 2NC- Capitalism- AT: Alternative is Violent (Bernstein) .......................... 143 2NC- Capitalism- AT: Alternative is Violent (Meltzer) ............................. 144 2NC- Capitalism- AT: Progressive Reformism S Alt (Berman 6) .............. 145 2NC- Framework ....................................................................................... 146 Framework- ROB....................................................................................... 147 Framework- Pedagogy Key to Collapse ..................................................... 148 Framework- Pedagogy Key to Collapse ..................................................... 149
1
Vanova

2009-10
Framework- Now is Key ........................................................................... 150 Framework- AT: Role playing Good ......................................................... 151 2NCAT: Tech Good turns ..................................................................... 152 AT: Feminism (1/2) ................................................................................... 153 AT- Feminism (2/2)................................................................................... 154 AT: Identity Politics .................................................................................. 155 AT: ID Politics (Black/Women) ................................................................ 156
2 Capitalism K
AT- ID Politics: Turns Case ....................................................................... 157 AT- ID Politics: Turns Case ....................................................................... 158 AT- ID Politics: Turns Case ....................................................................... 159 AT: Pragmatism (1/3) ................................................................................ 160 AT: Pragmatism (2/3) ................................................................................ 161 AT: Pragmatism (3/3) ................................................................................ 162
2
Vanova

2009-10
3 Capitalism K
Overview- Impact
Capitalism makes extinction inevitable- as the system expands the inherent contradictions of natural limits and unlimited wants will cause resource wars, nuclear conflict required to protect material needs, and the collapse of biodiversity Brown 5
3
Vanova

2009-10
4 Capitalism K
Overview- Alternative
The alternative is a methodological rejection of the affirmative- the scream is a metaphor of an unconditional rejection of capitalism in the forum of debate. The alternative reshapes the political space they created by reading the 1ac. We dont have to win that our alternative makes capitalism go away- its a question of what the judge endorses at the end of the round. Thats Holloway
4
Vanova

2009-10
5 Capitalism K
Overview- Morality
A world without value to life is worse than death- Their calculations make extinction inevitable because if classifying people as things to be used can justify getting rid of them. Their approach to politics rests on an assumption that leads to wars which means their plan at best leads to error replication in policy making that ensures extinction. Thats Dillon
5
Vanova

2009-10
6 Capitalism K
AT- Author Qualifications

We dont think our authors should have to go to capitalist institutions to have a say about the systembecause the nature of capitalism is based on the elitist institutions of the West, you hold their evidence suspect- their authors have vested interests in the system, force them to debate us on the level of warrant comparison
Their attempts to lock us down to political theorists and supposed experts are only a constraint on our movement- understanding capitalist modes of thought wont get us anywhere, we instead have to SCREAM as our starting point- Holloway 2
(John, Ph.D in Political Science from the University of Edinburgh, Social Science Professor at Univ. of Puebla, Change the World Without Taking Power, http://libcom.org/library/change-world-without-taking-power-john-holloway, VR) 'Cling to', indeed, for there
is so much to stifle our negativity, to smother our scream. Our anger is constantly fired by experience, but any attempt to express that anger is met by a wall of absorbent cotton wool. We are met with so many arguments that seem quite reasonable. There are so many ways of bouncing our scream back against us, of looking at us and asking why we scream. Is it because of our age, our social background, or just some psychological maladjustment that we are so negative? Are we hungry, did we sleep badly or is it just pre-menstrual tension? Do we not understand the complexity of the world, the practical difficulties of implementing radical change? Do we not know that it is unscientific to scream? And so they urge us (and we feel the need) to study society, and to study social and political theory. And a strange thing happens. The more we study society, the more our negativity is dissipated or sidelined as being irrelevant. There is no room for the scream in academic discourse. More than that: academic study provides us with a language and a way of thinking that makes it very difficult for us to express our scream. The scream, if it appears at all, appears as something to be explained, not as something to be articulated. The scream, from being the subject of our questions about society,
becomes the object of analysis. Why is it that we scream? Or rather, since we are now social scientists, why is it that they scream? How do we explain social revolt, social discontent? The
scream is systematically disqualified by dissolving it into its context. It is because of infantile experiences that they scream, because of their modernist conception of the subject, because of their unhealthy diet, because of the weakening of family structures: all of these explanations are backed up by statistically supported research. The scream is not entirely denied, but it is robbed of all validity. By being torn from 'us' and projected on to a 'they', the scream is excluded from the scientific method. When we become social scientists, we learn that the way to understand is to pursue objectivity, to put our own feelings on one side. It is not so much what we learn as how we learn that seems to smother our scream. It is a whole structure of thought that disarms us. And yet none of the things which made us so angry to start off with have disappeared. We have learnt, perhaps, how they fit together as parts of a system of social domination, but somehow our negativity has been erased from the picture. The horrors of the world continue. That is why it is necessary to do what is considered scientifically taboo: to scream like a child, to lift the scream from all its structural explanations, to say 'We don't care what the psychiatrist says, we don't care if our subjectivity is a social construct: this is our scream, this is our pain, these are our tears. We will not let our rage be diluted into reality: it is reality rather that must yield to our scream. Call us childish or adolescent if you like, but this is our starting point: we scream.
6
Vanova

2009-10
7 Capitalism K
2NC- AT: Perm

Our alternative is to gut out the system by refusing any participation within it- our unconditional stance against their ideology is critical to the creation of a sustainable movement- 1% risk of link is a reason to reject all aspects of the permutation- severance is a voter because it makes it impossible to have stable negative ground Only turning away from the system can solve. Leftist movements will be co-opted into capitalist structuresHolloway 05
(john, 8-16, Ph.D Political Science-University of Edinburgh , Can We Change The World Without Taking Power?, http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5616) (There are two ways of thinking about this. The first says that these movements, these many insubordinations, lack maturity and effectiveness unless they are focused, unless they are channelled towards a goal. For them to be effective, they must be channelled towards the conquest of state power: either through elections or through the overthrowing of the existing state and the establishment of a new, revolutionary state. The organisational form for channelling all these insubordinations towards that aim is the party. The question of taking state power is not so much a question of future intentions as of present organisation. How should we organise ourselves in the present? Should we join a party, an organisational form that focuses our discontent on the winning of state power? Or should we organise in some other way?
The second way of thinking about the expansion and multiplication of insubordinations is to say, 'No, they should not be all harnessed together in the form of a party, they should flourish freely, go whatever way the struggle takes them.' This does not mean that there should be no coordination, but it should be a much looser coordination. Above all, the principal point of reference is not the state but the society that we want to create. The principal argument against the first conception is that it leads us in the wrong direction. 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
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. But this means understanding that our forms of organisation are very different from those of the state, that there is no symmetry between them.
between citizens and foreigners. It draws us into a spatial definition of struggle that has no hope of matching the global movement of capital.
7
Vanova

2009-10
8 Capitalism K
Framework- Capitalism
Our framework is that the alternative should be weighted as an ideological exploration in contrast to the methodology of the plan. Weight our political strategy against the affirmative. Our framework is predictable, their 1ac itself is a political stance on alternative energy and we allow them to weigh their 1ac which solves all their offense, Our impacts link to framework- if we win that capitalism is a bad idea, we should be able to debate about their underlying ideology- policy analysis presupposes political orientation, if that orientation is called into question then their affirmative is suspect Scholarly criticism plays an important role in deconstructing capitalism academic accounts which bridges the gap in knowledge production creates new solutions and solidarity to address the problem of capitalism Appadurai 01 (Arjun - Senior Advisor for Global Initiatives at The New School in NYC, also holds a Distinguished Professorship as the John Dewey
Professor in the Social Sciences, Grassroots Globalization and the Research Imagination in Globalization pp. 17-18 )
It may be objected that this line of reasoning fails to recognize that all research occurs in a wider world of relations characterized by growing disparities between rich and poor countries, by increased violence and terror, by domino economic crises, and by runaway traffic in drugs, arms, and toxins. In a world of such overwhelming material dependencies and distortions, can any new way of envisioning research collaboration make a difference? Such an account would belong to a broader effort to understand the variety of projects that fall under the rubric of globalization, and it would also recognize that the word globalization, and words like freedom, choice, and justice, are not inevitably the property of the state-capital nexus. To
take up this sort of study involves, for the social sciences, a serious commitment to the study of globalization from below, its institutions, its horizons, and its vocabularies. For those more concerned with the work of culture, it means stepping back from those obsessions and abstractions that constitute our own professional practice to seriously consider the problems of the global everyday. In this exercise ,
the many existing forms of Marxist critique are a valuable starting point, but they too must be willing to suspend their inner certainty about understanding world histories in advance. In all these instances, academics from the privileged institutions of the West (and the North) must be prepared to reconsider, in the manner I have pointed to, their conventions about world knowledge and about the protocols of inquiry ("research") that they too often take for granted. There are two grounds for supposing that this sort of exercise is neither idle nor frivolous. The first is that all forms of critique, including the most arcane and abstract, have the potential for changing the world: Surely Marx must have believed this during his many hours in the British Museum doing "research." The second argument concerns collaboration. I have already argued that those critical voices who speak for the poor, the vulnerable, the dispossessed, and the marginalized in the international fora in which global policies are made lack the means to produce a systematic grasp of the complexities of globalization. A new architecture for producing and sharing knowledge about globalization could provide the foundations of a pedagogy that closes this gap and helps democratize the flow of knowledge about globalization itself. Such a pedagogy would create new forms of dialogue between academics, public intellectuals, activists, and policymakers in different societies. The principles of this pedagogy will require significant innovations. This vision of global collaborative teaching and learning about globalization may not resolve the great antinomies of power that characterize this world, but it might help even the playing field.
8
Vanova

2009-10
9 Capitalism K
2nc AT: Utopian Fiat/Alt Vague

Not a voter- we have alternative solvency view this debate through reasonability- if we have authors to back our claims then were not utopian And Voting negative is an intellectual endorsement of the need to move away from the system. We dont have to provide an alternative to the present system, even if we believe it should be rejected in every instance. If we win our method of approaching politics is net better than plan we win the debate
9
Vanova

2009-10
10 Capitalism K
Link- Abortions Bad Affirmative The affirmative commodifies the female body to a reproductive machine- Sharp 2k
(Lesley A., Department of Anthropology, Barnard College, The Commodificationof the Body and Its Parts, Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2000. 29:287328, http://www.barnard.edu/anthro/sharp_comm.pdf, VR) In this vein, women consistently
emerge as specialized targets of commodification, where the female body is often valued for its reproductive potential. Such bodies may, in turn, require regulation. Prostitution is one site where themes of production, reproduction, enslavement, and colonization frequently merge (Brownmiller 1975:39192,
Rubin 1975). As Whites (1990) work from colonial Nairobi illustrates, prostitution (like slavery) may assume a variety of forms, and thus we should be wary of
another pervasive theme is that womens bodies are fragmented in a host of ways through their reproductive potential, so that they are reduced to vaginas, wombs, or breasts. Consider, for
monolithic arguments about commodified bodies. Yet example, wet-nursing as a legitimized exploitative, often class-based social practice (Hrdy 1992, 1999), or the elaborate, long-standing debate on the exchange value of women-as-wives in anthropology [the literature is extensive; for recent reviews see Ensminger & Knight (1997), Filer (1985), Kressel et al (1977), Strathern (1985), Tambiah (1989)]. The
process of commodification may also render some categories of bodies invisible, a theme that arises frequently in the literature on reproduction. Although female bodies dominate scholarly discussions, male bodies may also fall prey to exploitative practices. As Ebron (1997) explains, however, men (as prostitutes and
clients) are frequently omitted from discussions of sex trades. Commodified male virility is also an object of desire, but oddly, it, too, has been less carefully problematized in anthropology [for discussions of the cultural relevance of semen, see Alter (1994, 1997), Herdt (1987), Papagaroufali (1997)]. When
set against discussions of womens bodies as highlighted here, far less concern is voiced, for example, over the military use of soldiers bodies, or the commercial status of sperm donation. This theme of invisibility reemerges below in a discussion of the transformative power of visual technologies.
10
Vanova

2009-10
11 Capitalism K
Link Overview- Abortions Bad Affirmative (Sharp)

Their plan makes the female body a zone of commodification- increasing government control ignores that not only womens bodies are exploited and renders other categories of bodies invisible- thats Sharp
11
Vanova

2009-10
12 Capitalism K
Link- Biotechnology Biotechnology necessitates ownership of even the smallest parts of the human bodycreates biocolonization- Sharp 2k
(Lesley A., Department of Anthropology, Barnard College, The Commodificationof the Body and Its Parts, Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2000. 29:287328, http://www.barnard.edu/anthro/sharp_comm.pdf, VR)
Current trends in genetics and immunology generate evidence of bodily fragmentation par excellence, where corresponding scientific constructions locate the essence of our humanity within our DNA (Martin 1994a, Taussig et al
2000). This shift, argues Rabinow (1992), marks the ultimate displacement of the soul in Western discourse, where individual and collective identities are dependent on scientific constructions, a process he refers to as biosociality. Drawing upon this concept, Rapp et al illustrate that individuals
who share such common labels as Down syndrome, Marfan syndrome, or forms of dwarfism, for example, assert ties of kinship that supersede other biological links, an act that fosters strong sentiments of social inclusion among the socially stigmatized (Rapp et al 2000). This new hegemony of the gene (Finkler 2000:3) relies heavily on an atomization of the body into the smallest of biologically recognized fragments. Accompanying these developments are concerns over the commercialization of increasingly minute body fragments, associated inventions, and new categories of scientific knowledge. Genetics research has generated heated debates over ownership, focused especially on patent claims. Within the United States, ownership rights may be granted for the discovery, creation, and, in turn, marketing of genetic processes associated with new life (Rabinow 1996; cf
Andrews 1991, Caulfield & Jones 2000, Hayden 1998, Nelkin & Andrews 1998, Suzuki & Knudtson 1989). As Rabinows work on French DNA illustrates, various parties may lay claim to individuals genetic material as defining the national body, their coded fragments suddenly redefined as a precious national resource that should be guarded by the state (Rabinow 1999). Given
the involvement of multinational pharmaceuticals in genetics research, ownership of DNA rapidly supersedes national boundaries and enters a transnational arena. Current developments under
the aegis of the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) offer a case in point. Here, discussions on the ownership of genetic material and knowledge are pervasive (Pompidou 1995, Roberts 1987, UNESCO 1995). The
atomization of the body lies at the heart of this debate, raising questions about how increasingly minuscule human parts may still embody persons. Even scientific information is now equated with the
body and the self, an issue raised by Finkler (2000) in her work on genetic testing for breast cancer. Although patients may request or consent to genetic testing, they nevertheless raise questions over ownership rights. Finkler asks: To
whom does genetic information belong: the individual or the family?(p. 4). To this one must add insurance companies, pharmaceutical corporations, and even the nation, all of which define parties that may profit commercially from embedded knowledge. Finklers work underscores the
underlying disquiet among research subjects that their bodies have been violated, their intimate boundaries breached, the essence of their very being commodified. De Witte & Ten Have (1997) ask how genetic material might differ from other body parts? Furthermore,
what are we to make of the assumption that our humanity now rests not simply in our body fragments, but in the information surrounding them? Should both fragments and information be defined as individual, communal, corporate, or universal properties? They then ask more specifically, . . . can anyone own the human genome . . . or is [it] the property of humankind, the common heritage of humanity, as proclaimed in a recent declaration of UNESCO (1995)? De Witte & Ten Have (1997:52).
Furthermore, does it make sense even to speak of genetic material and information in the same terms? Can both claim the same moral status? As these two authors show, answers are far from uniform. In contrast to the models from the United States and France above, the Danish Council on Ethics has drawn a careful distinction designed to guide the issuance of patents. The Council allows for the granting of patents on modified and synthetic genes, but not on naturally occurring ones. The quandary here, of course, is the inevitable confusion over what, in fact, defines the natural when human b ody boundaries are increasingly breached and generations of human tissues transformed through genetic tampering? Such
contexts also generate concerns for exploitative practices wielded on a global scale by postindustrial nations capable of creating, managing, and marketing new biotechnologies (Haraway 1997, Kevles & Hood 1992). Andrews & Nelkin (1998) underscore the ethical dangers of preying on peoples in Third World nations. Pharmaceutical and other corporate entities now draw blood samples from indigenous peoples so that they may one day provide cures for diseases in the developed world and products affordable only in wealthy countries (Andrews & Nelkin 1998:55), an image hauntingly reminiscent of Whites (1993) description of vampiric ambulances in colonial Kenya, and of sorcery more generally.As Rapp et al (2000) explain, within the United States, some individuals considered genetically unusual now proclaim themselves to be an endangered species. Similar concerns are raised in Third World contexts, where actions associated with the HGDP expose insidious insults rendered by scientists who wish to immortalize the cell lines of groups that are going to
12
Vanova

2009-10
13 Capitalism K
Link- Biotechnology
become extinct. Moved by the fear that DNA stockpiling could displace incentives to solve localized problems of survival, theWorld Council of Indigenous
Peoples voted unanimously in 1993 to reject and condemn the Human Genome Diversity Project as it applies to our rights, lives, and dignity (Andrews & Nelkin 1998:55; cf Nelkin & Andrews 1998). Such
practices have thus been labeled by various authors as little more than mystified forms of biocolonialism (Andrews & Nelkin 1998), biopiracy (Shiva 1997), or biodiversity prospecting (Hayden 1998), as well as a highly racialized form of a new manifest destiny (Ikemoto 1997). Historical antecedents to these exploitative practicesand their responsesexist, for example, in legislation in the United States and Australia that now dictates the reparation of skeletal and other remains to indigenous peoples (Andrews & Nelkin 1998:60). With the increasing commercialization of human fragments, we are indeed witnessing an intensification of mining activities focused on the body of Homo economicus (Nelkin & Andrews 1998).
13
Vanova

2009-10
14 Capitalism K
Link Overview- Biotechnology (Sharp)

Biotechnology fragments the body into scientific fragments like DNA- even if the plans use is good, only control over the body extends to corporations and the body is commercialized bio colonization is inevitable- thats Sharp
14
Vanova

2009-10
15 Capitalism K
Link- Black Feminism Black feminism must be seen through the lens of capital in learning institutions- their single focus dooms the struggle- Hong 8
(Grace Kyungwon, professor of Women's Studies and Asian American Studies @ UCLA, The Future of Our Worlds: B lack Feminism and the Politics of Knowledge in the University under Globalization, Muse, VR)
if the violence toward black feminist bodies happens through epistemological means, then the obverse also must be true: a different kind of knowledge production can carve out a space in the academy for black feminists. Thus I attempt to address how we might reimagine and reconstitute this university formation so that it is no longer so violent toward black feminists. I argue that it is in black feminist thought that we find the method for reconstituting knowledge production within the university. This is a complex, twofold task.
Yet On the one hand, how do we claim the importance of black feminists actual lives without reproducing a reductive positivism that would dismiss questio ns of knowledge production and epistemology? On the other hand, how
do we valorize black feminist knowledge production in a way that does not inadvertently collude with the blanket dismissal of embodied politics as simply identitarian, a dismissal that operates to exclude or extinguish black feminist lives? In order to address this question, I turn to one important
intellectual trajectory within black feminist thought that emphasizes alternative epistemological productions, focusing specifically on Christian, Audre Lorde, and the Combahee River Collective. Through
the contributions of black feminist knowledge production, we can ensure that there are more black feminist bodies in the academy. In this way, we neither espouse a reductive essentialism that maintains that we only need to get more black female bodies in the academy (although this is certainly not an unimportant task), nor an equally reductive version of an anti-identitarian critique that insists that bodies are not important and that ignores the material levels at which racism and misogyny organize themselves. Instead of positing epistemological and embodied politics as incommensurate opposites, I argue that the materialist knowledge production pioneered by this strand of black feminist thought allows us to see them as connected. In arguing that the examination of the universitys violence toward black feminists allows us to understand the ways in which the university is implicated in global capital, I do not mean to argue that globalization is a new formation, specific only to the present day. The long histories of colonialism, enslavement, and genocide were the ways in which the farthest reaches of the globe became connected in the prior eras of a decidedly global capitalism.6
In this essay, I offer one particular analysis of historical transition, focusing on changes at the level of epistemology. As Michael Omi and Howard Winant have argued, the new social movements of the 1960s and 1970s marked a profound shift in the mechanisms of racial management. 7 Racial
formations in the earlier period operated through the ideology of white supremacy and racialized abjection. The enslavement of Africans, the genocide of indigenous populations, and the appropriation of territories through colonial conquest imply a worldview organized around a notion of the innate biological and/or cultural inferiority of racialized and colonized subjects.8 This notion of racialized abjection was manifested as the eradication of personhood, whether literally through genocide or politically and socially through enslavement. 9 Abjection was also
manifested through assimilation: through the belief that racialized subjects could and should shed their own inferior cultures and absorb the presumed superiority of Western civilization, which was always articulated through gender and sexual norms. 10
The principle of assimilation denigrates racialized and colonized culture as atavistic forms that must be relinquished if the racialized and the colonized being is to become a modern and civilized subject. This colonial era of global capital was organized around such an epistemology of white supremacy. The western European model of the university was integral to this process, as an institution that, as the repository of all validated knowledge, represented Western civilization, and that disseminated through the curriculum its norms and ideals. While institutions of higher education undoubtedly had a variety of functions and while all universities did not operate similarly, the epistemological structure of Western university education was based on a sense of progress toward a singular and universalizable notion of civilization, represented by a canonical notion of Western culture.11
15
Vanova

2009-10
16 Capitalism K
Link- Black Feminism (1/2) Its the interests of global capital, not white supremacy, that created the oppression of black women- we access their intersectionality movement- Hong 8
(Grace Kyungwon, professor of Women's Studies and Asian American Studies @ UCLA, The Future of Our Worlds: B lack Feminism and the Politics of Knowledge in the University under Globalization, Muse, VR) Because so much of what constitutes modern universities descends from this rueful history, the university became an important site where the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s challenged this narrative of racialization as abjection. 12 These new social movements, which in part established Ethnic Studies within universities across the United States, revealed that white supremacy, articulated through sexualized and gendered norms, was at the heart of the project of Western civilization, and thus that Western civilization was a racialized and gendered project. In so doing, they critiqued the very foundations of that earlier formation of global capitalism. Following C. L. R. Jamess lead, Roderick Ferguson has noted that Ethnic Studies was foremost a critique o f Western civilization (Ferguson 2005, 78). James describes African American Studies in his essay Black Studies and the Contemporary Student as an intervention into Western civilization as a racialized project constituted through the intersecting histories of European slavery, imperialism, and colonization (James 1993, 397). Ethnic
Studies programs were established in universities across the country by student activism that intersected with the antiwar, black power, and new left movements of the 1960s and 1970s, and with decolonization movements occurring abroad.13 These student movements approached the university as an institution already implicated in a worldwide system of neocolonial and racialized capitalist exploitation.14 As such, their efforts were to change the very function of the university. Rather than being a site of knowledge production that legitimated and reproduced U.S. state powerparticularly egregious as the U.S. was engaging in imperialist wars in Africa, Asia, and Latin Americathe university that these students imagined was a means of redistributing resources, producing counter-knowledges, and critiquing white supremacy and imperialism.15 Black feminists were central to this struggle. Because the racial project of Western civilization was always a gendered and sexualized project as well, black feminism emerged as an analysis of the intersections of race, gender, sexuality, and class within the context of global colonial capitalism.16 We now know
well that a central concern for black feminist articulations in what Joy James calls The Movement Era was an analytic that legal scholar Kimberl Crenshaw later termed intersectionality (Crenshaw 1991).17 As Rose M. Brewer notes, what is most important conceptually and analytically in this work is the articulation of multiple oppressions (Brewer 1993, 13).18 In other words, the intersectional analysis of race, class, gender, and sexuality as constitutive processes was the revolutionary insight of black feminism in this era. The most succinct and precise definition of intersectionality can be found in the Combahee River Collectives Black Feminist Statement in which they write, we
are actively committed to struggling against racial, sexual, heterosexual, and class oppression and see as our particular task the development of integrated analysis and practice based on the fact that the major systems of oppression are interlocking (Combahee River Collective 1981, 210). One of the earliest and
most influential published articulations of this analytic is Frances Beals Double Jeopardy: To Be Black and Female, which begins not with a discussion of black women, but with a critique of capitalism, which, Beal writes, has attempted by many devious ways and means to destroy the hu manity of all people, and particularly the humanity of black people. This
has meant an outrageous assault on every black man, woman, and child who resides in the United States (Beal 1970, 146). Beal then goes on to analyze the economic processes by which black men and women are differentially incorporated into the labor force, and uses this as a way to critique normative gender roles as well as to encourage black men and women to reject such roles. In this way, Beals theorization of intersectionality is not a means to define or defend an identitarian notion of black womanhood, but is an analytic about race, gender, sexuality, and capitalism as social processes. While 1960s and 1970s black feminisms intersectional analytic was, as it is often narrativized, a critique of the sexism within black nationalist movements or of racism within white feminism, we must also understand the larger implications of intersectionality: it was a complete critique of the epistemological formation of the white supremacist moment of global capital organized around colonial capitalism.19 This is
evident, for example, in the Combahee River Collectives contextualization of their current struggle within an understanding of how little value has been placed upon our lives during four centuries of bondage in the Western hemisphere (Combahee River Col lective 1981, 212). In the wake of these profoundly transformative social movements of the 1960s and 1970s, technologies of race must operate quite differently. I have argued elsewhere that the emergence of women of color feminism, centrally constituted through the insights of black feminism, can be read as one index of the restructuring of the global political economy in the post-World War II era.20 Globalization is most often discussed in relation to the shift between an older form of territorial colonialism to a newer form of neocolonialism, characterized as development policies dictated by U.S.-controlled financial institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, the concomitant displacement of laboring populations, and the transnational flow of goods, capital, and labor that is attendant to this condition.21 How black feminist thought relates to these processes is rarely discussed, and how a theorist like Christian might be commenting on an aspect of this worldwide transformation is a generally neglected topic. I argue that
the universitys violence toward black feminists is a manifestation of its operations in this new global political economy, and as such, Christians critique of the university provides an analysis of this process. The university was profoundly changed by the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s, and its
16
Vanova

2009-10
17 Capitalism K
Link- Black Feminism (2/2)

contemporary retrenchment in reaction to these movements, a retrenchment that is most evidently marked on black feminist bodies, structures its role within contemporary globalization. As I have argued, the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s rendered untenable the privileging of Western civilization that was the ideological and cultural basis for the earlier, colonial form of globalization. These social movements did so by critiquing Western civilizations foundations in white supremacy. With
this critique of white supremacy, the logics of racial management shifted toward the rhetoric and policy of neoliberal multiculturalism, which replaced white supremacy as the dominant logic of contemporary globalization. Jodi Melamed has described the sea change in racial epistemology in the postwar period in the following manner: 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 (Melamed 2006, 2).22 Melamed calls this new formation neoliberal multiculturalism, and argues that this, rather than white supremacy, organizes racial knowledge and inequity in the post-World War II era.
17
Vanova

2009-10
18 Capitalism K
Link- Competitiveness Competitiveness reinforces the global capitalist order- Passavant 05

(Paul, Assistant professor of political science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, The Strong Neo-liberal State: Crime, Consumption, Governance, Muse, VR)
Scholars have described a shift -- we can usefully if not somewhat arbitrarily date this shift to 1973 -- in the U.S. state from a Keynesian welfare state to a neo-liberal, post-Fordist state.14 Fordism, as a period of capitalist development, refers to a collection of attributes, such as mass industrialization, mass production, and Taylorist production methods by a semi-skilled working class within a somewhat closed national economy. The potential crises immanent to capitalism -- that of overproduction or a disgruntled working class -- are mitigated under Fordism by responsible trade unionism and a welfare state following Keynesian economic policies. The Fordist state thereby
assures to the working class a slice of the spoils by protecting unionization and higher incomes, assures to businesses predictable production from a disciplined workforce, and assures the economic system through adequate levels of demand through the pursuit of Keynesian policies -- that is to say, it assures that mass
Post-Fordism, by contrast, is marked by a liberalization of markets and the state, which has led, in part, to an opening of economies to global markets and off-shore production. This has led, in turn, to de-industrialization in many areas of western Europe and North America. Rather than following Keynesian social welfare policies, the post-Fordist state liberalizes itself through changes, if not hostility, to social welfarism and unionization to improve "competitiveness" in this global market. We also see a heightened significance given to the service sector and information technologies, a shift from mass consumption to differentiated consumer segments (in part to create new markets of consumer demand through, for example, status-based consumption patterns), and a reorganization of production from mass production to flexible specialization in order to respond quicker and more adequately to consumer demand and shifts in tastes of different consumer demographics (which are more knowable and retrievable thanks to new information technologies).16 With de-industrialization in the United States, urban areas, and increasingly other regions as well, use consumerism, consumption of culture, and tourism as vehicles for economic development. 17 Under conditions of post-Fordism, then, the subject position of the consumer has a different and increased prominence. Fordism's state formation has a dominant political and legal mentality of social security and a politics of risk. The risk mentality as it is configured under welfare state conditions is importantly different from thinking in terms of good versus evil or the notions of legal responsibility prevalent in the 19th century. Rather than individualizing guilt for traffic or work-related accidents, or blaming the individual's morality for unemployment when the business cycle means that a percentage of the population will lose their jobs at certain points, these risk societies recognize a certain statistical probability within given populations for accidents or misfortune. In response, such societies think less in terms of attributing causation to an individual who is then identified as guilty, and
consumerism can promote a steady growth of industrial production.15 instead distribute risk over an increasingly large population to insure its subjects against accident. In order to achieve security against misfortune for its subjects, risk societies rely on a notion of solidarity that enables the socialization of risk to produce social security. We must not understand one as a guilty or evil other, but as bearing a degree of responsibility for unfortunate events, and we must trust our fellow members of society that they will govern themselves such that they will take
A condition of possibility for these risk societies is solidarity. Hence the significance that solidaristic risk societies place upon disciplinary institutions like the school, prison or helping professions. These institutions, as Michel Foucault has taught us, seek to normalize their subjects. Even with prisons, the emphasis is on corrections and reform in order to reintegrate the subject as a productive member of society. Rather than thinking in terms of good versus evil, risk societies rely upon calibrating difference more subtly. Disciplinary institutions, then, measure difference as deviance from or approximation towards a social norm, and seek to produce properly normalized subjects capable of self government in accordance with society's norms.19
normal precautions against accidents.18
18
Vanova

2009-10
19 Capitalism K
Link Overview- Competitiveness (Passavant)

Post- Fordism mandates flexible economies based on international competitiveness- this order externalizes risk on institutions that discipline and normalize the subject like social service programs and education reforms to make the populations work for the market- thats Passavant
19
Vanova

2009-10
20 Capitalism K
Link- Cosmetic Surgery Cosmetic surgery is grounded in racist and consumerist ideology- Sharp 2k
(Lesley A., Department of Anthropology, Barnard College, The Commodification of the Body and Its Parts, Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2000. 29:287328, http://www.barnard.edu/anthro/sharp_comm.pdf, VR)
Current discussions of cosmetic surgery draw heavily on feminist understandings of the body, paired with political-economic concerns. Under such conditions, nose jobs, face lifts, body tucks, liposuction, etc., expose patients as the victims of oppressive, idealized standards of beauty, where physical appearance drives definitions of self and social worth. Such practices uncover a racialized hierarchy of beauty: As Kaw (1993) shows, eyelid reconstruction is a common practice among women of Asian descent, who equate a Caucasian look not only with beauty but intelligence. Philosopher Morgan (1991) underscores the sexist, racist, and ageist violence of cosmetic surgery, stressing in the strongest terms womens dependence on the knives that promise to sculpt our bodies, to restore our youth, to create beauty out of what was ugly and ordinary. What kind of knives are these? Magic knives. Magic knives in a patriarchal context. Magic knives in a Eurocentric context. Magic knives in a white supremacist context. What do they mean? I am afraid of these knives (p. 32). She forcefully asserts that such terms as cosmetic and electic mystify the realities of eugenicist thinking, and the paired pathologizing and colonizing of womens bodies. These are forms of coerced voluntariness that are driven by a technological imperative to conform. Associated biotechnologies drive the desire for twentieth century versions of feminina perfecta as an increasingly artificial and ever more perfect object. Through radical and painful forms of surgical alteration, women are told they may override the genetic code, a false promise that undermines feminist understandings of selfdetermination. In short, we are creating a new species of woman-monster imprisoned in artifactual bodies
(Morgan 1991:3034; cf Basalmo 1992)
20
Vanova

2009-10
21 Capitalism K
Link Overview- Cosmetic Surgery (Sharp)

Standards of cosmetic surgery are created and pushed by the market- the sculpting on the body relies on a notion of normality that is created by those companies that benefit from cutting up the consumers- thats Sharp
21
Vanova

2009-10
22 Capitalism K
Link- Cyborgs The use of biotechnologies or body altering medical processes creates a commodification of the body that leads to exploitation- Sharp 2k
(Lesley A., Department of Anthropology, Barnard College, The Commodification of the Body and Its Parts, Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2000. 29:287328, http://www.barnard.edu/anthro/sharp_comm.pdf, VR) If genetic technologies define a new frontier of exploitative explorations, the
cyborg, as an amalgamation of human, animal, and technological parts, emerges as emblematic of newly imagined possibilitiesin both nightmarish and celebrated forms. A
burgeoning interdisciplinary literature in science and technology studies now frequently focuses specifically on the cyborg in medical and other contexts (Dumit 1997, Gray 1995, Hopkins 1998b). Frankensteins
monster symbolizes scientific potential gone awry, an image that crops up repeatedly in social science and medical discussions of current biotechnologies (Helman 1988, Morgan 1991, Sharp 1994:366, Squire 1995). Here the central question is who is the monster the creature or its maker? Hospital units are regularly occupied by cyborgs in a host of forms. Potential organ donors are suspended in cyborgic animation, linked to life-support systems designed simply to postpone their deaths (Hogle 1995b; cf Kaufman 2000). These same technologies support pregnant brain-dead women who, following Cesarean sections, may in turn become organ donors (Hogle 1999, Murphy 1992). Similarly, the lives of premature infants (Casper 1998), the aged in palliative care, and accident victims in intensive care units are routinely sustained through a host of technologies fastened to and embedded within their bodies. Ohnuki-Tierney (1994), writing of transplantation in Japan, identifies the associated widespread
discomfort as rooted in the transgression of basic cultural categories and the emergence of a new nature (p. 239), words that most certainly hold true as well for troubled cultural responses to the cyborgic human. Especially
unsettling is the now routine use of a host of artificial, mechanical prostheses that extend life and enhance bodies. Heart valves, pace makers, artificial hip joints, prosthetic arms and legs, and synthetic lenses are now regularly implanted in human bodies. Furthermore, the monster now has a legitimate (and unstigmatized) medical label: chimera is now used routinely to encompass a host of hybrid forms (Jankowski & Ildstad 1997). In the exuberance to extend the boundaries of life, xenotransplantation and bioartificial organs define a new frontier of technocratic medicine. These developments are proposed, first, in order to alleviate scarcity in a troubled market of human body parts and, second, because they are often viewed as ethically unproblematic. Even the commodification of genetically altered animal species often remains unchallenged. After all, simians, for example, already define an existing category of scientific work
objects (Lynch 1988, Papagaroufali 1996, Suzuki & Knudtson 1989). The cyborg also troubles the safety of personal (Papagaroufali 1996) as well as international boundaries (Fishman et al 1998, Hunkeler et al 1999). During
a recent conference on xenotransplantation, several participants challenged the general exuberance, expressing anxiety over the need for the open exchange of information among nations. Julvez (1998), for example, raises concerns over the cross-species transmission of pathogens. Yet an even more startling opinion was offered by Effa (1998) from the Cameroon Bioethics Society: Rejecting the assumed miraculous quality of xenotransplantations medical potential, he instead voices grave concerns over inequity and potential exploitation. As he explains, because of their exorbitant price, acquiring these prostheses still remains the privilege of an infinitesimal well-to-do minority. He challenges the hubris associated with xenotransplantation research, asking how realistic such work might be when we know very little about the structure and use of the natural organ? Furthermore, widespread distrust already exists within African communities, where biomedicine is often perceived as posing significant psychological, sociological, and cosmological threats to communities. Researchers must recognize the inherent dangers that will accompany the inevitable expectation imposed on Africans to adapt to scientific breakthroughs and progress in biomedical technologies, work that is certain to exploit vulnerable African bodies in the name of scientific progress (Effa 1998). The power of Effas words lies in the fact that they trump the all-toofrequently voiced assumption that new biotechnologies are void of significant ethical problems.
22
Vanova

2009-10
23 Capitalism K
Link Overview Cyborgs (Sharp)

The creation of super humans If genetic technologies define a new frontier of exploitative explorations, the
cyborg, as an amalgamation of human, animal, and technological parts, emerges as emblematic of newly imagined possibilitiesin both nightmarish and celebrated forms. A
burgeoning interdisciplinary literature in science and technology studies now frequently focuses specifically on the cyborg in medical and other contexts (Dumit 1997, Gray 1995, Hopkins 1998b). Frankensteins
monster symbolizes scientific potential gone awry, an image that crops up repeatedly in social science and medical discussions of current biotechnologies (Helman 1988, Morgan 1991, Sharp 1994:366, Squire 1995). Here the central question is who is the monster the creature or its maker? Hospital units are regularly occupied by cyborgs in a host of forms. Potential organ donors are suspended in cyborgic animation, linked to life-support systems designed simply to postpone their deaths (Hogle 1995b; cf Kaufman 2000). These same technologies support pregnant brain-dead women who, following Cesarean sections, may in turn become organ donors (Hogle 1999, Murphy 1992). Similarly, the lives of premature infants (Casper 1998), the aged in palliative care, and accident victims in intensive care units are routinely sustained through a host of technologies fastened to and embedded within their bodies. Ohnuki-Tierney (1994), writing of transplantation in Japan, identifies the associated widespread
discomfort as rooted in the transgression of basic cultural categories and the emergence of a new nature (p. 239), words that most certainly hold tr ue as well for troubled cultural responses to the cyborgic human. Especially
unsettling is the now routine use of a host of artificial, mechanical prostheses that extend life and enhance bodies. Heart valves, pace makers, artificial hip joints, prosthetic arms and legs, and synthetic lenses are now regularly implanted in human bodies. Furthermore, the monster now has a legitimate (and unstigmatized) medical label: chimera is now used routinely to encompass a host of hybrid forms (Jankowski & Ildstad 1997). In the exuberance to extend the boundaries of life, xenotransplantation and bioartificial organs define a new frontier of technocratic medicine. These developments are proposed, first, in order to alleviate scarcity in a troubled market of human body parts and, second, because they are often viewed as ethically unproblematic. Even the commodification of genetically altered animal species often remains unchallenged. After all, simians, for example, already define an existing category of scientific work
objects (Lynch 1988, Papagaroufali 1996, Suzuki & Knudtson 1989). The cyborg also troubles the safety of personal (Papagaroufali 1996) as well as international boundaries (Fishman et al 1998, Hunkeler et al 1999). During
a recent conference on xenotransplantation, several participants challenged the general exuberance, expressing anxiety over the need for the open exchange of information among nations. Julvez (1998), for example, raises concerns over the cross-species transmission of pathogens. Yet an even more startling opinion was offered by Effa (1998) from the Cameroon Bioethics Society: Rejecting the assumed miraculous quality of xenotransplantations medical potential, he instead voices grave concerns over inequity and potential exploitation. As he explains, because of their exorbitant price, acquiring these prostheses still remains the privilege of an infinitesimal well-to-do minority. He challenges the hubris associated with xenotransplantation research, asking how realistic such work might be when we know very little about the structure and use of the natural organ? Furthermore, widespread distrust already exists within African communities, where biomedicine is often perceived as posing significant psychological, sociological, and cosmological threats to communities. Researchers must recognize the inherent dangers that will accompany the inevitable expectation imposed on Africans to adapt to scientific breakthroughs and progress in biomedical technologies, work that is certain to exploit vulnerable African bodies in the name of scientific progress (Effa 1998). The power of Effas words lies in the fact that they trump the all-toofrequently voiced assumption thvat new biotechnologies are void of significant ethical problems.
23
Vanova

2009-10
24 Capitalism K
Link- Democracy Promotion Attempts to spread democracy create worse forms of democracy that encourage the inequalities of capitalism- Cox, Ikenberry, and Igonuchi, 2k
(Michael, professor in the Dept. of International Politics in the Univ. of Wales, Aberystwyth, John, professor of polisci @ Univ. Pennsylvania, Takashi, former senior vice-rector of UN university, Professor of political science at the institute of oriental culture in the univ. of Tokyo., American Democracy Promotion, pg. 327, VR)
Rather than promoting an ideal world of justice and democracy, neoliberal economic globalization (NLEG) is facilitating the emergence of an historic malaise in global capitalism, perhaps even an historic reversal of capitalist civilization when judged in terms of social progress. Increasing inequality, social polarization, and the concentration of wealth in a few hands accompany this formal democracy. This New Hellenism might be better understood through an historical analogy with the long death agony of democracy in classical Graeco-Roman civilization, in which democracy was slowly stripped of its meaningful substance through a process of concentration of economic power and increased exploitation of labour. The historic malaise of global capitalism is now so pronounced that someone like George Soros could recently predict that, if left unchecked, the global crisis of 1997-9 would bring the complete disintegration of the system. Although US foreign policy has long made rhetorical claims to democracy as a universal value and goal, American power was deeply compromised with authoritarian and dictatorial governments around the world. The relationship between domestic capitalism and democracy may have been fairly positive in the US, but the relationships among US capitalism, US power and democracy abroad have been contradictory. President Bill Clinton was the champion of a new US foreign policy which emphasized the global benefits of democracy and free trade. When visiting the states of Central America in March 1999, Clinton delivered an unexpected apology for US sponsored terror and repression during the last four decades, which he called a dark and painful period. He pledged that the US must not repeat such a m istake. For the past decade Central American states have been formal and low intensity democracies, but the people of the region are still mired in the same miseries of extreme debt, poverty and inequality. The same elites remain in power. For example, Arena, the far-right party in El Salvador associated with the death squads of the Reagan period, has held power throughout
the period of low-intensity democracy and was easily re-elected to power in the same month that Clinton delivered his historic apology. Meanwhile, as the president promised springtimes of renewal, a billion dollars of disaster aid for the region was being held up in the US Congress, US trade policies threatened local grain producers while protecting US markets, and tens of thousands of Central American refugees who fled from the US-Sponsored wars and terrorism of the 1980s were being threatened with deportation. Such are the vicissitudes of globalization and democracy where the pursuit of power and national interest remain the primary concerns.
24
Vanova

2009-10
25 Capitalism K
Link Overview- Democracy Promotion (Cox, Ikenberry, and Igonuchi)

Democracy promotion is a cloak for the spread of wealth by the elites into peripheral nations- empirically proven- attempts to make Central American countries Democratic and instead created fascist systems with worse instances of poverty and inequality- thats Cox, Ikenberry, and Inoguchi
25
Vanova

2009-10
26 Capitalism K
Link- Education Education reforms are grounded in the needs of the capitalist system- Gebhard 4
(Meg, associate professor of education at University of Massachusetts Amherst, Fast Capitalism, School Reform, and Second Language Literacy Practices, Modern Language Journal, Vol. 88, No. 2 (Summer, 2004), pp. 245-265, VR) Increasingly, economists,
social theorists, educators, and language specialists are calling our attention to the linkages between changes in global economy, ensuing demands for school reform, and the ways in which language practices simultaneously reflect and create new forms of social practice (e.g., Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Cummins & Sayers, 1995; Gee, et al., 1996; Katz, 2001; Reich, 1992). Specifically, Gee, et al. (1996), as well as others, argue that "the new work order" is driven by saturated world markets and increased global competition. As a result, they maintain that work is becoming geared toward producing customized knowledge-based products and services as opposed to standardized material goods en masse. Leading analysts of changes in the forces and relations of production such as Senge (1991) and Drucker (1993) have named this new kind of manufacturing "new capitalism."1 They argue that as world economies move from producing standardized, material commodities to producing customized services for niche markets, business organization must change because bulky, top-down bureaucracies associated with "old capitalism" are not capable of anticipating and quickly responding to targeted clients' needs in a 'just in time" fashion. Senge and Drucker further advise that if companies are to remain competitive in a rapidly changing global market place, they must become flatter, leaner, decentralized organizations. Workers must be "cross-trained" team players who share expertise, not specialists who work autonomously. Finally, they argue that such fundamental changes in the nature of work demand new kinds of "knowledge workers" who know how to solve problems creatively and collaboratively, instead of mechanically following static job descriptions. As in the past, the demand for new kinds of workers exerts pressure on schools to prepare people to take their place in a changing economic order (see Cohen & Mohl, 1979, for a discussion of how school reforms
associated with the Progressive Era in the United States were a response to industrialization and urbanization). Echoing the language of new capitalism, contemporary school reformers argue that schools cannot operate like Fordist factories, but must become thinking organizations. Advocates of school reform, myself included, assert that learning therefore should not look like piecework but like project-based collaborative teamwork; that teachers should not function as givers and evaluators of facts but as critical co-constructors of knowledge; and that students should not be passive receptacles of information but equally critical problem solvers .
To achieve these changes in the organization of teaching and learning, reformers in the United States have been pushing for a variety of initiatives that are widely taking hold in schools across the country (Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1995;
Little & Dorph, 1998; Murphy, 1991; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995). For example, driven by the belief that "smaller is better," large elementary and secondary schools are being restructured into smaller units such as "houses," "teams," or "academies." These smaller units are intended to support teachers in creating a sense of community, in sharing information, in making decisions, and in being more responsive to the needs of their students. Second, many school reformers maintain that if teachers are to be responsive to the unique needs of their students, authority should rest with them, not with administrators and policy makers who are less aware of the day-to-day demands of their work. Finally, similar to the discourse of workplace reform, many school reformers call for a movement away from traditional, Fordist approaches to teaching and learning characterized by students individually mastering isolated facts within artificially separate disciplines. Rather, they advocate a constructivist approach to teaching and learning characterized by teachers and students developing knowledge collaboratively through the exploration of interdisciplinary real- world problems. In providing
a critique of workplace reforms, and by extension school reforms, Gee, et al. (1996), make several important points. First, they highlight that one of the fundamental characteristics of new capitalism is that it centres on producing engineered communities of practice that purposefully attempt to socialize people into assuming new identities so that they can become new kinds of managers, new kinds of workers, and new kinds of consumers. Second, the authors highlight how language practices, as well as other discursive semiotic systems, are implicated in building these new communities and new identities. Specifically, they draw attention to the way literacy practices create social positions from which people are "invited" or "summoned" to speak, listen, act, read, write, think, feel, believe, and value in particular ways (Gee, et al., p. 10). In illustrating these points, Hull's work illustrates how the ability of workers, particularly second language learners,2 to negotiate smoothly and resist strategically new subject positions is crucial if they are to become indeed empowered as opposed to exploited by reforms in the organization of their work (Hull, Jury, Ziv, & Katz, 1996; Katz, 2001). This quick slippage between the promise of opportunity as described by business consultants and the likelihood of new forms of marginalization as experienced by workers captures the essence of fast capitalism.
26
Vanova

2009-10
27 Capitalism K
Link Overview- Education (Gebhard)

The global economy relies on mass education as a means of social production of more workers- the new fast economy
Increasingly, economists,
social theorists, educators, and language specialists are calling our attention to the linkages between changes in global economy, ensuing demands for school reform, and the ways in which language practices simultaneously reflect and create new forms of social practice (e.g., Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Cummins & Sayers, 1995; Gee, et al., 1996; Katz, 2001; Reich, 1992). Specifically, Gee, et al. (1996), as well as others, argue that "the new work order" is driven by saturated world markets and increased global competition. As a result, they maintain that work is becoming geared toward producing customized knowledge-based products and services as opposed to standardized material goods en masse. Leading analysts of changes in the forces and relations of production such as Senge (1991) and Drucker (1993) have named this new kind of manufacturing "new capitalism."1 They argue that as world economies move from producing standardized, material commodities to producing customized services for niche markets, business organization must change because bulky, top-down bureaucracies associated with "old capitalism" are not capable of anticipating and quickly responding to targeted clients' needs in a 'just in time" fashion. Senge and Drucker further advise that if companies are to remain competitive in a rapidly changing global market place, they must become flatter, leaner, decentralized organizations. Workers must be "cross-trained" team players who share expertise, not specialists who work autonomously. Finally, they argue that such fundamental changes in the nature of work demand new kinds of "knowledge workers" who know how to solve problems creatively and collaboratively, instead of mechanically following static job descriptions. As in the past, the demand for new kinds of workers exerts pressure on schools to prepare people to take their place in a changing economic order (see Cohen & Mohl, 1979, for a discussion of how school reforms
associated with the Progressive Era in the United States were a response to industrialization and urbanization). Echoing the language of new capitalism, contemporary school reformers argue that schools cannot operate like Fordist factories, but must become thinking organizations. Advocates of school reform, myself included, assert that learning therefore should not look like piecework but like project-based collaborative teamwork; that teachers should not function as givers and evaluators of facts but as critical co-constructors of knowledge; and that students should not be passive receptacles of information but equally critical problem solvers .
To achieve these changes in the organization of teaching and learning, reformers in the United States have been pushing for a variety of initiatives that are widely taking hold in schools across the country (Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1995;
Little & Dorph, 1998; Murphy, 1991; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995). For example, driven by the belief that "smaller is better," large elementary and secondary schools are being restructured into smaller units such as "houses," "teams," or "academies." These smaller units are intended to support teachers in creating a sense of community, in sharing information, in making decisions, and in being more responsive to the needs of their students. Second, many school reformers maintain that if teachers are to be responsive to the unique needs of their students, authority should rest with them, not with administrators and policy makers who are less aware of the day-to-day demands of their work. Finally, similar to the discourse of workplace reform, many school reformers call for a movement away from traditional, Fordist approaches to teaching and learning characterized by students individually mastering isolated facts within artificially separate disciplines. Rather, they advocate a constructivist approach to teaching and learning characterized by teachers and students developing knowledge collaboratively through the exploration of interdisciplinary real- world problems. In providing
a critique of workplace reforms, and by extension school reforms, Gee, et al. (1996), make several important points. First, they highlight that one of the fundamental characteristics of new capitalism is that it centres on producing engineered communities of practice that purposefully attempt to socialize people into assuming new identities so that they can become new kinds of managers, new kinds of workers, and new kinds of consumers. Second, the authors highlight how language practices, as well as other discursive semiotic systems, are implicated in building these new communities and new identities. Specifically, they draw attention to the way literacy practices create social positions from which people are "invited" or "summoned" to speak, listen, act, read, write, think, feel, believe, and value in particular ways (Gee, et al., p. 10). In illustrating these points, Hull's work illustrates how the ability of workers, particularly second language learners,2 to negotiate smoothly and resist strategically new subject positions is crucial if they are to become indeed empowered as opposed to exploited by reforms in the organization of their work (Hull, Jury, Ziv, & Katz, 1996; Katz, 2001). This quick slippage between the promise of opportunity as described by business consultants and the likelihood of new forms of marginalization as experienced by workers captures the essence of fast capitalism.
27
Vanova

2009-10
Link- Education
28 Capitalism K
Education reform creates a working class that works for their poverty and re-inscribes capitalist ideas as learning- Watchel 72
(Howard, Assistant professor at American university, Washington, D.C., Capitalism and Poverty in America: Paradox or Contradiction?, The American Economic Review, Vol. 62, No. 1/2 (Mar. 1, 1972), pp. 187-194, Jstor, VR) Since very few capitalists are poor, an analysis of the labor market is an important means of understanding the causes of poverty. This proposition is as old as Thomas Aquinas: "Because they are poor they become wage-earners, and because they are wage-earners they are poor.'" Contrary to both lay and professional notions,
nearly every poor person is or has been connected with the labor market in some way. First, there are enormous numbers of working poor-individuals who earn their poverty by working full-time, full-year, enabling us to purchase commodities and services at lower prices, thereby raising the real standard of living for the nonpoor. In 1968, there were two and one- quarter million families (nearly 10 million individuals) with a head working full-time, full-year and earning less than the government's parsimonious poverty income (B. Bluestone, 1971, p. 10 ). A second significant proportion of the poor are attached to the labor force but are not employed full-time. Some of these individuals suffer intermittent periods of short-term employment and short-term unemployment, while others work for substantial periods of time and then suffer severe periods of long-term unemployment, forming a group euphemistically called "the hardcore unemployed." A third significant portion of the poor are handicapped in the labor market as a result of an occupational disability or poor health.
However, these occupational disabilities are themselves often related to a person's earlier status in the labor force. There are greater occupational hazards and opportunities for poor health in low wage jobs. In 1966, nearly one-sixth of the labor force was disabled for a period longer than six months. As a consequence of disability, many households with disabled heads are poor--about 50 percent in 1966. A
fourth category of the poor is not presently attached to the labor market- retired workers, the prison population, members of the military, the fully handicapped, and those on other forms of public assistance (principally women with dependent children). Though these individuals are not presently attached to the labor force, in nearly all instances their low income is determined by their labor market status occupied during their participation in the labor force. The next question is-how do labor markets function to yield
differential prob-abilities of becoming poor for the participants in labor markets? The emerging radical analysis views labor markets as stratified, consisting of more or less permanent divisions within the working class.2 The degree of labor market stratification yields differing degrees of division among labor which historically has had important implications for the cyclical and secular movements in class consciousness (D. Gordon, pp. 112-138). We may note, at this juncture, the particular quality of this proposition: the
division of society into classes and then into strata within classes which yields a state of both conflict among and division within classes. This contrasts with the harmonious, frictionless, and equilibrating propositions of orthodox theory in which individuals are atomized, and their behavior is not influenced by their class or status positions. The particular way in which labor becomes stratified is a complex process which has taken on different forms in different historical epochs. Certainly a starting point is the system of learning provided by capitalist society in its broadest context: learning in schools, in the family, and through one's social network of friends and acquaintances. While orthodox economists have focused exclusively on the acquisition of human capital through formal education, the degree of "rationality" of the human capital investment decision, and the rate of return to that human capital, radicals have focused their attention on the primary role of formal education in reproducing the class structure inter- generationally and in producing stratification in the labor market (S. Bowles, 1971). For this purpose, schools have developed an intricate set of mechanisms to influence personality development which, in turn, have interacted with affective traits acquired through the family and the individual's social network (one's circle of friends, acquaintances, and occupational associates). As evidence of the importance of affective traits acquired through schooling, H. Gintis has shown that affective traits are more important than cognitive ability in predicting rates of return to schooling (1971, pp. 268-71).
28
Vanova

2009-10
29 Capitalism K
Link- Education (Literacy) Under capitalism the education they claim to create will be co-opted into capitalist formats- only moving away from the system solves- Guardiola-Rivera 2
(Oscar, Law Professor @ Univ. of London Birkbeck, Ideology, Capitalism, and the Geopolitics of Knowledge, Project Muse, VR)
As an ideological apparatus, then, literacy may be understood as a set of mechanisms or procedures that in order to be operative, to seize hold of the individual, always already presuppose the massive presence of the state. That is, the transferential relationship of the individual toward state power, or in Althussers (1994 [1970], 13) terms, towards the ideological big Other in whom the interpellation originates. The civilizing apparatus that became operational in the
sixteenth century is aimed at (re)making the particular world of the colonized in the image of the universal world of the colonizer under the auspices of capitalism.
Colonial management through literacy is fundamentally concerned with the use and ownership of (colonized) space, including the shaping of such a space (both material and cultural) into a new, more encompassing, totality. To clarify this point I would like to draw on the work of John S. Howard (1998) from an Althusserian perspective. Howard argues that under the impetus of capitalism other ways of being are reformulated in the hierarchies of commodity production and reintegrated into a totality that normalizes all ways of being by appealing to the self -evident and a priori condition of rationality and history (113). I argue that the allegedly purposive character of human action is, in the case of modern/colonial global ordering, the condition referred to by Howard. To put it in Althussers (1994 [1970], 122) terms, individuals in state-of-grace deal with a totality that has no history, for it is taken to be an obvious state of affairs. This means that, insofar as the individuals are concerned, their being subjects to and subjects of such a totality is self-evident, a primary obviousness. Like all obviousness, the obviousness that you and I are subjects, that is, members of the cosmopolis insofar as we are able to enter universal conversation and trade through literacy and knowledge production, is an ideological effect. I contend that this ideological obviousness accounts for the acquired objectivity and global character of the late state-market. Within this more encompassing totality all ways of being become the whole because they are thought (indeed, they think themselves)1 to contain the elemental quality of the totality (i.e., humanity) within its own constitutive part. As Howard (1998, 112) puts it, each piece is organically reconciled to the ruling order that regulates the entirety. As a whole, the global state-market attempts to reunify partial or local life-worlds (ways of life, modes of being) by subjecting them, through ideological state apparatuses (ISAs) such as literacy as state-ofgrace, to the identity process of Western democratization (according to Western patterns of law) and Western knowledge. Literacy operates at a global level, the level of the capitalist world market. Under capitalism, law and knowledge are commodities, and as such they are reformulated in the hierarchies of commodity production: local forms of law and knowledge remain identical until value is differentiated in terms of the world market. Some will be considered less valuable, being left behind in the hierarchy, while others, placed ahead in the hierarchy, become the standard of value itself. As Boaventura de Sousa Santos (1998, 350) would say, they are relocated: being local phenomena, they become successfully globalized. Globalized forms of law and knowledge are thus treated as valuable in themselves, as universals. As they are invested with the universal quality of value by this process of deterritorialization and reterritorialization, modern law and knowledge become a fetish. Thus, for instance, the signifiers democracy and science in Watsons proposition belong to a discursive order in which modern Western products are always already taken as universal standards of value, as inherently progressive. Being in possession of them means being ahead, progress and hierarchy being considered internal to and a necessary effect of the structure of the modern, based on commodified law and science. So it is assumed that once backward peoples learn how to cope with such a structure, they will necessarily progress in the hierarchy.
29
Vanova

2009-10
30 Capitalism K
Link- Education (Vocational) Vocational education keeps down the lower classes by creating modes of education antithetical to the struggles for power-Chen 05
(Weigang, assistant professor of religious studies @ UVermont, Peripheral Justice: The Marxist Tradition of Public Hegemony and Its Implications in the Ag e of Globalization, Project Muse, VR)
one must bear in mind the fact that the hierarchical order characteristic of traditional states is not merely social; it is first and foremost a system of cultural hierarchy. The best way to examine the crucial importance of cultural hierarchy for the social reproduction in traditional societies is to compare classical or humanistic education and vocational education in terms of their distinct nature of intellectuality.73 The division between these two types of education is a rational formula: classical education for the dominant classes and vocational education for the instrumental classes. The principle of classical education is the humanistic
To see why this is the case, according to Gramsci, ideal symbolized by Athens and Rome. Here knowledge is learned not for any immediate practical or professional end. Indeed, the end seems to be of little interest because the real interest was the interior development of personality, the formation of character by means of the absorption and assimilation of the whole cultural past of modern European civilization.74 This
general, disinterested, deliberately unpractical nature of classical education, Gramsci emphasizes, holds the key to the domination of the state over the world of economic production in traditional societies. This is because the public life of any society presupposes the collective man, who is alone capable of accomplishing the hegemonic tasks: to create and sustain a cultural-social unity through which a multiplicity of dispersed wills, with heterogeneous aims, are welded together with a single aim, on the basis of an equal and common conception of the world.75 Vocational education, by contrast, is characterized by its overwhelming concern for a specific practical or professional end and by its organic connection to an essential function in the world of economic production. The limitation imposed by this organic linkage to the specific position and economic interests of a fundamental social group in the economic life explains why organic or professional intellectuals do not possess the crucial intellectual qualities that are indispensable to governingdedication to the general interests of society as a whole and the public-oriented personality and will to act in accordance to this general vision. Organic intellectuals, Gramsci adds, are, at most, capable of giving the economic group a class consciousness or an awareness of the common interests among all members of the group and of representing such shared corporative interests in the social and political fields. But it is precisely because of this corporative character that they can never elevate the fundamental group to the universal plane of the state. They can act only within the existing fundamental institutions.76 The discrepancy between the ethical or universal character of the state and the limits of organic intellectuals has widened and deepened in modern bourgeois society, in which industrialization and mass education have created a large number of organic intellectuals for the new economic classes: industrial technicians, the specialist in political economy, the organizers of a new culture, of a new legal system, etc.77 The autonomy of bourgeois civil society relies on the construction of the hegemonic mechanism, which carries out in the private terrain of civil society the same function that the ethical state performed in precapitalist societies. For this reason, civil society is best understood as the image of a State without a State.78
The irony, however, is that the process of specialization, differentiation, and particularization of knowledge is pushing the organic intellectuals of the bourgeois class to move in the opposite direction. Here, according to Gramsci, lies the crisis of the state that any modern society has to face: While regressive and conservatist social groupings, to an ever-increasing extent, have lost their role as the carriers of the ethical state and are being reduced to their initial corporative economic stage, the progressive and innovatory groupings, for lack of the mechanisms of the ethical state, are staying in their initial corporative economic phase. 79 The crisis of the state in modern transformation, according to Gramsci, allows us to understand the incalculable historical significance of the traditional intellectuals, who are detaching themselves from the social groupings to which they have been hitherto related and, because of this, are actually the only peo ple who possess the most extensive and perfect consciousness of the modern State.80 All
this, Gramsci concludes, allows us to understand why the abnormal suture of traditional intellectuals and the new dominant economic classes has been the most decisive factor for the emergence of an effective and stable bourgeois civil society. A remarkable historical instance of this type of unity can be found in early modern England, where the old land-owning class loses its economic supremacy but maintains for a long time a political-intellectual supremacy and is assimilated as traditional intellectuals and as a directive group by the new group in power.
30
Vanova

2009-10
31 Capitalism K
Link- Family The family is an economic cushion forced on by the capitalist system- Creed 2k
(Gerald W., Department of Anthropology, Hunter College and the Graduate School of the City University of New York, "Family Values" and Domestic Economies, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 29 (2000), pp. 329-355, Jstor, VR)
From the diverse examples of domestic economies reviewed here, one fact seems clear: Contemporary economic developments are not eroding the value of the family; rather, in many places, the family seems to be of increasing economic significance (Wheelock & Mariussen 1997). I have suggested that the rise of small family businesses has to do with the advent of a flexible global economy, and home work is probably even more attractive for the same reasons (Boris & Priigl 1996). In many places these small family enterprises are part of a diverse economic strategy. Multinational corporations are often attracted to such places expressly because subsistence production and other economic activities lower the level of wages required to reproduce the labor force. Workers must then combine formal wage labor with cash-cropping, subsistence production, and various infor- mal activities. Sick (1999) finds
the same situation among commercial farmers vulnerable to the world market: "For many farming households, a diversified strategy involving a combination of farming, wage-labor, craft production, migration and formal sector employment (when possible) has become the norm" (1999:17). Such arrangements can be found throughout Latin America and the Caribbean (Buechler & Buechler 1992, Deere 1990, Rothstein 1999, Safa 1995, Tice 1995, Weismantel 1995) as well as in Asia (Blackwood 1997, Bruun 1993, Wolf 1992), the Middle East (Singerman 1995, White 1994), Africa (Ellis 1998, Haswell & Hunt 1991, Moock 1986), and North
the same capitalist economic forces that generate multiple income possibilities make it necessary to tap them, not only to supplement low wages but also as a hedge against the uncertainty that accompanies flexibility (Nash 1994). This also applies to the so-called transition economies. In eastern Europe, the importance of household production
America (Barlett 1993). In other words,
under socialism was reproduced by transition difficulties (Creed 1998), provoking some to see postcommunist domestic economies as a distinctive arena in a new variant of capitalism (Smith 2000). In China during the crucial early years of the reform, Bruun (1993) believes families pursued a "dual flow" strategy in which some members continued to tap the prestige and security of the state sector while others pursued the material wealth of private enterprise. The point here is that
diverse global economic forces in the 1990s-from capitalist flexibility to socialist transition-make the family as a space of interaction more important than ever. The new information age may have challenged patriarchalism within the family as Castells (1997) insists, but related capitalist dynamics have made the family, reformed or not, more economically essential for many people. They need multiple incomes, from multiple sources, with multiple fallback positions; the family provides this synthesis. The new value of the family is clearly reflected in family research. A prior fascination with the household division of labor has given way to a focus on the articulation of income streams. This has been accompanied by a decline in attention to inheritance. Earlier anthropological and historical research on
the family focused on inheritance as the central factor shaping household forms and relations. To the degree that family farms or enterprises are among the multiple sources of income families rely on, inheritance will still be important, but the diversity of income sources diminishes its centrality. Even in family enterprises, new economic considerations have made management skills and business acumen perhaps more valuable. Thus, Greenhalgh (1994:750) notes an increased importance of acquired over inherited property for the family/firm heads in Taiwan. In more marginal regions, one might query the very benefit of inheriting a family enterprise when part of its value to a flexible global economy is its expendability. The declining importance of inheritance in family studies has been balanced by increasing attention to migration. Migration has long been a central concern in both the anthropology and history of the family, but its role has shifted in the context of globalization. Historians often see migration as the unhappy des- tination of family members who could not be supported with family resources. Anthropologists traditionally focus on how migrant families adapt to their new environment, or how the departure of individuals, usually men, shapes the structure of the families left behind (Brettell 1988, Gailey 1992). Increasingly, however, migration of family members is seen as a way to maintain a family or family enterprise. Pessar (1982) argues that Dominicans migrate to the United States precisely to sustain their island family economies with remittances. Re- mittances are not new, but her research suggests that those who send money and those who receive it are involved in a more collective family endeavor than in the past, enhanced by richer and more frequent interaction. Thus, Harrison (1997) suggests that structural adjustment policies in Jamaica have reduced the extended family by encouraging migration, but that relations with migrants are now central to these families, creating families that are in some ways more complex than their predecessors. Ho (1993) captures this complexity with the concept of "international families" among Afro-Trinidadian immigrants in the United States. They maintain intense relations, including child-minding, with relatives back home through regular travel and telephoning.
It is probably not coincidental that these revelations come from a migration stream that is predominantly female The complex combinations now needed for economic security account for the increasing difficulty many families around the world have in sustaining these arrangements and the problems that result. This is especially evident in the increasing global phenomenon of female-headed households (Mencher & Okongwu 1993, Fitchen 1995, Mullings 1997, Br0gger & Gilmore 1997, Susser 1993,
Kilbride & Kilbride 1990). These arrangements have become a focal point for the family values discourse even though most of the people in these families share the domestic ideas of the larger society and may even be more committed to them (Coontz 1992:232-54). The values but rather
escalating rhetoric reflects not a crisis of the new value of particular family arrangements in an economic context where multiple incomes are needed to support children and/or aging parents, and where the state is less willing to help. Single-parent families constitute a "crisis" precisely because the family has become more important as a space of economic interaction and integration, not to mention market demand. Still, the diversity of economic niches under flexible capitalism assures that
no single family arrangement can answer the call for socio-economic coordination across a society, guaranteeing variety and perhaps anxiety (Stacey 1991).
31
Vanova

2009-10
32 Capitalism K
Link- Fetuses (Stem Cell/Reproductive Rights Affs) Debates about the fetus devolve its autonomy and reproductive rights create a marketplace for genes- Sharp 2k
The fetus, in turn, raises troubling questions about uniqueness and autonomy: Is the fetus part of the female body or a separate entity? Within the United States, shifts in definitions of its social worth are inevitably framed by the abortion debate (Franklin 1997, Franklin & Ragone 1998, Ginsburg & Rapp 1995, Hartouni 1991, Hopkins 1998b, Morgan & Michaels 1999, Stacey 1992); thus, fetuses may occupy multiple or even competing categories of personhood. Those that did not reach full term have long been commodified as medical curios, transformed into prized objects of scientific scrutiny, research, and collection. As Morgan (1999) shows, this practice is so controversial within the United States that these corpses must be hidden from public view (cf Casper 1994, 1998; Stabile 1999). Conjoined twins offer an especially vivid example of competing cultural readings: as Thomasma et al (1996) make clear, a sacrificed twin may be described as a murder victim, appendage, unjust aggressor, or organ donor, an array that exposes multiple definitions of personhood, social worth, and the economic value for an unusual category of the fragmented body. Similarly, Casper (1998), writing of experimental fetal surgery, uncovers yet other competing constructions of the fetus (as well as of the pregnant woman):
as the mothers organ, as an autonomous being, as a work object, or as social property among, for example, obstetricians, per inatologists, fetal surgeons, the pregnant mother and her kin, and anti-abortion activists (cf Franklin 1995:33637,Ward 1995). Hardacre (1997) further illustrates how the fetus can be transformed through visual technology. As she shows, in recent years in Japan, fetal
images have been commodified through advertisements employed by religious groups, an effort that has altered a once dormant creature into a menacing social force requiring commercialized ritual responses to appease its anger. Certain reproductive technologies also mark or facilitate responses to market demands for those babies deemed socially desirable, while allowing for the termination of others who harbor stigmatized qualities. For example, children are occasionally gestated and borne in an effort to offer compatible bone marrow to siblings in need (Morrow 1991). Such categories of fetuses and potential children are thus reduced to being parts-ofthemselves, as defined by their medical and /or social value (Franklin 1995; Franklin & McNeil 1988; Layne 1999; Ragone 1994, 1996; Ragone 2000). In-vitro fertilization allows prospective parents to select the number of embryos to be implanted, so that they might set the upper limit of live births. Other techniques now facilitate sex selection and genetic testing for unwanted disabilities (Fine&Asche 1988). Such practices are so common as to be a normal part of prenatal care (Browner & Press 1995) in many nations, allowing for new constructions of personhood, where, as Strathern (1992b) argues, professionals may discard unwanted aspects of humanity onto the cutting-room floor (pp. 11114). Taussig et al (2000) identify such practices as heralding the clandestine arrival of a new flexible eugenics, a process driven by a biological imperative and the all-too-American desire for individualized perfectibility. As Rapp (1999) asserts, this is a marketplace of biomedical free choice, where genes become alienable objects of desire that allow one to remodel and reimagine the body and the self.
32
Vanova

2009-10
33 Capitalism K
Link- Food Stamps Food stamps breed dependency on the government, preventing movements against capital-Weekly Alibi 99
(Revolutionary Newspaper, August 16, Stamping Out Food Stamps)
A new report by Congress' General Accounting Office has the dependency pimps worried. The report says that the dramatic plunge in the food stamp rolls has occurred, not just because the booming U.S. economy has created jobs for welfare recipients, but because of harsher rules that came with welfare reform, overzealous caseworkers who don't want people getting food stamps and because the government isn't publicizing the $12 billion-a-year program well enough. The report says that many
of the working poor are eligible for food stamps but aren't getting them. This news has the dependency pimps huffing. "There has a been a breakdown, a misunderstanding of what moving from welfare to work was all about," Democratic Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan was quoted as saying. "I don't understand it, frankly. We fought to make food stamps and child care and health care part of welfare reform. And now kids are hungry. What sense does that make?" It makes a lot of sense. It's just that people like Levin and others in government who would lose their jobs without dependency programs either can't or don't want to understand. No doubt there are a lot of people who probably need food stamps and who aren't getting them because of restrictive regulations and overzealous caseworkers. But a drop of nearly 10 million people from the rolls suggests that something different is going on. It suggests that millions of Americans have come to their senses and no longer want to be dependent on government handouts. They are opting for the freedom to make it on their own -- no matter how tough this is -- rather than becoming slaves to the government and its bureaucrats. Because slavery is exactly what living off the government is for individuals. The small monthly checks that people get from the government ensures that they can do almost nothing. They can't splurge on steak or lobster when they want to. They can't rush out and buy the kid a new bike when one gets stolen. For vacation they might be able to walk to a public
park, but that's about it. Forget going to the movies or buying some books or an extra pair of shoes or even a new computer. And forget about someday getting a new car that doesn't have to be taken into the shop every three weeks. But
that's the way dependency pimps want it to be. If you are beholden to the government, then they and their friends become your masters. They keep you in line by threatening to take away your measly benefits. To prevent that, you keep voting for their dependency pimp friends, and they remain in power, in control, and in the high paying jobs while you and your neighbors scrounge around for crumbs. They're infuriated at these new statistics because it means they're losing their control and power over millions of people. Maybe Levin and the others don't understand that humans, no matter how tyrants try to crush us with their clubs and machine guns, and no matter how governments try to co-opt us with their programs, hunger for freedom and dignity. And to millions of Americans, freedom and dignity means making it on our own and not being beholden to bureaucrats and politicians for our food.
33
Vanova

2009-10
34 Capitalism K
Link- Homeland Security (1/2) Homeland security breeds corporations and a consumerist society that reinforces states power- Passavant 05
(Paul, Assistant professor of political science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, The Strong Neo -liberal State: Crime, Consumption, Governance, Muse, VR)
With homeland security fed to the consumer capitalist machine, capitalist markets themselves reconfigure to profit from this, thereby helping to institutionalize this neo-liberal security state. September 11th has been functional for consumer capitalism because it has enabled the creation of new markets and differentiated commodities and services.91 State and local governments can subscribe to the Homeland Security Funding Report to get up to date on money available for homeland security programs.92 Businesses can buy manuals to learn how to become "Patriot Act" compliant. Not only has the war on terrorism created new markets, but the availability of government money for state and local governments and private government contractors means that governments and businesses will become dependent, to varying degrees, on the homeland security regime.93 This money will shape which capacities for government will be developed, it will stimulate demand for increased funding for these security-oriented programs, it will thus stimulate and institutionalize a discourse of homeland security to further access to these monies, and this economy of homeland security will become resistant to change through the production of stakeholders -- those who hold a financial stake in this institutional arrangement and thus will resist efforts to diminish its funding or do away with it.94 According to
Business Week, government and private-sector security spending together are expected to reach between $130 to $180 billion a year by 2010, up from $65 billion in 2003. A 13-stock index of publicly traded homeland security companies increased 20 percent during the first six months of 2004. One reason for this is the increase in government contracts for homeland security purposes. For example, the DHS
budget for fiscal year 2005 is $40.7 billion, an increase of over ten percent from the previous year's resource level. While its past budgets have been devoted to personnel -- like airport security -- it is expected that future money will go increasingly to the development of anti-terror tools, which will mean data mining, surveillance, and identity/ identification technologies, for instance.95 One of the biggest CDBs, Choicepoint, claims to have contracts with at least 35 government agencies. According to the ACLU, it has an $8 million contract with the DOJ that allows FBI agents to utilize its database of personal information on individuals. It has similar contracts with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the U.S. Marshal Service (USMS), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Immigration Services, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). Another CDB, Seisint, has received more than $9 million from the DOJ and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide commercial data to the MATRIX program.96 The homeland security budget has been described as a "jump ball" and a "feeding frenzy." Compared to Defense, where the major DOD players and contracts are largely known and established, homeland security is still "very much in the formative stages, with the real activity further down the pike," according to Northrop's vice president for homeland security.97 The state interest in security
Because of the huge increase in subpoenas served on ISPs, Cisco systems has developed a more efficient "lawful interception" capability, which it will embed in its products to facilitate ISPs' compliance with police requests.98 In fact, due to the huge increase in governmental use of CDBs, these companies are "actually creating and reshaping their products to meet the needs of government security agencies," according to the ACLU.99 One company, Database Technologies, offers an automatic 33 percent discount on its services to law enforcement
is coming to shape the market and its commodities. agencies.100 According to a GAO report, representatives of air traveler groups see in the TSA's Registered Traveler program commercial opportunities. These groups anticipate that they will not only provide "registered travelers with discounts" at travel-related businesses, but that they also envision "extensive marketing uses for
And the software giant Oracle has offered to develop the software for a national identification card free of charge, seeing a significant potential for profit simply in the maintenance of the system.102 Unfortunately, the so-called "war on terror" evinces a similar logic with the massive growth in the use of private military contractors, most notably in the war on Iraq.103 Today, ours is a society defined in part by the governmentality of background checks, a governmentality enhanced by consumer capitalism. Indeed, Choicepoint now offers "check-in-a-box" software through Sam's Club stores for $39.77. This product contains a CD-ROM
data collected on registered travelers" by selling it to travel-related businesses.101 that allows users to tap Choicepoint's online databases, giving small businesses and other users the same opportunity to perform background checks on its employees or job candidates or whoever as larger firms have enjoyed (small business has been somewhat behind the curve on background checks -- only 69 percent, compared
Choicepoint also sells background checks to jobseekers through Yahoo's HotJobs.com online employment board so that jobseekers can internalize the gaze of background
with 80 percent of larger firms, currently perform such checks).
34
Vanova

2009-10
35 Capitalism K
Link- Homeland Security

checks, see themselves as their prospective employers see them, and govern their selves accordingly.
Completing the circle, one must be a member of Sam's Club to use Choicepoint's product, so that profiles can be created of those who consume this commodified form of surveillance.104 While much has been written about the various mechanisms that the USA PATRIOT Act and other legislation provides for coercing obedience to state interests, the extent to which "business and government have become allies" is perhaps the most notable aspect of the contemporary neo-liberal state
Recognizing the opportunity presented by the anniversary of September 11th, a variety of products were developed the release of which were timed to coincide with this date and to take advantage of the holiday shopping season. Indeed, multiple video games utilizing post-September 11th themes were released during this period, including PlayStation2's "Conflict: Desert Storm II -- Back to Baghdad," a simulation for computer gamers that preceded the real event it simulated by five months.106 By mobilizing the nation to become good consumers and to go shopping in the wake of September 11th, Bush has calling into being a certain type of active subject -- the consumer -- that is useful for not only the present mode of capitalism but also for reproducing state power. By purchasing these commodities and by multiplying their presence on our bodies, in our living spaces, in the
formation.105 stores, and in our everyday lives, consumers not only extend the present state of being financially, they create a visual culture that manifests support for the present
The present state of homeland security, then, creates a political rationality that influences the development of certain state capacities over others. In a remarkable alliance between business and government, the market shapes its products to state purchasing of security in order to take advantage of government contracts. Indeed, in so far as we are governed by a mentality of security and background checks, a market in addition to the state is developing for these commodities. With the security industry becoming an increasingly substantial industry, the power of those who hold a financial stake in this state formation also increases. The neo-liberal state of homeland security is becoming more and more entrenched as an economic demand is produced for this state and its largesse.
state of affairs and its projects.107
35
Vanova

2009-10
36 Capitalism K
Link- Housing The housing market props up international corporations- Kenna 8

(Padraic, Lecturer in Law at National University of Ireland, Globalization and Housing Rights, Project Muse, VR)
The diverse elements of housing systems, from building materials, the production of homes, financing, management, exchange, and the creation of contemporary living environments have spawned and nurtured many global corporations. Among the global corporations comprising the Fortune 500 list in 2006,41 six corporations specialized in building materials and glass,42 with a further eleven specializing in engineering and construction.43 Those corporations
specializing in house-building included Lennar, D.R. Horton, Centex, KB Home, Toll Brothers, Hovnanian Enterprises, NVR, Beazer Homes USA, MDC Holdings, Ryland Group, Standard Pacific, Meritage Homes, WCI Communities, and William Lyon Homes. There were ten corporations specializing in real estate, including residential real estate.
One of these corporations, the RE/MAX Estate Agency, has a global presence with nearly 115,000 agents in more than 65 countries.44 Some fifty-one corporations were gas and electric utility companies, many having a major impact on housing. Seven of the top five hundred corporations were listed as specializing in furniture for homes. Some thirty corporations were commercial banks, financing house purchase among other activities, led by Citigroup, now located in ninety-eight countries.45 Clearly, globalized housing corporations have arrived, with their CEOs attending meetings of the Bilderburg Group and other international global organizations. Of course, much housing construction is still traditionally undertaken by local builders with good political
connections, local knowledge of market conditions, supplies, and opportunities for development.
36
Vanova

2009-10
37 Capitalism K
Link- Housing Housing policies create inequitable economic growth and worse forms of globalizationKenna 8 (Padraic, Lecturer in Law at National University of Ireland, Globalization and Housing Rights, Project Muse, VR)
A significant development in housing globalization is the preoccupation with property registration systems in land, designed to facilitate markets and housing finance systems. Contemporary writers on global development, such as Hernando De Soto,46 claim that one of the principal reasons for the underdevelopment of nations is the absence of a property registration system to facilitate mortgage lending, consequently prohibiting the development of personal capital and equity growth in land and housing.47 Indeed, recent research by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) confirms the existence of significant housing wealth effects on consumption in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia as a result of increasing housing equity held in owner-occupied homes.48
Shlomo Angel highlights that the development and facilitation of housing markets requires legal instruments and state involvement to create five essential elements: a property rights regime, a housing finance regime, a residential infrastructure regime, a regulatory regime, and a housing subsidies/public housing regime.49 A functional and effective property rights regime must evolve a set of
transparent, predictable, non-discriminatory and stable rules that preserve the rights of individuals to use, invest, maintain, rent, mortgage and sell their land and housing properties without hindrance and with the full protection against arbitrary action by the authorities. 50 The World Bank stresses that clear and
enforceable legally defined property rights provide the necessary infrastructure for the global economy.51 Indeed, the export of U.S. and European legal systems and property law have played a crucial part in the globalization epoch, providing the means of legitimation for patenting, control, appropriation, and commodification of physical and human resources worldwide.52 Stefan Andreasson claims that the contemporary international vigor to create property rights in land and housing can be viewed as merely one step beyond the former colonial processes of dispossession of property by force.53 Such appropriation and commodification, often through appalling means, was once justified in the conception of private property by Lockean writings and later expounded by liberal thinkers.54 There is an important link between the essentially liberal project of primitive and capitalist accumulation and liberal thinkers, from John
Locke to Friedrich Hayek, and the ideology and policy of international financial institutions managing the global economy today the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). 55 Clearly, enforceable
property rights in land and housing are required for international finance corporations to extend their operations into the potentially enormous markets of the future. However, some are skeptical as to the benefits. This extension of property rightsboth in terms of that to which they apply and the range within which they are appliedfurther erodes possibilities for broadbased development globally as well as any hope of mitigating increasing global polarisation of wealth and knowledge.56 The relentless ideological drive worldwide toward privatization of public or social housing and the forced creation of owner-occupation leading to a market, but without a proper registration system, has proven to be ill-judged in the Russian Federation and other countries.57 The registration of titles as the basis for a functioning housing market has created many side effects, chiefly, the exploitation of those without education and awareness of law. Of course, it has been pointed out that the major impacts of these policies have been to destroy communal land and housing management systems, but also to promote neo-liberal approaches, which at the same time undercut the profitability and viability of family-scale agriculture.58 Indeed, the result can be increased landlessness and destitution through mass sell-offs by impoverished new landowners, forced to migrate to cities, leaving a reconcentration in the hands of large landowners.
37
Vanova

2009-10
38 Capitalism K
Link- Hunger Activist approaches to solving hunger only open up the space for global capitalism ignoring the cause of unbalanced food distribution is the private ownership over the means of production- DeFazio 03
(Kimberly, Spring, MA SUNY Binghamton. Cultural studies and Marxism, The Imperialism of "Eating Well", http://www.redcritique.org/Spring2003/theimperialismofeatingwell.htm, VR) In comparison to the "high theory" of Derrida and the out and out cynicism of Edkins, activist
approaches to hunger can seem almost radical. After all, whereas Derrida and Edkins are satisfied with merely symbolic responses to hunger, activists argue for the need for objective redistribution of food surpluses. A case in point is Francis Moore Lapp and Joseph Collins' text, "Beyond the Hunger Myth: What can
we do?". Lapp is widely known for her writings on hunger, food and diet, and the idea that we can change our own practices, as well as the world's, by changing
In the more recent "Beyond the Hunger Myth: What can we do?" Lapp and Collins critique the dominant thinking that sees hunger as the effect of "natural" causes about which people can do very little, and instead insist that hunger is the effect of social practices and thus can be changed. "Since hunger results from human choices, not inexorable natural forces, the goal of ending hunger is obtainable. It is no more utopian than the goal of abolishing slavery was not all that long ago" (402). They point to the overwhelming surplus food and waste that exist amid desperate want, and argue for the need for "real change" (408) to address these relations. However, what they mean by "real" change required to put an end to hunger is really only a more ethical capitalism which attaches more "responsibility" to private ownership of farmland, and encourages more "personal" responsibility (local participation) among citizens. They thus stress the effectivity of local participation in such activities as community groups, soup kitchens and churches which distribute food surpluses to the hungry, as well as writing letters to editors and government representatives, investing in companies and institutions that "support our values" (404) and boycotting companies whose products are harmful to people. These are the kinds of activities, they suggest, that can help lead to a wider distribution of "purchasing power" among people so that they can better meet their own basic needs. But "purchasing power" is a function of class. It depends on one's relation to the means of production. If one owns the means of production as corporations do, one can force others to work and make "purchases" through the exploitation of their labor. If one does not own the means of production, one can only make "purchases" by selling one's labor. The less one's wages (if one is able to find a job at all), the less one is able to purchase. This is the fundamental class relation in capitalismbetween owners and workersand it is the cause of the growing numbers of hungry people in the world. Inequality under capitalism is the direct result of private ownership of the means of production. Inequality in access to food results from the concentration of the means of food production by capitalists who produce food for profit, not social need. Without changing private property relations, the purchasing power of the capitalists relative to workers will continue to grow. The focus on "purchasing power" and its "expansion" turns the matter of hunger into an issue of increasing avenues of consumption that blurs the class antagonism between owners and workers, and thus provides an argument for extending the very system that produces hunger to begin with. It is for this reason that the local activism Lapp and Collins promote will have little effect on hunger, at best, and will ultimately
what and how we eat, a philosophy perhaps most famously elaborated in her 1971 book Diet for a Small Planet. support further cuts in food support, at worst.
38
Vanova

2009-10
39 Capitalism K
Link- Law The law codes agency as a form of capital, spreading the subjectification of the system; Only using social means to question this can solve the 1ac impacts- Guardiola-Rivera 2
(Oscar, Law Professor @ Univ. of London Birkbeck, Ideology, Capitalism, and the Geopolitics of Knowledge, Project Muse, VR) As we have seen,
apparatuses such as the law and literacy (as power and as state-of-grace) elaborate locally uncoded agency by coding it (by giving to it a social role, a meaning, and a proper name that refer to a developmental myth, i.e., an evolutionary model of spatializing time). While doing so (while subjectifying agents), they determine (or code) the undetermined life-activity (the life-producing or, more clearly, time-producingactivity) of such agents. Through this activity value is produced. Capital grows as a resultant of appropriating such value. What apparatuses like law and literacy do is to actualize capitalism by actually connecting time and wealth in the form of organized life-producing, valueproducing activity. To put it otherwise, time and agency are decoded flows; and apparatuses of colonization, such as those I have referred to throughout this essay, code and transfer such flows. In the process the local is made to work for the global. However, neither the local nor the global are ever completely finalized and determined. The process I amdescribing here takes place in time, and thus it is always bifurcating in new, unexpected ways. This movement of continuous colonization and decolonization (the reterritorialization and deterritorialization of bifurcations in time and agency) gives capitalism its critical nature. The bifurcating, undecidable, nature of capitalism does not preclude an analysis of the forms it takes. As I have argued here, such forms can be thought of as apparatuses of capture, and the central feature of an apparatus is its tendency to function as a recodifier of still decoded flows of time-labor and wealth. In its modern, world-systemic form (that of global law and literacy as state-of-grace) this process is expressed as an operation of massive collective subjectification that occurs at every point of the social field, as in large-scale social planning or global designing. Radically, social subjection at a global scale means that there are subjects of capital (capitalists) and there are those subjected to capital (proletarians). Thus, for instance, actual global designing does not seek to export to the South a biopolitical model of centrality that would allow the eventual development of the periphery, but, quite the opposite, it seeks to export toward the South a model of marginality (that of the Hispanic worker in the national frontiers of the United States) that allows Latin Americans to be transformed into the new Hispanics of the South. That is, into a collection of working subjects, not so much disciplined (in the Foucauldian sense) as seduced by their fascination with consumerism. We become subjects of and subject to capital, but never at the same time and never at the same point of the social field. Therefore, we can say that world capitalism remains a contested site; it is an
agonistic space. In closely following and relocating Mackenzies arguments, I have refrained from conceiving undecidability a s a moment of judgment in the name of normative justice. Instead, I have located it in the immanent bifurcations of capitalism. The point is that global law and literacy as state ofgrace, being instruments of self-colonization, are always subjected to criticism from the vantage point of capital as an indeterminate series of flows, and capital (in its global operation) is always under fire from the vantage point of law (power) and literacy (knowledge). The
possibility of critique arises in the strategic play of one against the other. Now, if social criticism comes from the creation of new possibilities by the strategic, bifurcating movement between the two (capitalism and demands of justice), then critique operates not at an ontological normative level but at the level of pragmatics (the political). We may invoke the bifurcating features of capital as a way into creative and critical experimentation in the face of social subjectification. We can also take into account that it is because of the limits global capitalism sets on itself (produce, circulate, accumulate!) that it can never be fully bifurcated (that is, sublated). Thus, within our critical remit are not only the apparatuses of global capitalism but also the whole capitalistic operation, which is also susceptible to critique from the perspective of critical thought. This kind of critical thought is strictly separated from normative judgment, for its source is the (decodified) nature of the social field. The repressed conflicting nature of the social field provides us with real criteria
for criticism.
39
Vanova

2009-10
40 Capitalism K
Link- Legal Services (First Amendment) Ignoring the power of capital over the law means the plan will inevitably be co- opted to create coercive measures- Greene 04
(Ronald Walter, Professor @ Department of Communication Studies, UMinnesota, Rhetoric and Capitalism: Rhetorical Agency as Communicative Labor, Muse, VR) As a form of constituent power, however, labor can never be reduced to its capture, command, and control by capital. For Hardt and Negri the cooperative potential of affirmative labor, or more specifically, the qualitative significance of communicative and affective labor, generates a productive excess impossible to calculate and control.
The social force of labor "appears simply as the power to act. . . . Anything that blocks this power to act is merely an obstacle to overcomean obstacle that is eventually outflanked, weakened, and smashed by the critical powers of labor and the everyday passional wisdom of the affects" (2000, 358). Living labor's power to act demonstrates
an ability to challenge and create new values. Therefore, rhetorical agency comes first; it realizes the value necessary for the current regime of capital and the values
politics cannot be disconnected from the sphere of bio-political production. To do so would be to provide a place where the revolutionary energy of communicative labor becomes harnessed to the social division of labor. To take the example of free speech, when free speech becomes a political right disconnected from the constitutive power of labor, it becomes possible to balance the right of free speech against societal protection. In this way, the domain of the political-legal becomes a space for coercive restrictions on the constitutive power of labor.12 Being political, as Engin Isen highlights, is to disagree with the dominant regime of citizenship.13 Recall that the political dimension of communicative labor is built into bio-political productions attempt to harness and capture the constitutive power of communication. As living labor, communication acts; there is no anxiety here about the status of rhetorical agency, because its action generates the value of living labor. Rhetorical agency is everywhere. To fully flesh out the politics of living labor requires a future study on how communicative labor provides new technologies and strategies for a temporal and spatial disagreement with the command logics of bio-political capitalism.
necessary to challenge the current regime of governance. What does this mean for the political dimensions of rhetorical agency?11 It means that
40
Vanova

2009-10
41 Capitalism K
Link- Legal Services Legal reforms ignore that the private sector is inherently prioritized by law- we must view their impacts through the lens of class- Perry 02
(Amanda J., Department of Law, Queen Mary, University of London, The Relationship between Legal Systems and Economic Development: Integrating Economic and Cultural Approaches, Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 29, No. 2, Jstor, VR)
Economics has made significant forays into (or returns to) realism. For example, a recent study by economist Paul Ormerod explains that traditional economics is broadly unable and unwilling to cope with complex social or cultural issues, because the entire discipline is based on the assumption that choices made by one individual are never affected by the choices of others. He demonstrates time and again that this assumption is patently untrue, and proposes a new framework for the study of choice 'Butterfly Economics' based on the deceptively simple principle that individual choices are in fact made on the basis of past choices, of new information, or of the choices of other economic actors.6 However, such innovation is rare, and it is more common to find contemporary examples of economic isolationism and fantasy. In the context of legal reform, some significant progress has recently been made in developing methods for the measurement of differences between legal systems. But little attention has been paid to the objective documentation of differences in private- sector attitudes to those legal systems. Such a lapse is all the more striking in light of the current emphasis on private-sector-led development. In particular, development organizations have failed to examine directly the rather obvious issue of how cultural values might affect private sector perceptions and expectations of legal systems around the world. This appears to be the result of the blackboard-based, econocentric assumption that all individuals are motivated in the same way and by the same, strictly economic, factors. The appeal of this approach is perhaps reinforced by two features specific to modern development assistance. First, development organizations are often politically and legally restricted to considering and advising upon economic rather than political matters.8 They have therefore sought, with variable success, to focus upon the processes which governments use to govern economic activity and their capacity to implement those processes, and to avoid discussion of the political structure within which governments operate.9 Issues such as 'culture' thus fall neatly by the wayside. Second, development organizations are increasingly less able to cope with the debate over who bears responsibility for the limited material progress of developing countriesdeveloping countries themselves or their richer neighbours. That debate is complicated, deeply emotive and, mercifully, beyond the scope of this paper.'0 However, it is vital to observe that at the same time as development organizations have placed increasing emphasis on the role of internal policies and procedures in economic development, international political opinion has made it progressively more dangerous to be seen to be 'blaming' developing countries in any way for their plight." As a consequence of these two factors, politics and culture have at once been relocated to explicit no man's land and implicit centre stage. Material progress 'depends on personal qualities, social institutions and mores, and political arrangements which make for endeavour and achievement'.12 What development organizations seem powerless to confront is how those personal qualities, social institutions and mores, and political arrangements upon which material progress is dependant might vary, with successful results.
41
Vanova

2009-10
42 Capitalism K
Link- Magic The logic of bodies as magical makes them an object of value and commodificationSharp 2k
(Lesley A., Department of Anthropology, Barnard College, The Commodification of the Body and Its Parts, Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2000. 29:287328, http://www.barnard.edu/anthro/sharp_comm.pdf, VR) Of final concern is the far more literalthat is, physicalfragmentation of the body. Body
fragments can harbor the ability to harm or heal, charged with powers that exceed those of the bodies from whence they came. As the intertwined realms of magic, sorcery, and healing attest, bodies are frequently targets of aggression, fragmentation, and subsequent commodification. Certain categories of personswhether strangers, children, virginal or fertilewomen, laborers, or others considered hardy or otherwise accomplishedmay be viewed within their respective societies as possessing more power than others in particular contexts, and thus their body parts may be highly prized. School youth, for example, who embody their nations potential, may fall victim to ritual murder, their body parts coveted by politicians or others on the rise (Comaroff & Comaroff 1999, Sharp 2000a; Burke 2000:241ff). In warfare, a mans power can be forcefully undermined by a foe through the deliberate destruction of his body and his humanity through, for example, decapitation (Rosaldo 1980). Concerns with male political power or economic success may focus specifically on the phallus, a target for aggressive forms of penis snatching [a topic of intense debate at a recent conference (Fisiy et al 1997)]. In other contexts, impotence associated with the demands or dangers of capitalist production renders laboring men so vulnerable as to warrant ritual intervention (Nash 1973, Taussig 1977). As asserted by Comaroff & Comaroff (1999; cf Geshiere 1997, Masquelier 2000), such post-colonial occult economies herald intensified anxieties surrounding the not-quitehuman transaction in corporeal; furthermore, such seemingly exotic concerns parallel responses to genetic mutations and cyborgs in postindustrial settings, foci that are explored below. Finally, body fragments are not simply sites of dangerous longing; they may also be cherished and publicly valued goods. In both senses they are inevitably emotionally charged objects of intense desire. The blurred boundaries of sorcery and healing underscore the magicalthat is, transformative properties of fetishized body fragments, where hair, nails, sputum, blood (including menstrual), and organs can harm in some contexts and heal in others. Consider, for example, the worth assigned to centuries-old saints relics throughout Europe (Geary 1986), or ex voto representations of body parts in the Mediterranean and Latin America, crafted objects that hold the power to heal. The body can also be lovingly consumed so that its essence will not be lost, where body fragmentation simply precedes the full corporal and symbolic integration of the dead among kin through endocannibalism (Conklin 1995, Lindenbaum 1979).
42
Vanova

2009-10
43 Capitalism K
Link- Marriage (1/2) Marriage inscribes the capitalist organizations of labor into society- German 06
(Lindsey, convenor of the British anti-war organisation Stop the War Coalition and a former member of the central committee of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. She was editor of Socialist Review for twenty years until 2004. She has twice stood as a left wing candidate for Mayor of London, Theories of Patriarchy, http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=240, VR)
So what keeps the family going today? If we dont accept that it is the material interest of men, then what is it? Its existence depends upon two fundamental factors, although there are many subsidiary things involved as well. First we have to look at the economic interests of capital in maintaining the family. The role the family plays in reproducing the existing workforce and the next generation of workers has been amply documented.24 The existence of the family wage (even if today it barely covers the reproduction of the family and needs to be supplemented by state benefits and by womens mainly part time wo rk) and unpaid labour in the home allow the costs of reproduction to be borne very cheaply. If the system were capable of sustained economic expansion over many decades, then, hypothetically, the economic functions of the family could be replaced by other mechanisms. As Irene Bruegel has demonstrated conclusively, it would be possible for the system to increase total surplus value if most (if not all) housework and child care were carried out by capitalistically organised paid labour, freeing all women to produce value and surplus value for capital.25 But to reorganise reproduction in this way would involve massive expenditure on investment in new childcare facilities and probably a complete restructuring of the housing stock. This is not something which is going to be undertaken in the present crisis ridden phase of the system especially since the reserve army of the unemployed is amply large enough for the systems likely labour needs . And so women are left with the responsibility for childbirth and childcare. This above explains why the family and womens oppression continue. Womens roles as mothers and childrearers structure their whole lives. Part-time working is a product of their role as mothers. Unequal and generally low pay is a product of them not being considered as breadwinners. From the beginning of their lives in capitalist society, the assumption is that they are going to be something different from men. Their pinnacle of achievement is presented as motherhood and marriage. Theoretically there is no reason why women should care for children and perform the bulk of the housework, just because they give birth to children. But in a world of privatised reproduction, of a rigid sexual division of labour, where jobs are not paid at the same rate as mens, for most families there is really no alternative. It makes sense for the woman to be the one to stay at home, and so the circle continues. Talk of sharing
housework, of men taking on the role of housewife in such a world are only possible for a tiny minority of people where the woman has a profession or skill which enables her to earn as much or more than the man. Even then the ideas of a society which is based on womens inequality are d ifficult to combat. For the mass of workers such role sharing is pure utopianism. The material significance of the family for capitalism is reinforced by ideological considerations. I dont mean by this that capitalists are male chauvinists who want to keep women inferior to men (although they usually are). Rather, the family provides some of the ideological cement that holds the system together. At every stage in its development the system has had to establish structures that bind those that it exploits to it. These continue to exist at later stages in its development when its own economic dynamic demands new structures. The family is integrated into a complex network of such structures. These take advantage of the way housewives, isolated in the home and cut off from the wider collectivities that form around industrial production, are more susceptible to unchanging ideas about ones place in society; dependent upon their husbands for a livelihood they can be persuaded that an y sort of social change is a threat to their family and their security. Or, again,
these structures rely on the way the male worker, having to worry about the security of his wife and children as well as himself personally, is likely to think twice before getting involved in a strike, occupation or insurrection. The slogan of defence of the family becomes a slogan for mobilising working people in defence of the status quo. So even when capitalism no longer directly needs some element in the structures associated with the family in the past (for instance, it no longer needs anti-abortion legislation now that it does not look to an army many millions strong to defend itself against its rivals) it only abandons that element under enormous pressure. For it cannot afford to damage structures, that however marginal to its central economic interests, help bind workers to present day society. Again, hypothetically, given unlimited economic expansion for a long period of time, the system could develop new ideological
structures to replace those identified with preservation of the present family. But that is not the condition in which the system finds itself. Today it clings to any means of support it can find -which is why in Southern Italy or Northern Ireland it has not been able to dispense with archaic structures like the Mafia or the Orange Order. It is even less likely to contemplate abandoning a structure, like the family, which continues to provide it with certain economic services. The
Marxist
theory of the family tries to explain womens continued oppression in the context of womens role as childbearer and rearer. Hartmann claims that Marxism is sex-blind; in other words can explain why people are in certain places but cannot explain why
these people are women. Yet the theory does precisely that. It locates womens oppression historically, or locates its continued existence in the individual
43
Vanova

2009-10
44 Capitalism K
Link- Marriage (2/2)

It also puts a solution to that problem in terms of a socialism which would begin to break down both the material conditions which create womens oppression, and the ideas which have arisen from them ideas with which we are so familiar, about the family and childcare being natural, women in the home being natural. It can do so by switching responsibility for childcare from the individual to society as a whole. That on its own would open up a new world for millions of women and allow us to behave as equals in a new society.
responsibility for reproduction, which in turn structures the whole of womens lives.
44
Vanova

2009-10
45 Capitalism K
Link- Marriage
Marriage is an economic institution that serves to protect the market- Hamilton 4
(Clive, Executive Director, The Australia Institute, Consumer capitalism Is this as good as it gets?, http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/documents/articles/Consumer_Capitalism_--_Is_this_as_good_as_it_gets.pdf, VR) One of the earliest and most aggressive exponents of this economic imperialism was Gary Becker, the Chicago economist par excellence, who in an article published in one of the professions most prestigious journals applied the principles of microeconomics and consumer behaviour to what he called the market for marriage.
Becker defined marriage as an arrangement to secure the mutual benefit of exchange between two agents of different endowments. In other words, people marry in order more efficiently to produce household commodities, including the quality of meals, the quality and quantity of children, prestige, recreation, companionship, love, and health status. The rational person will base any marriage decision on quantifiable costs and benefits. The gain from marriage has to be balanced against the losses including legal fees and the costs of determine whether marriage is worthwhile. Becker went on to analyse the effect of love and caring on the nature of the equilibrium in the marriage market. To do so he defined love as a non- marketable household commodity, noting that more love between potential partners increases the amount of caring and that this in turn reduces the costs of policing the marriage. Policing, of course, is needed in any partnership or corporation because it reduces the probability that a mate shirks duties or appropriates more output than is mandated by the equilibrium in the marriage market. Theres no need to put a padlock on the fridge if your partner loves you. After pages of differential calculus, Becker reaches a triumphant conclusion: since love produces more efficient marriages, love and caring between two persons increase their chances of being married to each other. What Beckers wife thought about this analysis is not recorded, but in 1992 the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences was sufficiently impressed to award him the Nobel Prize for Economics for this and related work. We gasp, but are not pre- nuptial agreements a reflection of the economic approach to marriage? Has not the decision to become a parent for many young men and women become a lifestyle choice: whats it to be, a baby or a beamer? Have not the economists and the accountants managed to insinuate their ideas into the way we form and conduct our relationships? If Gary Beckers barmy ideas infected only the thinking of academic economists then we would not have too much to worry about. But, driven by growth fetishism, over the last twenty years the economic way of thinking has, like a virus, invaded public and private spheres where previously it was alien. Let me give another
illustration almost as disturbing as Beckers analysis of marriage.
45
Vanova

2009-10
46 Capitalism K
Link- Mental Healthcare Mental Healthcare views patients as objects to be controlled for the benefit of capitalthis turns case- Martinez 05
(Dawn Belkin, Social Work professor at Simmons University, Winter, Mental Healthcare after Capitalism, http://radicalpsychology.org/vol4-2/Martinez4.html, VR)
Under capitalism, mental health systems are driven by market economics and the profit motive. Most decisions about who gets services, what kind of services they get, its quality and quantity, are determined by access to or control of money and other resources. While the wealthy have unlimited access to the best mental health services available, millions of poor and working class people have little or no access to services of any kind. Under capitalism, mental health services are furnished through a vast system of powerful institutions, dominated by a hierarchy of elite experts, administrators and doctors who are overwhelmingly white, male and heterosexual. These institutions are powerful mechanisms for the social control of the population. They use clinics, hospitals, treatment and medication to restrain and discipline what they consider to be deviant forms of behavior and impose on individuals and communities regimes of social conformity and passivity. For much of the 20th century in the United States, the seriously mentally ill were confined to state hospitals while those suffering less extreme forms of mental illness received little or no treatment at all. Forty years ago, under a process
labeled deinstitutionalization many of these state hospitals were closed and their patients were sent back into society at large. However, adequate funds were never allocated to provide services for these individuals, and the treatment they received was limited and inadequate. Adrift without necessary social support, many of these former patients drifted into alcoholism or drug addition and were unable to successfully integrate into their communities. In
the last twenty years, the conditions experienced by the seriously mentally ill in the United States have worsened considerably. Today, many mentally ill individuals are found living on the street, or in homeless shelters or prisons. A US government study in 1999 estimated that nearly a quarter of a million mentally ill persons were incarcerated in prisons and jails.[2] In this way, social control of the seriously mentally ill has become less a medical issue and more and more a police matter. Meanwhile, for persons suffering other less serious forms of mental illness in the United States, over the last 40 years, psychotropic medications and prescription drugs have all too often become the dominant or only form of treatment. While this approach undoubtedly benefits some individuals, the primary beneficiary of this over-reliance on drugs is the powerful pharmaceutical industry and the web of corporate entities that make up the medical industrial complex.
46
Vanova

2009-10
47 Capitalism K
Link- Organ Transplants Organ donation creates living cadavers for corporations to sell- Sharp 2k
(Lesley A., Department of Anthropology, Barnard College, The Commodificationof the Body and Its Parts, Annu. Rev. Anthropol . 2000. 29:287328, http://www.barnard.edu/anthro/sharp_comm.pdf, VR)
The literature on organ donation, procurement, and transplantation (realms that I refer to together as organ transfer) has long been dominated by open discussions of body commodification. Within the United States, for example, legislative concerns alone have historically focused on questions of organ rationing, the prohibition of the open marketing of organs, and, most recently, experimental policies involving financial rewards for kin who consent to donation (Fox&Swazey 1992:64). A host of corporate entities now specialize in the sterilization, storage, and redistribution of human tissue for needs that range from pelvic implants, to oral surgery, to skin replacement (Flye 1995). Organ retrieval relies on a highly bureaucratized professional structure: Within the United States, this involves a dense national
network of organizations that serve as brokers for human tissues and organs. In addition, the legal international trading in human body parts is a routine practice, as exemplified by exchanges that crisscross much of Europe (Hogle 1999). This
medical realm is rife with potent forms of mystified commodification: Although organs are frequently described as gifts of life (an expression that originates in the blood industry and that likewise is used to describe surrogacy), it is, in fact, a multimillion dollar medical industry where clients in need pay steep fees for the procurement, preparation, transportation, and surgical replacement of body parts. This rhetoric of gift exchange disguises the origins of commercialized body parts, silencing in turn any discussion of the commodification process (Sharp 1994). Slippage nevertheless occurs, a fact mirrored, for example, in public anxieties about the open marketing of organs that can be purchased by the highest bidder or offered first to politicians and other celebrities (Caplan 1992). Even anonymous donation, portrayed as an act of great social kindness, has its
darker side, for as Fox & Swazey (1992) explain, many organ recipients suffer terribly from the tyranny of the gift in thei r intense desire to repay, as it were, this debt of life (p. 39). The
donor body offers compelling comparative material for discussions on reproduction. Whereas female bodies emerge as sites of reproductive commodification, the donor body is, as Ikels (1997) explains, disproportionately male in nearly all countries because men are more likely to be victims of highway and work-related accidents, homicides, and suicides, contexts where irreversible brain death occurs (a common prerequisite for potential donor status) (p. 106). The objectification of donors is central to the procurement process as well, where patients are rapidly transformed into dehumanized cyborgs sustained in a liminal state by a complex array of technologies (Hogle 1995a). A variety of parties nevertheless embrace competing ideologies that may confirm or undermine such (re) constructions of the dead. Within the United States, transplant professionals and organ recipients regularly reduce donors to their parts: The heart may be described as a pump, the liver and kidneys as filters. Donor kin, on the other hand,
may view transplanted organs as embodying the essence of lost kin, living on in the bodies of recipients, a process that, in turn, generates new understandings of fictive kinship (Sharp 1994). Donor kin may also challenge or undermine professional efforts to obscure the origins of transplantable organs, relying increasingly on such radical mortuary forms as donor quilts and virtual Web cemeteries that publicly disclose the names of their commodified kin in defiance of professional censorship (Sh arp 2000b). Among the most startling questions that circulate in the realm of organ transfer is the dynamic nature of self and personhood. Organ transfer, after all, necessitates that body parts be removed from donors who appear to be alive. Sustained by a complex array of technologies, they are warm to the touch, they breath, many of their organs still function properly, and like other patients receiving intensive care, they take in fluids and other forms of nourishment (Slomka 1995). To those who knew them (and others who challenge brain-death criteria), donors are considered to be alive and fully human. Even clinical professionals frequently exhibit discomfort with brain death (Youngner et al 1989), so they may describe potential donors as truly dead only once their organs are removed and they are disconnected from the respirator (Hogle 1995b). In Hogles words, with the technological capability to sustain a brain -death state, the body sends mixed signals . . . the body appears to be
Biological and technological cues, then, must be created to mark that he is dead, but he has not died; as such, potential donors are transformed into the ambiguous category of living cadaver (Hogle 1999:6566; see also Bibeau 1999, Kaufman 2000). Following procurement, transplanted organs bear the potential for transformation, generating a host of readings among different parties. Donor kin and recipients alike may perceive a donors parts as living on in their new bodies, frequently transferring the donors qualities to recipients, a construction that bears
alive. strong resemblance to sorcery practices, as outlined above. Until recently, lay discussions within the United States have focused primarily on qualities embodied in whole organs, but a recent paradigmatic shift is now marked in some quarters by a heightened interest in far more minuscule parts of the self. More specifically, an increasingly popular concern centers on folk
Proponents of cell memory argue that dead donors in fact assert themselves at the cellular level, integrating their original personalities, tastes, etc, into the bodies of others. Opponents argue against atomized memory by asserting instead that the body continuously replaces all cells and, thus, donor memory will inevitably be obliterated by the host or recipient body. These models of atomized humanity parallel developments in genetics and immunology, a theme explored below.
understandings of cell memory versus cell replacement.
47
Vanova

2009-10
48 Capitalism K
Link- Organ Transplants Organ donation makes us think about people as organs to be reused- arguments of scarcity or waste of organs make them become a function of capital- Sharp 2k
Authors commonly assert that the demand for organs far outnumbers the supply, and human organs are openly described as scarce and precious goods that frequently go to waste (Fletcher 1969, Peters 1991) when, in fact, they should be recycled for social reuse. The competition for these commodities is so fierce that Joralemon (1995) has described it as a medical battle for body parts. For several decades, proposals have been routinely offered by a host of parties who hope to expand the market supply of transplantable human body parts. These include redefining the threshold of death and thus personhood, so that anencephalic
The literature on organ donation especially in the United States is rife with concerns of scarcity. and nonheart-beating cadavers can be donors; developing bioartificial organs and xenotransplantation; presumed consent laws for organ donation; advocating a direct market approach, where specialized procurement firms fill orders generated by transplant centers; and offering forms of rewarded gifting to surviving kin in the form of estate and income tax incentives and assistance with burial fees (Bowden & Hull 1993; cf Blumstein 1992, 1993; Brecher 1994; Daar 1992a; Hansmann 1989; Land&Dossetor 1991; Marshall et al 1996; Murray 1996; Peters 1991; Schwindt & Vining 1986; Sells 1992a). Such practices have been labeled by critics as nothing more than paid donation, rampant commercialism, or frank entrepreneurial commerce (Daar 1992b, Sells 1992b, Smith 1993; see Marshall et al 1996:89). Cohen
(1999:146), assuming an international stance, refers to such open discussions of commercialization as evidence of disturbing forms of flexible or purgatorial ethics. Even those who oppose commodification may nevertheless employ the language of commerce, describing financial incentives as cheapening organ donation (Bowden & Hull 1993:15). Among the strongest criticisms of body commodification has been levied by sociologists Fox & Swazey (1992). As they argue, the de-gifting of transplantation that this market approach entails has been accompanied and reinforced by the progressive biologization of donated organs . . . . Increasingly, organs are being thought of as just organs, rather than as living parts of a person that might be given willingly and unselfishly to others. This biological reductionism. . . has insidious implications for constructions of self, definitions
of what it means to be human, and more generally of life as it should be lived (Fox & Swazey 1992:207). This increased commodification of the body, paired with associated forms of medical hubris, eventually compelled these authors to abandon this field following several decades of careful research (Fox 1996:262).
Concerns over access, scarcity, and, ultimately, ownership have generated anxieties on a global scale over organ procurement as thievery. Folklorist Campion- Vincent (1997) has carefully documented rumors of organ snatching from over 40 nations, where
a pervasive theme includes raiding the bodies of innocents and the disenfranchised. Careful attention to culturally specific contexts expose the logic of folklore. As White (1993) explains for
East Africa, ambulances retain a vampiric character, a development linked to their use during colonial blood campaigns, when colonized subjects were captured, drained of blood, and released with little or no explanation (cf Sharp 2000a). In this context, a standard medical practice emerges as little more than colonial sorcery. Such tales are further complicated by the fact that both the legal and clandestine trading in body parts does, in fact, exist. Until 1994, one could sell a kidney in India, a practice now driven underground in response to legislated prohibitions (Cohen 1999, Marshall 2000, Marshall et al 1996, Reddy 1993); wealthy clients from a host of countries encounter fewer financial obstacles to transplantation than do the poor or uninsured; and executed prisoners may define a regular source of transplantable organs, as documented for China and elsewhere (Guttman 1992, Human RightsWatch 1994,
Ikels 1997, Lam 1991). Tales of organ trafficking have generated a host of responses, ranging from disinformation services within the US State Department (Leventhal 1994), to efforts by human rights organizations to document and combat clandestine body trafficking (Cantarovich 1996; Chugh & Jha 1996; Human Rights Watch 1994; Rothman et al 1997; Scheper-Hughes 1996, 2000).
48
Vanova

2009-10
49 Capitalism K
Link- Overpopulation (1/2) Overpopulation is a scapegoat for affluent nations to blame the environmental destruction of capitalism on the proletariat- Urban 01
(Jessica LeAnn, Assistant Professor in the Women's Studies and Multicultural Queer Studies Programs at Humboldt State University, Constructing Blame: Overpopulation, Environmental Security and International Relations, http://www.wid.msu.edu/resources/papers/pdf/WP273.pdf, VR)
The focus on social and economic structures by postcolonial feminist, ecofeminist and indigenist scholars allows for recognition of the unequal distribution of the worlds resources, and the perpetuation of the racism, classism and sexism that underlie colonial and neocolonial penetrations into so-called developing countries. Left feminists and distributionists, through similar frameworks, argue that hunger, the most dramatic symptom of pervasive poverty, and rapid population growth occur together because they have a common cause (Moore Lappe and Collins 1986:25); the same holds true for environmental degradation. Nowhere in the world does population density explain hunger for, like hunger itself, rapid population growth is the result of underlying inequities that deprive people, particularly women, of economic, political and social opportunities and security (Moore Lappe and Collins 1986:32). Hunger and malnutrition are also directly attributable to the dominant development policies and practices of the West. Despite rhetoric otherwise, world hunger and environmental destruction is attributable to the consumption habits of elite populations in the Global South and North and the unequal distribution of power and wealth in the world. As Mira and Vandana Shiva note, poor people use insignificant fractions of the resources used by the North and the elites of the South. An average American citizen uses 250 times as much energy as an average Nigerian (Shiva and Shiva 1993:1). However, it remains the poor, people of color and women in the global South and North who are targeted for population control measures, despite the fact that wealthy lifestyles contribute disproportionately to the pressure on resources (Shiva and Shiva 1993:1). To avoid responsibility for ecological destruction, proponents of the Western population paradigm, which is characterized most fundamentally by neo-Malthusian sensibilities, essentially scapegoat Third World women, poor women and women of color in the US by highlighting their unrestrained right to breed as the cause of environmental damage on the world scale. By virtue of the arguments highlighted in the analytical framework for this project, one is able to recognize that this scapegoating takes place in order to avoid accepting responsibility for the history of colonialism, contemporary neocolonialism and internal colonialism as well as the inequities that characterize the current world system. Raced, gendered and classed bodies are constructed as backwards and in need of Western intervention in fact, the well-being of the world is assumed to hinge upon such intervention. This scapegoating is played out in the form of population control policies that also serve to reaffirm colonial constructions of the other, as well as (neo)colonial relations of power. As Hartmann suggests, the modern-day proponents of population control have reinterpreted Malthusian logic, selectively applying it only to the poor majority in the Third World, and in some cases, to ethnic minorities in the West (Hartmann 1995:15). The pessimist perspective is also inherently anti-woman; women especially women of color are constructed as irrational, over-sexed, passive baby-makers who must be taught proper moral responsibility and behavior by outside experts. Such representations allow the justification, for instance, of more Mississippi appendectomies and similar practices. Tong explains that in th e
1960s, gynecologists applied the rule of 120 to white, middle class women to prevent them from having sterilization procedu res unless their age multiplied by the number of their children equaled 120 or more (1998:231). On the other hand, in
some southern states the sterilization of women of color, especially indigent women, was so common that they came to be known as Mississippi appendectomies (Tong 1998:231). Similarly, such representations serve to justify policies that now attempt to compel welfare mothers to accept Norplant as a requirement for financial assistance (Tong 1998:232), as well as policies focused on promoting sterilization and chemical contraceptives around the world rather than programs committed to addressing womens health overall. As Hartmann explains, images of overbreeding single women of color on welfare and bare-breasted, always pregnant Third World woman are two sides of the same nasty coin
(Hartmann 1999a:2). Rather than irrational over-breeding, those included in my analytical framework tend to characterize the development paradigm itself as inherently destructive of the environment (Shiva an d Shiva 1993:1). As Bandarage notes, rather
than relying on social constructions of the
49
Vanova

2009-10
50 Capitalism K
Link- Overpopulation (2/2)

other which suggest that rapid population growth is the result of ignorance and irrationality, the fundamental reasons for rapid population growth in the South and decline in the North rests in the advancement of industrial capitalism and Western imperialism (Bandarage 1999:24) as well as neocolonial practices and policies such as the proliferation of Third World debt and Structural Adjustment Programs. Blaming womens overbreeding like blaming immigrants for environmental destruction ignores the larger picture, including the role of the white supremacist capitalist-patriarchal system in perpetuating poverty, alienation, war, environmental devastation and hunger; otherwise stated, it ignores the structural causes of all the above. Nevertheless, it is the greening of hate (Silliman 1999:xii), or contemporary linkages between environmental security and overpopulation (as well as illegal immigration), that has captured the imagination of many mainstream environmental security scholars, and it is the greening of hate that reflects and supports the enemy creation process characteristic of mainstream IR security discourse environmental security included.
50
Vanova

2009-10
51 Capitalism K
51
Vanova

2009-10
52 Capitalism K
Link- Prison Reforms (1/2) Prisons are a holding cell for the proletariats that cant serve the state - their reforms mask that there will always be more prisoners to the system than cells - Passavant 05
A condition of possibility for these risk societies is solidarity. Hence the significance that solidaristic risk societies place upon disciplinary institutions like the school, prison or helping professions. These institutions, as Michel Foucault has taught us, seek to normalize their subjects. Even with prisons, the emphasis is on corrections and reform in order to reintegrate the subject as a productive member of society. Rather than thinking in terms of good versus evil, risk societies rely upon calibrating difference more subtly. Disciplinary institutions, then, measure difference as deviance from or approximation towards a social norm, and seek to produce properly normalized subjects capable of self government in accordance with society's norms. Today, scholars contend that disciplinary institutions are everywhere in crisis, and that we should understand this crisis as a shift towards post-disciplinary societies of control.20 In control societies, new communications technologies enable the
coordination of deterritorialized production, telecommuting, extensive surveillance of public places through CCTV, an intimate surveillance of workers through keystroke counts (or GPS technology for non-office workers), and a simultaneous control and incitement of consumption through credit ratings and supermarket discount cards.21 The turn from the Keynesian welfare state and its institutions of social solidarity to the post-Fordist neo-liberal state has produced especially glaring consequences in the areas of criminology and penology. During the era of the welfare state, imprisonment rates in the U.S. decreased in relation both to the number of crimes recorded and offenders convicted. In the period between 1973 and the late 1990s, however, the number of inmates incarcerated increased by more than 500 percent, the rate of incarceration per 1000 index crimes nearly quadrupled, and the prison population has become significantly racially disproportionate.22
In the U.S., we have witnessed, particularly in the 1990s, a period of falling crime rates and rising imprisonment rates. David Garland describes these trends by contending that the "prison has once again transformed itself," meaning that the prison fulfills a different function under post-Fordist economic conditions than it did under Fordist conditions. 23 Rather than being understood as a correctional institution to reform individuals and to prepare them to return as productive members of society to the production line, the prison is seen now as an institution to incapacitate and to contain monsters. Otherwise put, due to the positioning of the U.S. in the global capitalist economy and its coinciding shift from the production-oriented Fordist state to the consumeroriented post-Fordist state, there is less need for maximizing production in the United States. This means, in turn, that prisons are becoming institutions to warehouse increasingly large numbers of subjects no longer needed as workers and poorly suited as consumers to contain the threat they potentially pose to this consumer capitalist order. Rather than being governed by social solidarity, we are increasingly governed through a "zero-tolerance" mentality that influences action in different registers, although in the U.S., the zero-tolerance mentality is particularly manifested in the field of criminology.25 Criminologists use the term "zero-tolerance policing" to try to capture a practice animated by the "figure of the 'super predator' whose risk is so incalculable that it must be confronted with a 'zero-tolerance' approach."26 "Three strikes" criminal laws and the use of public registration of convicted offenders (particularly sex offenders), among other strategies, make reintegration into society as a full and equal citizen virtually impossible for many convicted of crimes. This ensures that even those who are eventually let out of prison will face a continuing post-prison penalization that has become a way to mark an untouchable and racialized caste that is, in effect, banished from "normal" society.27 Instead of lending significance to statistical probabilities, a society governed by a zerotolerance mentality focuses on events that are statistically improbable, but the consequences of such events are seen as potentially catastrophic, unpardonable, or victims are no longer satisfied with compensation. With this paradigm shift, instead of an emphasis on toleration, which is necessary for the solidarity of risk societies and their form of social security, increasingly society identifies certain risks -- no matter how small -- as intolerable. Of course, the incalculable spaces that require a decision to be made cannot be escaped. But with today's emphasis on zero-tolerance, suspicion, fear, mistrust and the active use of doubt are unleashed and fill the gap eluding calculation and which require a decision to be made.28 Francois Ewald describes this precautionary present bent on safety with zero risk by recalling a statement made by Rene Descartes: "I must not only ask myself what I need to know . . . but also what I do not know, what I dread or suspect. I must, out
52
Vanova
53 2009-10 Capitalism K of precaution, imagine the worst possible, the consequence that an infinitely deceptive malicious demon could have slipped into the folds of an apparently innocent enterprise."29 As contemporary society has rejected a social welfare orientation
53
Vanova

2009-10
54 Capitalism K
Link- Prison Reforms (2/2)

to the governance of poverty, Fordist economic premises, a correctionalist approach to penology, and the solidaristic risk mentality of social insurance, different fragments of the state are now seen as more relevant to governance than during the mid-twentieth century. It also means that the status of different professions and institutions are reconfigured from their former positions within solidaristic risk societies that rested upon the disciplines. Under these conditions, scholars note that the increasingly dominant political mentality in American society is to "govern through crime." That is, crime and punishment are prioritized contexts and mechanisms for governance.30 Problems that might once have been understood as lying within the jurisdiction or expertise of educational experts, such as a student acting out in school, are now increasingly referred to the criminal justice system.31 The psychiatric profession today no longer emphasizes care or therapy so much as it does security and the preventative confinement of those who are not understood as merely abnormal but as (potential) monsters, grossly pathological, or "perhaps even evil" -- an unreformable sector requiring enduring management. With a succession of cases having been brought against psychiatrists finding fault with their judgements regarding the risk of harm to others posed by a subject, and in light of the shift away from therapy towards security, the previous stature and autonomy of the psychiatric profession as a discipline seems to have become subordinated as psychiatry is increasingly made to work as an appendage to the criminological portions of the state.32 In sum, under conditions of post-Fordism where focus shifts from mass production to consumer segments, I have described a cotemporaneous development regarding the mobilization of a zero-tolerance mentality that makes crime useful for government in a manner that is changed from the use to which the prison was put during the Fordist period of social welfare states. While the prison during the Fordist era was justified on grounds of correctionalism, today, incarceration is justified based on the incapacitation of those whose presence in society is seen simply as too risky. Moreover, within the postFordist state, security has become identified with consumption. Privatized spaces for consumption like shopping malls are secured spaces, while those zoned from such spaces secured for consumption or the spaces beyond the walls of the gated community (the feeling of security commodified) are viewed increasingly with apprehension by those with purchasing power.33 In other words, under conditions of neo-liberalism, there is a consumer-criminal double. Not only do we see this double at work in U.S. domestic policy, but we also see it projected outwards in U.S. security policy by the Bush administration's 2002 National Security Policy Strategy.
54
Vanova

2009-10
55 Capitalism K
Link- Reparations Reparations create a system of dominance grounded in capital- McGonegal 07

Julie, English Prof. @ Georgian Univ. and SSHRC postdoctoral research fellow specializing in postcolonial studies, Spring, T he Tyranny of Gift Giving: The Politics of Generosity in Sarah Scotts Millenium Hall and Sir George Ellison, Project Muse, VR)
The theme of gift giving in Scotts novels creates a dialogue with the debate regarding gift exchange carried on by such theo rists as Pierre Bourdieu, Jacques Derrida, and Luce Irigaray. While
there are important differences between them, these theorists examine the relations of power that render the gift a manipulative gesture in the context of capitalist exchange. Bourdieu, whose theorization of gift economies perhaps most takes into account the context of social inequality integral to gift giving, contends that the gift that is imposed and cannot be reciprocated becomes a lasting obligation, what he calls a form of gentle, invisible violence. Bourdieu focuses on the consequences of interruptions in and deviations from cycles of equivalent reciprocity, which allow him to expose the darker reality of gift exchanges that are concealed through individual and collective misrecognition. What the gift that is immediately returned exposes, according to Bourdieu, is that gifts construct and maintain recognized positions of power, particularly in relations of dominance and subordination. This oppressive aspect of gift giving is repressed, however, through officialization, a process of generating a set of socially sanctioned representations in order to mask the self-interest that informs the ostensibly generous act. Through the maintenance of these representations through, as Bourdieu put it, the strategic construction and circulation of practices aimed at transmuting egoistic, private, particular interests ... into disinterested, collective, publicly avowable, legitimate interests the economic logic of the gift is successfully and collectively denied (Selections, 202). Were the illusion recognized and acknowledged, it would become instantly evident that gift-giving practices are about the accumulation of capital, though not necessarily capital in the conventional, straightforward sense. Gift giving, in other words, might not automatically transfer into economic capital, but it does produce symbolic capital capital whose social value is recognized by dint of its material value having been misrecognized. While symbolic capital (examples of which could include faith or gratitude) is usually understood negatively as devoid of material value in an economy in which the sole index of success is monetary profit in the most ordinary sense, this symbolic capital can be transfigured in time into economic capital, and is thus inevitably and inextricably bound up in relations of dominance.
55
Vanova

2009-10
56 Capitalism K
Link- Securitizing Instilling the fear of attacks creates a hybrid capitalist connection with the governmentPassavant 05
(Paul, Assistant professor of political science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, The Strong Neo-liberal State: Crime, Consumption, Governance, Muse, VR)
are not only governed out of a fearful criminology by the state, but also as consumers within a post-Fordist capitalist regime, and here too surveillance has grown enormously. As has been noted by political scientists Matthew Crenson and Benjamin Ginsberg, after September 11 th , when George Bush addressed the nation to do its part in face of tragedy, he tellingly asked the nation to go shopping.53 While the consumer is a privileged subjectivity within contemporary socio-political discourse, there is a mutually reinforcing character to society's twin fetishes of crime and consumerism. On the one side, the professional discourse of security and criminology explicitly uses consumerism and safe shopping for the tourist as a primary justification for increased policing or public-private security partnerships.54 On the other side, the religious commitment to consumerism in the U.S. requires increased delivery of crime control and security services since not only the reality of victimhood but the fear of it is understood to be consequential for determining the behavior of shoppers.55 Indeed, postSeptember 11, fear of terrorism only further fuels the way that safe shopping requires a zero-tolerance approach to domestic security as Israeli policies have become an exemplary guide for securing U.S. malls amidst the war on terror.56 I will focus in what follows on three aspects of governing subjects as consumers. First, governing subjects as consumers
means inserting subjects into networks of surveillance that can vastly expand state power in light of the state's powers to compel a search (for example, through a FISA warrant). Second,
Of course we
consumerism has led to a merger of market and state interests that vastly expands state power such that the state no longer needs to rely upon a warrant to compel a single private party like a bookstore or a library to produce information. Increasingly, the state is governing through consumerism and the commodification of information that this produces. This merger of state and market interests has produced two consequences. (A) Consumerism leads to the compilation of vast databases, and companies have formed to take advantage of this situation by compiling information from multiple sources and then selling access to this data. Indeed, information compilation has become a highly profitable industry. As I shall explain below, the fact that these databases are privately compiled paradoxically enhances the state's powers. (B) Furthermore, in light of the fact that much of this information profiles consumers and that, in seeking access to this information, the state is relying upon consumerist mentalities, we can see that the logic of governance is increasingly based on hierarchized market segments rather than a logic of equal citizenship. Third, utilizing consumerism to seek security means that as markets are established for security -- often thanks to government contracts -- stakeholders in this order (i.e., those who hold a financial stake in this state order) are created who will resist any future change. Governing through consumerism, then, reconfigures both the state and capitalism.
56
Vanova

2009-10
57 Capitalism K
Link- Social Services Capitalism demands social services- creates lower wages and complacency to the systemHacker 05
( Jacob Hacker, Professor of Political Science and Resident Fellow of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies at Yale, Bringing the Welfare State Back In: The Promise (and Perils) of the New Social Welfare History , Muse, VR) Work on gender challenges the laborist perspective for its alleged sins of omission. New writings on the role of business, by contrast, tackle it for its alleged sins of commission. The
essence of these works critique is that previous scholarship has overstated the antimony of interests between capitalists and labor and, in doing so, missed the strong capitalist bases of support for domestic social reform.18 This argument has two main variants, which are not mutually exclusive. One says that businesses sometimes demand social programs to impose costs on competitorsfor example, by requiring that all firms pay for benefits that they already provide.19 The other says that businesses sometimes demand social programs to off-load their costs onto the public fiscfor example, by socializing the cost of risks to which they are particularly susceptible.20 Both variants argue, however, that some (but, crucially, not all) businesses want generous social programs.21 To be sure, organized labor demands social programs, too. But its success hinges on the emergence of cross-class alliances with capitalists.22 Only when the bourgeoisie are on board does the proletariat get what it wants. The
recent sweeping work of Peter Swenson, Capitalists Against Markets which compares the fate of social reforms in the United States during the 1930s and in Sweden immediately after World War IIexemplifies, while deepening, the new business-power thesis. Swenson argues that during
the Great Depression, a significant segment of the business community was at least latently supportive of new social insurance programs that would cripple their low-wage, low-price domestic competitors. The original turn in Swensons
argument is not so much his identification of a capitalist interest in reform, but his attempt to tease out the bases of capi talist influence. Swenson argues that neither the so-called instrumental power of business (its lobbying prowess and resources) nor its structural power (its control over inves tment and jobs, about which politicians care regardless of whether business organizes to press for policy change) were crucial. 23 Rather, it
was New Dealers anticipation of long-term capitalist support forand fear of long-term capitalist opposition todomestic social reforms that, Swenson argues, represents the primary means by which the largely unexpressed pro-reform sentiments of the business community shaped the making of 1930s social policy.24 As this brief summary indicates, there is more than a whiff of the
New Left to Swensons provocative thesis. Yet unlike earlier New Left scholars who argued that Progressive Era and New Deal social reforms were essentially conservative creatures of business interests, Swenson and those who make related claims do not believe that the progressive ambitions of social reformers were hijacked by corporate America.25 They want to argue instead that
underlying business interests were largely consistent with what reformers wanted. This, of course, raises the issue of how one demonstrates influence. If reformers want what business wants, that could evidence influence or simply preference congruence. And indeed, in much of the recent literature,
Swensons contribution included, surprisingly scant and circumstantial evidence is offered that reformers a ctually responded to actual or anticipated business power in crafting their proposals. No less serious, for all the close attention to historical detail that characterizes recent business-power accounts, these works are often at their core notably ahistorical. Swenson, for example, uses large employers eventual acceptance of the Social Security Act as an important piece of evid ence in favor of his thesis that the act was initially consistent with their interests. But ,
of course, the eventual business response to the New Deal is hardly an accurate gauge of initial interests. Once legislation is in place, after all, employers may simply believe they cannot realistically overturn it, or the policy may in fact change what employers want by altering market conditions, reshaping the population of employers, or encouraging new conceptions of business interests. Similarly, many works that stress employers influence tend to begin the story when reform gets on the agenda, then trace t he direct interventions of business on specific policy choices. But this snapshot approach to the role of business makes it nearly impossible to judge the true power of employers, because it leaves unanswered the profound question of whether the policy terrain on which business operates at any particular moment is tilted in its favor or against it.26 In broader historical
relief, for example, what is arguably most striking about social policymaking during the New Deal is the marked weakness of employers relative to the position that
the renewed emphasis on the role of business does powerfully call into question the traditional assumption that capitalists are merely recalcitrant stumbling blocks on the road to social reform.
they enjoyed in the decentralized political economy of the prior decades. 27 Nonetheless,
57
Vanova

2009-10
58 Capitalism K
Link- Technology (1/2) Governmental control of technology legitimizes a new neoliberal regime that externalizes the risk of companies to ensure worse inequities in capitalism- Fisher 7
(Erin, , PhD candidate in sociology at The New School for Social Research, New York, Upgrading" Market Legitimation: Revisiting Habermas's 'Technology as Ideology' in Neoliberal Times, Fast Capitalism Journal, 2.1, VR)
the methodological and substantive contours of Habermas's framework are still valid today. However, the role that technology plays as ideology has changed dramatically in the context of contemporary capitalism. No longer does it provide a legitimation for the political administration of the economy in the context of the Social Democratic state; instead, it legitimizes a new, neoliberal regime, whereby political intervention in the workings of the market is highly prohibited. This argument is substantiated with an empirical analysis of contemporary discourse on information technology, or the 'digital discourse'. It shows how neoliberal tenets regarding the workings of the market are rearticulated as technological realities, and their ideological undercurrents are neutralized. According to this digital discourse, with information technology the promise of a self-regulating market has been materialized. As the market becomes more rational and frictionless by the force of information technology it also gains and further deserves more autonomy from political intervention. This new (network) 'technology as ideology', therefore, legitimizes key processes entailed in the shift from a Keynesian welfare state to a neoliberal state: the insulation of the market from political intervention and the corollary trends of the marketization of society and the disorganization of the economy. The last few decades have been marked by a new constellation of power between markets and states, and market and society, with markets becoming increasingly disembedded from society (Polanyi 2001; Harvey
This paper revisits Habermas's notion of 'technology as ideology' in the context of contemporary political culture. It argues that 2005). This disembeddednesspart of a broader social transformation from Fordism to post-Fordismis dominated by two trends: marketization and
Marketization entails the increasing dominance and scope of markets in social life: markets have gained more autonomy vis--vis the state, becoming more deregulated, and more globalized (Castells 1996; Sassen 1999); the state withdrew not only from intervening in the workings of the market, but also from ownership of "the commanding heights" (Yergin and Stanislaw 1998) of the economy through privatization as well as the funding and operation of many welfare mechanisms that were put in place in order to provide a buffer zone between individuals and the market (Piven and Cloward 1997); more and more spheres of social life are being administered by the free market or modeled after a market-like rationale (Somers and Block 2005); there has been a trend of privatization of risks and responsibility from the state to individuals; there has also been a process of privatization in the world of work, where a class compact has been substituted by individual contracts; the decline of market regulation and downward income redistribution has also led to an increase in class inequality within national boundaries and between nation states (Harvey 2005; Milanovic 2007). Disorganization (Offe 1985; Lash and Urry 1988)partially a consequence of the marketization of society refers to a process whereby markets, the economy, and social life in general have become more liquid (Bauman 2000), more chaotic and complex (Urry 2002); the globalization of financial markets has made capital more mobile, leaving local markets more volatile and unstable as a result (Sassen 1999; Harvey 2005; Sennet 2006);
disorganization: production has become more flexible, constantly adapting to changing markets' demands; production and consumption cycles have been accelerating (Harvey 1989; Rosa 2003; Agger 2004); companies
have shifted in their organization from a model of a top-down hierarchized bureaucracy to a horizontal, dehierarchized, and decentralized network (Castells 1996; Sennet 2006); flexible, lean, 'justin-time' production has made work-life more "mean" (Harriso, 1997), and increasingly precarious, unstable, and unpredictable (Bauman 2001, chap. 2); tenured workers are replaced by part-timers and flexitimers, working on ad-hoc projects, rather than developing a
linear career path (Castells 1996; Sennet 2000); and economic risks (as well as spoils) have been individualized (Beck 1992; Beck 2000; Bauman 2001). Four causes have been suggested to underlie these dynamics: economic, political, social and technological. Economically,
the disembedding of markets from society, and their increased disorganization can be seen as responses to the internal constraints of the Fordist mode of accumulation, and the need of capitalism to be restructured (Harvey 1989; Castells 1996). Politically, these dynamics had been accompanied by a transition from a political ideology of national embedded liberalism (or social democracy, Keynesianism, welfarism,) to that of global neoliberalism (or market fundamentalism) (Aune 2001; Duggen
58
Vanova

2009-10
59 Capitalism K
Link- Technology (2/2)

2003; Harvey 2005; Smith 2005; Somers and Block 2005). Socially,
these processes are seen as the result of a new balance of power between capital, labor, and state, with capital gaining a newfound autonomy from labor, and hence with the state diminishing in its legitimacy (Sklair 2002; Ram 2007). Technologically, these dynamics had been facilitated by the emergence of new information and communication technology, allowing space-time compression, acceleration, and the transition to a social dynamics of networks (Harvey 1989; Castells 2002, Sassen 2002; Rosa 2003). Beginning in the 1990s, and particularly with the popularization of the Internet, a determinist version of the technological thesis gained a significant cachet in the public discourse. So much so that the realities of the new capitalism has come to be explained as a direct result of new information and communication technology (or network technology). Globalization, Google, outsourcing, 'just-in-time' production, the rise of Indiathese new keywords in the lexicon of the new capitalism, had also become keywords of the Information Revolution. The close affinity between these two lexical sets was readily clarified: a new technology enables a new society. Globalization is carried over the networks of communication; the new economy is essentially all about new business models; Google is the epitome of a new business model and new consumer products centered on the value of information and its transmission over communication networks ; outsourcing and 'just-intime' production are hard to imagine as viable economic practices without information technology; and India owes its rise as a capitalist miracle to customer-service call-centers in Bangalore, and to the surge in the number of software engineers and global high-technology hubs. This outlook reflects a prevailing assumption regarding the relations
between technology and society: that the former makes the latter. Such viewpoint was propagated in the public sphere by journalists such as The New York Times' Thomas Friedman, scientist and essayist Nicholas Negroponte, writer George Gilder, prominent digerati, such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, and publications such as Wired magazine, which was incidentally inaugurated in the spatial and temporal hotbed of the convergence of network technology and the new capitalismSilicon
In light of this hegemonic viewpoint, this paper wishes to offer an alternative framework, which bypasses the question regarding the primacy of technological, political, or economic factors, and instead points to how these vectors align along a new social totality. It does that by pointing out the legitimation function of technology: technology is not only an instrumental medium by which economic and political transformations (such as that from Fordism to post-Fordism) are enabled, but also a communicative medium through which such transformations are explained and legitimized (Herf 1984; Heffernan 2000; Sturken and Thomas 2004).
Valley in 1993.
59
Vanova

2009-10
60 Capitalism K
Link- Telecommunications 1/2

Telecommunications only create a new market for corporations to control society while masking as benign capitalism- Srinivas 2k
(K. Ravi, Post Doctoral Fellow, IPR Policy Research and Development Program, Chemin Du Champ d'Anier, Geneva, Switzerland, Review: Capitalism and the Information Society, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 35, No. 16 (Apr. 15 -21, 2000), Jstor, VR)
There is so much hype these days about information revolution, information society, digital economy, etc, that it becomes difficult to separate facts from predictions, news from advertorials. One hardly comes across any analysis that is critical of such hype in the mainstream media. Media promotes new images, new breed of capitalists and leaders who are information technology (IT) friendly. These days the more the politician is IT savvy or IT friendly the more popular and admired (s)he is by the media. Yet there are lot of unanswered questions about the IT revolution. The access to IT or to internet is not universal. Even within the US wide disparities are observed regarding access to internet and ownership of PCs across race and class. In developing nations the issues are more complex as universal access to basic telecommunications is yet to become the norm. Over the years many scholars, NGOs, international agencies have tried to examine the questions regarding IT from diverse perspectives and have come out with various reports, studies and solutions. From a left/progressive perspective much has been
Monthly Review published a double issue on this theme. Noam Chomsky's not widely known interview has commented on capitalism, information technology and the corporate forces that are taking active part in shaping public policy.' Dan Schiller' s book under review points out the nexus between capitalism and IT revolution, and how capitalist forces are rewriting the rules of the game in fields as diverse as telecommunications, computers and education across the globe, and transforming the globe into a networked planet on an unprecedented scale, where the MNCs, WTO, rather than national governments, will be key players in policy making. In the first chapter the author traces the far-reaching changes in the corporate networking over the last few decades and the changes in the telecommunications industry as a result of convergence of computers and communication. The networking of computers and the convergence of technologies is used to develop 'an
written on these issues. For example, few years ago economy wide network that can support an ever- growing range of intracorporate and intercorporate business processes. This objective encompasses everything from production scheduling
Only a network capable of flinging signalsincluding voices, images, videos, and datato the far ends of the earth would be adequate to sustain this open-ended migration of electronic commerce'. To build such a network that suits them, the corporate interests have ensured that their demands modify the regulatory policy and not vice versa. Elaborating how this demand has resulted in the transformation of the entire
and product engineering to accounting, advertising, banking, and training. telecommunication system in the US, the author points out that investments in computers and communications were disproportionately higher in the US companies when compared to global trends. Moreover, the fast growth of the internet has changed the rules of the game. The telecommunications' carriers had no option but to take note of this and had to re-work their
. The telecommunications industry tried to adjust itself to these new demands by offering new services to corporate and upper middle classes and providing internet services, apart from basic telecommunication services. This resulted in multi-million dollar investments, mergers and takeovers, and within a decade the industry emerged stronger, but leaner, employing fewer persons than before. The fallout of this deregulatory policy in the US had its impact across the globe. In the second chapter the author summarises the major changes that have occurred in the telecommunications sector over the last
strategies to ensure that they had a share in the booming business. It became evident that the network data traffic would be several times that of the voice traffic two decades. He points out that the neo-liberal project has resulted in privatisation of telecommunications in many countries, particularly in countries which had strong state-sponsored telecommunication service providers. Since under the WTO regime the industry is slated for further liberalisation across the globe, the author argues that the MNCs which hold a major share in
WTO regulations the countries have committed themselves to liberalise further in a time-bound manner. At the same time, the emergence investments in mobile communication systems have ensured that the corporate interests have a finger in every pie. In many
the global market, from basic telecom equipment to provision of services, are to largely benefit. Under developing nations they have partnership arrangements with local companies. In the process, public access, providing quality service to the low income and under-class population gets ignored and the market dictates the policy. As a result, only those who could pay can demand better services, and for the poor there is hardly anything to gain. The next battlefield being the internet and the electronic commerce (e-commerce), the US is trying to ensure that the neo-liberal agenda is adopted in these fields too. The issue of intellectual property rights became a major topic of controversy.
60
Vanova

2009-10
61 Capitalism K
Link- Telecommunications 2/2

The US brought a case against Canada to the WTO which ruled that Canada's rules that seek to protect Canadian journals from their US competitors are not permissible under WTO regime. In other words, no country can use culture to discriminate imports from another country. Similarly,
the successful interactive computer system run by PTO, the French telecom company which provided services to people in France and other countries in Europe, was dismantled to make way for internet in France. It is not a question of inferior vs superior technology since the French system was the largest public computer service network in the work and was successful in
on commercial interests that have taken over the internet which has become more a tool for marketing, selling and buying, than for public good or any non-profit purposes. It is not that such interests are not served by internet but they are not the major or dominating forces that shape the internet. In this regard it is worth noting those advertising interests have taken much interest in the habits of surfers even as
meeting the demands of the public. In fact, it was often suggested as a model for other countries. The third chapter focuses magazines' websites struggle to show to the advertisers that it will make sense to sponsor advertisements on their sites. The fourth chapter deals with the transformation of the education sector as the corporate interests work with universities to transform higher education. The author mentions that in the US the corporate sector had a flourishing training and education system
Now, even the traditional educational system, particularly the university system, is getting transformed. As the corporates shed their excess labour and emerge leaner, there is a scramble for em- ployable skills. Earlier, education gained from a university was enough for a lifetime job/career. It is no longer
of its own even before the advent of the internet. so. Lifelong learning, learning new skills, updating oneself to suit the needs of the job and dovetailing the educational requirements to suit the marketall these are making inroads into the
The corporate sector-university partnerships, often la- belled as win-win solution, actually result in re-organising the university to include profit-oriented ventures, intellectual property rights, industry specific research into their regular functioning. As more and more universities see scope for research money and increased
university and the university is getting re-organised. revenue in them, the character of the university, is getting re-shaped accordingly. Corporate sponsorship involves strict enforcement of restrictions on sharing information, rules on patents and right to preview discoveries. Cost reduction and productivity became the goals, and universities were asked to think 'what business are they in'. A decade ago Martin Kenny wrote about
Such partnerships are now found in more disciplines and in many more universities. The author informs that even as real salaries for professors were lower in 1997 than in 1972, the universities created two types of academicsone in the low rung, untenured and underpaid, while the other academic war one who could command premium for joining as faculty. The cor-porate and business interests have ensured that no part of the education system, from primary to university, is left untouched. Computer based learning, multimedia based education and production of educational software for use of students of all age groups may prima facie look like mere technological innovations, but often these innovations and restructuring of the educational sector go together. It is not just that technology is transforming education. The reality is according to Langdon Winner: 'The evolving arrangements of technoglobalism and ideologies associated with them place strong pressures on the institutions and practices of education. Many of the forces that have transformed corporate structures, shifted the distribution of wealth and undermined the coherence of human relations in society as a whole now promise to alter and degrade education at all levels, from kindergarten to the doctoral degree. The social sub- contract that formerly linked education to modern industrial society is now being renegotiated to respond to the business and technological realities of the new economy.' This trend is not unique to the US; it is widespread in Canada and elsewhere. Years ago when such trends were making their presence felt in the UK, Kevin Robins and
the university-industry partnership in commercialising biotechnology. Frank Webster wrote, The Technical Fix, a critique of the assumptions behind this trend and the implications for society at large. Their arguments are relevant even today. The author has given detailed analysis of the need to fight against the neo-liberal forces that are transforming education using technology as a tool. Neither the author nor critics like Winner cited above, are against technology per se. In fact, Winner in his article has cited an example of using technology for educating the poor. Even Ivan Illich, the savage critic of schooling, devoted one chapter in Deschooling Society to write about learning webs. What is at stake is not just education, but the vision of the society and the role we envisage for education in such a society. Can education be modelled after the needs of corporate sector and business interests, who are not going to offer lifelong employment and whose quest for profits results in downsizing, relocation, etc? It is not that such attempts are not resisted. David Noble has written about the struggle by faculty of York University (Toronto) to have control over introduction of technology. Conferences have been organised on the theme, 'digital diploma mills', and much has been written about this.3 In the last chapter, the author talks of the grounds for optimism as well the domiinant trends. In the Indian context, when much noise is beilg made over corporate-university tie-ups, using IT in education and making universities more responsive to the needs of the economy, experiences elsewhere, as described by the author are revealing. While it is true that what might happen in India may not be identical with what has happened in the US or the UK, but the underlying logic and the forces that want to shape the system are the same. In describing the political-economic transition towards digital economy the author has provided a coherent and excellent analysis. But there is little on capitalism per se or on crises of the capitalism, fordist and post-fordist regulatory framework, in this book. Nevertheless, the book is a must read and will help to re-think about the hype and utopian visions that are being promoted about information society.
61
Vanova

2009-10
62 Capitalism K
Link- Telecommunications (Global Advantage) We have link uniqueness- telecommunications has moved away from hierarchies, but a nation-wide telecommunications system would encourage capitalist hierarchies that spread globally- Genschel and Werle 93
(Philipp Professor of Political Science at Jacobs University, and Raymund, Principal Research Associate at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, From National Hierarchies to International Standardization: Modal Changes i n the Governance of Telecommunications, Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Jul.Sep., 1993 ), pp. 203-225, Jstor,VR)
In its early decades, telecommunications was contained in national systems. Technical, economic and political factors advanced the development of national hierarchies, which settled problems of coordination internally.
Formally binding decisions concerning features of technical parts to be installed in the network or modalities of utilisation were issued, if necessary, as administrative decrees.
Concertation was achieved by authority. Hierarchy proved rather efficient as long as 'hard-wired' technology dominated and system growth was restricted to national territory. When telecommunications systems slowly began to grow beyond national borders, national hierarchies remained stable at first. The sovereign states rejected plans to establish a transnational hierarchy. Thus, only minimal international coordination on the basis of international treaties was achieved. These treaties, in the tradition of international diplomac, were rather rigid and abstract. Formal decision-making procedures were ruled by political rationality. Each
nation, irrespective of technical competence or vested economic interests, had a vote in this regime. Coordination of international telecommunications concentrated on agreements regarding investments in cables or accounting and served to protect the national domains.
Interconnections of national networks were usually designed as gateways providing ex post compatibility. Problems of compatibility increased with the beginning of globalisation of networks and services in the I96os. Data processing and data communication outside the traditional telecom networks was coordinated to a considerable extent through the hegemony of IBM. This corporation dictated compatibility rules, which had to be accepted by mostly smaller manufacturers and users. In telecommunications, however, the lack of ex ante compatibility threatened to hamper transnational expansion. The sovereign states, just transforming their national telecommunications hierarchies into more pluralist and competitive structures, would accept neither a transnational hierarchy nor any form of hegemony. Enlargement and globalisation could therefore only be accomplished because the problems of compatibility could be mastered without cent- ralisation through compatibility standards. These standards provide an infrastructure for coordination which allows telecommunication systems to expand without hierarchical or hegemonic assistance. They allow for the technical integration of networks without organisational integration. Hierarchies are no longer highly regarded. They are suspected of being overstrained by the complexity and turbulence of current affairstoo slow, too cumbersome, too unimaginativeand it is assumed that they will, therefore, increasingly fall into disuse. Our case does not confirm this assumption. The problem with hierarchical coordination in telecommunications was not that it reached some inherent limit of functionality but that the range of hierarchical coordination was delim- ited territorially. The reach of the PTTs extended to national borders. That was sufficient as long as the telecommunication systems they tried to control ended at national borders as well. It became a problem when the systems started to take on a transnational character. The national hierarchies could not fully control transnational systems and, therefore, more decentralised modes of coordination had to be found. The obsoles- cence of national hierarchical coordination in telecommunications does not imply, however, that there is no space for any form of hierarchical coordination. It is perfectly possible that new transnational hierarchies will emerge, for example in the guise of global carriers, which will re- internalise much of the coordination that is right now achieved decentrally via standards.
62
Vanova

2009-10
63 Capitalism K
Link- Transgender
The capitalist system makes social services inherently coercive in terms of transgendered persons and turns caseignoring class relations replicates their impacts- Lewin 2
(Ellen, Womens Studies Program, Department of Anthropology, University of Iowa, professor, Department of Anthropology , American University, Out in Theory, Pg 283, VR)
The rise of domestic neoliberalism has been market by a shift in health and welfare policy designed to regulate the poor through surveillance rather than supportive services. The shift is likely to have an increasingly negative effect on the community-building strategies of poor sexual minorities. Voluntary detox programs, recovery programs, subsidized housing, and other supportive social and health services have been scaled back as funding for health and social services associated with welfare state has been withdrawn. In addition, public funding has been diverted toward expansion of the prison industrial complex and development of welfare-to-work programs. This shift places more poor people in daily contact with institutions that are, for various reasons, sites of increasingly coercive state control. Concomitantly, the collective survival strategies of the poor have been undermined by these shifts in social welfare policy, which have worked in tandem with wider economic restructuring to suppress wage levels for low-end workers to near historic lows (Piven 1999). As a consequence, the poor are forced into even more dire social and economic circumstance. The pattern is likely to exacerbate tensions among various groups of poor people, particularly in the context of public institutions, with increased harassment perpetrated against poor and homeless sexual minorities a likely result. Given that likelihood, it is vital that we make our theirs and politics more meaningful for poor and working-class sexual minorities. This requires the reversal of decades-long trends in social theory and politics that have disavowed the importance of the role of the state, and avoided direct challenges to capitalism itself. Ironically, Michael Warners demand for a more dialectical view of capitalism with respect to sexual identity can only be met by providing a more dialectical view of sexual identity with respect to class under capitalism. Politically, this will offer an opportunity to align lesbian and gay studies more closely with the working-class struggles that are once again on the move in the United States and abroad. In the current neoliberal climate, poverty is becoming invisible in both popular and academic treatments of urban life. We should do our utmost to avoid collaborating with this new regime of disappearance. If we fail to contend with the material basis of poverty, and with the neoliberal ideologies and policies that mask increased inequalities within and without sexual-minority communities, our work will continue to ignore poverty as an issue that an increasingly large number of sexual minorities have no choice but to face in their everyday lives. But if we meet the challenge of a lesbian and gay poverty studies, our future contains the potential for a historical realignment with the perspectives and needs of a major segment of the population in whose name we carry out our work.
That point is particularly salient in the present political context.
63
Vanova

2009-10
64 Capitalism K
Link- Transgender Transgender right movements keep the structures of capital invisible- Hennessy 2k
(Rosemary, Professor of English and Director of the Center for the Study of Women, Gender, and Sexuality at Rice University, Profit and Pleasure, pg. 8, VR)
Late capitalisms new economic, political, and cultural structures have also intensified the relationship between global and local situation. Global transnational corporations rely on localities of many sorts as sites for capital accumulation through production, marketing, and knowledge-making. Global-localism has become both the paradigm of production and an explicit new strategy by which the corporation infiltrates various localities without forfeiting its global aims (Dirlik 34). From corporate headquarters, CEOs orchestrate the incorporation of particular localities into the demands of global capital at the same time that the corporation is domesticated into the local society. Thus it is in the interests of global capitalism to celebrate and enhance awareness of local communities, cultures, and forms of identification. But this cannot be done in a way that makes evident their exploitation, that is, in a way that makes visible the real material relationship between the global and the local (Dirlik 35). Against capitalisms penetration of local communities, many local groupsindigenous peoples movements, ethnic and womens organizations, lesbian, gay, and transgender rights movementshave presented themselves as potential sites for liberation struggles. Undoubtedly, these struggles have indeed accomplished changes that have enhanced the quality of life for countless people. But the celebration of the local has also been the characteristic talisman of a postmodern culture and politics that has repudiated the totalizing narratives of modernity. The claims of indigenous and ethnic groups, of women, and of lesbian and gay people have been an important part of postmodern challenges to the adequacy of cultural narrativesamong them enlightened humanism and Eurocentric scholarshipthat do not address the histories of subaltern peoples. However, insofar as their counter-narratives put forward and alternative that de-links the interest of particular social groups from the larger collective that they are part of , they tend to promote political projects that keep the structures of capitalism invisible.
64
Vanova

2009-10
65 Capitalism K
Link- Transgender Surgery Affirmatives Medical aesthetics commodify and limit down gender identity through the transnational clinical trade- Sharp 2k
(Lesley A., Department of Anthropology, Barnard College, The Commodification of the Body and Its Parts, Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2000. 29:287328, http://www.barnard.edu/anthro/sharp_comm.pdf, VR) In contrast, the category of the transsexual generates a wider array of interpretations. Here, surgical
interventions (especially when adult patients are involved) may be celebrated as liberatory practices that allow the true self to emerge (Bolin 1988, Devor 1997). Nevertheless, Stone (1991) underscores the proliferation of an intensely profitable transnational clinical trade in gender reassignment, one that extends from Palo Alto, CA, to Casablanca, Morocco. Among the more troubling paradoxes of surgical reassignment is the all-too-frequent fetishizing of gender dualism. In clinical contexts, strict definitions of male and female bodies emerge as the only viable possibilities, where an extraordinary amount of attention may focus on the outward appearance of ones genitals. In essence, then, gender
identity is understood to run only skin deep (or, more subtly, physical assignment facilitates the subsequent internalization of the transformed self ). This fetishizing of gender dualism runs contrary to the extraordinary array of evidence in anthropology of gender plasticity cross-culturally (Bolin 1999, Herdt 1994, Kulik 1998, Lancaster&di Leonardo 1997, Morgan 1989, Morris 1995, Nanda 1990, Ortner& Whitehead 1981, Parker 1991, Parker & Aggleton 1999, Shapiro 1991). If
we
turn to those medical interventions that affect the lives of intersexed infants, this picture is rendered increasingly complex because here self-determination is impossible. A sKesslers (1998) compelling work in the United States illustrates, clinicians reveal little tolerance for sexual ambiguity, and even far less tolerance than nonprofessionals for variations in genital size and shape. Driven by outdated psychological theories of gender identification (as rooted at least initially in ones anatomy), medicine rapidly reduces the bodies of intersexed infants to their genitals. Within days of birth, their gender is quickly assigned and literally built upon their bodies through genital reconstruction. In this context, female identity can hinge on the absence of a penis (or a penis of a particular length), a phallocentric approach that also assumes that a vagina can be constructed potentially within any body (Kessler 1998). The voices of adults surgically altered as children are consistently ignored and, thus, silenced. In turn, little regard is given to the greater flexibility offered by the alternative category of transgendered (Devor 1989, 1997). Such considerations prove fruitful as well for a
host of other medical interventions involving other bodiescochlear implants for the deaf, or growth hormone therapy and limb-lengthening surgeries for dwarfism (Rapp et al 2000). The
world of the intersexed exposes yet again an atomized model of the body, one where self, gender, and sexuality are unproblematically collapsed and rapidly assigned following criteria established within a narrow framework of medical aesthetics.
65
Vanova

2009-10
66 Capitalism K
Link- Welfare Welfare creates under floor wages for the proletariat and creates more poverty than it resolves- Morgen and Maskoysky 3
(Sandra, Center for Study of Women in Society and Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, and Jeff, Department of Urban Studies, Queens College, The Anthropology of Welfare "Reform": New Perspectives on U.S. Urban Poverty in the Post- Welfare Era, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 32 (2003), pp. 315338, Jstor, VR) The classic argument derived from Marxist
political economy views welfare as a "floor under wages," a Keynesian welfare-state strategy designed to restructure the reserve army of labor to tighten labor markets and generate higher wages for those who are employed (e.g., Piven 2001). In this formulation, welfare "reform" constitutes a form of class warfare, an assault on working-class wages across the board. In the context of declining profitability, the business class has forced the abandonment of welfare-state policies, conceived since the Great Depression as an effective way of achieving long-term economic growth, avoiding capitalist boom-and-bust business cycles, and managing class antagonism. Instead, the welfare state is downsized to loosen labor markets, and the social wage is attacked in an effort to redistribute wealth in an upward direction. The abrogation of the Fordist social compact and the pursuit of
cheap labor across the globe join welfare state downsizing, supply-side corporate welfare, and welfare-to-work as aspects of the post-Fordist strategy of flexible capital accumulation (Harvey 1989). Policy
reforms such as devolution can be explained along similar lines as an effort to obscure the class basis of welfare-state restructuring by decentering the federal government as a political target. Urban poverty, according to this view, is an outgrowth of the new kinds of worker vulnerability that are associated with the imposition of a vast global labor pool. This view has been critiqued and embellished to include more substantive
discussions of socially and culturally differentiated labor of how immigration status and racialized and gendered differences push some populations in or out of the labor force at particular moments, how the power of social movements and various class-inflected constituencies shapes the nature and scope of welfare restructuring, and the extent to which welfare-state restructuring can be analytically subsumed under nation-state restructuring as an aspect of globalization (Susser 1996, Clarke 2001).
66
Vanova

2009-10
67 Capitalism K
Link- Welfare (PWORA) Welfare reform creates compliance with the system and ultimately benefits corporations, not recipients- Reisch 9
(Michael, School of Social Work, University of Maryland, Baltimare, MD, USA, United States: Social Welfare Policy and Privat ization in Post-industrial Society, VR)
Major policy shifts like the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWORA), also known as welfare reform, served several interrelated purposes in shaping the context of the post-industrial welfare state. First, they helped drive down the wage scale and reduce the cost of production, with the ostensible goal of making US firms more competitive in the world market. Second, they strengthened the drive for greater workforce discipline and compliance, as more workers seek fewer jobs, particularly in the low-wage service sector of the economy. Third, they promoted a general reduction in the role of the government, which has significant implications not only for the totality of social policy but also for government policies in the areas of trade, banking, and environmental regulation, with disastrous consequences as the recent economic crisis demonstrates. Finally, by questioning the legitimacy of the social welfare system itself and governments effectiveness in administering social programs, they created an opportunity for the private sector to acquire new and vast resources of capital: the Social Security Trust Funds (Piven, 2005). Cities and Citizenship in the Post-industrial United States Modern social policies in the United States emerged as a response to two conflicting developments: the belief of the elite that the control of urban problems and population and the consequences of industrialization was a prerequisite for stable, long-term economic growth and the desire of organized workers, reformers, intellectuals, and professionals, to use cities as laboratories of social reform as vehicles through which to initiate structural changes in the economy and society. For the elite class, these policies became effective instruments of social control. They helped maintain the wage scale at below subsistence levels and reinforced the values of the dominant culture. For the working class and low income persons, however, particularly women and persons of color, welfare programs became an integral part of the ongoing survival strategies (Allen & Kirby, 2000). These contradictions forged the US social welfare system into a unique synthesis of moral stigma and economic safety net (Axinn& Stern, 2008). As long as the well-being of cities and their population was regarded as critical to the nations prosperity and as long as the organized advocates for social welfare identified with urban problems and the need for their resolution, US social policies slowly expanded to address what were perceived as predominantly urban problems. During the past three decades, however, the critical role that central cities play in the US economy has declined, while, as a result of dramatic demographic shifts, the urban population are comprised increasingly of immigrants, migrants, and people of color (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2008b). In the calculus of the global marketplace and domestic politics, such populations are frequently regarded as expendable. In some cases, as in the original provisions of PRWORA, their social rights were denied because of their immigration status. More recently, conservative politicians in the 2008 election contrasted these urban populations with real Americans. These developments reflect a well-orchestrated assault on the structural components of the US welfare state accompanied by the expectation that recipients of services rely on the uncertainties of the marketplace, rather than legal entitlements, to satisfy their basic human needs (Prigoff, 2001).
67
Vanova

2009-10
68 Capitalism K
Link Welfare (Queen) Providing social services to disadvantaged women ignores that the system will find ways to exploit their labor- the plan doesnt change their status or condition- Folbre 9
(Nancy, Economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, PhD in Economics from the University of Massachusetts, MacArthur Fellowship between 1998-2003, Summer, Varieties of Patriarchal Capitalism, Muse, VR) Mandel and Shalev, like the VoC team, hypothesize that coordinated
market economies developed labor market institutions oriented toward specific skills, which in turn reduced womens economic opportunities in paid employment. How do we know that the causality did not work the other way around? Efforts to channel womens energies into reproductive tasks by restricting their opportunities to compete with men could have encouraged the development of labor market institutions oriented to specific skills. My theoretical perspective suggests that human behavior is shaped by gender interests as well as class interests. Current forms of gender inequality are not simply a byproduct of different class arrangements, but the outcome of more complex strategic interactions. Within a production system based on a capitalist labor market, employers try to maximize profits subject to a cooperation constraint. If profits get too high, and wages too low, workers resist in ways that destabilize the system and undermine its efficiency. Within a reproduction system based on a patriarchal family, men try to minimize their responsibility for the care of dependents, also based on a cooperation constraint. If women grow discontented, they too can impose costs through resistanceor even simply through noncooperation (such as declining to rear children). The intersection between productive and reproductive systemsboth part of the the economycreates conflicting pressures and unstable coalitions. This approach
resembles the dual systems analysis that emerged from the Marxist -feminist debates of the 1980s (Ferguson and Folbre 1981). Since that time, interest in the concept of patriarchal capitalism has lapsed. My forays in this direction generally met with disinterest if not outright resistance, and I turned my efforts elsewhere (Folbre 1982, 1994, 2006a, b). Yet interest in the political economy of patriarchy has recently been revived by two scholars who I associate with the VoC approach, Torben Iverson and Frances Rosenbluth, who use it to explain the gender gap in political preferences (Iversen and Rosenbluth 2006). The MandelShalev argument could benefit by more explicit attention to concepts of patriarchal structure and patriarchal capitalist hybrids. This approach leads to conclusions similar to the one they reach, that low-income women are particularly disadvantaged in LMEs. In
the United States, affluent women manage their care responsibilities by hiring low-wage women to provide them in relatively inexpensive child and elder-care facilities. Affluent women have little incentive to push for greater state provision. Poor women suffer both from low wages and a low level of public support for care provision. In general, more extreme class inequality seemed to mute gender inequality, because it intensifies differences among women. In more class egalitarian societies, women perform more sex-stereotypical work, but are more generously paid for it. The most powerful objection to this dual systems approach lies in its failure to theorize other dimensions of inequality based on race, ethnicity, and citizenship. I strongly believe that more attention needs to be devoted to these issues. But an important insight
derives from the nature of patriarchy as a family-based system of control over women and children rather than merely a form of gender inequality (Braunstein and Folbre 2001; Folbre 2006b Chicks, Hawks and Patriarchal Institutions). Race, ethnicity, and citizenship all re present forms of fictive kinship. These culturally and legally constructed forms of group identity become focal points for collective action. Indeed, the modern welfare state itself is largely grounded in the exclusion of noncitizens from participation. The
welfare state does not merely distribute the surplus or the fruits of capitalism. It invests significant amounts of money in the production of care services and educational services that develop human capabilities and promote economic development. To gain citizenship in an advanced capitalist country is to gain access to an extremely valuable means of reproductionaccess to health services and education for ones children as well as ones self. In many respects, both the warfare state and the welfare state represent the family writ largea hierarchical unit that seeks its own collective interests in ways shaped by the relative bargaining power of its members. This perspective raises more questions that I can satisfactorily address here. But I hope it will encourage scholars
to look beyond the organization of the capitalist workplace to a larger analysis of production and reproduction as an integrated system. In their critique of the VoC approach, Mandel and Shalev urge us in this direction with their attention to the complex intersections of class and gender. I have learned a great deal from their careful analysis and I hope they will forgive my impatient exhortation for us all to move farther and faster away from the conventional definition of capitalism.
68
Vanova

2009-10
69 Capitalism K
Link- WTO The WTO is an excuse for corporations to enforce capitalism norms globally- Korten 2k
( David C. Korten is author of The Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism and When Corporations Rule the World. He is board chair of The Positive Futures Network, publishers of YES! A Journal of Positive Futures, [less than]www.futurenet.org and president of The People-Centered Development Forum. , Jan First, MBA and PhD degrees from the Stanford University Graduate School of Business, Five years on the faculty of the Harvard Business School. , http://www.articlearchives.com/company-activities-management/company-strategy/589278-1.html, VR) Yes to Trade Rules, Markets, and Fair Trade. No to Global Capitalism and the WTO Fair and balanced trade that serves the mutual interests of the trading partners is welcomed. How ever, the planetary society has a natural preference for local production to strengthen local control and economic security, increase the stability and resilience of economic relations among countries, and reduce transportation costs and energy use. Another point of difference between the planetary society and the global economy is that the former takes seriously the underlying principles of market and trade theory--including the principle that markets must be regulated to maintain the conditions of efficient market function. It thus uses regulatory and fiscal measures to maintain a reasonable balance in trade between countries (exports = imports for each trading partner), assure that full costs are internalized by producers and reflected in selling prices (no direct or hidden subsidies and no unfair competitive practices such as dumping), and keep finance and ownership
We often hear the advocates of free trade defend the WTO on the ground that is a source of the trade rules needed to prevent trade wars and protect the interests of poor nations. Note the contradiction. Since free trade by definition means unregulated trade, it is odd to hear self-professed free traders arguing for trade rules. In fact the WTO has no mandate to regulate international trade or the conduct of global corporations and financial markets. Its mandate is quite the opposite--to open markets by eliminating laws that restrict the free flow of trade. If one looks closely at what the WTO is actually doing and the new proposals under consideration, we see a telling pattern. For example, it has told Japan that its tax on bourbon whiskey produced in the United States is too high. Presumably the WTO believes the world will be a better place if Japanese drink more bourbon. Canada is told
predominantly national (limit internationa l financial flows and foreign/absentee ownership). In short, it takes trade rules seriously. it cannot protect its culture by taxing US magazines. India is told it cannot provide its people with inexpensive generic drugs because it is unfair to foreign drug companies that profit hand-somely from branded products. The
United States is told it cannot choose not to import tuna fish caught with methods harmful to dolphins. Europeans are told they cannot give an import preference to bananas produced by small banana cooperatives located in the Caribbean. They are also told they cannot restrict the import of
beef treated with growth hormones or genetically modified food products that pose potential risks to human and environmental health until they provide conclusive proof that those products are harmful. The WTO even takes for itself the responsibility for determining whether Europeans, and others, will be allowed to label such
Proposals up for consideration at the next round of WTO trade negotiations would prevent governments from acting to favor local over foreign investors (including banking, media, and other service sectors), favor local firms in public procurement, preserve national food security by protecting local farmers from foreign competition, protect forest and water resources from exploitation by foreign corporations, or regulate speculative movements of international money. They would also open the way to privatizing public services such as public schools and health care. The WTO was created at the behest of international corporations and financiers to prevent and roll back the regulation of trade, corporations, or finance by governments. As to the claim that the WTO is saving us from trade wars and protecting the interests of smaller countries in the global economy, the banana case mentioned above is instructive. The United
products and thus let consumers decide for themselves. States decided that Europe's import preference for bananas produced by small farmers in the Caribbean was unfair to two giant US agribusiness corporations-Chiquita and Dole--that grow bananas in Central America, control half the world's banana trade, and make large political contributions to both the Democratic and Republican parties. The United States took the case to the WTO, which ruled in favor of the corporations and thus placed the livelihoods of some 200,000 small farmers at risk. The Europeans refused to yield and the US, acting on the WTO decision, launched a retaliatory trade war by levying massive tariffs on such things as European-made cashmere sweaters and Roquefort cheese. In one move the WTO ruled against a preference for the poor and sanctioned a retaliatory trade war, thus
We have desperate need of a system of rules for the global economy that reverses its destructive course and puts us on the path toward a planetary society in which life is master and money the servant. The Seattle protests called for a moratorium on negotiating any new trade agreements, review of the consequences of existing agreements, and repair of the damage already done. Post-Seattle we must craft a more comprehensive agenda aimed at creating a planetary society that works for all. A Reform Agenda Given that the WTO was created to move us away from, rather than toward, a planetary society, I believe it is best dismantled. Essential responsibility for economic regulation at the international level belongs in an open and democratic international body with the appropriate expertise and mandate to address complex issues from a holistic perspective on global priorities. The obvious choice is the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations, which is responsible
revealing that the professed WTO concern for trade rules, the prevention of trade wars, and the interests of the poor is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
69
Vanova

2009-10
70 Capitalism K
Link- WTO
under the General Assembly for carrying out the functions of the United Nations with regard to international economic, social, cultural, education, health, and related matters. I suggest we call for an invigorated ECOSOC to build a comprehensive agenda of global economic reform involving the negotiation and implementation of strong international agreements intended to: * Regulate transnational corporations and finance to sharply curb financial speculation, the money laundering activities of transnational banks, trade in arms and illegal drugs, corporate tax evasion using off-shore havens, the sale abroad of chemicals and drugs banned in a corporation's home country, and anti-competitive practices such as price-fixing cartels. * Establish a strong international anti-trust regime to reverse the trend toward the global concentration of corporate power, especially in such sensitive areas as banking, media, and agribusiness, and maintain competitiveness in international markets. * Require global corporations to adhere to the highest of international, local, or their home country standards regarding human rights, labor, environment, health, and safety everywhere they operate. * Monitor national trade balances and facilitate negotiations toward agreement on corrective action where consequential and persistent imbalances are found. * Organize sanctions in cases where a country engages in an economic assault on another by dumping products at prices substantially below the real costs of production, uses bullying tactics to force a country to open its markets to products it considers harmful or unnecessary, or intentionally disrupts the economy of another country by unilaterally imposing an economic embargo not sanctioned by the United Nations General Assembly. * Create mechanisms for dealing with such matters as the problem of invasive alien species like the Asian longhorn beetle, the threat to human food security created by the growing number of countries that are dependent on food imports, threats to human, economic, and environmental health posed by the reckless introduction of genetically modified organisms into food supplies and the environment, the use of child and slave labor in export production, and the abuse of intellectual property rights to overprice beneficial drugs and technologies and limit their availability to poor people and countries. These are but a few of the real problems of international trade and investment that WTO rules ignore and in many instances worsen. Needless to say, replacing
the WTO and its agenda with a more life-friendly rule-setting regime for international commerce will not be quickly achieved. It will take a massive effort of citizen education and mobilization. One immediate task, beyond stopping the WTO juggernaut, will be to stop further erosion of the
integrity and legitimacy of the United Nations by corporations and the International Chamber of Commerce intent on using the UN's funding crisis to establish their influence over its decision processes for the specific purpose of precluding any action along the lines proposed here. Those politicians who seem surprised that thoughtful citizens from around the world have mobilized to protest the WTO reveal how far out of touch they have become with real people and the human interest. Their disdain for those of us who protest and their ignorance of our views are typified by President Clinton. "You know," he said, "every NGO, just about, with an environ mental or a labor ax to grind is going to be outside the meeting room in Seattle, demonstrating against us, telling us what a terrible thing world trade is. Now I think they're dead wrong about that."
Politicians like Clinton, Al Gore, Senator Patty Murray, and others who count labor and environmentalists among their constituents, yet consider the protesters misguided and misinformed, should consider how they themselves look to the protesters--who are in fact extremely well informed about the political betrayal of the public trust represented by NAFTA, the WTO, and similar instruments of corporate rule championed by politicians we once trusted. We who protest are also voters. To the extent our very real concerns about the WTO continue to be ignored by both Democrats and Republicans, every one of us becomes a prospective Green Party voter.
70
Vanova

2009-10
71 Capitalism K
Link- AT: We Help the Proletariat Capitalism creates a belief that we help the proletariat through reforms like the plan, but surplus labor extraction turns case, plan only masks the struggle- Meszaros 95
(Istivan, professor emeritus at the University of Sussex, 1995, Beyond Capital, pg. 46-7, VR)
By ridding itself of the subjective and objective constraints of self-sufficiency capital becomes the most dynamic and the most effective extractor of surplus-labour in history. Moreover this removal of the subjective and objective constraints of self-sufficiency is brought about in an utterly reified form, with all the mystifications inherent in the notion of free contractual labour. For the latter seemingly absolves capital from the burden of enforced domination, in contrast to slavery and serfdom, since wage slavery is internalized by the working subjects and does not have to be imposed and constantly reimposed on them externally in the form of direct political domination, except in situations of major crises. Thus capital as a system of metabolic control becomes by far the most efficient and flexible machinery of surplus labour extraction, and not merely up to the present. Indeed, it can be cogently argued that capitals pumping power for extracting surplus-labour does not know boundaries (though it has structural limits which the personification of capital refuse, and must refuse, to acknowledge) and thus whatever is conceivable as the quantitative extension of suplus-labour-extracting power in general can be rightly considered to correspond to the very nature of capital, i.e. to be fully in tune with its inner determinations. In other words capital drives relentlessly through all the obstacles and boundaries which it is historically confronted with, adopting even the most surprising and bafflingapparently with its character discordant and operationally hybrid forms of control if conditions demand it. this is in fact how the capital system constantly redefines and extends its own relative limits, pursuing its course under the changing circumstances precisely in order to maintain the highest possible degree of surplus-labour extraction which constitutes its historic raison detre and actual mode of functioning. Besides, capitals historically successful mode of surplus-labour extractionbecause it works so long as it workscan also set itself up as the absolute measure of economic efficiency (which many people who considered themselves socialists would not dare to challenge, promising therefore more of what the adversary could deliver as the legitimatory ground of their own position; and though this kind of dependency on the objet of their negationas well as through their failure to subject to a searching critical enquiry the far from unproblematical relationship between scarcity and abundance they contributed to the grave distortion of the original meaning of socialism). Indeed, by setting itself up as the absolute measure for all attainable and admissible achievements capital can also successfully hide the truth that only a certain type of benefit can be derivedand even that always at the expense of the producersfrom capitals mode of efficient surpluslabour extraction. Only what the absolute limits of capitals innermost structural determinations are brought into play, only then can we speak of a crisis emanating from the faltering efficiency and frightening insufficiency of surplus-labour extraction itself, with far-reaching implications for the survival projects of the capital system as such. In this respect we can identify a trend in our own days which must be disconcerting even to the most enthusiastic defender of the capital system. For it involves the complete overturning of the terms in which they defined their claims to legitimacy in the recent past as representing the interest of all. The trend in question is the ongoing metamorphosis of advanced capitalism from its postwar stage epitomized by the welfare state (with its ideology of universal welfare benefits and the concomitant rejection of means-testing) to its new reality of targeting welfare: the present day jargon for means-testing, with its cynical pretences to economic efficiency and rationality, and embraced even by the former socialdemocractic adversary under the slogan of new realism. Naturally, no one in his or her right mind is supposed to raise doubts about the viability of the capital system itself even on this score. All the same, no matter how strong might be the strangle hold of ideological mystification, it cannot wipe out the
71
Vanova
72 2009-10 Capitalism K uncomfortable fact that the transformation of advanced capitalism from a condition in which it could boast about it welfare state, to one in which it has to target even in the richest countriessoup kitchens and other meager benefits for the deserving poor, is highly revealing about the faltering efficiency and by now chronic insufficiency of the once unquestionably successful mode of surplus-labour extraction at the present stage of development: a stage which threatens to deprive the capital system in general of its historic raison detre.
72
Vanova

2009-10
73 Capitalism K
Link- AT: Social Services Help the Movement (Walt)

1. Alternative solves better- welfare is only evidence that capitalism must be ended- we solve their internal 2. Biased- hes a professor of social services- of course he thinks theyre a good idea 3. <state bad>
73
Vanova

2009-10
74 Capitalism K
Impact- Laundry List Capitalism makes war and extinction inevitable- Brown 05
Charles May 13th 2005 (http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2005w15/msg00062.htm)
The capitalist class owns the factories, the banks, and transportation-the means of production and distribution. Workers sell their ability to work in order to acquire the necessities of life. Capitalists buy the workers' labor, but only pay them
back a portion of the wealth they create. Because the capitalists own the means of production, they are able to keep the surplus wealth created by workers above and beyond the cost of paying worker's wages and other costs of production. This surplus is called "profit" and consists of unpaid labor that the capitalists appropriate and use to achieve ever-greater profits. These
profits are turned into capital which capitalists use to further exploit the producers of all wealth-the working class. Capitalists are compelled by competition to seek to maximize profits. The capitalist class as a whole can do that only by extracting a greater surplus from the unpaid labor of workers by increasing exploitation. Under capitalism, economic development happens only if it is profitable to the individual capitalists, not for any social need or good. The profit drive is inherent in capitalism, and underlies or exacerbates all major social ills of our times. With the rapid advance of technology and productivity, new forms of capitalist ownership have developed to maximize profit. The working people of our country confront serious, chronic problems because of capitalism. These chronic problems become part of the objective conditions that confront each new generation of working people. The threat of nuclear war, which can destroy all humanity, grows with the spread of nuclear weapons, space-based weaponry, and a military doctrine that justifies their use in preemptive wars and wars without end. Ever since the end
of World War II, the U.S. has been constantly involved in aggressive military actions big and small. These wars have cost millions of lives and casualties, huge material losses, as well as trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Threats
to the environment continue to spiral, threatening all life on our planet. Millions of workers are unemployed or insecure in their jobs, even during economic upswings and periods of "recovery" from recessions. Most workers experience long years of stagnant real wages, while health and education costs soar. Many
workers are forced to work second and third jobs to make ends meet. Most workers now average four different occupations during their lifetime, being involuntarily moved from job to job and career to career. Often, retirement-age workers are forced to continue working just to provide health care for themselves. With capitalist globalization, jobs move as capitalists export factories and even entire industries to other countries. Millions
of people continuously live below the poverty level; many suffer homelessness and hunger. Public and private programs to alleviate poverty and hunger do not reach everyone, and are inadequate even for those they do reach. Racism remains the most potent weapon to divide working people. Institutionalized racism provides billions in extra profits for the capitalists every year due to the unequal pay racially oppressed workers receive for work of comparable value.
All workers receive lower wages when racism succeeds in dividing and disorganizing them. In every aspect of economic and social life, African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian a nd Pacific Islanders, Arabs and Middle Eastern peoples, and other
nationally and racially oppressed people experience conditions inferior to that of whites. Racist violence and the poison of racist ideas victimize all people of color no matter which economic class they belong to. The attempts to suppress and undercount the vote of the African American and other racially oppressed people are part of racism in the electoral process. Racism permeates the police, judicial and prison systems, perpetuating unequal sentencing, racial profiling, discriminatory enforcement, and police brutality. The democratic, civil and human rights of all working people are continually under attack. These attacks range from increasingly difficult procedures for union recognition and attempts to prevent full
union participation in elections, to the absence of the right to strike for many public workers. They range from undercounting minority communities in the census to making it difficult for working people to run for office because of the domination of corporate campaign funding and the high cost of advertising. These
attacks also include growing censorship and domination of the media by the ultra-right; growing restrictions and surveillance of activist social movements and the Left; open denial of basic rights to immigrants; and, violations of the Geneva Conventions up to and including torture for prisoners. These abuses all serve to maintain the grip of the capitalists on government power. They use this power to ensure the economic and political dominance of their class. Women still face a considerable differential in wages for work of equal or comparable value. They also confront barriers to promotion, physical and sexual abuse, continuing unequal workload in home and family life, and male supremacist ideology perpetuating unequal and often unsafe conditions. The constant attacks on social welfare programs severely impact single women, single mothers, nationally and racially oppressed women, and all working class women. The reproductive rights of all women are continually under attack ideologically and politically. Violence against women in the home and in society at large remains a shameful fact of life in the U.S.
74
Vanova

2009-10
75 Capitalism K
Impact- Laundry List (Marko) Its try or die for the alternative- capitalism leads to extinction- Marko 03
(Anarchism and Human Survival: Russells 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 Staffs Schl ieffen 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 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 Rumsfel d, "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
75
Vanova

2009-10
76 Capitalism K
Impact- Laundry List (Marko)

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 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 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
76
Vanova
77 2009-10 Capitalism K 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 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
77
Vanova

2009-10
78 Capitalism K

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 globes 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
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":
not we have the "samson option". 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-
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
Reagan build-up of the late 1970s and early 1980s; a build-up which easily could have been disastrous. 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" 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 administrations Nuclear Posture
Review, nuclear capabilities also assure the US public that the United States will not be subject to coercion based on a fal se 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
78
Vanova

2009-10
79 Capitalism K

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 shortterm 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.
79
Vanova

2009-10
80 Capitalism K
80
Vanova

2009-10
81 Capitalism K
Impact- Root Cause Capitalism is the root cause of war, famine and ecological collapse- McGarr, 2000
(Paul, socialist historian, political activist, and author, Why Green is Red: Marxism and the Threat to the Environment, In ternational Socialism Journal, Autumn 2000, http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj88/mcgarr.htm) Unlike previous societies capitalism is not simply based on preserving the old ways of producing. It
is based on preserving the essential
class relationship of exploitation at the heart of production. But the competitive drive for profit at the heart of the system means there is
a built in pressure to constantly innovate and expand production. This explains why capitalism is the most dynamic and revolutionary form of society in human history up until now. It has produced the most immense strides forward in production, knowledge, communication and much more. For the first time in human history there is no reason, other than the class organisation of society, why all the world's people cannot enjoy the fruits of that progress, and live healthy and fulfilled lives. Marx and Engels wrote 150 years ago, 'The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce 100 years has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together...what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?'226 A century and a half later such progress has been amplified a thousandfold. And yet, the
very organisation of society produces alongside such immense progress almost unimaginable horror--economic and social crisis, famine, war and the threat of barbarism on a scale which no 'earlier
century' could have had 'even a presentiment of'. The 20th century saw giant leaps forward in human understanding and ability to create a decent world, but also two
world wars, the Holocaust and Hiroshima and, today, famine amid plenty and the threat of global climate disaster.
Marx and Engels captured the picture in a famous metaphor: 'Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world who he has called up by his spells'.227 They argued that the repeated crises capitalism produced as a result had a peculiar feature, one that will ring true for many in the world today: In these crises a great part not only of the existing products, but of the previously created productive forces are periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity--the epidemic of overproduction. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of
Such crises are built into the logic of a system based on the relentless competitive drive for profit. They are the particular form in capitalist society in which the relations of production, the exploitation of the labour of the majority by a ruling class competing among themselves to accumulate and to profit, become a block on the very production it has developed and is based on. Instead of using the development of knowledge to produce in such a way as to satisfy the needs of society and ensure its further development we get repeated crises, and the attendant horror of war, famine and the rest. Part of this horror is, as in previous societies, that this organisation of production also
momentary barbarism... And why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce.228 threatens the material basis of all production, the environment. Yet, as Engels pointed out, this environmental threat happens in ways particular to capitalism too.
81
Vanova

2009-10
82 Capitalism K
Impact- Democracy Capitalism makes real democracy impossible- Crawford 4

(Gordon The European Union and Democracy Promotion in Africa: The Case of Ghana) February 04 , http://www.leeds.ac.uk/polis/research/pdf/wp10crawford.pdf) The third explanation again questions the motives and intent of EU democracy promotion, but points to the perceived interrelationship between economic and political liberalization. This argument suggests that multilateral
and bilateral development agencies, as the arms of Western governments extending into developing countries, are less interested in democracy and good governance in Africa as an end in itself, but more as a means to ongoing economic liberalization and the continued dominance of neoliberalism (Abrahamsen 2001, Barya 1993). It is claimed that Western governments are promoting a limited form of democracy that is not only compatible with economic liberalization, but constitutes the political dimension of the neo-liberal development model. The continued hegemony of neo-liberalism in its hold over development
policy is generally acknowledged, including within such initiatives as NEPAD (Owusu 2003). Over the past two decades most attention has been placed on the
neoliberalism is both an economic and political theory. Ronaldo Munck (1994: 35, in Sklair), notes that, The neo-liberal conception of freedom virtually equates political democracy and the free market, while Adrian Leftwich (1994: 368) comments that neo-liberalism is not only an economic theory but a political one as well. The accuracy of such statements is confirmed by looking at the work of Milton Friedmann, the
economic aspects of neo-liberalism, notably structural adjustment programmes. But critics remind us that guru of contemporary neo-liberalism, who wrote in Capitalism and Freedom that: Historical evidence speaks with a single voice on the relation between political freedom and a free market. I know of no example in time or place of a society that has been marked by a large measure of political freedom, and that has not also used something comparable to a free market to organize the bulk of economic activity (Friedmann 1962: 9). Similarly, in declaring the end of history, Francis Fukuyama (1992: 125) stated that there is an unquestionable relationship between economic developmen t and liberal democracy, which one can observe simply by looking around the world. Thus the development model advocated by such (neo ) liberal theorists and, it is claimed, by Weste rn governments emphasizes democratic politics and a slim, efficient and accountable public bureaucracy [as] not simply desirable but necessary for a thriving free market economy, and vice versa (Leftwich 1994: 368-69). Thus,
this form of democracy is less interested in strengthening popular control over public decision-making and removing an elite monopoly (Beetham et al. 2002: 13), but is more oriented to challenging the power of the
state, with democratic politics perceived as a means to: a) limit state power and its sphere of decision-making, including its ability to intervene in the economy and regulate capital; and b) bring residual state power under formal democratic control, through elections for instance, as a safeguard against any tendencies towards the
The democratic state is conceived as having a very limited role, in which the economic sphere, comprising the market, private property and macroeconomic policy, is insulated from control by the demos (Pierson 1993: 179).23 It is a conception of liberal democracy where the tension and struggle between its liberal and democratic components, to limit or extend the spheres of democratic control (Beetham 1993: 56-8), has been emphatically won by the former.
arbitrary exercise of that power.
82
Vanova

2009-10
83 Capitalism K
Impact- Dehumanization Capitalism justifies the commercialization of the bodycreates worse forms of dehumanization- Sharp 2k
(Lesley A., Department of Anthropology, Barnard College, The Commodification of the Body and Its Parts, Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2000. 29:287328, http://www.barnard.edu/anthro/sharp_comm.pdf, VR)
Andrews & Nelkin (1998), in turn, expose a significant increase in the commercialization of the body, a process that drives often-heated debates on a global scale over the taking, use, and distribution of body tissue, and, further, of genetic testing and gene patenting. One frequently encounters references in lay and professional writings of the ever expanding markets for human tissue, where the body is reduced to a source of raw material for salable products (Andrews & Nelkin 1998). To borrow from Kimbrell (1993), we are witnessing the global expansion of a human body shop : The print media within the United States, for example, regularly publishes body atlases (Flye 1995) consisting of images of partitioned human bodies that expose an array of parts that can either be removed for use elsewhere or be replaced with parts of human or other origins. Andrews & Nelkin (1998) further note a recent proliferation and diversity of disputes
over body tissue, yet they underscore that myopic scientific constructions of the body are regularly privileged, and that th ese, in turn, rarely reveal cultural sensitivity. They
identify this disjunction as symptomatic of a much larger problema growing divide between scientific and social views of the body in the commercial context of the biotechnology age (Andrews & Nelkin 1998:53). Another related trend is the intensification of biotechnology as an industry (Olson 1986). Driven by a highly technocratic approach, clinical medicine frequently monopolizes access to the human body, so that competing understandings are devalued and silenced (Davis-Floyd & St. John 1998). Further, as Lock (1993b) asserts, the medicalized
body is regularly reified, isolated, decontextualized, and abstracted from real time, actual location, and social space (pp . 37071) (see also Andrews & Nelkin 1998:35, Illich 1976, Taussig 1980, Zola 1978). Within
this framework, the commercialized, fragmented body emerges as yet a more advanced form of dehumanization. Medico-clinical dehumanization assumes a host of forms, where even living bodies are quickly fragmented and transformed into scientific work objects. van Kammen (1999) illustrates, for example, that male and female bodies are regularly reduced to their perceived reproductive capacities and limitations in the context of fertility drug testing. In turn, Sered & Tabory (1999) uncover how patients in an Israeli breast cancer clinic are routinely dehumanized and, thus, experience a medicalized form of social death (see Patterson 1982), their names (and thus identities) transformed into mere numbers on a chart. In their attempts to preserve their sense of humanity, patients generate treatment rather than illness narratives
(Sered & Tabory 1999; cf Kleinman 1988). During cancer treatment, clinicians promote the idea that ones body is working against the self, and patients who regularly cope with pain, disability, and powerlessness rapidly fall into passive roles that involve the dismembering of the body. In response , these women
Yet another pervasive theme raised frequently in discussions of the new biotechnologies is the question of ownershipof entire bodies, their processes, their tangible (and, increasingly, microscopic) parts, and even of associated scientific knowledge. For example, bitter philosophical and legal battles are waged over surrogates rights; patients now claim ownership of their DNA, where even genetic information is considered part of or equal to the self; and organ transplantation is rife with proposals to commercialize both body parts and the donation process. A frequently asked question within much of the literature centers on whether the body may in fact be viewed as private property, a concern that is heavily skewed by Western and capitalist interests. In turn there is a pervasive emphasis on autonomy, one presented as a universal right
consider carefully and critically what, in fact, it means to be human (Sered & Tabory 1999:231). within much of the medical and legal literature (Andrews 1986, 1992; Campbell 1992; Caplan 1992; Chadwick 1989; Childress 1992; Gold 1996; Kass 1985; Murray 1987; Russell 1981). Here, the majority of writers draw (often implicitly) upon the writings of either Locke or Kant (for example, see Ketchum 1992, Oliver 1992, Petchesky 1995).
83
Vanova

2009-10
84 Capitalism K
Impact- Disease Capitalism creates diseases- Kovel 02

(Joel, Professor of Social Studies at Bard, The Enemy of Nature, pg 14-16)
Was Hurricane Mitch an 'act of God', in this time when global warming, finally accepted as the product of human activity, goads storms to new levels of fury? And to what extent were its horrific effects the result of deforestation and the displacement of poor people to unstable hillsides and other places in harm's way? Can an earthquake's destruction be divorced from the fact that 40 of the 50 fastest-growing cities are chaotically built over fault-lines? Were El Nino and La Nina themselves affected by global warming, hence to some degree socially caused? Then there are the effects related to governmental policy and corruption, themselves the outcome of global economic and political circuits. In Indonesia, for example, the burning was 'out of control', in good measure because Suharto, then the dictator of that country and darling of the international business community, had turned over great swatches of forests to his cronies. Finally, is there not something deficient about the response of the authorities? When the Red Cross official calls for the spending of money to stave off disaster, is he being prudent or bureaucratically stupid? Isn't something much more substantial than throwing money at the problems called for? Is not government, as the saying used to go, part of the problem? The issue is not society and nature, as two independent bodies bouncing off each other. It is the evolution, accelerating with amazing velocity, of an ancient lesion in humanity's relation to nature. We have become witnesses to the inflammation of this long-smoldering pathology - witnesses, victims, and, if we awaken in time, healers. In themeantime, all sorts of unpleasant surprises result from the ceaseless and unpredictable interaction of destabilized ensembles of nature - let us call them ecosystems. Thus the greenhouse effect resulting from accumulation of heat-retaining gases is implicated not only in these storms but also in a renewed proliferation of deadly infectious disease - both the recurrence of long-time killers such as malaria and tuberculosis and the appearance of new and exotic forms such as the Ebola, Hanta and West Nile viruses.2 Only a generation after medical science .was confidently predicting the end of infectious disease, we enter an epoch of pandemics of the scale of the plague ridden fourteenth century. There are many reasons for this, and among them is global warming, which, by destabilizing climate, leads to increasingly chaotic weather and habitat alteration. This releases the pathogens as well as their vectors from feedback loops of control. The story only begins here: beyond the effects of climate, other processes of habitat deterioration supervene, notably destruction of forests because of logging, the desperate cutting of firewood by destitute peoples, or the shift from a subsistence economy to one based on cattle or export crops. These interact with climate driven changes in fundamentally incalculable ways, which include the fact that deforestation itself affects climate. Equally important are the direct effects on the hosts of these pathogens, which in the aggregate greatly lower resistance to infection.
84
Vanova

2009-10
85 Capitalism K
Impact- Environment Capitalism destroys the environment greenhouse gas, acid rain, forests, desertification, and loss of biodiversity- Trainer, 96
(Ted, University of New South Wales, Towards a Sustainable Economy, Jon Carpenter Oxford Publishing, pages 42-43) Our way of life is ecologically unsustainable Our
resource-affluent way of life also causes many serious environmental problems. We are destroying vital ecological systems. Consider, for example, the greenhouse problem, acid rain, the destruction of forests, the spread of deserts and the loss of plant and animal species. At the present rate, more than a million species will disappear in the next 25 years, because the expansion of human economic activity is destroying habitats. We farm in ways that lose 5 tonnes of topsoil for each person on earth every year (that is 15 times the amount of food we eat), we are destroying the protective ozone layer in the atmosphere, and we are polluting the ground waters and seas. One of the most unsustainable aspects of our society is the way we continually take large quantities of nutrients from the soil, eat them and then throw them away. We are depleting our soils at a rapid rate. In Chapter 12 it will be argued that we can only have a sustainable
agriculture if we change to highly localised economic systems in which most of our food is produced close to where we live and all food wastes can be recycled.
Most of these ecological problems are direct consequences of the sheer amount of producing and consuming going on. There is, for example, no way of solving the greenhouse problem without drastically reducing the amount of fuel being burnt, and therefore the volume of production taking place. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change has concluded that in order to keep the carbon content ofthe atmosphere from increasing, let alone reduce it (as we should be doing) we will have to cut carbon input to the atmosphere by 60-80 per cent. If by 2060 we achieve a 60 per cent reduction and share the energy among 11 billion people then world average fossil fuel use would be about one-eighteenth the present Australian average. How
can we do anything like this unless we drastically reduce energy use and therefore fossil fuel use? One of the most disturbing recent observations is the fact that in the last decade a number ofcrucial biological and ecological indices seem to be approaching or to have passed their peaks. This is true of world cropland area, irrigated area, fertiliser use, and meat, timber, wool and grain production. Some key yields such as rice and wheat seem to be tapering towards upper limits. World fish catch has clearly fallen from levels that will not be attained again. Yet we are only providing well for one billion people, and we might soon have 11 billion on the planet. Now add to this analysis the implications of continued economic growth. Fig 6.la represents the present volume of world economic output, distributed
across its 5.4 billion people. Figure 6.lb represents output assuming that all the people living in the Third World in 2060 have risen to the living standards the rich countries have now, and incomes in rich countries rise by 3 per cent p.a. until then. World output would be about 19 times as great as it is now. Anyone assuming that all the world's people can be as rich as the rich world's people would be by 2060, given only 3 per cent annual growth until then, must believe that the world's resources and ecosystems can sustain 88 times present annual volumes ofoutput. And 3 per cent growth rate is not sufficient to make our economy healthy! In the 1980s Australia averaged 3.2 per cent annual growth and just about all its economic and social problems became worse. Unemployment at least doubled and the foreign debt multiplied by 10. Prime Minister Keating has emphasised that we need 4.5 per cent growth to start bringing unemployment down. Let
us assume we were to average 4 per cent annual growth until 2060, and that by then all the world's people had risen to the 'living standards' we would have then. Total world economic output would be 220 times what it is today. There is no chance whatsoever of reaching even a 19-fold increase in present output. Yet conventional economists proceed as if we can rise to and beyond these levels; they never acknowledge any need to worry about there being any limits to the growth of production and consumption. The environmental problem is basically due to overproduction and overconsumption, yet we have an economy in which there must be constant and limitless increase in production and consumption. Again, the problem is due to our economy and cannot be solved until we develop a quite different economy.
85
Vanova

2009-10
86 Capitalism K
Impact- Environment Capitalism will inevitably lead to extinction- Sweezy, 04

(Paul M. Sweezy, Marxist economist and founder of Monthly Review magazine. Capitalism and the Environment. October 2004. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_5_56/ai_n6338575) It is obvious that humankind
has arrived at a crucial turning point in its long history. Nuclear war could terminate the whole human enterprise. But even if this catastrophic ending can be avoided, it is by no means certain that the essential conditions for the survival and development of civilized society as we know it today will continue to exist. We live in and from a material environment consisting of land, water, and air which, historically, has always been considered to be and treated as infinitely durable and usable. This does not mean indestructible. History records many instances of the destruction (i.e., rendering unusable for human purposes) of parts of the environment by either natural processes or human agency. As far as the natural processes are concerned,
they have been operating since long before there was human life and will presumably continue to operate long after, and there is no reason to assume any unusual
When it comes to destruction by human agency, however, things are different. Smallscale destruction of parts of the environment have occurred throughout history, and on occasion the scale has grown to quite impressive proportions (e.g., through desertification). But even the largest of these destructive processes have
change in the foreseeable future. remained small compared to the size of the environment as a whole. Tribes or even more complex societies have been wiped out or forced to move to new locations, but these were always local, not global, disasters. And throughout the ages--in fact, right up to the time of people now alive--it was always taken for granted that this
that the means possessed by human beings were too puny to be a threat to the sheer magnitude and recuperative powers inherent in the environment. All
would continue to be the case. The reason was a belief, perhaps rarely thought through or articulated, this began to change with the explosion of the first A-bomb in August 1944. At first the new bomb was perceived as essentially an improvement on already existing weapons, but an interrelated chain of events gradually led to a radical alteration of people's consciousness. The Soviets got the bomb much sooner than had been expected, thus shattering the notion that the new force could somehow be monopolized and controlled. Then came the H-bomb with its vastly greater destructive potential; and this in turn was followed by the escalating arms race between the superpowers which, despite much talk and a few largely symbolic treaties, continues to this day.
It is now commonplace that each superpower has the capability to wipe out its rival several times over, and ongoing research into the consequences of all-out nuclear war has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the catastrophe could not be confined to the belligerents but would inexorably spread, in such ghastly forms as radioactive poisoning and nuclear winter, to the entire globe. Thus in the incredibly short time of less than half
a century, humankind has gone from blissful confidence in the security of its habitat to the certainty that its own survival, as well as the capacity of its natural environment to sustain life as we have known it, could be cut short in an instantaneous paroxysm of nuclear violence. The full implications of this unprecedented
it is already evident that sensitivity to threats to the human habitat has spread rapidly from its origins in the overwhelming destructive power of nuclear weapons to encompass a variety of ecological processes and trends, most of which have been known and even studied for a century or more, but which have been increasingly seen in a new light since the beginning of the nuclear age. Once you know for certain that human agency can render the planet unfit for human habitation, you can hardly help asking whether nuclear
change in human consciousness will obviously not become clear for a long time to come. But weapons are the only possible source of such a catastrophe. Viewed from this angle, much that used to be regarded as merely the unavoidable negative side of progress is now seen to be part of a looming threat to the continuation of life on earth. It is hard to imagine a more fundamental change in perception and truly astonishing to reflect on how rapidly it has come about.
Within the framework of this perception, there are of course different
positions. At one extreme are those who believe the danger is much exaggerated--perhaps a reflection of the pessimistic spirit of the time, itself largely a product
of the nuclear scare. Let the nuclear arms race be brought under control, which now seems increasingly possible, and environmental deterioration will be seen in its true dimensions, not as a prelude to doomsday but as a series of problems that have been created by human agency and can be dealt with in the same way. At the other extreme are those who argue that things have really gotten much worse in the last half century and that we are now close enough to the point of no return to warrant the most gloomy forebodings. The way the arguments pro and con are presented, these two positions often appear to be polar opposites. But this is an illusion: They actually have a common basis in the belief that if present trends continue to operate, it is only a matter of time until the human species irredeemably
Against this background it seems clear that everyone who shares the belief in the fatal implications of current trends has a moral obligation on the one hand to try to understand the processes that underlie these trends, and on the other to draw appropriate conclusions about what has to be done to reverse them before it is too late.
fouls its own nest.
86
Vanova

2009-10
87 Capitalism K
Impact- AT: Cap Good- Environment (Smith)

1. Free market isnt the current system- even if the free market has a risk of solving, US capitalism is both government and market based- means the free market cant solve anything under the aff- a utopian free market system isnt what happens after the plan 2. The card concludes that economic decisions hurt the environment- but doing anything about it is too hardthis is what we criticize. 3. Capitalism mandates ecological catastrophebecause profit motive is the underlying means for the system encourages us to not concern ourselves with externalities- there are a limited amounts of resources, and the rate of consumption capitalism encourages means we will run out those resources <trainer>
87
Vanova

2009-10
88 Capitalism K
Impact- Inequality Bourgeois domination is necessarily a part of the capitalist system- Chen 05
(Weigang, assistant professor of religious studies @ UVermont, Peripheral Justice: The Marxist Tradition of Public Hegemony and Its Implications in the Ag e of Globalization, Project Muse, VR) The preceding analysis of the relationship between bourgeois democracy and civic ethnicity allows us to propose a radical reinterpretation of the source and nature of the core/periphery distinction at the global level. Modern world history is the history of Westernization, i.e., the global expansion of liberal modernity to non-Western societies. Given
the fact that bourgeois domination is defined by cultural differentiation, the expansion of the West has had a number of foreseeable consequences in the non-Western world. The most significant consequence of Westernization has been the total de-ethicalization of society that eliminates the very resources essential to the rise of the social in non-Western societies. As was discussed above, Western liberal democracy arose out of the separation of the ethical from political society and the subsequent reappropriation of the ethical by private sectors. Ironically, what Westernization has ruled out in the non-Western world is precisely this necessary condition for the
rise of the social. Westernization first and foremost indicates the imposition of overall liberal values in all aspects of social life in non-Western societies, especially in the domains of culture and education. This
process systematically transposes the intellectual and political leaders of these societies into the organic intellectuals, or professional intellectuals, of dominant economic groups, thereby totally eliminating the ethical substance of society as a whole. As a result, any process of the reappropriation of the ethical by private sectors is simply out of the question. Instead, what has actually emerged is a process of passive revolution, within which private sectors take over the state structure and uproot the very locus of structural constraints essential to the reproduction of material production. In this setting, one could only expect a typical scenario of peripheral capitalism, i.e., a rapid descent into social decay and economic stagnation. Here
lies the source of the striking analogies between ethnic disparities within Western core countries and the core/periphery distinction abroad. It is not difficult to discern how the mechanism of symbolic isolation through assimilation, which holds the key to civic ethnicity, has been used by European powers to systematically create the core/periphery disparities at the global level. As in the case of minority groups, the more a non-Western nation incorporates itself into the global culture of liberal democracy, then the more it is symbolically isolated from the very culture of the Western bourgeoisie that is actually the dominant culture of the capitalist world order, the more it is marginalized within the world order, and the more it is condemned for its non-Western traits. In
this sense, uneven development can be properly characterized as a global expansion of racial disparities within the capitalist core. This brings us to the second important parallel between civic ethnicity and uneven global development. Just as deliberalization or ethnic subculture constitutes a prerequisite for minority advancement within Western core countries, so anti-Westernization or cultural nationalism acts as an indispensable precondition for the upward mobility of a peripheral nation within the capitalist world system controlled and dominated by Western powers. Such a parallel is significant because it brings into focus the decisive role of the politics of civilizations in the reproduction of the liberal world order. It is here, as Gramsci stresses, that we may recognize the philosophical importance of the Leninist concept and practice of hegemony. 109 The significance of the Leninist legacy lies in its potentiality to transform what the Western bourgeoisie has accomplished out of historical contingencies into a conscious, structural strategy for constructing a stateless ethical state for all laboring masses. Central to this solution to the problematic of peripheral justice is the construction of a publicethical sphere, or the public ethical state, that will serve as a school of state life, in which each nonruler is ensured free training in the skills necessary for governing: character (resistance to the pressures of surpassed cultures), honor (fearless will in maintaining the new type of culture and life), dignity (awareness of operating for a higher end), etc.110 If democracy, by definition, means that every citizen can govern and that society places him, even if only abstractly, in a general condition to achieve this, then a public-ethical sphere is not only necessary but also indispensable.111 In other words, political and social equality presupposes and relies on a system of public hegemony that is open to and publicly accessible for each member of society.
88
Vanova

2009-10
89 Capitalism K
Impact- Genocide Capitalism enables genocide- Internationalist Perspective, 2000

(Capitalism and Genocide, Issue #36, Spring 2000, http://www.geocities.com/wageslavex/capandgen.html)
The real domination of capital is characterized by the penetration of the law of value into every segment of social existence. As Georg Lukcs 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
Lukcs 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 Lukcs could clearly see even in
which it takes place) into commodities, but also, and especially, through what 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 Lukcs 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
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
Mensch]. For Adler, when human beings are administered, they are treated as things, thereby clearing the way for their removal or elimination by genocide. 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 deathworld. 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.
89
Vanova

2009-10
90 Capitalism K
Impact- Panopticon Consumerist capitalism increases the states control to create networks of surveillancePassavant 05
When we are mobilized as consumers, we are inserted into vast networks of surveillance, from cookies placed on our browsers, to supermarket discount cards, to credit and medical histories. Moreover, due to the Post Office's introduction of zip codes and the advances in computer technologies, consumers have been demographically stratified, and all of this information has been stored for reference and can be cross-referenced.57 And while it is easy to view these surveillance technologies as a sinister plot -- and they are -- this would absolve us from the pleasures we experience thanks to these technologies. These technologies are consumer capitalism in contemporary society.58 For good consumers, they make renting a car easier, writing a check easier, or paying our credit card bills easier since if your computer accepts cookies, you can pay your credit card debts online. By tracking who purchases what -- by UPC code, and sometimes also by name -- businesses are able to respond to demand and to satisfy consumer
interests more efficiently. Indeed, part of creating spaces for consumers is to create an aesthetic environment that makes consuming subjects feel safe, and this is the function of private security and obviously placed surveillance cameras: to make us feel secure. That is, the
security camera -- and surveillance
generally -- is constitutive of consumerism's aesthetic environment.59

can be mined for any number of purposes in addition to customer discounts.
But the technology that allows the Harvard Book Store to track customer purchases and to give due discounts to even its customers who forget their customer cards is the same technology that creates masses of data that
The technologies that give us pleasure if we are good consumers are the same technologies that the state seeks to utilize to discover potential terrorists and to preempt future terrorist action. Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to utilize FISA warrants to require the production of "any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."60 The Act changes the former FISA requirement that the government specify "specific and articulable facts" that give reason to believe that the person being searched is actually a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.61 This means, first, that the person whose records are being searched need not be suspected of any criminal wrongdoing. Second, the FBI may collect anyone's records under this provision, including U.S. citizens, while legislation passed subsequently has broadened the targets of such investigations beyond foreign powers or agents of foreign powers to so-called "lone wolf" terrorists.62 The USA PATRIOT Act does forbid searches of a "United States person .
. . solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution." Section 802 of the Act, however, creates the new crime of "domestic terrorism," which is defined as activities "dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state," and which "appear to be intended . . . to influence the policy of a government."63 Therefore, the language of section 215 forbidding a search of a U.S. citizen solely on First Amendment
Powers that had been considered an "abuse" when Hoover was discovered to have exercised them have now been made completely legal under the USA PATRIOT Act. Moreover, because the warrants to compel the production of any tangible thing are FISA warrants, and because section 215 literally forbids any person to disclose to any other person that the FBI has sought or obtained anything, the person whose records have been searched at the Harvard Book Store or any other business (or library) that keeps customer records will never know that they have been the object of surveillance by the government.65 As this example shows, the surveillance technologies that facilitate and deepen consumerism have vastly expanded the powers of the state by allowing it to criminalize political action.66
grounds means that a nexus to some other suspected illegal activity must be drawn by the FBI -- a nexus that the crime of "domestic terrorism" creates.64
90
Vanova

2009-10
91 Capitalism K
Impact- Poverty Capitalism is structurally incapable of addressing povertythe argument that free markets help the poor is a self-serving myth- Meszaros 95
(Istvan, professor emeritus at the University of Sussex, Beyond Capital, pg. xiii)
The attempt at divorcing effects from their causes goes hand in hand with the equally fallacious practice of claiming the status of a rule for the exception. This is how it can be pretended that the misery and chronic underdevelopment that necessarily arise from the neo-colonial domination and exploitation of the overwhelming majority of humankind by a mere handful of capitalistically developed countrieshardly more than the G7do not matter at all. For, as the self-serving legend goes, thanks to the (never realized) modernization of the rest of the world, the population of every country will one fine day enjoy the great benefits of the free enterprise system. The fact that the rapacious exploitation of the human and material resources of our planet for the benefit of a few capitalist countries happens to be a non-generalizable condition is wantonly disregarded. Instead, the universal
viability of emulating the development of the advanced capitalist countries is predicated, ignorin g that neither the advantages of the imperialist past, or the immense profits derived on a continuing basis from keeping the Third World in a structural dependency can be universally diffused, so as to produce the anticipated happy
even if the history of imperialism could be re-written if a sense diametrically opposed to the way it actually unfolded, coupled with the fictitious reversal of the existing power relations of domination and dependency in favour of the underdeveloped countries, the general adoption of the rapacious utilization of our plants limited resourcesenormously damaging already, although at present practiced only be the privileged tiny minoritywould make the whole system instantly collapse.
results through modernization and free-marketization. Not to mention the fact that
Poverty and inequality are inherent contradictions of the capitalist state- Watchel 72
(Howard, Assistant professor at American university, Washington, D.C., Capitalism and Poverty in America: Paradox or Contradiction?, The American Economic Review, Vol. 62, No. 1/2 (Mar. 1, 1972), pp. 187-194, VR) The evidence presented in this paper supports the proposition that poverty
and inequality are a contradiction of capitalism -a logical consequence of the proper functioning of the capitalist institutions of class, labor markets, and the state. Beyond any marginal adjustments, these system-defining institutions of capitalism must be challenged to make any fundamental changes in the life of the low income populations in America. The orthodox analysis, by way of contrast,
views poverty as the result of some individual failure which can be corrected by an individutal adaptation. The roots of this view lie deep in the ideology of capitalism; virtually all research and social policy since the industrial revolution are based on this proposition. Its
modern variant is the application of human capital theory to poverty where low incomes are seen as resulting from an inadequacy in the individual's human capital which can be corrected simply by augmenting the stock of human capital through more formal education, manpower training, and the like. The research of the 1960's has told us nothing about the causes of poverty which are to be found in the basic system-defining institutions of capitalism: labor markets, class, and the state. The orthodox research has merely provided estimates of the differential importance of various individual characteristics associated with the poor. This research is quite consistent with the proposition that the poor are poor because of some individual failure, and it has received widespread acceptance and support precisely because it has been con- veniently supportive of existing economic arrangements and our prevailing ideology.
91
Vanova

2009-10
92 Capitalism K
Impact- AT: Cap Good- Poverty (Bast and Walberg)

1. Evidence says everyone Should be better off, not would be better off- if the poor get richer, theyre still poor-the war on poverty has been going on since the 60s but we have the same poverty levels 2. Contradictions of capitalism mandate surplus labor at the bottom- creates conditions for joblessness and poverty 3. <Meszaros>
92
Vanova

2009-10
93 Capitalism K
Impact- Privacy Rights (1/2) Capitalist structures constantly violate privacy rights and increase surveillance over the individual- Passavant 05
(Paul, Assistant professor of political science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, The Strong Neo -liberal State: Crime, Consumption, Governance, Muse, VR) Not only does consumer capitalism enable greater surveillance, but we
are coming to be governed as consumers. This occurs when we are denied credit or the interest rate on a loan is determined by our credit rating. But increasingly the state is utilizing our status as consumers in order to govern us by mining data from not only databases of public records but from commercial databases as well. Rather than governing based on a logic of equal citizenship, the state is incorporating marketing profiles and credit risk assessments into the way that it governs its subjects. The consequences of this shift mean that instead of a logic of equal protection, there is now a logic of differential risk as subjects are zoned based on market and demographic hierarchies. Press reports and privacy organizations have disclosed that out of a sense of fearful "patriotism," as well as "duty and . . . obligation," JetBlue, Northwest Airlines, and American Airlines, among others, have handed over passenger lists with the names of millions of travelers and other information -including credit information -- to the state in violation of their company privacy policies.67 In an exchange facilitated by
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), JetBlue gave this information to a military subcontractor, Torch Concepts, which was hired by the Army to study how to prevent terrorist attacks on military bases. Northwest Airlines gave this information to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for a study on airline security.68 These studies, however, were to be precedents for the proposed Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System (CAPPS II) program by the federal government. This enhanced airline security system, however, was killed after the outcry not only of civil liberties organizations, but of industry and
CAPPS II would have used similar data to the commissioned studies -- data gathered from both governmental and commercial databases - in order to assign a color-coded risk rating to every air traveler. Green would merit standard scrutiny, yellow would receive heightened scrutiny, and red would be forbidden to fly and presumably be vulnerable to detention. Even with the defeat of CAPPS II, however, there is still a "trusted" or "registered" traveler system presently under consideration. This program will allow passengers -- who will be predominantly frequent business travelers as well as economic elites -- who submit to a background check through various unspecified databases to receive identity cards utilizing biometric data that will allow them to be exempted from extra screening at airports.70
business groups as well for the inconvenience and costs that this would have added to business and tourist air travel.69 This system is presently being tested in pilot programs at five different airports and, depending on results and popular interest, it may grow into a replacement for the present CAPPS program (the intended purpose of CAPPS II). Another possible replacement for the present CAPPS program is the proposed Secure Flight program currently under development. Like CAPPS II, Secure Flight will also draw data from both governmental and commercial data bases. 71 While airlines have long created classes of customers based on an ability to pay, now the government is using commercial data typologizing consumers in order to class the security risk of a potential air traveler and to zone the different risk categories to differential systems of treatment. The Torch Concepts study is instructive in this regard. It created three different traveler profiles. The first is a class of "Young Middle Income Homeowners with Short Length-of-Residence." The second is a class of "Older Upper Income Home Owners with Longer Length-of-Residence." The third class is one of travelers with "anomalous records." These profiles were created by crossreferencing the JetBlue data with demographic data provided by Acxiom -- information on each passenger's gender, whether they owned or rented their residence, how long they have lived at that particular residence, economic status, number of children, Social Security number, occupation, and vehicle information. Thus, the third category -- travelers with anomalous records -- potentially includes those who are renters, students with home and school addresses, older persons who have recently moved, and persons with low incomes.72 Under this new logic, one's relation to the state, one's risk to the security of the state, and one's freedoms are Indeed, the political rationality of this mode of governance is quite explicit. Its logic, as stated in a General Accounting Office (GAO) report, is the concept that "not all travelers present the same threat to aviation security, and thus not everyone requires the same level of scrutiny." Therefore, by using "risk-based security models that have already been used in Europe and Israel, which focus security on identifying risky travelers," rather than utilizing a more general approach to security that would encompass all travelers, the Registered Traveler program would "more appropriately match resources to those risks," e.g. infrequent travelers or those about whom little is known.73 In other words, to achieve the purposes of encouraging travelers to fly more determined by one's status as a consumer. often and to benefit tourism-related businesses, a mode of state action that owes more to the logic of niche marketing than equal protection seems to be emerging.
Although CAPPS II has been canceled, it is just one example of a currently dominant governmentality of data mining -- a mentality and technology of power that not only cross-cuts state and non-state institutions, but significantly extends the reach of state power. Data
Subjects are now governed as consumers and through their consumption patterns.
93
Vanova

2009-10
94 Capitalism K
Impact- Privacy Rights (2/2)

mining is the use of database technologies and mathematical techniques to discover anomalies, patterns, and relationships from various databases in order to identify characteristics that deserve further scrutiny or to
predict future outcomes. According to a GAO survey published in May, 2004, there are presently 131 operational data mining efforts, and 68 more planned, by 52 different federal agencies. While some of these are for rooting out fraud or waste (such as the possible misuse of government credit cards), others are for intelligence purposes or for detecting criminal or terrorist activities, like the Pentagon's ill-fated Total Information Awareness (TIA) program or the Multi-state Anti-terrorism Information Exchange (MATRIX) which is presently under development. Of the 199 identified data mining efforts by the GAO, 122 use personal information, and
Data mining is huge business that has grown exponentially. By one estimate, it has passed the billion dollar mark while the use of commercial data brokers (CDBs) by federal law enforcement has increased by 9,600 percent since 1992.75 These developments in computers, electronic communication, data storage, and the shift in the recording and storage of various records that might once have been on paper and geographically dispersed (like court records) to a digital format with electronic accessibility may have appeared to be the technological conditions of possibility for neo-liberal global capitalization that made the state seem passe. Not only did these developments facilitate just-in-time production,
54 mine data from the private sector, including credit reports and credit card transactions. 74 the coordination of dispersed production sites, or the instantaneous transfer of funds from one account to another, but they also seemed to empower individuals as consumers. As consumers we are empowered by these technologies to become more knowledgeable about our health, buy books at Amazon.com, bargain hunt at eBay, or purchase articles online to actualize a necessarily closeted sexual lifestyle. These
"technologies of freedom" are, however, the very developments that enable even greater extensions of state power. In our empowered clicks of the mouse as consumers, we are divulging a great deal of information to "private" third parties. We divulge our names, addresses, credit card information, and names and addresses of friends and family members to whom we have given gifts through Amazon.com. Indeed, Amazon keeps a record of every purchase we have ever made through that website, so listed there is every book a given individual has ever purchased. Or, we might enter
information about our personal medical histories on a health website. In addition to our addresses and credit information, our purchases on a sexually-oriented website will also be recorded. In the case described briefly above, Northwest Airlines divulged information from its passenger name records (PNRs). PNRs electronically store passenger names, flight numbers, hotel and car reservations, the names of traveling companions, credit card information, and dietary preferences - a remarkably full profile.76 And while our posts to political websites or our email addresses might be given under a pseudonym, our ability to do any of this from the comfort of our homes is enabled through an Internet service provider (ISP) for whom billing requires the matching of name, physical address, and credit card information with email address. In other words, we (necessarily) divulge a great deal of information to third parties as consumers. Moreover, while
these sites may hold details about our lives that we would prefer not to share with the state, any one of these sites will give an incomplete picture of our biographies. With the rise of CDBs or private "data aggregators," however, a record from one place can be matched with a record from another database and then linked to the rest of the file residing at the second database, and so on to yet another database, thereby making the construction of remarkably full digital biographies of individuals a very real possibility -- from names, social security numbers, and past residential addresses, to credit histories, lifestyle information and friends or associates. Ironically, the state is strengthened by the incredible growth of private commercial databases. If the government wants to investigate us in our
homes on criminal grounds, we have some protection from the Fourth Amendment, although the AEDPA and the USA PATRIOT Act have enabled the government to circumvent those protections through the use of FISA warrants with much lower levels of judicial scrutiny as long as it can provide a counter-intelligence rationale for the search, as already discussed.77 If the government does not search us in our homes, but instead makes a request of one of these third parties, however, we no longer can claim a right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. Under the Fourth Amendment, we can only claim such a right where we have an expectation of privacy, and when we divulge information, however personal, to third parties, we lose the ability to claim Fourth Amendment privacy protections based on an
Many of these third parties have privacy policies, but most contain exceptions for the release of information to law enforcement when the company deems it appropriate. In this regard, the policy of the online auction website eBay is notorious: "We can (and you authorize us to) disclose any information about you to law enforcement or other government officials as we, in our sole discretion, believe necessary or appropriate, in connection with an investigation of fraud, intellectual property infringements, or other activity that is illegal or may expose us or you to legal liability." According to Fourth Amendment expert Daniel Solove, this policy gives eBay
expectation of privacy.78 "almost complete discretion" to provide the state with whatever information it wishes. 79 This "law enforcement-friendly policy" is designed to maximize efficiency in handing over personal data to law enforcement. As eBay's director of Law Enforcement and Compliance has stated: "There's no need for a court order." Law enforcement need only ask for information they wish to obtain. 80 In fact, as the Northwest Airlines litigation illustrates, even when a company explicitly violates its own privacy policy, it is difficult for consumers to win a remedy.
94
Vanova

2009-10
95 Capitalism K
Impact- Swine Flu (1/2) This wont be the last time- capitalism allows corporations to ignore probable impacts to fund their priorities- the impact is equal to a world war-Davis 4-27
(Mike, winner of McArthur fellowship award, PhD UCLA, historian and political activist, wrote The Monster at our door, http://socialistworker.org/2009/04/27/capitalism-and-the-flu, VR) THE SPRING Break hordes returned from Cancn this year with an invisible but sinister souvenir. The Mexican swine flu, a genetic chimera probably conceived in the fecal mire of an industrial pigsty, suddenly threatens to give the whole world a fever. Initial outbreaks across North America reveal an infection rate already traveling at higher velocity than the last official pandemic strain, the 1968 Hong Kong flu. Stealing the limelight from our officially appointed assassin--the otherwise vigorously mutating H5N1, known as bird flu--this porcine virus is a threat of unknown magnitude. Certainly, it seems far less lethal than SARS in 2003, but as an influenza, it may be more durable than SARS and less inclined to return to its secret cave .
Given that domesticated seasonal Type-A influenzas kill as many 1 million people each year, even a modest increment of virulence, especially if coupled with high incidence, could produce carnage equivalent to a major war. Meanwhile, one of its first victims has been the consoling faith, long preached in the pews of the World Health Organization (WHO), that pandemics can be contained by the rapid responses of medical bureaucracies, independent of the quality of local public health. Since the initial H5N1 deaths in Hong Kong in 1997, the WHO, with the support of most national health services, has promoted a
strategy focused on the identification and isolation of a pandemic strain within its local radius of outbreak, followed by a thorough dousing of the population with anti-viral drugs and (if available) a vaccine. An
army of skeptics has rightly contested this viral counter-insurgency approach, pointing out that microbes can now fly around the world (quite literally in the case of avian flu) faster than the WHO or local officials can react to the original outbreak. They also pointed to the primitive, often nonexistent surveillance of the interface between human and animal diseases. But the mythology of bold, preemptive (and cheap) intervention against avian flu has been invaluable to the cause of rich countries, like the U.S. and Britain, which prefer to invest in their own biological Maginot Lines, rather than dramatically increase aid to epidemic frontlines overseas--as well as to Big Pharma, which has battled Third World demands for the generic, public manufacture of critical antivirals like Roche's Tamiflu. The swine flu,
in any case, may prove that the WHO/Centers for Disease Control (CDC) version of pandemic preparedness--without massive new investment in surveillance, scientific and regulatory infrastructure, basic public health and global access to lifeline drugs--belongs to the same class of Ponzified risk management as AIG
It isn't so much that the pandemic warning system has failed as it simply doesn't exist, even in North America and the EU. Perhaps it is not surprising that Mexico lacks both capacity and political will to monitor livestock diseases and their public health impacts, but the situation is hardly better north of the border, where surveillance is a failed patchwork of state jurisdictions, and corporate livestock producers treat health regulations with the same contempt with which they deal with workers and animals. Similarly, a decade of urgent warnings by scientists in the field has failed to ensure the transfer of sophisticated viral assay technology to the countries in the direct path of likely pandemics. Mexico has world-famous disease experts, but it had to send swabs
derivatives and Madoff securities. to a laboratory in Winnipeg (which has less than 3 percent of the population of Mexico City) in order to identify the strain's genome. Almost a week was lost as a consequence. But no one
was less alert than the legendary disease controllers in Atlanta. According to the Washington Post, the CDC did not learn about the outbreak until six days after the Mexican government had begun to impose emergency measures. Indeed, the Post reported, "U.S. public health officials are still largely in the dark about what's happening in Mexico two weeks after the outbreak was recognized." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THERE SHOULD be no excuses. This is not a "black swan" flapping its wings. Indeed, the central paradox of this swine flu panic is that while totally unexpected, it was accurately predicted. Six
years ago, Science dedicated a major story (reported by the admirable Bernice Wuethrich) to evidence that "after years of stability, the North American swine flu virus has jumped onto an evolutionary fast track." Since its identification at the beginning of the Depression, H1N1 swine flu had only drifted slightly from its original genome.
Then, in 1998, all hell broke loose. A highly pathogenic strain began to decimate sows on a factory hog farm in North Carolina, and new, more virulent versions began to appear almost yearly, including a weird variant of H1N1 that contained the internal genes of H3N2 (the other type-A flu circulating among humans).
Researchers whom Wuethrich interviewed worried that one of these hybrids might become a human flu (both the 1957 and 1968 pandemics are believed to have originated from the mixing of bird and human viruses inside pigs), and urged the creation of an official surveillance system for swine flu. That admonition, of course, went unheeded in a Washington prepared to throw away billions on bioterrorism fantasies while neglecting obvious dangers. But what caused this acceleration of swine flu evolution? Probably the same thing that has favored the reproduction of avian flu. Virologists have long believed that the intensive agricultural system of southern China--an immensely productive ecology of rice, fish, pigs, and domestic and
95
Vanova

2009-10
96 Capitalism K
Impact- Swine Flu (2/2)

wild birds--is the principal engine of influenza mutation: both seasonal "drift" and episodic genomic "shift." (More rarely, there may occur a direct leap from birds to pigs and/or humans, as with H5N1 in 1997.) But the corporate industrialization of livestock production has broken China's natural monopoly on influenza evolution. As many writers have pointed out, animal husbandry in recent decades has been transformed into something that more closely resembles the petrochemical industry than the happy family farm depicted in schoolbooks. In 1965, for instance, there were 53 million American hogs on more than 1 million farms; today, 65 million hogs are concentrated in 65,000 facilities, with half of the hogs kept in giant facilities with 5,000 animals or more. This has been a transition, in essence, from oldfashioned pig pens to vast excremental hells, unprecedented in nature, containing tens, even hundreds of thousands of animals with weakened immune systems, suffocating in heat and manure, while exchanging pathogens at blinding velocity with their fellow inmates and pathetic progenies. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ANYONE WHO has ever driven through Tar Heel, N.C., or Milford, Utah--where Smithfield Foods subsidiaries each annually produce more than 1 million pigs as well as
Last year, a distinguished commission convened by the Pew Research Center issued a landmark report on "industrial farm animal production" underscoring the acute danger that "the continual cycling of viruses...in large herds or flocks [will] increase opportunities for the generation of novel virus through mutation or recombinant events that could result in more efficient human-to-human transmission." The commission also warned that promiscuous antibiotic use in
hundreds of lagoons full of toxic shit--will intuitively understand how profoundly agribusiness has meddled with the laws of nature. hog factories (a cheaper alternative to sewer systems or humane environments) was causing the rise of resistant Staph infections, while sewage spills were producing nightmare E. coli outbreaks and Pfisteria blooms (the doomsday protozoan that has killed more than 1 billion fish in the Carolina estuaries and sickened dozens of fishermen). Any
amelioration of this new pathogen ecology, however, would have to confront the monstrous power exercised by livestock conglomerates such as Smithfield Foods (pork and beef) and Tyson (chickens). The Pew commissioners, chaired by former Kansas Gov. John Carlin, reported systemic obstruction of their investigation by corporations, including blatant threats to withhold funding from cooperative researchers. Moreover, this is a highly globalized industry, with equivalent international political clout. Just as Bangkok-based chicken giant Charoen Pokphand was able to suppress investigations into its role in the spread of bird flu throughout Southeast Asia, so it is likely that the forensic epidemiology of the swine flu outbreak will pound its head against the corporate stone wall of the pork industry. This is not to say that a smoking gun will never be found: there is already gossip in the Mexican press about an influenza epicenter around a huge Smithfield subsidiary in the state of Veracruz. But what matters more (especially given the continued threat of H5N1) is the larger configuration: the WHO's failed pandemic strategy, the further decline of world public health, the stranglehold of Big Pharma over lifeline medicines, and the planetary catastrophe of industrialized and ecologically unhinged livestock production.
96
Vanova

2009-10
97 Capitalism K
Impact- Terrorism Capitalism breeds the extreme poverty and inequality that is the root cause of terrorismSlater, 06
(Philip, A.B. and Ph. D. from Harvard and taught sociology at Harvard, Brandeis, and UCSC, The Root Causes of Terrorism and Why No One Wants to End Them, October 25th, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-slater/the-root-causes-of-terror_b_32466.html)
The people who do most to foment terrorism are not the fundamentalist imams and ayatollahs, who only exploit the hopelessness around them. The people who do the most are those who create that hopelessness in the first place--the oil monarchies, for example. For of all capitalist enterprises, the extractive industries are probably the most deserving of the abuse heaped on them over the years. The possessors of the earth's treasures believe,
apparently, that the luck, wealth, or political corruption that allowed them to own land containing such riches is a sign of divine favor, while the poverty of those around them indicates celestial disgust. Terrorists
are people who have lost hope--hope for the possibility of peacefully creating a better world. They may be middle-class and educated, as many terrorist leaders are, but their despair is one of empathy for the plight of their people as a whole. The root causes of terrorism are pathological inequalities in wealth--not just in Saudi Arabia but all over the Third World. Even in our own country Republican policies have in recent decades created inequalities so extreme that while a few have literally more money than they can possibly use, the vast majority are struggling to get by. A society that impoverishes most of its population in order to enrich a few neurotically greedy individuals is a sick society. As Jared Diamond has shown, societies in which a few plunder the environment at the expense of the many are headed for collapse. Fundamentalist religions and radical ideologies are the common refuge of people without hope. Christianity has played this role for centuries. The rich encourage the poor to
accept the misery of this world as a passport to heaven, despite the fact that according to Jesus they don't have a prayer of getting in themselves. This isn't really
Islamic fundamentalism is the latest drug being offered the poor and desperate. It has the added appeal that you can not only get into heaven but also take vengeance at the same time. Terrorism will never end until caps are placed on inequality.
surprising. The rich wouldn't be caught dead in a place where they let poor people in.
97
Vanova

2009-10
98 Capitalism K
Impact- Terrorism Globalization causes terrorism - Callinicos 3

(Professor of European Studies 2003, Alex, An Anti-Capitalist Manifesto) The great difficulty for the theorists of global governance is that the world distribution of political
and military power both is highly unequal and closely corresponds to the also grossly unequal distribution of economic power. Indeed, neo-liberal ideologues are increasingly willing openly to acknowledge the necessity of a unilateral assertion of Western power vis-a-vis the rest of the world, in other words, of imperialism. One of the clearest statements of this view has come from
Robert Cooper, a Foreign Office official close to Tony Blair: All the conditions for imperialism are there, but both the supply and demand for imperialism have dried up. And yet the weak still need the strong and the strong still need an orderly world. A world in which the efficient and well governed export stability and liberty, and which is open to investment and growth all of this seems eminently desirable. What is needed then is a new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values. We can already discern its outline: an imperialism which brings order and organization, but which rests today on the voluntary principle." Imperial
rulers and their apologists have always claimed to give their subjects 'order and organization'.
`Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant' They create a wilderness and call it peace: the great Roman historian Tacitus put this riposte by the victims of empire into the mouth of the first-century Caledonian leader Calgacus.69 An astonishing contemporary philippic against the American empire was recently launched by Chalmers Johnson, a leading American scholar of modern Asia in his book Blowback. Johnson hitherto a figure firmly in the academic and political mainstream develops a withering critique of American foreign policy. He dismisses 'globalization'
as 'an esoteric term for what in the nineteenth century was simply called imperialism', and places the East Asian crisis firmly at Washington's door: 'The economic crisis at the end of the century had its origins in an American project to open up and make over the economies of its satellites and dependencies in East Asia. Its purpose was to diminish them as competitors and to assert the primacy of the United States as the global hegemonic power.'' Developing a comprehensive analysis of `blowback' 'the unintended consequences of policies that were kept secret from the American people', Johnson comes close to predicting 11 September: Terrorism by definition strikes at the innocent in order to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable. The innocent of the twenty-first century are going to harvest unexpected blowback disasters from the imperialist escapades of recent decades. Although most Americans may be largely ignorant of what was, and still is, being done in their name, all are likely to pay a steep price individually and collectively for their nation's continued efforts to dominate the global scene.
98
Vanova

2009-10
99 Capitalism K
Impact- Warming Capitalism is the root cause of warming- the system proposes only half-way solutions that preserve the capitalist system but guarantee ecological destruction down the lineFoster 07
(John Bellamy, Professor of Sociology at University of Oregon, A New War on the Planet?, 8/06/07, http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/foster080607.html)
During the last year the global warming debate has reached a turning point.
defeat.
Due to the media hype surrounding Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth, followed by a new assessment by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the climate skeptics have suffered a major
Suddenly the media and the public are awakening to what the scientific consensus has been saying for two decades on human-induced climate change and the dangers it poses to the future of life on earth. Proposed solutions to global warming are popping up everywhere, from the current biofuels panacea to geoengineering solutions such as pumping sulfur particles into the stratosphere to shade the earth from the sun to claims that a market in carbon dioxide
emissions is the invisible hand that will save the world. "Let's quit the debate about whether greenhouse gases are caused by mankind or by natural causes," President
It is characteristic of the magic-bullet solutions that now pervade the media that they promise to defend our current way of life while remaining virtually cost free. Despite the fact that economists have long insisted that there is no such thing as a free lunch, we are now being told on every side -- even by Gore -- that where global warming is concerned there is a free lunch after all. We can have our cars, our industrial waste, our endlessly expanding commodity economy, and climate stability too. Even the IPCC, in its policy proposals, tells us that climate change can be stopped on the cheap -- if only the magic of technology and markets is applied. The goal is clearly to save the planet -- but only if capitalism can be fully preserved at the same time. Hence, the most prominent proposals are shaped by the fact that they are designed to fit within the capitalist box. There can be no disruption of existing class or power relations. All proposed solutions must be compatible with the treadmill of production. Even progressive thinkers such as George Monbiot in
Bush said in a hastily organized retreat. "Let's just focus on technologies that deal with the issue." his new book Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning have gotten into the act. Monbiot pointedly tells us that the rich countries can solve the global warming problem without becoming "Third World" states or shaking up "middle-class" life -- or indeed interfering with the distribution of riches at all. Politics is carefully excluded from his analysis, which instead focuses on such things as more buses, better insulated homes, virtual work, virtual shopping and improved cement.
Corporations, we are led to believe, are part of the solution, not part of the problem. Less progressive, more technocratic thinkers look for substitutes for hydrocarbons, such as biofuels or even nuclear power, or they talk of floating white plastic islands in the oceans (a geoengineering solution to replace the lost reflectivity due to melting ice). The dominant answers to global warming thus amount to what might be thought of as a new declaration of war on nature. If nature has "struck back" at capitalism's degradation of the environment in the form of climate change, the answer is to unleash a more powerful array of technological and market innovations so that the system can continue to expand as before. As Hannah Arendt, one of the leading political philosophers of the 20th century, explained: "Under modern [capitalist] conditions not destruction but conservation spells ruin." Hence, capitalism, faced by natural obstacles, sees no alternative to a new assault on nature, employing new, high-tech armaments. The ecological irrationality of this response is evident in the tendency to dissociate global warming from the global environmental crisis as a whole, which includes such problems as species extinction, destruction of the oceans, tropical deforestation, desertification, toxic wastes, etc. It is then possible, from this narrow perspective, to promote biofuels as a partial solution to global warming -- without acknowledging that this will accelerate
world hunger. Or it is thought pragmatic to dump iron filings in the ocean (the so-called Geritol solution to global warming) in order to grow phytoplankton and increase the carbon absorbing capacity of the ocean -- without connecting this at all to the current oceanic catastrophe. The fact that the biosphere is one
What all of this suggests is that a real solution to the planetary environmental crisis cannot be accomplished simply through new technologies or through turning nature into a market. It is necessary to go to the root of the problem by addressing the social relations of production. We must recognize that today's ecological problems are related to a system of global inequality that demands ecological destruction as a necessary condition of its existence. New social and democratic solutions need to be developed, rooted in human community and sustainability, embodying principles of conservation that are essential to life. But this means stepping outside the capitalist box and making peace with the planet -- and with other human beings.
interconnected whole is downplayed in favor of mere economic expediency.
99
Vanova

2009-10
100 Capitalism K
Impact- ZPH Capitalism operates as an economy of value- leads to the zero point of the holocaustDillon 99 (Michael, April, Prof. University of Lancaster, Political Theory Vol. 27, No. 2, JSTOR)
Otherness is born(e) within the self as an integral part of itself and in such a way that it always remains an inherent stranger to itself." It derives from the lack, absence, or ineradicable incompleteness which comes from having no security of tenure within or over that of which the self is a particular hermeneutical manifestation; namely, being itself. The point about the human, betrayed by this absence, is precisely that it is not sovereignly self-possessed and complete, enjoying undisputed tenure in and of itself. Modes of justice therefore reliant upon such a subject lack the very foundations in the self that they most violently insist upon seeing inscribed there. This does not, however, mean that the dissolution of the subject also entails the dissolution of Justice. Quite the reverse. The subject was never a firm foundation for justice, much less a hospitable vehicle for the reception of the call of another Justice. It was never in possession of that self-possession which was supposed to secure the certainty of itself, of a self-possession that would enable it ultimately to adjudicate everything. The very indexicality required of sovereign subjectivity gave rise rather to a commensurability much more amenable to the expendability required of the political and material economies of mass societies than it did to the singular, invaluable, and uncanny uniqueness of the self. The
value of the subject became the standard unit of currency for the political arithmetic of States and the political economies of capitalism. They trade in it still to devastating global effect. The technologisation of the political has become manifest and global. Economies of evaluation necessarily require calculability. Thus no valuation without mensuration and no mensuration without indexation. Once rendered calculable, however, units of account are necessarily submissible not only to valuation but also, of course, to devaluation. Devaluation, logically, can extend to the point of counting as nothing. Hence, no mensuration without demensuration either. There is nothing abstract about this: the declension of economies of value leads to the zero point of holocaust. However liberating and emancipating systems of value-rights-may claim to be, for example, they run the risk of counting out the invaluable. Counted out, the invaluable may then lose its purchase on life. Herewith, then, the necessity of championing the invaluable itself. For we must never forget that,
"we are dealing always with whatever exceeds measure. But how does that necessity present itself? Another Justice answers: as the surplus of the duty to answer to the claim of Justice over rights. That duty, as with the advent of another Justice, is integral to the lack constitutive of the human way of being.
100
Vanova

2009-10
101 Capitalism K
Impact- AT: Cap Good- Coercion (Meltzer)

1. American government is equally coercive- the only system that avoids this is direct democracy 2. Plan is coercive- mandates state control over __________________________. Proves capitalism is inherently worse 3. <cap no free>
101
Vanova

2009-10
102 Capitalism K
Impact - AT: Cap Good- Freedom

1. Even if pure free markets allow freedom, thats not the capitalist economy- government inclusion into market reforms and the nexis of the state and capital prevent this freedom 2. Wealth for all would kill the planet- the ecological footprint of humans at a US level would require three planets 3. Profit requires slavery to capital- more freedom for entrepreneurs means wage exploitation for third world countries
102
Vanova

2009-10
103 Capitalism K
Impact- AT: Cap Good- Innovation Innovation happens for primarily non economic reasons- Hugill 3
(Peter, Technology, its Innovation and Diffusion as the Motor of Capitalism, Ph.D. in geography from Syracuse University in 1977, and has taught at Texas A&M University since 1978, Muse, VR)
best solution to why innovation occurs in some places and not others lies in the tangled undergrowth of location theory, a rather obscure sub-science, existing at the borderline of human geography and economics (Hall, 1998, p. 293). Innovations almost certainly cluster because of the effect of human agency. Likeminded folk cluster and like-minded people in a critical mass make a milieu innovative. Such folk may take advantage of the economic system within a given state, but they choose to cluster in specific places within the state for almost totally non-economic reasons. As Hall notes, neoclassical economics is too static to be of much help in understanding the
emergence of innovative milieus and Marxist economics, driven by Marxs Law, seeks only to explain decline. After working his way through the tangled undergrowth of location theory, Halls tentative conclusion . . . is that the innovative milieu has been an all -pervasive principle throughout the history of capitalist development (Hall, 1998, p. 306). However, Hall
As Hall notes, the
notes, the evidence as to whether successful innovations can be made to stimulate a chain of continuing innovation over decades and even centuries is not encouraging (Hall, 1998, p. 499).
Innovations not only cluster in time, as first suggested by Kondratiev, but also in space. Of the six city-regions identified by Hall as unusually innovative milieus during the last 200 yearsManchester, Glasgow, Berlin, Detroit, Silicon Valley, and Keihin (Tokyo-Kanagawa) only the last two have survived beyond their first innovation wave into another.
103
Vanova

2009-10
104 Capitalism K
Impact- AT: Terrorism Studies (Krueger, Laitin, Piazza) Their studies do isnt assume domestic terrorism and the correlation of poverty and inequality was arbitrarily calculated- Abadie 6
(Alberto, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Poverty, Political Freedom, and the Roots of Terrorism, The American Economic Review, Vol. 96, No. 2, Jstor, VR)
After the 9/11 attacks, much of the political and media debate on terrorism has focused on prevention policies. The widespread view that poverty creates terrorism has dominated much of this debate (see Joseph Kahn and Tim Weiner, 2002). This is hardly surprising. After all, the notion that poverty generates terrorism is consistent with the results of most of the literature on the economics of conflicts. In particular, the results in Alberto Alesina et al. (1996) suggest that poor economic conditions increase the probability of political coups. Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffer (2004) show that economic variables are powerful predictors of civil wars, while political variables have low explanatory power. Edward Miguel et al. (2004) show that, for a sample of African countries, negative exogenous shocks in economic growth increase the likelihood of civil conflict. Because terrorism is a manifestation of political conflict, these results seem to indicate that poverty and adverse economic conditions may play an important role explaining terrorism. Recent empirical studies, however, have challenged the view that poverty creates terrorism. Using U.S. State Department data on transnational terrorist attacks, Alan B. Krueger and David D. Laitin (2003) and James A. Piazza (2004) find no evidence suggesting poverty may generate terrorism. The results in Krueger and Laitin (2003) suggest that among countries with similar levels of civil liberties, poor countries do not generate more terrorism than rich countries. Conversely, among countries with similar levels of civil liberties, richer countries seem to be preferred targets for transnational terrorist attacks.1 While the results in Krueger and Laitin (2003) and Piazza (2004) are extremely sugges- tive, these studies may suffer, in principle, from some potential shortcomings. First, the U.S. State Department data cover only events of international terrorism-those that involve citizens or property of more than one country. International terrorism, however, represents only a small fraction of terrorist activity. For example, for the year 2003, the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base (2004) reports 1,536 events of domestic terrorism, but only 240 events of international terrorism. The difference between reported domestic and international terrorist events is large, in spite of the probable fact that international terrorist incidents tend to have more visibility. While it is clearly interesting to elucidate the impact of potential policy interventions on the level of international terrorism, the effects of such policies on the overall amount of terrorism, both domestic and of foreign origin, is of obvious importance. The determinants of international terrorism, however, are not necessarily informative about the determinants of domestic terrorism. Much of modern-day transnational terrorism seems to generate from grievances against rich countries. In some cases terrorist groups may decide to attack property or nationals of rich countries in order to gain international publicity. As a result, transnational terrorism may predominantly affect rich countries. The same is not necessarily true for domestic terrorism.2 Also, the adequacy of U.S. State Department data to measure terrorism has come under attack. Krueger and Laitin (2004) have questioned the quality of this dataset due to the ambiguity of the definitions used for the variables in the dataset, and the lack of transparency in the process through which this dataset is assembled. Finally, because terrorism may affect economic prosperity (see, e.g., Abadie and Javier Gardeazabal, 2003, for a case study of terrorism effects on economic outcomes; Bruno S. Frey, 2004, provides a survey of this literature), the observed correlation between terrorism and national income cannot be interpreted as a measure of the magnitude of the effect of economic variables on terrorism. Because terrorism adversely affects economic prosperity, ordinary regression estimates of the effect of economic development on terrorism include a negative bias.
104
Vanova

2009-10
105 Capitalism K
Impact- AT: Transition Wars

Transition wars are unlikely and the chance of reaching sustainable society outweighs any risk- Trainer 2
- Lecturer, School of Social Work, University of New South Wales (Ted, Debating the Significance of the Global Eco -village Movement: A Reply to Takis Fotopoulos Democracy & Nature, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2002) However I
am not convinced the transition must inevitably involve overt conflict, let alone violence. It probably will, but it is conceivable that as conditions deteriorate and as the existence of a more sensible way becomes more evident, and as access to it increases as a result of Eco-village building, there will be a more or less peaceful shift to The Simpler Way. Again I do not think this is very likely, but it is possibility to be worked for. Nothing is foregone in heading down that path, on the understanding that in time it might become clear that overt confrontation might have to be accepted. The longer we can grow while avoiding confrontation the less likely that we will be crushed if it does occur. However the issue is of no practical importance at this point in time. Whatever conclusion one comes to on it our best strategy here and now is to plunge into establishing and spreading the new ways. It will be a long time before it will be evident whether or not we must contest those who have power now, or whether they will lose their power in a collapse of the present resource-expensive infrastructures and of legitimacy.
105
Vanova

2009-10
106 Capitalism K
Impact- AT: Transition Wars (Pritchard and Taylor)

1. We dont advocate the violent conflicts their evidence assumes- no one is going to nuke us because we reject a ________________ policy. 2. Doesnt assume deterrence- countries arent going to attack their own people if they move against capitalism, that would destroy the potential for their workforce 3. No outline of what countries would attack each other- yes, if radical Marxists begun attacking the government there would be retaliation but our alternative is a withdrawal, not a revolution against capital.
106
Vanova

2009-10
107 Capitalism K
Impact- AT: Utilitarianism Utilitarianism means you vote negative its structurally impossible to achieve greatest happiness for the greatest number under capitalism- Meszaros 95
(Beyond Capital, www.marxists.org/archive /meszaros/works/beyond-capital /ch03-2.htm A great deal has been written about the so-called naturalistic fallacy concerning pleasure and the desirable in utilitarian discourse. However, the
real fallacy of utilitarian philosophy fully embraced in one form or another by the representatives of marginal utility theory is to talk about the greatest happiness of the greatest number in capitalist society. For the suggestion that anything even remotely approaching the greatest happiness of the greatest number of human beings can be achieved under the rule of capital, without even examining let alone radically changing the established power relations, constitutes a monumental vacuous assumption, whatever the subjective intentions of the major utilitarian philosophers behind it. Marginal utility theory, instead of acting in this respect as a corrective to Bentham and Mill, makes everything worse by asserting not only that it is possible to maximise every individuals utility within the established framework of production and distribution, but also that the desired maximisation is actually being accomplished in the normal processes of self-equilibrating capitalist economy.
107
Vanova

2009-10
108 Capitalism K
Turns Case- Biopower Commodification gives the market hegemony over the body, creating the forms of government control their evidence describes- Sharp 2k
(Lesley A., Department of Anthropology, Barnard College, The Commodification of the Body and Its Parts, Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2000. 29:287328, http://www.barnard.edu/anthro/sharp_comm.pdf, VR) First, historically, the
body frequently emerges as a site of production, where living persons may be valued solely for their labor power. The associated traffic in human beings has many antecedents, characterized by a wide range of rights and obligations. Myriad forms of slavery emerge as obvious examples of one party owning or purchasing temporary or permanent rights to another (Kopytoff 1982, 1986; Meillassoux 1975, 1991; Miers & Kopytoff 1977; Patterson 1982; Watson 1980). As Patterson (1982) has argued, dehumanizationas a form of objectificationis intrinsic to enslavement, often characterized by a profound sense of social death. Slavery is also the point of departure for other exploitative labor practices: Domestic service and child labor, for example, are frequently described as legalized forms of enslavement. In these and other contexts, the labor process may, in turn, fragment the body. Thus, in English, workers have long been referred to as hands [Dickens 1994 (1854)]. The social worth of these and other categories of persons depends heavily on their economic value, so they may also fall prey to forms of body trafficking. Within the United States, slaves have been marketed as breeding stock, and athletes and their teams are frequently bought and sold by elite clients. More subtle forms of body trafficking drive a transnational trade in adoptable children (Anagnost 1995, Comaroff & Comaroff 1999:282). Further, a related theme that emerges in conjunction with discussions of enslavement is that of colonization. Colonial power, labor policies, and medical practices have frequently worked together to discipline colonized bodies (Butchart 1998, Comaroff & Comaroff 1992, Packard 1989). Even the local desires of colonial subjects have been targets of commodification, so that the body is transformed through the consumption or use of foreign goods that shape localized constructions of the self (Burke 1996). As Kleinman&Kleinman (1997) reveal, suffering itself may be commodified: Media images may quickly reduce the weak and disenfranchised to little more than objects of pity and exploitation. The theme of objectification is clearly central to all these examples. Thus, we must pause to consider its relevance to commodification. Commodification insists upon objectification in some form, transforming persons and their bodies from a human category into objects of economic desire. Thus, the presence of objectification in a host of forms is significant because it flags the possibility that commodification has occurred: The medicalization of life, the fragmentation of the body, and the subjectification of colonized subjects all potentially dehumanize individuals and categories of persons in the name of profit. It is for this reason that slavery and colonization so frequently emerge as metaphors for a host of commercialized and exploitative practices. Consider, for example, cosmetic
surgery: Within feminist critiques, women who opt for elective forms of body transformation may be described as ensla ving themselves to the surgeons knife, a process that ultimately transforms them into subjects of medical colonization, anchoring their social worth in a fragmented, malleable, and highly idealized model of the human body (Basalmo 1992, Morgan 1991, Turner 1987:88). Clearly anthropologists must be alert to the use of such metaphors because these offer clues to objectification as an intrinsic characteristic of the commodification process.
108
Vanova

2009-10
109 Capitalism K
Turns Case- Democracy Promotion Democracy promotion breeds fascism and failed states because of differences in capital Chen 05 (Weigang, assistant professor of religious studies @ UVermont, Peripheral Justice: The Marxist Tradition of Public Hegemony and Its Implications
in the Age of Globalization, Project Muse, VR) However, what these classical
paradigms did not anticipate and certainly cannot explain is what Tom Nairn termed the most brutally and hopelessly material side of modern world historythe persistent uneven development between Western core countries and the peripheral world.5 Since the nineteenth century, social analysts have been haunted by this puzzling fact: that the imposition of basic ideas and institutions of liberal modernity (individualism, constitutionalism, human rights, free markets, the rule of law), which presumably has contributed to the vitality and prosperity of the advanced capitalist centers in the West, has produced in the peripheral world exactly the opposite effects, a direct descent into social decay and economic stagnation.6 Following Samir Amin, I shall refer to this brutally and hopelessly violent crisis either as the paradox of peripheral capitalism or as peripheral liberal deformation.7 Nowhere has this paradox asserted itself in a more glaring manner than in the post-communist world today. Contrary to the neoliberal views of the end of history, the eager turn of former communist and developing nations to free-market economy and liberal democracy has not ushered in an unequivocal flowering of capitalism. Instead, the attempt has only been repaid with bitter disappointments: regional and ethnic conflicts, rampant corruption, glaring inequality between the rich and poor, and flagrant lawlessness.8 The rapid social disintegration of Russia since the early 1990s provides a compelling case in point. Western social scientists and third-world intellectuals have sought to understand the origins and effects of peripheral deformation. Two factors currently stand as eminently responsible: nation-states and the bourgeois class. The institutional framework provided by a modern nation-state, sine qua non for modern economic transformation, has exclusive power over territory and the means of internal and external violence.9 Thus the nation-state is defined as the political body representing national sovereignty. This constitutes a sharp contrast to traditional forms of statesempires and kingdomsin which social control rests on a division of labor and a coordination of effort between a semi bureaucratic state and a landed upper class, which retains considerable local and regional authority over the peasant majority of the population.10 The European, post-Reformation, modern nation-state was historically a product of aspirant middle classes, who typically play a decisive role in
creating a popular national identity11 or Benedict Andersons new form of imagined communities.12 The resulting bourgeois voluntaristic nationalism defines the nation as a rational association of free and equal individuals in a given territory. It is
precisely this voluntaristic, bourgeoisie-centered model of state building, which, when imposed on, applied to, or introduced into non-Western countries, has become a standard recipe for social and political disaster. Instead of a national consciousness or an imagined community, the whole society has fragmented into regional, linguistic, and religious assertions, or tribal or ethnic loyalties, leading subsequently to amoral familism, clientelism, lawlessness, ineffective government, and economic stagnation.13 The typicality of peripheral liberal deformation, to say nothing of its ubiquity, is central to understanding the modern world system. Nearly a
century ago, it was precisely the convergence of a weak native bourgeoisie and the social disintegration in Russia that forced Lenin,Trotsky, and other Russian revolutionaries to give up
that peripheral nation building could not work except by carrying out a nonbourgeois democratic revolution on the basis of a popular national identity organized by a revolutionary vanguard party.14 A similar crisis of bourgeois liberalism in China and in many other peripheral
Marxist orthodoxy regarding the revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie and propose the idea of hegemony. Their point was
countries pushed these nations to follow the Russian route. The result is what Anderson called official nationalism, which is characterized by a mixture of modern nationalism and the dynastic intention of old empires, forged and led by intellectuals and political elites.15 I shall term this type of nationalismwhich swept across Asia, Africa, and Latin America in the mid twentieth centuryperipheral cultural nationalism or hegemonic nationalism to highlight its illiberal, nonbourgeois character. Virtually all successful
third-world industrialization projects have taken place in countries that have grounded state building on hegemonic nationalism and adopted a deliberately illiberal or de-Western strategy of development. The so-called East Asia miracle, notably the gigantic economic growth of China, is the best illustration.16 Unlike other former socialist
regimes, China still remains a single-party state. But its economic power, which constitutes such a sharp contrast to the ineffective struggles taking place in Russia and other former socialist and developing countries, forces us to reach a near-paradoxical conclusion: given the persistence of peripheral liberal deformation, deliberalization or de-Westernization is almost a logical prerequisite for the upward mobility of a peripheral nation within the capitalist world system that is controlled and dominated by theWestern core countries. Only
against this background can we understand why there is currently a widespread resentment of so-called human-rights imperialism across the peripheral world, why peripheral nations insist
on the primacy of national sovereignty over democratization, and why it is in the realm of culture that emerging market nations in Asia and Latin America now feel most threatened and in which they are most insistently demanding independence and freedom from Western domination.
109
Vanova

2009-10
110 Capitalism K
Turns Case- Education (1/2) Capital necessitates the lower classes to gain worse education while blaming the faults on the system on their lack of ability to learn- turns case-Watchel 72
(Howard, Assistant professor at American university, Washington, D.C., Capitalism and Poverty in America: Paradox or Contradiction?, The American Economic Review, Vol. 62, No. 1/2 (Mar. 1, 1972), pp. 187-194, VR) A second view of the source of stratification in the labor market is that associated with the dual labor market theory developed during the 1960's. The essential source of stratification in this model emanates from the interaction between the characteristics of jobs and individual personality traits. The
labor market is seen as dichotomized into a primary and a secondary sector in which the primary sector offers high wages, good working conditions, employment stability, and job security; the secondary sector offers the reverse (M. J. Piore,
1968, p. 2, and 1970, pp. 55-60). D. Gordon, in an extremely important contribution, has placed the dual labor market theory into the context of the general radical paradigm. In his view, the degree
of labor market stratification is closely related historically to the relative power of capital and labor. Employers will always attempt to stratify labor markets for purposes of control and to satisfy what he calls a "hierarchy fetishism" (pp. 112- 37). The jobs in the secondary sector will be filled largely with black and brown (and one might add red) workers, teenagers, and women for three reasons: first, ease with which employers can identify these groups; second, the resignation of these groups to their jobs in the secondary sector; and third, the advantages this provides employers in dividing workers along racist, sexist, and age lines-prejudices deeply engrained in American society. Consequently, while Piore places his emphasis on the "culture of
poverty" embodied in a set of individual personality traits as the major determinant of access to the primary sector, Gordon shows that these traits are carefully nurtured by capitalist institutions in order to maximize capital's power over labor. At this point, his argument intersects with the earlier argument concerning the role
A third view of stratification in the labor market places primary emphasis on the structure of the industry and local labor markets in which the individual is employed (H. Wachtel and C. Betsey, B. Bluestone, 1970, and B. Harrison, 1972b). The dominant forces that determine an individual's status in the labor force lie outside of his or her control and are embodied in a set of industry and local labor market characteristics in which the individual is employed-capital-labor ratios, political power of the industry and locality, degree of market concentration, power of the trade union, profit rates, the industry's association with the state, industrial base of the local labor market, rate of growth of the local labor market, etc. Bluestone sees the economy divided into three sectors which he dubs the tripartite economy (1970, pp. 24-6). The core economy is dominated by those industries "which comprise the muscle of American economic and political power," primarily found in durable manufacturing, construction, and some extractive industries; the peripheral economy is primarily agricultural, non- durable manufacturing, retail trade, and subprofessional services; and the irregular economy represents "monetized activity which is not included in the national income accounts," concentrated primarily in the ghetto.3 At the risk of drawing overly sharp distinctions, we can discern three fairly discrete views on the question of labor market stratification, with the differences among these positions defined in terms of the aspect of the labor market which provides the primary source of stratification. The three positions can be summarized in terms of the aspect singled out for primary attention: formal education and the family (Bowles, 1971, Gintis, 1971); job characteristics interacting with personality traits (Piore, Gordon); and industrial and local labor market structures (Wachtel-Betsey, Bluestone, 1970, and Harrison, 1972b). At this juncture, a synthesizing of these separately developed positions is in order. The class status and labor market status of the family heavily influence the individual's acquisition of some quantity of formal education, the quality of formal education, the social network in which the individual will operate, expectations about future class and labor market status, and the affective personality traits acquired (which are themselves produced by the interaction of schools, the family, and the social network). In this connection, the analysis would have to be differentiated along race and sex lines. The characteristics of jobs available are, in part, determined by the structure of the industry and the local labor market in which the jobs are located. Given a set of personal characteristics (education, affective traits, etc.), the individual's wage earnings are heavily influenced by the structure of the
of education and the family in producing the affective traits which prepare workers for their place in the labor market.
110
Vanova

2009-10
111 Capitalism K
Turns Case- Education (2/2)

industry and the structure of the local labor market. In sum, the aspect isolated for analysis reflects different phases in one overall process, encompassing an individual's entire life. The acquisition of affective traits through the family and schools (as a function of the parent's class and social status) begins to set the limits on the range of labor force opportunities which become increasingly narrowed as one enters an occupation (dual labor market theory) and an industry in a particular local labor market (tripartite labor market theory). Two parallel systems of stratification interact-one involving individuals and occupations, the other industrial structure. One observation is immediately apparent: there are very few elements of labor market status that lie within the individual's control, even though virtually all public policy and social research take as their premise that low income can be corrected by manipulating some personal attribute of the individual.4
111
Vanova

2009-10
112 Capitalism K
Turns Case- Disabilities

Persons with disabilities will inevitably lose the competition game created by capital- turns case- Roberts 3
(Pamela, School of Policy Studies Roosevelt University, Disability Oppression in the Contemporary U. S. Capitalist Workplace, Science & Society, Vol. 67, No. 2, Summer 2003, 136159, VR)
employees with disabilities often are hired and retained less for their value as producers than for their value as symbols. As producers, they typically are undervalued; as symbols, they provide employers with the appearance of responsiveness to disability advocates, adherence to stated policies, or compliance with laws. Contemporary work organizations, as Acker (1990) famously underscored, commonly operate with a notion of an ideal employee. Sometimes explicitly but more often implicitly, this ideal is a white, able-bodied male, against which non-whites, women, and people with disabilities are invidiously compared. Individuals who do not fit the ideal get hired, but disproportionately in lower-level jobs and often as tokens. The concentration of employees with disabilities at the bottom of the occupational structure is consistently revealed by employment data, and tokenism seems to account in many cases for their hiring and retention. Capital not only often undervalues the labor of employees with disabilities, but commonly treats such employees as an unreasonable drain on revenues. This can be seen most clearly in the area of accommodations. Capital, which of course admits no universal right to employment, admits no necessity to design and organize production processes to accommodate all possible employees, including employees with disabilities. In this context, accommodations, even the reasonable accommodations required under the ADA, are easily viewed not as necessary measures for realizing the potential of the labor force but as unnecessary costs. As a colleague and I have reported elsewhere (Harlan and Robert, 1998), employers use a variety of subterfuges to prevent employees with disabilities from requesting accommodations. Ultimately, the least likely type of accommodation to be granted is any that might be perceived by able-bodied employees as equally useful to them. Thus, requests for more flexible work schedules or relief from mandatory overtime routinely get denied. Granting such requests could easily snowball into numerous requests from able bodied employees for comparable accommodations. More fundamentally, granting such requests would threaten to expose the contingent character of the workplace routines that capital imposes on its employees. Ultimately, granting such requests could potentially lay bare the arbitrary nature of capitalist authority. It is thus no wonder that, as one employee with a disability explained, They [employers] dont want to set a precedent (42). In the capitalist context of competitive labor markets and job hierarchies, of course, even undervalued and token employees can be perceived as threatening by co-workers and supervisors. If, as is known, white males can feel threatened by the prospect of minorities or women performing comparable or higher-level jobs, consider how easy it is for able-bodied employees to feel threatened by the prospect of employees with disabilities doing comparable work. Some alienation and harassment of employees with disabilities doubtless stems from workplace enactment of wider cultural patterns, but much is due to the competitive nature of the capitalist workplace itself. Alienating and harassing employees with disabilities is a way of effectively sidelining them in the competitive struggle.
This study of the ADAs implementation phase makes clear that
112
Vanova

2009-10
113 Capitalism K
Turns Case- Natives Cultural imperialism is at the root of Native relationships with the rest of the countrythis leads to a state of oppressive power relations that culminate in exploitation and a new form of colonization- Whitt 95
(Laurie Anne, Associate Professor of Philosophy in the Humanities Department at Michigan Technological University, Cultural Imperialism and the Marketing of Native America, pg. 139-40 in Natives and Academics, VR)
Whether peddled by white shamans, plastic medicine men and women, opportunistic academics, entrepreneurs, or enterprising New Agers, Indian spirituality-like Indian lands before it-is rapidly being reduced to the status of a commodity, seized, and sold. Sacred ceremonies and ceremonial objects can be purchased at weekend medicine conferences or via mail order catalogs.8 How-to books with veritable recipes for conducting traditional rituals are written and dispensed by trade publishers? A succession of born-again medicine people have-with greater or lesser subtletyset themselves and their services up for hire, ready to sell their spiritual knowledge and power to anyone willing and able to meet their price. And a literary cult of Indian identity appropriation known as white shamanism continues to be practiced. 12 Instead of contributing to the many native-run organizations devoted to enhancing the lives and prospects of Indian people, New Agers are regularly enticed into contributing to the continued expropriation and exploitation of native culture by purchasing an array of items marketed as means for enhancing their knowledge of Indian spirituality. Recently, the National Congress of American Indians (an organization not exactly known for radicalism) issued a declaration of war against nonIndian wannabes, hucksters, cultists, commercial profiteers and self-styled New Age shamans who have been exploiting sacred knowledge and ritual^.'^
Throughout Indian Country, eloquent, forceful critiques of these cultural developments have been mounted. Writers, intellectuals, activists, and spiritual leaders14 have joined in identifying and resisting what has been described as a new growth industry. known as American Indian Spiritualism(henceforth AIS). The phenomena being protested are diverse and include literary, artistic, scholarly, and commercial products intended for consumption in the markets of popular culture as well as in those of the cultural elite.16 When
..
the spiritual knowledge, rituals, and objects of historically subordinated cultures are transformed into commodities, economic and political power merge to produce cultural imperialism. A form of oppression exerted by a dominant society upon other cultures, and typically a source of economic profit, cultural imperialism secures and deepens the subordinated status of those cultures. In the case of indigenous cultures, it undermines their integrity and distinctiveness, assimilating them to the dominant culture by seizing and processing vital cultural resources, then remaking them in the image and marketplaces of the dominant culture. Such taking of the essentials of cultural lifeways, Geary Hobson observes, is as imperialistic as those simpler forms of theft, such as the theft of homeland by treaty.
113
Vanova

2009-10
114 Capitalism K
Turns Case- Social Services Even if plan increases short term services, the system will short circuit any long term benefits- Watchel 72
(Howard, Assistant professor at American university, Washington, D.C., Capitalism and Poverty in America: Paradox or Contradiction?, The American Economic Review, Vol. 62, No. 1/2 (Mar. 1, 1972), pp. 187-194, VR) The state, especially in the present monopoly capitalist phase of American society, reinforces the power relationships emerging from the interaction of class antagonisms and the operation of labor markets. The state, as used in this discussion, embraces not only the elected government (at all levels) but the administrative bureaucracies, the military and domestic police forces, and the judiciary. Contemporary radicals are not the only ones who see the state as operating to reinforce class dominance. None other than Adam Smith noted in his Wealth of Nations that "civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or for those who have some property against those who have none at all" (p. 674). S. Michelson has argued persuasively that, in considering the redistributive aspects of public policy, one must first treat the influence of the state in establishing the pretax, preexpenditure income distribution in the first instance (pp. 77-9). The totality of government activity must be investigated, not just those programs directly related to poverty and income distribution (H. Wachtel, p. 9). The two most widely cited studies of the redistributive effects of government taxation and expenditure fail to come to grip with these questions (W. Gillespie and Tax Foundation). Moreover, by distributing the benefits of public goods (primarily defense) on a per capita basis, they obtain results that are downright foolish. Gillespie goes so far as to say that expenditures for national defense "nearly fulfill a true 'social want' because equal amounts of them are consumed (or are available for consumption) by all" (p. 160). Public programs specifically designed for the poor have not attained their stated objectives. Elsewhere I have argued in detail that: 1. The state reinforces the disequalizing tendencies of the market even though liberals for the past forty years have been attempting to do precisely the opposite. 2. Programs to aid the poor have perhaps had some slight impact in the short run, but over time have either atrophied, become anemic in their impact, or distorted in their purpose. 3. Only those public programs that are compatible with the system-defining characteristics of monopoly capitalism will see the light of day in the first instance and will survive to suffer the fate in point two above. [1971, pp. 9-16 ] These observations can be illustrated by examining three of the premiere public programs to aid the poor: the social security program, the farm program, and contemporary manpower training programs.
114
Vanova

2009-10
115 Capitalism K
Turns Case- Womens Rights The welfare state creates worse forms of domination of women by breeding dependency to the system- Folbre 9
(Nancy, Economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, PhD in Economics from the University of Massachusetts, MacArthur Fellowship between 1998-2003, Summer, Varieties of Patriarchal Capitalism, Muse, VR)
.
Obviously, much
of the welfare state literature calls attention to the economic importance of the welfare state. Yet it often presumes that the welfare state exists primarily to serve the needs and enhance the efficiency of the market economy. The market is the horse; the welfare state the cart. The market is the energy source and driving force; the welfare state is simply a device for storing, transporting, and distributing the surplus it creates. But the private sector is
not the only source of horsepower in our economic system. Mandel and Shalev seem to recognize this. On page 10, they challengre what they term the economic functionalism of the varieties of capitalism approach. They also chide David Soskice for suggesting that continental-style housewifery and Scandinavian-style paid carework are simply two alternative ways in which women serve the business community (16 ).
But they never directly question the hegemonic importance of that particular constructthe business community to the larger abstract entity known as the economy. We continue to measure economic success and efficiency in terms of the level and growth of goods and services produced for sale gross domestic product. But we know better. The amount of time devoted to non-market work in the advanced capitalist economies is roughly equivalent to the amount of time devoted to market work. It shapes our living standards and qualities of life (Folbre 2009a Time Use and Inequality in the Household). Wage earnings have a huge impact on economic welfare. But the distribution of the costs of caring for dependents achieved largely through marriage and the welfare statelargely determines the disposable income that individuals have to meet their personal needs (Folbre 2006). Investments in human capitalmade by parents as well as schools do not show
up as investments in our national income accounts. Yet we know they yield a large social rate of return (Folbre 2009b The Ultimate Growth Industry). Women
devote considerably more time than men to nonmarket work, including the care of dependents. Precisely because this work helps pull the cart, societies devote considerable effort and attention to ways of harnessing and driving it. Public policies toward family formation, marriage, child care, and elder care are not merely a byproduct of decisions made regarding wage employment. Indeed, in welfare state budgets, expenditures on dependentsexpenditures that essentially replace and supplement those once made within families and communities far exceed expenditures on job training for adults and social safety net provisions such as unemployment insurance. In other words, the welfare state does not simply regulate or mediate capitalist relations of production; it regulates and mediates family lifethe process of reproduction. It socializes some forms of family support and privatizes others; it promotes health and encourages fertility and defines citizenship and restricts immigration. Its taxes and transfers have implications for gender roles that reach well beyond differences in female labor force participation.
115
Vanova

2009-10
116 Capitalism K
Turns case- Womens Rights The capitalist state locks women into roles of producers and consumers via reproduction, short circuiting righst- Sharp 2k
(Lesley A., Department of Anthropology, Barnard College, The Commodificationof the Body and Its Parts, Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2000. 29:287328, http://www.barnard.edu/anthro/sharp_comm.pdf, VR) A political-economic
approach to reproduction uncovers other conundrums. Individual nation-states, for example, may insist upon radically different understandings of the body. Militaries, after all, consistently appropriate soldiers bodies in a host of spatio-temporal settings; and the dehumanizing violence wrought upon bodies through torture exposes nefarious claims upon particularized categories of transgressive bodies (Axel 2000, Daniel 1997, Das 1997, Green 1998, Scarry 1985). Population programs define yet another significant arena that reflects an intensified interest in female bodies. In a host of countries, the poor are common targets of state policies that hold their bodies culpable, especially where population size is an issue (Hartmann 1987, OBrien 1981,
Yanoshik & Norsigian 1989), a trend that has remained pervasive since the writings of Malthus, two centuries ago [Malthus 1976 (1798)]. In certain contexts, the
for post-Mao China, the citizen is simultaneously a consuming and a producing body that defines an open site of state disciplinary practice, when the nation is plagued by a surfeit of bodies. Within this context, factors that determine the worth of surplus bodies are complex. Some urban households, for example, rely on clandestine forms of body trafficking in their search for brides and children drawn from rural territories; others may willingly pay stateimposed penalties for additional births. Handwerker (1995), writing of infertility in China, illustrates how both womens fertility and infert ility are situated as critical markers of national progress (p. 377). Here women remain inescapably culpable, locked in a double bind of blame and responsibility where (in)fertility locates their social and political worth in their reproductive capacities.
state may claim collective rights to citizens bodies and their reproductive potential. Thus, as Anagnost (1995) argues
116
Vanova

2009-10
117 Capitalism K
Alternative- Withdrawal Reject the affirmative as a means of refusing complicity with capitalism- Herod, 04
(James, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/4thEd/4-index.htm, Getting Free, 4th Edition, VR) A sketch of an association of democratic, autonomous neighborhoods and how to create it, Fourth Edition, January 2004
It is time to try to describe, at first abstractly and later concretely, a strategy for destroying capitalism. This strategy, at its most basic, 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 out of 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, but 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 relations and then we continually build and strengthen our new pattern while doing every thing we can to weaken capitalist relations. In this way our new democratic, non-hierarchical, 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 during 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 were doing and know how we want to live, and know what obstacles have to be overcome before we can live that way, and know h ow 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. (There is no elsewhere.) There is at least one thing, wage-slavery, that we cant 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, but 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 doing so. Nevertheless, 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, destroying community rights, destroying our tools, imposing taxes, destroying our local markets, and so forth, we were forced onto the labor market in order to survive, our only remaining option being to sell, for a wage, our ability to work. Its 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 wageslaves (that is, we must get free from the labor market and the way of living based on it), and embed ourselves instead in cooperative labor and cooperatively produced goods. Another clarification is needed. This
strategy does not call for reforming capitalism, for changing capitalism into something else. It calls for replacing capitalism, totally, with a new civilization. This is an important distinction, because capitalism has proved impervious to reforms, as a system. We can sometimes in some places win certain concessions from it (usually only temporary ones) and win some (usually short-lived) improvements in our lives as its victims, but we cannot reform it piecemeal, as a system. Thus 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. The thing is this: in order for capitalism to be destroyed millions and millions of people must be dissatisfied with their way of life. They must want something else and see certain existing things as obstacles to getting what they want. It is not useful to think of this as a new ideology. It is not merely a belief-system that is needed, like a religion, or like Marxism, or Anarchism. Rather it is a new prevailing vision, a dominant desire, an overriding need. What must exist is a pressing desire to live a certain way, and not to live another way. If
this pressing desire were a desire to live free, to be autonomous, to live in democratically controlled communities, to participate in the self-regulating activities of a mature people, then capitalism could be destroyed. Otherwise we are doomed to perpetual slavery and possibly even to extinction.
117
Vanova

2009-10
118 Capitalism K
Alternative- The Scream Our alternative is to SAY NO to the affirmative as a way of refusing complicity with capitalism our scream against the control of the system is a starting point for movements against capital- Holloway 2
(John, Ph.D in Political Science from the University of Edinburgh, Social Science Professor at Univ. of Puebla, Change the World Without Taking Power, http://libcom.org/library/change-world-without-taking-power-john-holloway, VR)
In the beginning is the scream. We scream. When we write or when we read, it is easy to forget that the beginning is not the word, but the scream. Faced with the mutilation of human lives by capitalism, a scream of sadness, a scream of horror, a scream of anger, a scream of refusal: NO. The starting point of theoretical reflection is opposition, negativity, struggle. It is from rage that thought is born, not from the pose of reason, not from the reasoned-sitting-back-and-reflecting-on-the-mysteries-of-existence that is the conventional image of the thinker. We start from negation, from dissonance. The dissonance can take many shapes. An inarticulate mumble of discontent, tears of frustration, a scream of rage, a confident roar. An unease, a confusion, a longing, a critical vibration. Our dissonance comes from our experience, but that experience varies. Sometimes it is the direct experience of exploitation in the factory, or of oppression in the home, of stress in the office, of hunger and poverty, or of state violence or discrimination. Sometimes it is the less direct experience through television, newspapers or books that moves us to rage. Millions of children live on the streets of the world. In some cities, street children are systematically murdered as the only way of enforcing respect
for private property. In 1998 the assets of the 200 richest people were more than the total income of 41% of the world's people (two and a half billion). In 1960, the countries with the wealthiest fifth of the world's people had per capita incomes 30 times that of the poorest fifth: by 1990 the ratio had doubled to 60 to one, and by 1995 it stood at 74 to one. The stock market rises every time there is an increase in unemployment. Students
are imprisoned for struggling for free education while those who are actively responsible for the misery of millions are heaped with honours and given titles of distinction, General, Secretary of Defence, President. The list goes on and on. It is impossible to read a newspaper without feeling rage, without feeling pain. Dimly perhaps, we feel that these things that anger us are not isolated phenomena, that there is a connection between them, that they are all part of a world that is flawed, a world that is wrong in some fundamental way. We see more and more people begging on the street while the stock markets break new records and company directors' salaries rise to ever dizzier heights, and we feel that the wrongs of the world are not chance injustices but part of a system that is profoundly wrong. Even Hollywood films (surprisingly, perhaps) almost always start from the portrayal of a fundamentally unjust worldbefore going on to reassure us (less surprisingly) that justice for the individual can be won through individual effort. Our anger is directed not just against particular happenings but is against a more general wrongness, a feeling that the world is askew, that the world is in some way untrue. When we experience something particularly horrific, we hold up our hands in horror and say 'that cannot be! it cannot be true!' We know that it is true, but feel that it is the truth of an untrue world. What would a true world look like? We may have a vague idea: it would be a world of justice, a world in which people could relate to each other as people and not as things, a world in which people would shape their own lives. But we do not need to have a picture of what a true world would be like in order to feel that there is something radically wrong with the world that exists. Feeling that the world is wrong does not necessarily mean that we have a picture of a utopia to put in its place. Nor does it necessarily mean a romantic, some-day-my-prince-will-come idea that, although things are wrong now, one day we shall come to a true world, a promised land, a happy ending. We need no promise of a happy ending to justify our rejection of a world we feel to be wrong. That is our starting point: rejection of a world that we feel to be wrong, negation of a world we feel to be negative. This is what we must cling to.
118
Vanova

2009-10
119 Capitalism K
The Scream- Solvency Our scream is a starting point for other social movements in academia- Holloway 2
(John, Ph.D in Political Science from the University of Edinburgh, Social Science Professor at Univ. of Puebla, Change the World Without Taking Power, http://libcom.org/library/change-world-without-taking-power-john-holloway, VR) Our scream is not just a scream of horror. We
scream not because we face certain death in the spider's web, but because we dream of freeing ourselves. We scream as we fall over the cliff not because we are resigned to being dashed on the rocks below but because we still hope that it might be otherwise. Our scream is a refusal to accept. A refusal to accept that the spider will eat us, a refusal to accept that we shall be killed on the rocks, a refusal to accept the unacceptable. A refusal to accept the inevitability of increasing inequality, misery, exploitation and violence. A refusal to accept the truth of the untrue, a refusal to accept closure. Our scream is a refusal to wallow in being victims of oppression, a refusal to immerse ourselves in that 'left-wing melancholy' which is so characteristic of oppositional thought. It is a refusal
to accept the role of Cassandra so readily adopted by left-wing intellectuals: predicting the downfall of the world while accepting that there is nothing we can do about it.
Our scream is a scream to break windows, a refusal to be contained, an overflowing, a going beyond the pale, beyond the bounds of polite society. Our refusal to accept tells us nothing of the future, nor does it depend for its validity on any particular
outcome. The fact that we scream as we fall over the cliff does not give us any guarantee of a safe landing, nor does the legitimacy of the scream depend on a happy ending. Gone is the certainty of the old revolutionaries that history (or God) was on our side: such certainty is historically dead and buried, blasted into the grave by the bomb that fell on Hiroshima. There is certainly no inevitable happy ending, but, even as we plunge downwards, even in the moments of darkest despair, we refuse to accept that such a happy ending is impossible. The
scream clings to the possibility of an opening, refuses to accept the closure of the possibility of radical otherness. Our scream, then, is two-dimensional: the scream of rage that arises from present experience carries within itself a hope, a projection of possible otherness. The scream is ecstatic, in the literal sense of standing out ahead of itself towards an open future. We who scream exist ecstatically. We stand out beyond ourselves, we exist in two dimensions. The scream implies a tension between that which exists and that which might conceivably exist, between the indicative (that which is) and the subjunctive (that
which might be). We live in an unjust society but we wish it were not so: the two parts of the sentence are inseparable and exist in constant tension with each other.
The scream does not require to be justified by the fulfilment of what might be: it is simply the recognition of the dual dimension of reality. The second part of the sentence (we wish it were not so) is no less real than the first. It is the tension between the two
parts of the sentence that gives meaning to the scream. If the second part of the sentence (the subjunctive wish) is seen as being less real than the first, then the scream too is disqualified. What
is then seen as real is that we live in an unjust society: what we might wish for is our private affair, of secondary importance. And since the adjective 'unjust' really makes sense only in reference to a possible just society, that too falls away, leaving us with 'we live in a x society'. And if we scream because we live in a x society, then we must be mad. From the time of Machiavelli, social theory has been concerned to break the unbreakable sentence in half.
Machiavelli lays the basis for a new realism when he says that he is concerned only with what is, not with what things as we might wish them to be. Reality refers to the first part of the sentence, to what is. The second part of the sentence, what ought to be, is clearly distinguished from what is, and is not regarded as part of reality. The 'ought' is not entirely discarded: it becomes the theme of 'normative' social theory. What is completely broken is the unity of the two parts of the sentence. With that step alone, the scream of rejection-and-longing is
Our scream implies a two-dimensionality which insists on the conjunction of tension between the two dimensions. We are, but we exist in an arc of tension towards that which we are not, or are not yet. Society is, but it exists in an arc of tension towards that which is not, or is not yet. There is identity, but identity exists in an arc of tension towards non-identity. The double dimensionality is the antagonistic presence (that is, movement) of the not-yet within the Is, of non-identity within identity. The scream is an explosion of the tension: the explosion of the Not-Yet
disqualified.
contained-in-but-bursting-from the Is, the explosion of non-identity contained-in-but-bursting-from identity. The scream is an expression of the present existence of that which is denied, the present existence of the not-yet, of non-identity. The theoretical force of the scream depends not on the future existence of the not-yet (who knows if there will ever be a society based on the mutual recognition of dignity?) but on its present existence as possibility. To
start from the scream is simply to insist on the centrality of dialectics, which is no more than 'the consistent sense of non-identity' (Adorno 1990, p. 5). Our scream is a scream of horror-and-hope. If the two sides of the scream are separated, they become banal. The horror arises from the 'bitterness of history', but if there is no transcendence of that bitterness, the one-dimensional horror leads only to political depression and theoretical closure. Similarly, if the hope is not grounded firmly in that same bitterness of history, it becomes
just a one-dimensional and silly expression of optimism. Precisely such a separation of horror and hope is expressed in the oft-quoted Gramscian aphorism, 'pessimism of the intelligence, optimism of the will'. The
challenge is rather to unite pessimism and optimism, horror and hope, in a theoretical understanding of the two-dimensionality of the world. Optimism not just of the spirit but of the intellect is the aim. It is the very horror of the world that obliges us to learn to hope.
119
Vanova

2009-10
120 Capitalism K
The Scream- AT: Capitalism is Natural (1/2) The capitalist system encourages selfishness, but our alternative proves we can change those stances- Holloway 2
(John, Ph.D in Political Science from the University of Edinburgh, Social Science Professor at Univ. of Puebla, Change the World Without Taking Power, http://libcom.org/library/change-world-without-taking-power-john-holloway, VR) Why?
Not because going-beyond is part of our human nature, but simply because we scream. Negation comes not from our human essence, but from the situation in which we find ourselves. We scream and push-beyond not because that is human nature, but, on the contrary, because we are torn from what we consider to be humanity. Our negativity arises not from our humanity, but from the negation of our humanity, from the feeling that humanity is not-yet, that it is something to be fought for. It is not human nature, but the scream of our starting point that compels us to focus on doing. To take doing, rather than being or talking or thinking, as the focus of our thought, has many implications. Doing implies movement. To start from doing-as-going-beyond (and not just the busy-bee doing-as-reproduction) means that everything (or at least everything human) is in movement, everything is becoming, that there is no 'being', or rather that being can only be a frustrated becoming. The perspective of the scream-doing is inevitably historical, because the human experience can only be understood as a constant moving-beyond (or possibly a frustrated moving-beyond). This is important, because if the starting point is not screaming-doing (doing-as-negation) but rather the word or discourse or a positive understanding of doing (as reproduction), then there is no possibility of understanding society historically: the movement of history becomes broken down into a series of snapshots, a diachronic series, a chronology. Becoming is broken down into a series of states of being. To put the point in other words, humans are subjects while animals are not. Subjectivity refers to the conscious projection beyond that which exists, the ability to negate that which exists and to create something that does not yet exist. Subjectivity, the movement of the scream-doing, involves a movement against limits, against containment, against closure. The doer is not. Not only that, but doing is the movement against is-ness, against that-which-is. Any definition of the subject is
therefore contradictory or indeed violent: the attempt to pin down that which is a movement against being pinned down. The idea that we can start from the assertion that people are subjects has been much criticised in recent years, especially by theorists associated with post-modernism. The idea of the person as subject, we are told, is a historical construct. That may be so, but our starting point, the scream of complete refusal to accept the misery of capitalist society, takes us inevitably to the notion of subjectivity. To deny
human subjectivity is to deny the scream or, which comes to the same thing, to turn the scream into a scream of despair. 'Ha! Ha!' they mock, 'you scream as though it were possible to change society radically. But there is no possibility of radical change, there is no way out'. Our starting point makes such an approach impossible. The sharpness of our No! is a sword that cuts through many a theoretical knot. Doing is
inherently social. What I do is always part of a social flow of doing, in which the precondition of my doing is the doing (or having-done) of others, in which the doing of others provides the means of my doing. Doing
is inherently plural, collective, choral, communal. This does not mean that all doing is (or indeed should be) undertaken collectively. It means rather that it is difficult to conceive of a doing that does not have the doing of others as a precondition. I sit at the computer and write this, apparently a lonely individual act, but my writing is
part of a social process, a plaiting of my writing with the writing of others (those mentioned in the footnotes and a million others), and also with the doing of those who designed the computer, assembled it, packed it, transported it, those who installed the electricity in the house, those who generated the electricity, those who produced the food that gives me the energy to write, and so on, and so on. There
is a community of doing, a collective of doers, a flow of doing through time and space. Past doing (of ourselves and others) becomes the means of doing in the present. Any act, however individual it seems, is part of a chorus of doing in which all humanity is the choir (albeit an anarchic and discordant choir). Our doings are so intertwined that it is impossible to say where one ends and another begins. Clearly there are many doings that do not in turn create the conditions for the doing of others, that do not feed back into the social flow of doing as a whole: it is quite possible, for example, that no one will ever read what I am now doing. However, the doings that do not lead back into the social flow of doing do not for that reason cease to be social. My activity is social whether or not anybody reads this: it is important not to confuse sociality and functionality. To speak of the social flow of doing is not to deny the materiality of the done. When I make a chair, the chair exists materially. When I write a book, the book exists as an object. It has an existence independent of mine, and may still exist when I no longer exist. In that sense it might be said
that there is an objectification of my subjective doing, that the done acquires an existence separate from the doing, that the done abstracts itself from the flow of
120
Vanova

2009-10
121 Capitalism K
The Scream- AT: Capitalism is Natural (2/2)

doing. This is true, however, only if my doing is seen as an individual act. Seen from the social flow of doing, the objectification of my subjective doing is at most a fleeting objectification. The existence of the chair as chair depends upon someone sitting upon it, reincorporating it into the flow of doing. The existence of the book as book depends upon your reading it, the braiding of your doing (reading) with my doing (writing) to reintegrate the done (the book) into the social flow of doing. It
is when we understand 'we scream' as a material 'we scream', as a screaming-doing, that 'we-ness' (that question that rumbles through our book) gains force. Doing, in other words, is the material constitution of the 'we', the conscious and unconscious, planned and unplanned, braiding of our lives through time. This braiding of our lives, this collective doing, involves, if the collective flow of doing is recognised, a mutual recognition of one another as doers, as active subjects. Our individual doing receives its social validation from its recognition as part of the social flow.
121
Vanova

2009-10
122 Capitalism K
The Scream- AT: Foucault (1/3) We arent the forms of power that Foucault criticizes- we reject the binaries of the status quo through our scream, creating a multiplicity of antagonisms- its not that we reject other movements, rather, that we use class as a starting point for those movementsHolloway 2
We have presented the issue of power in terms of a binary antagonism between doing and done, in which the done, existing in the form of capital (apparently controlled by, but actually in control of, the capitalists) subordinates, ever more voraciously, all doing to the sole purpose of its self-expansion. But is this not too simple? Surely that which we scream against is far more complex than this? What about the way that doctors treat their patients, what about the way that teachers treat their students, that parents treat their children? What of the treatment of blacks by whites? What about the subordination of women to men? Is it not too simplistic, too reductionist, to say that power is capital and capital is power? Are there not many different types of power? Foucault in particular makes the argument that it is mistaken to think of power in terms of a binary antagonism, that we must think of it rather in terms of a 'multiplicity of relations of force'. (1976, p. 121) Corresponding to the multiplicity of power relations there is then a multiplicity of resistances, 'present everywhere in the network of power. In relation to power, there is therefore not one place of the great Refusalsoul of revolt, hearth of all rebellion, pure law of the revolutionary. But resistances which are special cases: possible, necessary, improbable, spontaneous, wild, solitary, concerted, rampant, violent, irreconcilable, ready to negotiate, interested, or sacrificial: by definition, they can exist only on the strategic field of the relations of power'. (1976, p. 126) In terms of our scream, that would suggest an endless multiplicity of screams. And indeed it is so: we scream in many different ways and for many different reasons. From the beginning of our argument it was stressed that the 'we-ness' of 'we scream' is a central question in this book, not a simple assertion of identity. Why, then, insist on the binary nature of an over-riding antagonism between doing and done? It cannot be a matter of an abstract defence of a Marxist approach that would make no sense. Nor is it in any sense the intention to impose a single identity or unity upon the manifest multiplicity of resistance, to subordinate all the variety of resistances to the a priori unity of the Working Class. Nor can it be a matter of emphasising the empirical role of the working class and its importance in relation to 'other forms of struggle'. In order to explain our insistence on the binary nature of the antagonism of power (or, in more traditional terms, our insistence on a class analysis), it is necessary to retrace our steps. The starting point of the argument here is not the urge to understand society or to explain how it works. Our starting point is much more pointed: the scream, the drive to change society radically. It is from that perspective that we ask how society works. That starting point led us to place the question of doing in the centre of our discussion, and this in turn led us to the antagonism between doing and done. Obviously, other perspectives are possible. It is more common to start positively, with the question of how society works. Such a perspective does not necessarily lead to a focus on doing and the way in which doing is organised. In the case of Foucault, it leads rather to a focus on talking, on language. This perspective certainly allows him to elucidate the enormous richness and complexity of power relations in contemporary society and, more important from our perspective, the richness and complexity of resistance to power. However, the richness and complexity is the richness of a still photograph, or of a painting. There is no movement in the society that Foucault analyses: change from one still photograph to another, but no movement. There cannot be, unless
the focus is on doing and its antagonistic existence. Thus, in Foucault's analysis, there are a whole host of resistances which are integral to power, but there is no possibility of emancipation. The only possibility is an endlessly shifting constellation of power-and-resistance. The argument in this chapter has led to two important results, which it is worth reiterating. Firstly,
the focus on doing has led to an intimation of the vulnerability of power-over. The done depends on the doer, capital
122
Vanova

2009-10
123 Capitalism K
The Scream- AT: Foucault (2/3)

depends on labour. That is the crucial chink of light, the glimmer of hope, the turning-point in the argument. The realisation that the powerful depend on the 'powerless' transforms the scream from a scream of anger to a scream of hope, a confident scream of anti-power. This realisation takes us beyond the merely radicaldemocratic perspective of an endless struggle against power to a position from which we can pose the issue of the vulnerability of capital and the real possibility of social transformation. From this perspective, then, we must ask of any theory not so much how it illuminates the present, but what light it throws on the vulnerability of rule. What we want is not a theory of domination, but a theory of the vulnerability of domination, of the crisis of domination. The emphasis on understanding power in terms of a 'multiplicity of relations of force' does not give us any basis for posing this question. Indeed, on the contrary, it tends to exclude the question, for, while resistance is central to Foucault's approach (at least in his later work), the notion of emancipation is ruled out as being absurd, for it pre-supposes, as Foucault correctly points out, the assumption of a unity in the relations of power. To pose the question of the vulnerability of power thus requires two steps: the opening of the category of power to reveal its contradictory character, which has been described here in terms of the antagonism between power-to and power-over; and secondly, the understanding of this antagonistic relation as an internal relation. Power-to exists as power-over: power-over is the form of power-to, a form which denies its substance. Power-over can exist only as transformed power-to. Capital can exist only as the product of transformed doing (labour). That is the key to its weakness. The issue of form, so central to Marx's discussion of capitalism, is crucial for an understanding of the vulnerability of domination. The distinction which Negri makes (and develops so brilliantly) between constituent and constituted power takes the first of these two steps and opens up an understanding of the self-antagonistic nature of power as a pre-condition for talking about revolutionary transformation. However, the relation between constituent and constituted power remains an external one. Constitution (the transformation of constituent into constituted power) is seen as a reaction to the democratic constituent power of the multitude. This, however, tells us nothing about the vulnerability of the process of constitution. In the face of power-over (constituted power) it tells us of the ubiquity and force of the absolute struggle of the multitude, but it tells us nothing of the crucial nexus of dependence of power-over (constituted power) upon power-to (constituent power). In this sense, for all the force and brilliance of his account, Negri remains at the level of radical-democratic theory. Does this emphasis on the perspective of the scream lead us then to an impoverished view of society? The argument above seems to suggest that the perspective of the scream leads to a binary view of the antagonism between doing and done, and that in such a perspective there is no room for the 'multiplicity of forces' which Foucault sees as essential to the discussion of power. This seems to suggest a split between the revolutionary or negative perspective and the understanding of the undoubted richness and complexity of society. This would indeed be the case (and would constitute a major problem for our argument) if it were not for the second result of our previous discussion, namely that the antagonistic relation between doing and done, and specifically the radical fracturing of the flow of doing that is inherent in the fact that power-over exists as ownership of the done, means a multiple fragmentation of doing (and of social relations). In other words, the very understanding of social relations as being characterised by a binary antagonism between doing and done means that this antagonism exists in the form of a multiplicity of antagonisms, a great heterogeneity of conflict. There are indeed a million forms of resistance, an immensely complex world of antagonisms. To reduce these to an empirical unity of conflict between capital and labour, or to argue for a hegemony of working class struggle, understood empirically, or to argue that these apparently non-class resistances must be subsumed under class struggle, would be an absurd violence. The argument here is just the contrary: the fact that capitalist society is characterised by a binary antagonism between doing and done means that this antagonism exists as a multiplicity of antagonisms. It is the binary nature of power (as antagonism between power-to and power-over) that means that power appears as a 'multiplicity of forces'. Rather than starting with the multiplicity, we need to start with the prior
123
Vanova
124 2009-10 Capitalism K multiplication that gives rise to this multiplicity. Rather than starting with the multiple identities (women, blacks, gays, Basques, Irish and so on), we need to start from the process of identification that gives rise to those identities. In this perspective, one aspect of Foucault's enormously stimulating writings is precisely that, without presenting it in those terms, he greatly enriches our understanding of the fragmentation of the flow of doing, our historical understanding of what we shall
124
Vanova

2009-10
125 Capitalism K
The Scream- AT: Foucault (3/3)

characterise in the next chapter as the process of fetishisation. A last point needs to be dealt with before passing on to the discussion of
fetishism. It is an important part of Foucault's argument that power should not be seen in purely negative terms, that we must also understand the way in which power constitutes reality and constitutes us. That is clearly so: we are conceived and born not in a power-free vacuum but in a power-traversed society: we are products of that society. Foucault, however, fails to open up the category of power, to point to the fundamental antagonism that characterises it. Thus,
we can say, for example, that we are products of capital, or that everything we consume is a commodity. That is clearly so, but it is deceptive. It is only when we open up these categories, when we say, for example, that the commodity is characterised by an antagonism between value and use-value (utility), that use-value exists in the form of value, and in rebellion against this form, that the full development of our human potential pre-supposes our participation in this rebellion, and so on: it is only then that we can make sense of the statement that everything we consume is a commodity. It is only then that it makes sense to speak of the commodity-form as a form of relations to be rejected and fought against. Similarly, with power: it is only when we open up the category of power and see power-over as the form of power-to that we can fully understand power-over as a form of social relations to be rejected and fought against.
125
Vanova

2009-10
126 Capitalism K
The Scream- AT: Marxism Bad Our alternative only embraces the positive aspects of Marxism- Holloway 2
(John, Ph.D in Political Science from the University of Edinburgh, Social Science Professor at Univ. of Puebla, Change the World Without Taking Power, http://libcom.org/library/change-world-without-taking-power-john-holloway, VR) The aim of this book is to strengthen negativity, to take the side of the fly in the web, to make the scream more strident. We quite consciously start from the subject, or at least from an undefined subjectivity, aware of all the problems that this implies. We
start there because to start anywhere else is simply an untruth. The challenge is to develop a way of thinking that builds critically upon the initial negative standpoint, a way of understanding that negates the untruth of the world. This is not just a question of seeing things from below, or from the bottom up, for that too often implies the adoption of pre-existing categories, a mere reversal of negative and positive signs. What has to be tackled is not just a top-down perspective, but the whole mode of thinking that
derives from and supports such a perspective. In trying to hack our way through the social theory which is part of the strands which bind us, there is only one compass to guide us: the force of our own 'no!' in all its two-dimensionality: the rejection of what is and the projection of what might be. Negative
thought is as old as the scream. The most powerful current of negative thought is undoubtedly the Marxist tradition. However, the development of the Marxist tradition, both because of its particular history and because of the transformation of negative thought into a defining 'ism', has created a framework that has often limited and obstructed the force of negativity. This book is therefore not a Marxist book in the sense of taking Marxism as a defining framework of reference, nor is the force of its argument to be judged by whether it is 'Marxist' or not: far less is it neo-Marxist or post-Marxist. The aim is rather to locate those issues that are often described as 'Marxist' in the problematic of negative thought, in the hope of giving body to negative thought and of sharpening the Marxist critique of capitalism. This is not a book that tries to depict the horrors of capitalism. There are many books that do that, and, besides, we have our daily experience to tell us the story. Here we take that for granted. The loss of hope for a more human society is not the result of people being blind to the horrors of capitalism, it is just that there does not seem to be anywhere else to go, any otherness to turn to. The most sensible thing seems to be to forget our negativity, to discard it as a fantasy of youth. And yet the world gets worse, the inequalities become more
strident, the self-destruction of humanity seems to come closer. So perhaps we should not abandon our negativity but, on the contrary, try to theorise the world from the perspective of the scream. And what if the reader feels no dissonance? What
if you feel no negativity, if you are content to say 'we are, and the world is'? It is hard to believe that anyone is so at home with the world that they do not feel revulsion at the hunger, violence and inequality that surrounds them. It is much more likely that the revulsion or dissonance is consciously or unconsciously suppressed, either in the interests of a quiet life or, much more simply, because pretending not to see or feel the horrors of the world carries direct material benefits. In order to protect our jobs, our visas, our profits, our chances of receiving good grades, our sanity, we pretend not to see, we sanitise our own perception, filtering out the pain, pretending that it is not here but out there, far away, in Africa, in Russia, a hundred years ago, in an otherness that, by being alien, cleanses our own experience of all negativity. It is on such a sanitised perception that the idea of an objective, value-free social science is built. The negativity, the revulsion at exploitation and violence, is buried completely, drowned in the concrete of the foundation blocks of social science just as surely as, in some parts of the world, the bodies of sacrificed animals are buried by builders in the foundation blocks of houses or bridges. Such theory is, as Adorno (1990, p. 365) puts it, 'in the nature of the musical accompaniment with which the SS liked to drown out the screams of its victims'. It is against such suppression of pain that this book is directed. But what is the point? Our scream is a scream of frustration, the discontent of the powerless. But if we are powerless, there is nothing we can do. And if we manage to become powerful, by building a party or taking up arms or winning an election, then we shall be no different from all the other powerful in history. So there is no way out, no breaking the circularity of power. What can we do? Change the world without taking power.
126
Vanova

2009-10
127 Capitalism K
The Scream- AT: Pragmatism The struggle against capitalism must be started from negativity- its the only realistic way to combat the system- Holloway 2
The struggle of the scream is the struggle to liberate power-to from power-over, the struggle to liberate doing from labour, to liberate subjectivity from its objectification. In this struggle, it is crucial to see that it is not a matter of power against power, of like against like. The struggle to liberate power-to from power-over is the struggle for the reassertion of the social flow of doing, against its fragmentation and denial. On the one side is the struggle to re-braid our lives on the basis of mutual recognition of our participation in the collective flow of doing, on the other side is the attempt to impose and re-impose the fragmentation of that flow, the denial of our doing. From the
perspective of the scream, the Leninist aphorism that power is a matter of who-whom is absolutely false, as indeed is the Maoist saying that power comes out of the barrel of a gun: power-over comes out of the barrel of a gun, but not power-to. The struggle to liberate power-to is not the struggle to construct a counter-power, but rather an anti-power, something that is radically different from power-over.
Concepts of revolution that focus on the taking of power are typically centred on the notion of counter-power. The strategy is to construct a counter-power, a power that can stand against the ruling power. Often the revolutionary movement has been constructed as a mirror image of power, army against army, party against party, with the result that power reproduces itself within the revolution itself. Anti-power, then, is not counter-power, but something much more radical: it is the dissolution of power-over, the emancipation of
power-to. This is the great, absurd, inevitable challenge of the communist dream: to create a society free of power relations through the dissolution of power-over.
This project is far more radical than any notion of revolution based on the conquest of power and at the same time far more realistic. Anti-power is fundamentally opposed to power-over not only in the sense of being a radically different project but also in the fact that it exists in constant conflict with power-over. The attempt to exercise power-to in a way that does not entail the exercise of power over others, inevitably comes into conflict with power-over. Potentia is not an alternative to potestas that can simply co-exist peacefully with it. It may appear that we can simply cultivate our own garden, create our own world of
loving relations, refuse to get our hands dirty in the filth of power, but this is an illusion. There is no innocence, and this is true with an increasing intensity. The
exercise of power-to in a way that does not focus on value creation can exist only in antagonism to powerover. This is due not to the character of power-to (which is not inherently antagonistic) as to the voracious nature, the 'were-wolf hunger' (Marx 1965, p. 243) of power-over. Power-to, if it does not submerge itself in power-over, can exist, overtly or latently, only as power-against, as anti-power. It is important to stress the anti-ness of power-to under capitalism, because most mainstream discussions of social theory overlook the antagonistic nature of developing one's potential. The antagonistic nature of power is overlooked and it is assumed that capitalist society provides the opportunity to develop human potential (power-to) to the full. Money, if it is seen as being relevant
at all (and, amazingly, it is generally not mentioned in discussions of power, presumably on the basis that money is economics and power is sociology), is generally seen in terms of inequality (unequal access to resources, for example), rather than in terms of command. Power-to, it is assumed, is already emancipated. The
same point can be made in relation to subjectivity. The fact that power-to can exist only exist as antagonism to power-over (as anti-power) means of course that, under capitalism, subjectivity can only exist antagonistically, in opposition to its own objectification. To treat the subject as already emancipated, as most mainstream theory does, is to endorse the present objectification of the subject as subjectivity, as freedom. Many of the attacks on subjectivity
by structuralists or post-modernists can perhaps be understood in this sense, as attacks on a false notion of an emancipated (and hence autonomous and coherent) subjectivity. To
argue here for the inevitability of taking subjectivity as our starting point is not to argue for a coherent or autonomous subjectivity. On the contrary, the fact that subjectivity can exist only in antagonism to its own objectification means that it is torn apart by that objectification and its struggle against it. This book is an
exploration of the absurd and shadowy world of anti-power. It is shadowy and absurd simply because the world of orthodox social science (sociology, political science, economics and so on) is a world in which power is so completely taken for granted that nothing else is visible. In the social science that seeks to explain the world as it is, to show how the world works, power is the keystone of all categories, so that, in spite of (indeed, because of) its proclaimed neutrality, this social science participates actively in the separation of subject and object which is the substance of power. To
us, power is of interest only in so far as it helps us to understand the challenge of anti-power: the study of power on its own, in abstraction from the challenge and project of anti-power, can do nothing but actively reproduce power.
127
Vanova

2009-10
128 Capitalism K
The Scream- AT: Scream =/= Action (1/2) The alternative is a scream of hope- we are a starting point for actions against the system- Holloway 2
(John, Ph.D in Political Science from the University of Edinburgh, Social Science Professor at Univ. of Puebla, Change the World Without Taking Power, http://libcom.org/library/change-world-without-taking-power-john-holloway, VR) To think of changing the world without taking power, we need to see that the concept of power is intensely contradictory. But to make this argument we need to go back to the beginning. In the beginning, we said, is the
scream. It is a scream of hope, not of despair. And the hope is not a hope for salvation in the form of divine intervention. It is an active hope, a hope that we can change things, a scream of active refusal, a scream that points to doing. The scream that does not point to doing, the scream that turns in upon itself, that remains an eternal scream of despair or, much more common, an endless cynical grumble, is a scream which betrays itself: it loses its negative force and goes into an endless loop of self-affirmation as scream. CynicismI hate the world, but there is nothing that can be doneis the scream gone sour, the scream that suppresses its own self-negation. The scream implies doing. 'In the beginning was the deed', says Goethe's Faust. But before the deed comes the doing. In the beginning was the doing. But before the doing comes the scream. It is not materialism that comes first, but negativity. It is true that the scream springs from experience, from a doing or a frustrated doing. But the doing too springs from the scream. The doing springs from a want, a lack, a desire, a hunger. Doing changes, negates an existing state of affairs. Doing goes beyond, transcends. The scream which is our starting point pushes us towards doing. Our materialism, if that word is relevant at all, is a materialism rooted in doing, doing-to-negate, negative practice, projection beyond. Our foundation, if that word is relevant at all, is not an abstract preference for matter over mind, but the scream, the negation of what exists. Doing, in other words, is central to our concern not simply because doing is a material precondition for living but because our central concern is changing the world, negating that which exists. To think the world from the perspective of the scream is to think it from the perspective of doing. Saint John is doubly wrong, then,
when he says that 'in the beginning was the Word'. Doubly wrong because, to put it in traditional terms, his statement is both positive and idealist. The word does not negate, as the scream does. And the word does not imply doing, as the scream does. The world of the word is a stable world, a sitting-back-in-an-armchair-andhaving-a-chat world, a sitting-at-a-desk-and-writing world, a contented world, far from the scream which would change everything, far from the doing which negates. In the world of the word, doing is separated from talking and doing, practice is separated from theory. Theory
in the world of the word is the thought of the Thinker, of someone in restful reflection, chin-on-hand, elbow-on-knee. 'The philosophers', as Marx says in his famous eleventh thesis on Feuerbach, 'have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however,is to change it.' Marx's thesis does not mean that we should abandon theory for practice. It means rather that we should understand theory as part of practice, as part of the struggle to change the world. Both theory and doing are part of the practical movement of negation. This implies, then, that doing must be understood in a broad sense, certainly not just as work, and also not just as physical action, but as the whole movement of practical negativity. To emphasise the centrality of doing is not to deny the importance of thought or language but simply to see them as part of the total movement of practical negativity, of the practical projection beyond the world that exists towards a radically different world. To focus on doing is quite simply to see the world as struggle.
It might be argued, with some force, that changing society should be thought of not in terms of doing but in terms of not-doing, laziness, refusal to work, enjoyment. 'Let us be lazy in everything, except in loving and drinking, except in being lazy': Lafargue begins his classic The Right to be Lazy with this quotation (1999, p.3), implying that there is nothing more incompatible with capitalist exploitation than the laziness advocated by Lessing. Laziness
in capitalist society, however, implies refusal to do, an active assertion of an alternative practice. Doing, in the sense in which we understand it here, includes laziness and the pursuit of pleasure, both of which are very much negative practices in a society based on their negation. Refusal to do, in a world based on the conversion of doing into work, can be seen as an effective form of resistance.
128
Vanova

2009-10
129 Capitalism K
The Scream- AT: Scream =/= Action (2/2)

Human doing implies projection-beyond, and hence the unity of theory and practice. Projection-beyond is seen by Marx as a distinctive characteristic of human doing. 'A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architecture from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement.'(Marx, 1965, p. 178) The imagination of the labourer is ecstatic: at the commencement of the labour process it projects beyond what is to an otherness that might be. This otherness exists not only when it is created: it exists already, really, subjunctively, in the projection of the worker, in that which makes her human. The doing of the architect is negative, not only in its result, but in its whole process: it begins and ends with the negation of what exists. Even if she is the worst of architects, the doing is a creative doing. Bees, to the best of our knowledge, do not scream. They do not say 'No! Enough of queens, enough of drones, we shall create a society which will be shaped by us workers, we shall emancipate ourselves!' Their doing is not a doing that negates: it simply reproduces. We, however, do scream. Our scream is a projection-beyond, the articulation of an otherness that might be. If our scream is to be more than a smug look-how-rebellious-I-am scream (which is no scream at all), then it must involve a projected doing, the project of doing something to change that which we scream against. The scream and the doing-which-is-agoing-beyond distinguish humans from animals. Humans, but not animals, are ecstatic, they exist not only in, but also against-and-beyond themselves.
129
Vanova

2009-10
130 Capitalism K
Alternative- Do Nothing Alternative- Vote Negative: creating an intellectual attack against the logic of capital in the face of the crisis of the 1ac will enable the paradigm shift necessary to overthrow capital- Kovel 02 (Joel, Alger Hiss Professor of Social Studies at Bard College, The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World?
pg 223-224)
Revolutions become feasible when a people decides that their present social arrangements are intolerable, when
they believe that they can achieve a better alternative, and when the balance of forces between them and that of the system is tipped in their favour. None of these conditions is close to being met at present for the ecosocialist revolution, which would seem to make the exercise upon which we are about to embark academic. But the present is one thing, and the future another. If
the argument that capital is incorrigibly ecodestructive and expansive proves to be true, then it is only a question of time before the issues raised here achieve explosive urgency. And considering
what is at stake and how rapidly events can change under such circumstances, it is most definitely high time to take up the question of ecosocialism as a living process to consider what its vision of
society may be and what kind of path there may be towards its achievement. The present chapter is the most practical and yet also the most speculative of this work. Beaten down by the great defeats of Utopian and socialist ideals, few today even bother to think about the kinds of society that could replace the present with one of ecological rationality, and most of that speculation is within a green paradigm limited by an insufficient appreciation of the regime of capital and of the depths needed for real change . Instead, Greens tend to imagine an orderly extension of community, accompanied by the use of
instruments that have been specifically created to keep the present system going, such as parliamentary elections and various tax policies. Such
measures make transformative sense, however, only if seen as prefigurations of something more radicalsomething by definition not immediately on the horizon. It will be our job here to begin the process of drawing in this notyet-seen. The only certainty is that the result will at most be a rough and schematic model of what actually might emerge. However uncertain the end point, the first two steps on the path are clearly laid out, and are within the reach of every conscientious person. These are that people ruthlessly criticize the capitalist system from top to bottom, and that they include in this a consistent attack on the widespread belief that there can be no alternative to it. If one believes that capital is not only basically unjust but radically unsustainable as well, the prime obligation is to spread the news, just as one should feel obliged to tell the inhabitants of a structurally unsound house doomed to collapse of what awaits them unless they take drastic measures. To continue the analogy for the critique to matter it needs to be combined with an attack on the false idea that we are, so to speak, trapped in this house, with no hope of fixing it or getting out. The belief that there can be no alternative to capital is ubiquitous and no wonder, given how wonderfully convenient the idea is to the ruling ideology. That, however, does not keep it from being nonsense, and a failure of vision and political will. Whether or not the vision of ecosocialism offered here has merit, the notion that there is no other way
of organizing an advanced society other than capital does not follow. Nothing lasts forever, and what is humanly made can theoretically be unmade. Of course it could be the case that the job of changing it is too hard and capital is as far as humanity can go, in which instance we must simply accept ou r fate stoically and try to palliate the results. But we dont know this and cannot know this. There is no proving it one way or the other, and only inertia, fear of change or opportunism can explain the belief in so shabby an idea as that there can be no alternative to capital for organizing society. Logic alone neither persuades nor gives hope; something more solid and material is required, a combination of the dawning insight of just how incapable capital is of
At some point it has to happen if capital is the efficient cause the realization will dawn that all the sound ideas for, say, regulating the chemical industries, or preserving forest ecosystems, or doing something serious about species-extinctions, or global warming, or whatever point of ecosystemic disintegration is of concern, are not going to be realized by appealing to local changes in themselves, or the Democratic Party, or the Environmental Protection Agency or the courts, or the foundations, or ecophilosophies. or changes in consciousness for the overriding reason that we are living under a regime that controls the state and the economy, and will have to be overcome at its root if we are to save the future. Relentless criticism can delegitimate the system and release people into struggle. And as struggle develops, victories that are no more than incremental by their own terms stopping a meeting of the IMF, the hopes stirred forth by a campaign such as Ralph Naders in 2000 can have a symbolic effect far greater than their external result, and constitute points of rupture with capital. This rupture is not a set of facts added to our knowledge of the world, but a change in our relation to the world. Its effects are dynamic, not incremental, and like all genuine insights it changes the balance of forces and can propagate very swiftly Thus the release from inertia can trigger a rapid
resolving the crisis, along with some spark that breaks through the crust of inert despair and cynicism by means of which we have adapted to the system .
cascade of changes, so that it could be said that the forces pressing towards radical change need not be linear and incremental, but can be exponential in character. In this way, conscientious and radical criticism of the given, even in advance of having blueprints for an alternative, can be a material force, because it can seize the mind of the masses of people. There is no greater responsibility for intellectuals. In what follows, there will be neither blueprints nor omniscience, although I will be laying out certain hypothetical situations as a way of framing ideas. The overall task can be stated simply enough: if an ecological mode of production is the goal, what sort of practical steps can be defined to get us there? What might an ecosocialist society look like? How are the grand but
130
Vanova

2009-10
131 Capitalism K
abstract terms of basic change to be expressed as functions of lived life? And how can the path towards an ecosocialism that is not sharply defined incorporate the goal towards which it moves?
131
Vanova

2009-10
132 Capitalism K
Alternative Solvency- Foucault [maybe?rehighlight]

Lazzarato 07
(Maurizio, Paris-based sociologist and social theorist and a member of the editorial group of the journal Multitudes, From The Revolutions of Capitalism, Project Muse, VR)
The concepts of the living [vivant], resistance, and power change depending upon the ontology according to which theyre formulated. Marxism has conceptualized the living, resistance, and power according to an ontology of the subject/object relation, transferring this relation into politics in the form of the capitalist/worker relation of exploitation. According to this tradition, the living presents itself as labor (living labor), that is, as producer of the world and of history. Power is the mechanism that brings about the metamorphosis of the living into its opposite: dead labor. The subject objectifies itself, reifies itself in a product, a work, and thereby becomes the slave of
what it has produced. To come to life again, to once more become the master of its destiny and affirm itself as the subject of history, it has to effect a reversal of reification: the revolution is the reversal of the reversal, the subjectification of dead labor, the metamorphosis of the object into the subject. As we have seen,
there
is another tradition in modernity, which conceptualizes the architectonics of the world in terms of what Mikhail Bakhtin defines as the self/other relation. The relation between self and other must be understood neither as a relation between a subject and an object nor as a relation between subjects, but rather as an eventlike relation between possible worlds. The other is neither an object nor a subject; it is the expression of possible worlds. What do the relations
between the living, resistance, and power become when one no longer conceptualizes them on the basis of the ontology of the subject, but rather on that of the eventlike relation between self and other? Foucault can help us answer this question. In effect, in his final and definitive theory of power, Foucault defines power as action performed upon possible actions, as the capacity to control the ways in which others may conduct themselves. Perceiving power relations as capacities to constitute and define the possible conduct of others allows us to return to what is at stake in the practices, mechanisms, and techniques of power that we have seen at work in the coordinationform, in feminist movements, and in the struggles against neoliberal globalization. At the beginning of the 1980s, Foucault draws a distinction between three different concepts that he had until then subsumed under the single category of power: strategic relations, techniques of government, and states of domination.5
Strategic relations make up a considerable part of human relations and must not be confused with a political structure, a government, a dominant social class, or anything of the kind. They constitute a set of power relations that play out between individuals within a family or a teacher-student, communicative, or romantic relationship. They are infinitesimal, mobile, reversible, and unstable power games that allow the partners involved to put in place strategies for modifying situations. For Foucault, strategic relations have no negative connotations. For example, exercising power over another within a sexual or romantic relationshipwhere one attempts to dictate the conduct of the other and acts upon the others possible actions as part of an open strategic game within which things can always be reversedis part of love, of passion, of sexual pleasure. If power is defined as the capacity to structure the others field of possible actions, then in order to conceptualize the exercise of power one needs to suppose that the forces engaged in the relation are virtually free. Power is a mode of acting upon active subjects, upon free subjects qua free
subjects. Within this framework, to say that the subjects are free is to say that they always have the possibility of chang ing the situation, that this possibility exists constantly. States
of domination, on the other hand, are characterized by the fact that the strategic relation has stabilized itself within institutions that limit, freeze, and block the mobility, reversibility, and instability of the action performed upon another action. In this way, the asymmetrical relationships that every social relation contains are crystallized and lose the freedom, fluidity, and reversibility of strategic relations. Trade unions, political parties, and State institutions may insist on the democratic character of the procedures that characterize them, but they freeze and block at the outset the ways in which individuals attempt to direct the conduct of others, such that it becomes almost impossible to implement strategies of transformation. Foucault
situates technologies or techniques of government in an intermediate region between strategic relations and states of domination. Technologies or techniques of government are the ensemble of practices by which one is able to constitute, define, organize, instru mentalize the strategies that individuals, in their freedom, can implement in their relationships with one another.6 What these techniques govern is ones relation to oneself and to others. According to Foucault, techniques of government play a central role within power relations, because it is through them that strategic games can be given a closed or an open character; it is through the exercise of techniques of government that these games crystallize and fix themselves in institutionalized, asymmetrical relations (states of domination) or in fluid and reversible relations, open to the experimentation of subjectivations that escape states of domination. Political action must therefore concentrate on techniques of government. Such action has two major aims: 1. To allow for strategic relations to be played out with as little domination as possible, by giving oneself rules of right (new rights). 2. To increase the liberty, mobility, and reversibility of power games, since this liberty, mobility, and reversibility are the preconditions for resistance, creation, and the experimentation of relationships to oneself and to others. The notion of techniques of government helps u s to conceptualize in another way the newness of the mechanisms we have seen at work in coordinations, in post-feminist movements, or in the various mobilizations against neoliberal globalization. The techniques of government that organize states of domination (such as marketing, the management of a business enterprise, glob al governance, or workfare) are not the only possible techniques of government. In effect, it is also possible for there to be techniques of government that cut across strategic relations and states of domination transversally. While it is an illusion to believe that there can be social relations without power relations, one mustnt think that states of domination are inevitable. Its a question of the techniques employed, if one envisions these techniques as collective constructs. Conceptua lizing political action as the construction of techniques for the governing of oneself and of others allows one to render both strategic relations and states of dominati on problematic. It allows one to make them the object of politics, thereby creating the conditions for transforming them. The techniques in question are themselves the means employed in such an act of
132
Vanova

2009-10
133 Capitalism K
questioning; they are themselves the locus of experimentation. Experimentation and the transformation of the situation can be brought about neither in the exteriority of strategic relations nor in the interiority of states of domination; they trace a line of flight between the two, by means of techniques and mechanisms that prevent states of domination from fixing every space for the creation of what is possible, and by giving to strategic relations a new mobility and a new reversibility, a reversibility assured not by the transcendence of the law and of right, or by categorical statements on equality, but by the action of mobile and nomadic institutions such as coordinations. Such new institutions blur the distinctions and the distribution of roles fixed by established power; they allow for subtraction from the dichotomous (or dialectical) alternatives within which we are bound (man/woman, capitalist/worker, citizen/foreigner, worker/unemployed, and so on). This space between the microphysics of power and the institutions of domination (a space that is not given, but that must be invented, constructed, cultivated) is propitious for a politics of becoming and creation, for the invention of new forms of subjectivation. In the end, Foucault, Deleuze, and Guattari tell us that if one wants to conceptualize and practice the politics of multiplicity, one needs to start from these spaces, these lines that are traced in an always singular manner between the molar and the molecular, between relations of dominance and strategic relations. Thats exactly what social movements do, and what molar institutions (both right-wing and left-wing) refuse to do. And it is the only way of constructing social relations whose horizon is not that of war.
133
Vanova

2009-10
134 Capitalism K
Alternative Solvency- Law Social movements against the hegemony of capital can resolve the negative aspects of the legal system better than the plan- Guardiola-Rivera 2
(Oscar, Law Professor @ Univ. of London Birkbeck, Ideology, Capitalism, and the Geopolitics of Knowledge, Project Muse, VR) The conformation of the na tionstate system and of nation-state subjects is the main product and agent of globalization. In other words, an
abstract political space3 is constituted through which capital can perpetually expand, no longer constrained by politically constituted communities or parceled sovereignty (see Hardt and Negri 2000). This implies the conversion, overcoming, or eradication of constituted communities and the wholesale modification of existing concepts of social action and change. This is the problem Marx referred to as primitive accumulation (in which the concentrated force of the nation-state plays a central role): the destruction of pre- or paracapitalist forms of rule and production. In the contemporary world we keep witnessing violent processes of primitive accumulation, but we also observe new social movements becoming agents of such processes by falling prey to another mistake found in most actual analyses of globalization in the critical social sciences. This is the supposition that the global and the national (or any other analogically localized specific communities such as ethnic peoples, women, or inclusive communities) are in conflict. As Simon Bromley (1999, 284) argues, this way of thinking has been reinforced by the somewhat paradoxical fact that, while the major social and political theories originating in the Enlightenment were (implicitly at least) of universal scope and applicability, most actual analysis assumed that societies were nationally bounded. Unlike Bromley, I see no paradox. Peripheral nationalism, performatively
generated by ideological apparatuses and imposed upon its agents, can be seen as yet another ideological effect of the uses of literacy in a (post)colonial setting.
Once ideology erases its links with economic and political structures, it conveys a sense of transcendence so the literates individual life derives its meaning and significance from intellectual, aesthetic, and spiritual participation in the accumulated creations and knowledge of humankind, made available through the written word (Scribner 1986, 16; cited in Mignolo 1995, 322). The point here is that there is no contradiction between global and specific, but there is overdetermination. This means that the specific is made to work for the global in the sense that concrete processes of specification and subjectification (social, economic, legal, territorial) achieved through different uses of literacy (described as literacy as adaptation, and literacy as power)4 are transcended in and subsumed by literacy-as-state ofgrace (Scribner 1986). While being interpellated by the ideological apparatus of literacy, individuals become (imaginary) citizens of the cosmopolis (no longer of their specific community, republic, or nation). Scribner has not only presented us with thre e metaphors for the uses of literacy. She has also provided us with a way to understand how the agency of social actors subjected to colonial uses of literacy actually works from specific-community construction toward an imaginary relationship with the cosmopolitical. This relationship is analogous to the transferential relationship between nation state building and the operation of the world-system under conditions of globalization. The lesson to be drawn from the emphasis given to the
study of the uses of literacy in (post)colonial settings, as developed by Mignolo and others through the concept of the geopolitics of knowledge, is a call for a renewed sense of totalities (in spite of postmodernism). There
is a need for a more complex horizon of totality that focuses on literacy as an apparatus of capture and relocation of social roles in the (imaginary) global system. This kind of imaginary cosmopolis (whose reality is constituted by a network of legal regulations and statelike institutions) provides capitalism with its actual face: virtual, pure, anonymous, omnipresent (although it is not present at any given place or time; its nonpresence is its omnipresence). Like a ghost, it is not there but it is very real.
134
Vanova

2009-10
135 Capitalism K
Alternative Solvency- Mental Healthcare

Only a non-capitalist world can resolve all the issues of the mental health systemMartinez 05 (Dawn Belkin, Social Work professor at Simmons University, Winter, Mental Healthcare after Capitalism, http://radicalpsychology.org/vol42/Martinez4.html, VR)
In life after capitalism, mental health institutions will no longer be organized according to the models promoted by the medical- industrial complex described earlier. No longer will care be dictated by social control imperatives or corporate profit motives. Instead, the institutional goal of mental health systems will be to facilitate the fullest development of the potentials of each and every individual, consistent with his or her physical and mental capabilities. Rather than viewing patients as objects to be manipulated and controlled for the benefit of capital, individuals in health care systems will be viewed as subjects, working alongside physicians and other health care workers toward their individual and collective empowerment. Geographically, post capitalist mental health services will be furnished through a decentralized system of full service neighborhood clinics which will guarantee a continuity of care, and a close connection between providers and the communities in which they work. In addition to institutional and geographical changes, a post capitalist social system will inaugurate other transformations in the way that mental health services are provided. Health care providers themselves particularly physicians -- will no longer be exalted as revered experts, dominating a hierarchical system that reinforces their privileges and distances them from the patients with which they work. Post capitalist mental health practitioners will be guided by new principles in their relationships with clients and families. They will see themselves as helpful allies in a joint project with patients and families. The North American psychologist William Madsen has identified the following commitments as key to these new relationships[3]: First, approach clients, their families and communities as unique micro-cultures and learn what they can teach you. Clients behavior and action need to be understood through their own lenses. Second, abandon the approach of identifying pathologies in favor of one that elicits competencies. Persons with mental health problems have skills, resilience, and capacities to grow. Treatment is not possible without recognition and reliance on these strengths. Third, work in partnership with clients and families. Clients must be active and invested subjects in their own treatment. Finally, engage in empowerment practice. Empowerment practice involves ways of thinking and acting that acknowledge, support and amplify peoples own participation and influence in the decisions that affect their lives. Mental health care providers must make themselves and their work accountable to their clients. If, as Foucault (1980) showed us, knowledge is a form of power, then the development and application of knowledge in a post capitalist society must be radically different than it is under capitalism[4]. Today, as noted earlier, mental health theory and its discourses serve to objectify and discipline individuals and communities that deviate from accepted social norms and to pathologize persons with serious forms of mental illness. Post-capitalist mental health theory will have to make a profound break with this tradition. It must find ways to liberate both practitioners and clients from the oppressive social control model. It is too early to describe the full range of alternative approaches that will be available to mental health workers in a postcapitalist society. Even so, activists in various countries are already attempting to identify theoretical constructs that represent a genuine break with the dominant contemporary discourses. The Australian family therapist Michael White has developed one approach that I find particularly useful[5]. Whites theoretical model is an alternative to the way that capitalist mental health discourses dehumanize people by reducing them to their illnesses. He notes that these discourses often reinforce the problems that led people to seek treatment in the first place and keep them locked in self subjugating social and personal narratives. His alternative model assists clients both by enabling them to externalize their illnesses and by inviting them to participate in the construction of new and liberating narratives and stories about themselves. Working together with clients as helpful allies, practitioners assist them to externalize and confront their problems by examining their lives in their full social contexts. This practice, by distinguishing and separating individuals from their illnesses, enables them to actively participate in the emergence of new personal narratives, different versions of their past, present, and future,
135
Vanova
136 2009-10 Capitalism K and new self-images and ways of living. This alternative mental health theory and practice draws inspiration from the political/educational work of Paulo Freire (1970)[6]. As Freire demonstrated, individuals do not gain critical awareness by being empty vessels to be filled with knowledge or ideas by outside experts. Instead, they can come to truly understand themselves and their world and to consciously act in it only through a process of praxis involving reflection action reflection. This method is as applicable in the context of mental health treatment as it is in popular education. By employing Freires techniques of problem posing, and of analyzing problems from a matrix of personal, cultural and institutional perspectives, mental health service providers can work with clients to facilitate their individual and collective empowerment.
136
Vanova

2009-10
137 Capitalism K
Alternative- AT: Permutation Leftist movements will be co-opted into capitalist structure- Holloway 05
(john, 8-16, Ph.D Political Science-University of Edinburgh , Can We Change The World Without Taking Power?, http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5616) There are two ways of thinking about this. The first says that these movements, these many insubordinations, lack maturity and effectiveness unless they are focused, unless they are channelled towards a goal. For them to be effective, they must be channelled towards the conquest of state power: either through elections or through the overthrowing of the existing state and the establishment of a new, revolutionary state. The organisational form for channelling all these insubordinations towards that aim is the party. The question of taking state power is not so much a question of future intentions as of present organisation. How should we organise ourselves in the present? Should we join a party, an organisational form that focuses our discontent on the winning of state power? Or should we organise in some other way?
The second way of thinking about the expansion and multiplication of insubordinations is to say, 'No, they should not be all harnessed together in the form of a party, they should flourish freely, go whatever way the struggle takes them.' This does not mean that there should be no coordination, but it should be a much looser coordination. Above all, the principal point of reference is not the state but the society that we want to create. The principal argument against the first conception is that it leads us in the wrong direction. 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. But this means understanding that our forms of organisation are very different from those of the state, that there is no symmetry between them.
137
Vanova

2009-10
138 Capitalism K
Alternative- AT: Permutation Attempts to marry the system with anti capitalist movements create worse hybridsKovel 2
(Joel, Professor of Social Studies at Bard, The Enemy of Nature, pg 142, VR) The value-term that subsumes everything into the spell of capital sets going a kind of wheel of accumulation, from production to consumption and back, spinning ever more rapidly as the inertial mass of capital grows, and generating its force field as a spinning magnet generates an electrical field. This phenomenon has important implications for the reformability of the system. Because capital is so spectral, and succeeds so well in ideologically mystifying its real nature, attention is constantly deflected from the actual source of eco-destabilization to the instruments by which that source acts. The real problem, however, is the whole mass of globally accumulated capital, along with the speed of its circulation and the class structures sustaining this. That is what generates the force field, in proportion to its own scale; and it is this force field, acting across the numberless points of insertion that constitute the ecosphere, that creates ever larger agglomerations of capital, sets the ecological crisis going, and keeps it from being resolved. For one fact may be taken as certain - that to resolve the ecological crisis as a whole, as against tidying up one corner or another, is radically incompatible with the existence of gigantic pools of capital, the force field these induce, the criminal underworld with which they connect, and, by extension, the elites who comprise the transnational bourgeoisie. And by not resolving the crisis as a whole, we open ourselves to the spectre of another mythical creature, the many-headed hydra, that regenerated itself the more its individual tentacles were chopped away. To realize this is to recognize that no schema of reformism ,that will clean up its act by making it act more greenly or efficiently. We shall explore the practical implications of this thesis in Part III, and here need simply to restate the conclusion in blunt terms: green capital, or non-polluting capital, is preferable to the immediately ecodestructive breed on its immediate terms. But this is the lesser point, and diminishes with its very success. For green capital (or 'socially/ecologically responsible investing') exists, by its very capital-nature, essentially to create more value, and this leaches away from the concretely green location to join the great pool, and follows its force field into zones of greater concentration, expanded profitability - and greater ecodestruction.
there is no compromising with capital,
138
Vanova

2009-10
139 Capitalism K
Alternative- AT: Utopian (1/2) Capital is more utopian than our alternative- the way they ignore the contradictions of capital in the real world- Meszaros 95
(Istivan, professor emeritus at the University of Sussex, 1995, Beyond Capital, Introduction, VR)
the self-serving slogan of there is no alternative is often coupled with an equally tendentious clause of selfjustification which proclaims that in the real world there can be no alternative to the advocated course of action (or inaction). This proposition is supposed to be a self-evident truth, automatically exempting all those who continues to assert it from inconveniencing themselves with the burden of proof. Yet, the moment we ask the questions, what sort of real word are they talking about, it becomes clear that it is an utterly fictitious one. For the structural defect and explosive antagonisms of the world in which we actually happen to live are apologetically denied or blindly disregarded by those who expect us to believe that in the real world there is no alternative to the meek acceptance of the conditions necessary for the trouble-free functioning of the global capital system. In the name of reason, common sense, and real politics we are invited to resign ourselves to the existing state of affairs, no matter how destructive its antagonisms. for within the parameters of the established ordereternalized as the rational framework of the fundamentally unalterable real world, with human nature and its corresponding ideal reproductive instrumentality: the market mechanism, etc. no solutions can be envisaged to the ubiquitous contradictions. Thus we are expected to pretend to
ourselves that classes and class contradictions no longer exist or no longer matter. Accordingly, the only viable course of action in the thus postulated real world is supposed to be to ignore, or to explain away the evidence of structural instability provid ed by our own eyes, wishfully sweeping under an imaginary carpet the chronic problems and crisis symptoms of growing severity with which our social order confronts us every day. As things stand today, the ideologist of the established
If it is true, as they say, that there is no alternative to the structural determinations of the capital system in the real world in that case the very idea of causal interventionsno matter how little or largemust be condemned as an absurdity. The only change admissible within such a vision of the world belongs to the type which concerns itself with some strictly limited negative effects but leaves their causal foundationthe given system of metabolic control completely unaffected. Yet, if there is an approach that truly deserves to be called a total absurdity in the realm of social reform, it is not the advocacy of major structural change but precisely the kind of apologetic wishful thinking which divorces the effects from their causes. This is why the war on poverty, announced with reforming zeal so many times,
order do not believe any longer even in the earlier popularized notion of changing their order little by little. especially in the twentieth century, is always lost, given the causal framework the poverty-producing exploitative structural imperativesof the capital system.
The attempt at divorcing effects from their causes goes hand in hand with the equally fallacious practice of claiming the status of a rule for the exception. This is how it can be pretended that the misery and chronic underdevelopment that necessarily arise from the neo-colonial domination and exploitation of the overwhelming majority of humankind by a mere handful of capitalistically developed countrieshardly more than the g7- -do not matter at all. For, as the self-serving legend goes, thanks to the (never realized) modernization of the rest of the world, the population of every country will one fine day enjoy the great benefits of the free enterprise system. The fact that the rapacious exploitation of the human and material resources of our planet for the benefit of a few capitalist countries happens to be a nongeneralizable condition is wantonly disregarded. Instead, the universal viability of emulating the development of the advanced capitalist countries is predicated, ignoring that neither the advantages of the imperialist parts, nor the immense profits derived on a continuing basis from keeping the Third World in structural dependency can be universally diffused, so as to produce the anticipated happy results through modernization and free marketization. Not to mention the fact that even if the history of imperialism could be re-written in a sense diametrically opposed to the way it actually unfolded, coupled with the fictitious reversal of the existing power relations of domination and dependency in favour of the underdeveloped countries, the general adoption of the rapacious utilization of our planets limited resourcesenormously damaging already, although at present practiced only by the privileged tiny minoritywould make the whole system instantly collapse. It is enough to think in this respect of the wild discrepancy between the size of the
139
Vanova

2009-10
140 Capitalism K
Alternative- AT: Utopian (2/2)

US populationless than 5 percent of the world populationand its 25 percent consumption of total available energy resources. It takes no great imagination to figure out what would happen if the 95 percent adopted the
same consumption pattern, trying to squeeze nineteen times 25 percent out of the remaining 75 percent. To hide the vacuity of the promised corrective solutions is the convenient ideological function of turning the strictly exceptional conditions of the privileged few into the universal rule. Only in an utterly fictitious world in which effects can be divorced from, and even diametrically opposed to, their causes can such an approach be considered feasible and sound. This is why these two fallaciesthe first that stipulates the possibility of manipulating effect in and by themselves as divorced from their causes, and the second the universalization of ungeneralizable exceptionsare so closely tied together in the ruling pragmatic ideology. An ideology which finds its ultimate self -justification and satisfaction in its claim to depict the order of the real world to which there can be no alternative.
140
Vanova

2009-10
141 Capitalism K
2NC- Capitalism- AT: Alternative Fails (Kliman)

1. Assumes pure Marxism- we dont try to overtake through government which would require the calculations their evidence assumes- our alternative demands a rejection of state based power relations 2. Our alternative moves the focus away from the political realm and on a rejection of class relations- lasting
changes in the political realm must be grounded in changes in the mode of production, not the reverse. Thats a quote from their evidence
3. Marx may have rejected the utopians, but Holloway doesnt- the lack of utopianism Kliman critiques is modified in our alternative- the end point of our struggle is to get to an egalitarian just society, but our alterantive embraces that there will be problems with moving away from capitalism, but we still have to cling on to our struggle 4. <Meszaros- AT: Utopia>
141
Vanova

2009-10
142 Capitalism K
2NC- Capitalism- AT: Alternative Fails- Cohen

1. The author is talking in first person about personal opinion- no intent to make broad claims about the system
2. Contradictory claims- he says we should weaken and expand state power. Were not social democrasists, purely anti-capitalist 3. Its a political endorsement of the alternative- the debate is about competing methodologies which means we dont have to win the alternative
142
Vanova

2009-10
143 Capitalism K
2NC- Capitalism- AT: Alternative is Violent (Bernstein)

1. The problem their author outlines is fascism, not communism- capitalist leaders like the status quo Chinese government are equally likely to cause genocides- our alternative doesnt create the struggles for power that have led to crisis situations because we reject notions of power altogether- means there would be no violent revolt against the governmental system of capital- thats Holloway 2. Their author ignores the root cause of their harms- citing Vietnam as a good place to work in a sweatshop doesnt mean capitalism is good- we went into their country to prevent red spread on purely ideological grounds and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and soldiers- proves the ideology they defend is inherently violent
143
Vanova

2009-10
144 Capitalism K
2NC- Capitalism- AT: Alternative is Violent (Meltzer)

1. This only answers the permutation- we dont go through government channels because our alternative rejects larger notions of power in general 2. Not our alternative- even if previous struggles against capital failed theres no reason we should get stuck defending them 3. We dont link to utopianism- we dont need to have a picture of what a true world would be like to feel there is something wrong with the one that existsfeeling the world is wrong doesnt mean we have a utopia to put in its place
144
Vanova

2009-10
145 Capitalism K
2NC- Capitalism- AT: Progressive Reformism S Alt (Berman 6)

1. Were not the rev- our alternative is a withdrawal from the capitalist system, not a leftist revolt 2. He calls for greater trends of progressivism- one reformist affirmative doesnt create the incentive to reverse the profit drive of corporations
3. This article is an answer to Sachs, who calls for 4.5 billion for the poor, not for a collapse of capitalism. 4. Goes our way- they needed to kill off people to even install mildly progressive reform
145
Vanova

2009-10
146 Capitalism K
2NC- Framework
We should focus on the political agency of rhetoric because social forums are where capitalism begins- fairness and education are useless because they dont further a better debate- we must refocus on communicative efforts to bring out the history of capital- every round can create social change- Greene 04
(Ronald Walter, Professor @ Department of Communication Studies, UMinnesota, Rhetoric and Capitalism: Rhetorical Agency as Communicative Labor, Muse, VR) On the terrain of bio-political production, labor
processes take on a new dimension as capital attempts to harness and rechannel self-valorizing labor for the valorization of capital. Hardt and Negri (2000) borrow the idea of immaterial labor to describe how capitalism's valorization depends on the exploitation of intellectual, communicative, and affective labor. Labor is described as immaterial not because it has been removed from capitalist logics of commodity production, but because the nature of the commodity is changing. Maurizio Lazzarato (1996) posits two significant changes in the
character of commodity production. The first way concerns the informational content of the commodity. This describes how the labor process increasingly relies on teamwork, information, and increased participation in decision making, often with the help of cybernetic and communication technologies. Second, immaterial labor also implies a cultural element to the commodity. This cultural content includes "the kinds of activities involved in defining and fixing cultural and artistic standards, fashion, tastes, consumer norms, and more strategically, public opinion" (133-34). Hardt and Negri expand the notion of immaterial labor beyond commodity production to include the production of bodies, affect, and social networks. Immaterial labor does not mean that dangerous, repetitive, mind-numbing, and bodybreaking work has gone away. It points to a form of labor that capitalism is becoming increasingly reliant on for its valorization, a historical process that is transforming both the extensive and intensive dimensions of production. Immaterial labor also helps to posit a more historical ontology for production, one in which the old distinctions between productive labor and unproductive labor (those engaged in commodity production and those that are not) are no longer useful as the production and reproduction of human life and conduct become the terrain of bio-political production. In my view, immaterial labor offers an alternative model for rhetorical agency. As a way toward a material ontology of rhetorical agency I would claim that the
persuasive, aesthetic, and deliberative characteristics of communication (elements associated with the information and cultural content of the commodity as well as the social networks of care) reside in the matrix of bio-political production. From this perspective, rhetorical agency can be remodeled as communicative labor, a form of life-affirming constitutive power that embodies creativity and cooperation. As such, it extends beyond commodity production per se, to include communication's role in building social networks of all kindsol Hence, we should take seriously how the current stage of global capital requires communicative labor, networks, and technologies. Theodore Striphas (2001) argues that there is a functional equivalence between how
cultural materialism (cultural studies) imagines the role of communication as a means of social production and how Hardt and Negri describe the process of biopolitical production. However by resituating cultural materialism's emphasis on communication on the terrain of production, instead of on the terrain of
instrumental goaloriented forms of persuasion exist as strategic attempts to coordinate behavior and belief; aesthetic forms of rhetoric highlight the representational and technological forms of language and communication in the production of subjectivity, the commodity, and public opinion; and deliberative models of rhetoric emphasize the normative power of argument, discussion, debate, and dialogue as decision-making practices. The desire to highlight the political agency of rhetoric inevitably transforms rhetoric into a model of communication. As I have demonstrated so far, none of these models captures the role of communicative labor in postmodern capitalism. Therefore, we should abandon a debate about the political merits and limitations of different models of communication in order to better assess the historical interaction between rhetoric and capitalism. In contrast, the central advantage of re-specifying rhetoric as communicative labor is that it brings back to the forefront changes in the sphere of production and the role that rhetoric plays as a practice, process, and product of economic, political, ideological, and cultural value. To be sure, this move requires that we abandon a communicative ontology that views humans as essentially symbol-using creatures so that we might rearticulate communicative action into a material history of production and living labor. The analytical advantage of such a re-specification is that we can begin to imagine how rhetorical agency as communicative labor can be abstracted and captured to perform gendered, nationalized, and raced workforms of work and labor that can create class structures and class forms, and can distribute bodies along the international division of labor. In other words, by focusing on communicative labor we can understand how communication makes possible the invention of class.
communication theory, we can escape a forced choice between different communicative models of rhetorical agency. For example,
146
Vanova

2009-10
147 Capitalism K
Framework- ROB The role of the ballot is to serve as an ideological endorsement at the end of the roundonly engaging capitalism on an ideological level can create new modes of knowledge production- Rose 06 (Peter, Professor @ Miami Ohio, Divorcing Ideology from Marxism AND Marxism from Ideology: Some Problems, VR)
Accounts of ideology usually give a nod to Antoine Destutt de Tracy and Napoleon for the earliest recorded uses, then skip to Hegel and Marx for serious elaboration of the foundations of the contemporary use of the term.2 While a wide range of other conceptualizations have spun off these foundations, I think it is fair to say that the most sophisticated contemporary theorizations of ideology have come from avowed Marxists. In this paper, I wish to explore the relationship between ideology as a focus of analysis, class warfare as its presupposition in Marxist theory, and taking sides in class struggle. I will argue that in treatments of classical antiquity, serious consequencesin some cases, serious contradictions arise when Marxists lack an adequate conceptualization of ideology, when non-Marxists appropriate Marx-inspired theories of ideology without accepting fundamental Marxist presuppositions, or when nonMarxists feel compelled to carry on residual cold-war polemics to distance themselves as far as possible from the taint of Marxism. Since the term ideology is, as David McLellan points out, itself an essentially contested concept (1986.1) and, therefore, by no means self -explanatory, let me attempt very briefly to sketch what I take to be some essential features of a properly Marxist concept of ideology.3 Central to such an analysis is the relational nature of class. Classes only emerge and become conscious of themselves as classes in a society characterized by serious conflicts over control of the material means of production, over human relations in the actual processes of production, and over the distribution of the fruits of production. Ideology is accordingly relational and a function of class conflict; it is not simply the worldview of one class or group viewed in isolation. As Fredric Jameson comments:
Ideology
is designed to promote the human dignity and clear conscience of a given class at the same time that it discredits their adversaries; indeed, these two operations are one and the same (1971.380). It is certainly true that the term ideology is most often used by both Marxists and non-Marxists to mean the ideology of the dominant group because, as Marx pointed out, the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production (Marx-Engels 1976a.5.59). Alternative ideologies attain explicit articulation only in periods of grave crisis. But because class struggle, in the words of the Communist Manifesto, entails an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight (Marx-Engels 1976b.6.482), what generates ideology is a perceived threat to the interests of one class from the aspirations of a class opposed to it. In addition to being relational, ideology functions by persuasion rather than force. Antonio Gramsci worked out this aspect in terms of an opposition between hegemony and dominationthe dual process by which a dominant group seeks, first, to persuade those subject to its will of the inevitability and, where possible, the justice of their subjugation, and secondly, to enforce the dominant groups discipline (Hoare and Smith 1971.12). Louis Althusser elaborated Gramscis concept by distinguishing the ideological state apparatuses (such institutions as the media, the schools, churches) from the repressive state apparatuses (the police, army, and courts) (197 1.12786). Because ideological apparatuses function by persuasion, they are inherently sites of struggle (1971.147, cf. 185). Althussers more original
contribution to the theory of persuasion in ideological struggle is his notion of interpellation (1971.17077), from the Latin interpellare, to hail or accost someone. Ideological
apparatuses offer individuals a loaded version of their identities: politicians hail their audience as my fellow Americans, priests address their audience as fellow Catholics, while evangelicals address true believers or bornagain believers. To the extent that these audiences acquiesce in these in terpellations, they internalize the ideological positions associated with the interpellations. This emphasis on persuasion in ideology implies that ones opponents needs, desires, and values are not simply ignored, they are somehow redefined or mystified in terms acceptable to those opponents or shown to be by their nature impossible of fulfillment. Thus in the very heart of a dominant ideology, there are discernible, if distorted, traces of the alternatives against which the ideology is deployed. Ambiguity is, therefore, a central feature of a dominant ideology
since, as noted by Jameson above, it is designed to sustain the positive self-conception of the dominant group and, at the same time, to co-opt, silence, or neutralize the perceived opposition. A final
related consequence of this ambiguity is that ideology is not simply propaganda, which is preeminently conscious manipulation (though it may often overlap with it), because ideologys goal is not only the subjugation of an underclass but the fostering of the self-esteem of the dominate group. Thus it is a selfserving set of deeply held, often unconscious beliefs. The great French anthropologist Claude Lvi-Strauss was asked at the age of eighty
what he retained from Marx. He replied: Only a few lessons from Marxs teaching have stayed with meabove all, that consciousness lies to itself (Lvi-Strauss and Eribon 1991.108). This formulation seems to me to capture neatly the ambiguity between the unconscious nature of much ideology and its obviously self-serving character. Let me now turn to my main topic, a critique of what I believe are inadequate appropriations of Marxist notions of ideology. I have chosen as examples two explicitly Marxist authors and two authors who make some use of Marx-inspired accounts of ideology while rigorously repudiating any connection with Marxism. I will try to demonstrate that the projects of each of these scholarsprojects concerned with issues of ideology that eminently lend themselves to Marxist analysis are significantly diminished by either inadequate models of ideology, in the case of the committed Marxist authors, or, in the case of the throwback cold warriors, by the failure to exploit fully the Marxist models they treat so gingerly. My choice of authors (with the exception of Ando) reflects, in part, my own Hellenic specialization, but, more importantly, it reflects these authors explicitness about their method ology a quality not so common in classical scholarship.4
147
Vanova

2009-10
148 Capitalism K
Framework- Pedagogy Key to Collapse We live in a world controlled by ideology- our starting point must be to imagine ideological changes in the political- Guardiola-Rivera 2
(Oscar, Law Professor @ Univ. of London Birkbeck, Ideology, Capitalism, and the Geopolitics of Knowledge, Project Muse, VR) Talk of ghosts evokes the imagery used by Jacques Derrida in Specters of Marx (1994) or Terrell Carver in The Post-modern Marx (1999), gestures signaling the character of late capitalism and the spectral condition of justice under globalization. Beyond metaphors, the point is that in postmodernity, though we claim not to believe in great narratives, we might be living one. We live in literacy as state-of-grace. We
live in ideology, our topsy-turvy world of cosmopolitan images and digitally enhanced fantasies, which constitutes an ideology that may be reinforced by our contemporary disillusionment with foundational narratives. This point is related to the problem faced by critical theory today: How do we analyze spectral capitalism (the ideology we live in) and still remain sensitive to the problematic of grounding forms of social criticism? The question can be rephrased in a iekian manner: How is it possible, if at all, to reinvent the political under the present conditions of globalization? To reinvent the political means to open up the possibilities of political imagination both in theory and in practice. To do so under the present conditions of globalization means to take into account that we live in ideology, thus to account for the persistence of modern/colonial power relations and knowledge discourses that function by erasing their links with economic structures and with literacy as power. They do so because their exercise of power dwells, precisely, in their apparent disconnection with economy and politics so that the global appears as a specter, a virtual reality that is never fully actualized, thus always deferring itself through successive crises. There are, in the present conditions, two sources from
which it becomes possible to open up the political: either (1) by setting up the local against the global, or (2) by developing a practical critique of global commodification and its cosmopolitical ideology, that is, the idea that all productions and subjectivities derive their meaning from their spiritual relationship with the universal purposive experience (cognitive and historical) of mankind.
148
Vanova

2009-10
149 Capitalism K
Framework- Pedagogy Key to Collapse Information is how capitalism spreads throughout the world- we must attack it through communication to create change- Guardiola-Rivera 2
(Oscar, Law Professor @ Univ. of London Birkbeck, Ideology, Capitalism, and the Geopolitics of Knowledge, Project Muse, VR) I propose that there
is a second way of opening up the political under the present conditions of globalization. It starts from Marxs account of the global spread of capitalist society as increasingly transnational, although uneven and conflict-ridden, and involving processes of primitive accumulation. Then it moves toward Spivaks relocation
of political undecidability in the colonial history of gender formation, thus avoiding the more normative and finalistic nuances that remain in Derridas reading of Marx. According to this account, the internal dynamic of the world market was given by modern industry, which could develop fully on the basis of the complete commodification of labor-power, that is, thanks
to the resubjectification of native agents, which presupposes the separation of agents from direct means of subsistence and hence their dependence on the market. Externally, the expansion of modern capitalism into its periphery generally demanded what Rosa Luxembourg called the struggle against the natural economy. Here we encounter the problematics of uneven and combined development (competitive pressures are
transmitted throughout the statesystem), neocolonialism, and imperial rule that today are the trademark of postcolonialism, arising from the unification of global politics and the spreading reach of the world market. These problematics are taken up and developed by world-systems analysis and dependency theory in agonistic relationship with the endogenous models of change of modernization theory. The
critique of endogenous models of change and the focus on the world-system pioneered by ImmanuelWallerstein and Anbal Quijano, among others, have enhanced our understanding of a historical tendency that is materializing before our very eyes: the coming-ofage of a transnational capitalist structure which is spectral in nature, that is, it has no subject (no capitalist, and therefore no proletarian as understood by traditional Marxism), no center (therefore no periphery, as understood by traditional dependency theory), no political ideology or ethics (either liberal or socialist), no history (it presents itself as a natural object), and no positive content (be this commodities, products, or even money). It is in this sense that I mentioned earlier the acquired objectivity of world capitalism. Acquired objectivity can be accounted for in terms of the continual transferal of agency from
its involvement in specificcommunity building to the construction of an imaginary cosmopolis, via global ISAs such as the law and literacy as state-of-grace (global designing or planning) which actualize (in real agents and local histories) the tendency of capitalism to forever expand. It follows that if we desire to transform this state of affairs we must first resubjectify what appears to us as an alien objectivity. This means to stop the flow of value-creating activity that is redirected from selfvalorization to the construction of an abstract cosmopolis. This
can be achieved by pragmatically recovering the underside of communication and understanding, which today stand as exemplars for honest flows of information across cultures. This underside has to do with the meaning of translation as loss and recovery, as conscious deception; this (gendered) pragmatics is much needed in order to inform the politics of reparations that can be used as a means to further the unlearning of Western privilege by the West. This politics involves playing law and literacy, pragmatically, against late capitalist reterritorialization.
149
Vanova

2009-10
150 Capitalism K
Framework- Now is Key Social movements against capital are uniquely necessary now- the left must reconvene to create change- Berman 9
(Sheri, associate professor of political science at Barnard College, Columbia University, Unheralded Battle Capitalism, the Left, Social Democracy, and Democratic Socialism, Project muse, VR)
Just as important, however, is that the left regain its old optimism and historical vision. And here, interestingly, is where Harrington still has something to teach. In his writings, he insisted on the lefts need for some larger sense of where it wanted the world to be heading. Without this, he argued, the left would be directionless and uninspiring. Despite current disillusionment with capitalism, this is precisely the situation the left finds itself in today, given the loss of its vision of a postcapitalist society. Many of its parties win elections, but few inspire much hope or offer more than a kinder, gentler version of a generic centrist platform. Given the lefts past, this is astonishing. The left has traditionally been driven by the conviction that a better world was possible and that its job was to bring this world into being. Somehow this conviction has been lost. As Michael Jacobs has noted, Up through the 1980s politics on the left was enchantednot by spirits, but by radical idealism; the belief that the world could be fundamentally different. But cold, hard political realism has now done for radical idealism what rationality did for pre-Enlightenment spirituality. Politics has been disenchanted. Many welcome this shift, believing that transformative projects are pass or even dangerous. But this loss of faith in transformation has been profoundly damaging, not just for the cause of progressive politics but for a wider sense of public engagement with the political process. As social democratic pioneers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century recognized, the most important thing that
politics can provide is a sense of the possible. Against Marxist determinism and liberal laissez-faire, they developed a political ideology based on the idea that people working together could make the world a better place. And in contrast to their democratic socialist colleagues, they argued that it was both possible and desirable to take advantage of capitalisms upsides while addressing its downsides.
The result was the most successful political movement of the twentieth century, one that shaped the basic politico-economic framework under which we still live. The problems of the twenty-first century may be different in form, but they are not different in kind. There is no reason that the accomplishment cannot be developed and extended.
150
Vanova

2009-10
151 Capitalism K
Framework- AT: Role playing Good Capital makes role playing useless- corporate control means theres no hope for change within the system- Klien 07
(Naomi, award wining author of the bestselling books No Logo and Fences and Windows also columnist for the nation and the Guardian, Shock doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Pg 314-316)
Then there is the whirling revolving door between government and industry. It has always been there, but for the most part political figures used to wait until their administration was out of office before cashing in on government connections. Under Bush, the nonstop homeland security market bonanza has proved too tempting for many administration officials to resist. So rather than wait until the end of their terms, hundreds, from a wide range of government agencies, have already charged for the door. According to Eric Lipton, who has tracked this phenomenon in the
Department of Homeland Security for The New York Times, veteran Washington lobbyists and watch god groups say the exodus of such a sizeable share of an
Lipton identified ninety-four examples of civil servants who had been working on domestic security and who are now working in some aspect of the home land security industry There are far too many such cases to detail here, but a few stand out, since they involve the key architects of the War on Terror. John
agencys senior management before the end of an administration has few modern parallels. Ashcroft, former attorney general and prime mover behind the Patriot Act, now heads up the Ashcroft Group, specializing in helping homeland security firms procure federal contracts. Tom Ridge, the first head of the Department of Homeland Security, is now at Ridge Global and an adviser to the communication technology company Lucent, which is active in the security sector, Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor and hero of the September 11 response started Giuliani Partners four months later to sell his services as a crisis consultant. Richard Clarke, counterterrorism czar under Clinton and Bush and an outspoken critic of the administration, is now chairman of Good Harbor Consulting, specializing in homeland security and counterterrorism. James Woolsey, head of the CIA until 1995, is now at Paladin Capital Group a private equity firm that invests in homeland security companies,band a vice president at Booz Allen, one of the leaders in the homeland security industry. Joe Allbaugh, head of FEMA on September 11, cashed out just eighteen months later to start New Bridge Strategies, promising to be the bridge between business and the lucrative world of government contracts and investment opportunities in Iraq. He was replace d by Michael Brown, who bolted after only two years to start Michael D. Brown LLC, speacializing disaster prepardnes. Can I quit now? Brown wrote in an infamous e-mail to a fellow FEMA staffer in the middle of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. That
is pretty much the philosophy: stay in government just long enough to get an impressive title in a department handing out big contracts and to collect inside information on what will sell, then quit and sell access to your former colleagues. Public service is reduced to little more than a reconnaissance mission for future work in the disaster capitalism complex. In some ways, however, the stories about corruption and revolving doors leave a false impression. They imply that there is still a clear line between the state and the complex, when in fact that line disappeared long ago. The innovation of the Bush years lies not in how quickly politicians move from one world to the other but in how many feel entitled to occupy both worlds simultaneously. People like Richard Perle and James Baker amek policy, offer top-level advice and speak in the press as disinterested experts and statesmen when they are at the same time utterly embedded in the business of privatized war and reconstruction. They embody the ultimate fulfillment of the corporatist mission: a total merger of political and corporate elites in the name of security, with the state playing the role of chair of the business guild as well as the largest source of business opportunities, thanks to the contract economy. Wherever it has emerged over the past thirty-five years, from Santiago to Moscow to Beijing to Bushs Washington, the alliace between a small corporate elite and a rightwing government has been written off as some sort of aberration mafia capitalism, oligarchy capitalism and now, under Bush, crony capitalism. But its not an aberration; it is where the entire Chicago School crusade with its triple obsessions privatization, deregulation and union-busting has been leading.
151
Vanova

2009-10
152 Capitalism K
2NCAT: Tech Good turns

The world post-collapse is not mutually exclusive with technologya focus on needs alleviates wasteful spending- Trainer 07
( Senior Lecturer of School of Social Work @ University of New South Wales [Ted, Renewable Energy Cannot Sustain A Consumer Society, p. 125-159]
The Simpler Way is not opposed to modem technology. In fact there will be more resources available for research and development of the things that matter, such as better medical services and windmill design, than there are now, when the vast sums presently wasted on unnecessary products, and arms, cease being spent. However it is a mistake to think better technology is important in solving global problems, let alone the key. Most of the things we need in The Simpler Way can be produced by traditional technologies. Hand tools can produce excellent food, clothes, furniture, houses, etc., and craft production is in general the most satisfying way. Of course we will use machinery where that makes sense and many basic items could be mass produced in automated factories. There would also be intensive research into improving crops and techniques, especially for deriving chemicals, drugs and materials from local plant sources. There will also be more resources than at present to invest in realms that have "spiritual" significance rather than economic value, such as astronomy, history, philosophy, the arts and humanities. Things will get done post-collapsenatural motivation - Trainer 07
Senior Lecturer of School of Social Work @ University of New South Wales [Ted, Renewable Energy Cannot Sustain A Consumer Society, p. 125-159] It is conceivable therefore that early in the transition process much of the econ omy will still be made up of private firms but as time goes by we will see the sense of reducing and eventually eliminating the role for market forces as we develop more satisfactory ways of ensuring efficiency and innovation. Many firms might remain privately owned, but serve the town under the watchful but helpful eye of its citizens. A key assumption here is that efficiency, "work"
motivation and innovation can eventually come from a) the good will of citizens who understand the importance of contributing to their local economy and find that enjoyable, and b) via extensive monitoring and feedback and adjustment systems, rather than market forces. Crucial for this would be the development of elaborate systems (which might be run mostly by volunteers), constantly making clear how well various agencies, including firms, were performing and what innovations seemed desirable. These monitoring systems would also focus on indices of social cohesion, quality of life and footprint, and would be in touch with similar agencies and information sources all around the world.
152
Vanova

2009-10
153 Capitalism K
AT: Feminism (1/2) The class movement sparks new forms of feminism through the lens of class equalitysecond wave feminism proves- Blau and Abramovitz 7
(Joel, Professor of Social Policy and Director of the PhD Program at the School of Social Welfare, Stony Brook University, and Mimi, professor at the Hunter College School of Social Work, The Dynamics of Social Welfare Policy, pg. 205-7, VR) Strict Marxists have analyzed gender and race in relation to capitalism and class conflict. They highlight the ways in which class patterns in capitalist societies have led to the subordination of women and people of color and argue that these groups enter social movements form their role as workers. Socialist feminists depart from an analysis that focuses exclusively on class issues. Instead, they define the relations of class, patriarchy, and racial domination as an independent but interacting structures of power. All three make social movements both necessary and possible. Gendered arrangements sex segregation of occupations, the economic dependence of women on men, womens near exclusive responsibility for the homeare so deeply embedded in our culture and social institutions that they often go unnoticed. Nonetheless, because
gender operates as a fundamental principle of social organization, it has periodically spanned collective action by women seeking equal rights with men, greater access to societal resources, and economic justice, if not an actual end to patriarchal power relations. The socialist feminist analysis highlights the conflicts arising
from the gendered structures of power in society. More specifically, it argues that tensions arise from the power imbalance that enables men as a group to dominate women as a group. As noted in the discussions of ideology in chapter 5, socialist
feminists conclude that gender inequality rests on the gender division of labor that assigns men to the market (public sphere_ and women to the home (private sphere) and to separate gendered activities within each arena. The resulting exclusion of women from social, economic, and political centers of power provided men with the means to control women and ensured that womens place was in the home. The exclusionary practices also led women to organize on their own behalf. Womens efforts to gain social, economic, and political inequality in the United States are as old as the nation itself. However, given their attention to both capitalism and patriarchy , socialist feminists found that the nature of womens activism varies by class. Middle-class women have fought for equal rights with men; poor and working-class women demanded the opportunity to carry out their gendered obligations, which involved improving the economic circumstances of their families and communities at the point of consumption. In 1789, Abigail Adams urged her husband,
John, who was attending the Constitutional Convention, to remember the ladies, or we are determined to foment a rebellion and will not hol d ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation. In 1848, the rebellion predicted by Abigail Adams sixty years earlier erupted when Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton convened the first womens rights convention, attended by three hundred people (including forty men) s parked by their lack of rights and the exclusion of women from the antislavery movement. Held in Senecca Falls, New York, the conference issued a Declaration of Independence. The document proclaimed the self evident truth that all men and women are created equal, and its resolutions declared that the laws that placed women in a positi on inferior to that of men are contrary to the great precept of nature and therefore of no force or authority. After considerable struggle , married women gained the right to own their own property (1849), to keep their wages and inheritance, to make contracts in their own name, and to have joint custody of their children (1860). But women did not win the vote until 1919, when Congress ratified the Nineteenth amendment to the constitution. From 1920 to this day, sexism (the unequal treatment of women by men) has continued to spark activism by middle-class women. For much of this time, African American and Latina women organized separately, first due to the laws of segregation that separated women racially and then because of unmatched agendas. Poor and working-class women mobilized to fulfill their gendered
Middle-class women rose up to protest that the democratic promise of equal opportunity for all did not apply to them; poor and working class women protested that the workings of the market economy undercut their gendered family maintenance roles. The lack of family income made it difficult, if not impossible, for them to effectively carry out their part in the tasks of social reproduction assigned to the family and linked to womens roles in the home. The discrepancy between the profit-driven markets ability to produce enough income and jobs and the resources needed by the family to maintain themselves fueled activism among low-income women. They organized to ensure that they would be able to
obligations, which required them to carry out the expectations of women as defined by their community. meet their gendered obligations at the point of consumption. For example, during the depression of the 1830s, working-class housewives organized flour riots. In the early 1900s, immigrant women on the Lower East Side of Manhattan and in other cities organized rent strikes to protest rising rents and butcher store boycotts to protest inflated meat prices. The action quickly spread to other neighborhoods and was the first of many other price driven protests in cities around the nation in 1905, 1907, 1908, 1910, and 1914. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, housewives around the country who lacked the ability to feed and clothe their families demanded government action. They supported strikes by men in their communities, blocked evictions, and organized consumer boycotts. One of the largest boycotts took place in 1935, when housewives targeted butcher shops in many large cities, closing some forty-five hundred in New York alone. Black working-class women formed their own housewives leagues and launched Dont Buy Where You Cant Work campaigns in numerous cities. Housewife ac tivism peaked in an explosion of protests in the early 1940s after Roosevelt cut social spending in response to conservative critics. The protests stopped during World War II, but huge price increases in 1946-1947 and 1951 sparked two of the largest consumer strikes in U.S history. During the civil rights movement, low-income women played key but highly unreported roles in local communities. During the 1960s, they became active in the war on poverty and the welfare rights movement, and to this day are involved in local campaigns against toxic waste, for neighborhood safety, and in support of many other community issues.
If the structure and
153
Vanova

2009-10
154 Capitalism K
AT- Feminism (2/2)

operation of capitalist institutions, especially economic exploitation, created the conditions for collective action among workers at the point of production, so the structure and operation of patriarchal power relations, especially the gender division of labor, created the conditions for collective action among women seeking equal rights. Just as the rise of larger and larger factories concentrated male workers in one place and exposed conflicts between capital and labor, so the gender division of labor clustered women into female enclaves: housewives in neighborhoods, workers in womens jobs, and clients in social welfare programs. But the capacity of women to act politically to try to change their circumstances is not automatic. It depends on the development of consciousness, leadership, and organizational capacity. In the case of women, the gender division of labor designed to keep women down and out paradoxically helped to create the conditions for the emergence of low-income womens activism and middle-class womens movements. The concentration of women in womens places, whether low-paid jobs or local neighborhoods, made it possible for women to recognize their shared oppression. As some point, under certain conditions, women concluded that their problems were not individual but stemmed from the patriarchal devaluation of women, the differential treatment of women and men, the exclusion of women from major economic and political institutions, and womens inability to fulfills their gendered obligations. The perceptions of at least some women turned into a powerful critique of patriarchy, male domination , womens condition, and economic injustice. The increased awareness (i.e., consciousness) that their well-being depended on jointly resisting their condition eventually led some women to organize for social change. The gender division of labor also generated the organizational capacity needed for collective behavior. Excluded from mainstream institutions and located in womens place in the home and on the job, women began to form their own clubs, associations, alliance, and organizations. The resulting networks became the infrastructure for collective action by women. Indeed, feminists point out that the shared experience of women denied basic rights, deprived of control over their bodies, and excluded from the centers of power fueled the first and second wave of feminism in the United states. The failure of the market to produce the income needed by low-income families sparked the collective action of low-income women throughout the twentieth century.
154
Vanova

2009-10
155 Capitalism K
AT: Identity Politics Identity politics have spurred the worst tragedies in human history- Piven 95
(Frances Fox, Professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York., Globalizing Capitalism and the Rise of Identity Politics, http://socialistregister.com/socialistregister.com/files/SR_1995_Piven.pdf, VR) But if identity
politics is ubiquitous because of what it offers people in protection, comfort and pride, it has also been a bane upon humankind, the source of unending tragedy. The fatal flaw in identity politics is easily recognized. Class politics, at least in principle, promotes vertical cleavages, mobilizing people around axes which broadly correspond to hierarchies of power, and which promote challenges to these hierarchies. By contrast, identity politics fosters lateral cleavages which are unlikely to reflect fundamental conflicts over societal power and resources and, indeed, may seal popular allegiance' to the ruling classes that exploit them. This fatal flaw at the very heart of a popular politics based on identity is in turn regularly exploited by elites. We can see it dramatically, for example, in the unfolding of the genocidal tribal massacres in Rwanda, fomented by Hutu governing class which found itself losing a war with Tutsi rebels. And of course the vulnerability to manipulation resulting from identity politics is as characteristic of modem societies as tribal societies. Thus identity politics makes people susceptible to the appeals of modern nationalism, to the bloody idea of loyalty to state and flag, which is surely one of the more murderous ideas to beset humankind. State builders cultivate a sort of race pride to build allegiance to an abstract state, drawing on the ordinary and human attachments that people form to their group and their locality and drawing also on the animosity to the Other that is typically the complement of these attachments. The actual group that people experience, the local territory that they
actually know, comes to be joined with the remote state and its flag, just as the external enemy of the state comes to be seen as the menacing Other, now depicted as a threat not only to the group and its locale, but as a threat to the nation state. I hardly need add that this melding of identity politics with state patriotism can stir people to extraordinary acts of destruction and self-destruction in the name of mystical abstractions, and the identity politics that energizes them. Napoleon
was able to waste his own men easily in his murdurous march across Europe because they were quickly replaced with waves of recruits drawn from a French population enthused by their new attachment to the French nation. And World War I showed that modem states could extract even more extraordinary contributions of life and material wellbeing from their citizenry, as Europeans seized by nationalist passions joined in a frenzy of destruction and death in the name of state patriotism.' In the United States, popular politics has always been primarily about race, ethnicity and religion. Perhaps a population of slaves and immigrants of diverse origins, captive and free, provided some
objective basis for the cultivation of identity politics, constructed by ordinary people themselves, and of course by political and economic elites who have never been slow to see that division ensured domination.'"
From the colonial era, public policy engraved distinctions among whites, blacks and native Americans by enshrining elaborate racial hierarchies by law, by prohibiting sexual liaisons across racial lines, and by punishing with particular ferocity the insurrections in which humble people of different races joined together. The institutions of the American South, especially the post reconstruction South, are illustrative, for they can be
understood as a vast complex of social arrangements which, by strictly segregating Afro- Amercians, and specifying their obligations of deference, made factitious racial differences real. Similar practices by industrialists had similar if less total consequences in inscribing difference. Employers deliberately drew from diverse ethnic groups for their workforce, and then artfully arranged job assignments, wage scales and residential quarters in company towns so as to maintain and underline those differences. Or
note the strident emphasis on ethnic, religious, and later racial identities in the organizations, the mobilizing strategies and the policy outcomes of big city politics. The labour movement was riddled by these influences and, if it was sometimes strengthened by the gender, racial and ethnic solidarities that flourished within it, particularistic identities also blinded workers to their commonalities, making them vulnerable to employers who pitted one group against another, and leading them also to engage in terrible episodes of labour fratricide. Needless perhaps to add, this history still marks American politics today.
155
Vanova

2009-10
156 Capitalism K
AT: ID Politics (Black/Women) Black and women movements have empirically created political backlash- Piven 95
(Frances Fox, Professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York., Globalizing Capitalism and the Rise of Identity Politics, http://socialistregister.com/socialistregister.com/files/SR_1995_Piven.pdf, VR) However, these achievements set in motion a train of repercussions that were not simple. The
new assertions of Black pride and the political demands that pride fuelled provoked alarmed and angry reactions from other groups whose own identities depended on the subordination of blacks. And of course political elites, especially but not only Republican party operatives, who stood to benefit from the politics of backlash, worked to sharpen these reactions, making such code words of race hatred as 'quotas,' or 'law and order,' or 'welfare dependency,' focal to their popular appeals. Still, the very emergence of far-reaching race conflict reflected the fact that subordination had come to be contested. Blacks were no longer allowing others to define their identity, repress their interests, and stamp out their aspirations. That was an achievement. The rise of gender politics followed a similar course. While women do not have what is recognized as a distinctive language or turf, the understanding of gender has in other ways been prototypical of the understanding of group identity. Gender identities are closely similar to racial identities, because the traits which were thought to be feminine or masculine, and the social roles to which women and men were consigned, were always understood as the natural consequence of biological difference. Necessarily, therefore, the emergence of a liberatory movement among women was preceded and accompanied by an effort to cast off this inherited identity and construct new identities that disavowed biological fatalism or, in some variants, celebrated biological difference. Indeed, Zaretsky writes of 'the profundity and the intensity of the identity impulse among women that emerged in the early seventies.'" The most salient issues of the women's movement - the struggle for the Equal Rights Amendment, for reproductive rights, and the campaigns against rape and sexual harassment - are closely reflective of this effort to reconstruct the meaning of gender by challenging the biological underpinnings of traditional meanings. The
mounting of such a challenge to the most ancient of subordinations, and a subordination rooted in understandings of nature itself, is surely a stunning accomplishment.
156
Vanova

2009-10
157 Capitalism K
AT- ID Politics: Turns Case The expansion of capital necessitates identity politics- creates worse exploitation-Piven 95
(Frances Fox, Professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York., Globalizing Capitalism and the Rise of Identity Politics, http://socialistregister.com/socialistregister.com/files/SR_1995_Piven.pdf, VR) Other consequences of capitalist tranformation for the intensification of identity politics are more direct. In a sense, the old prediction has proved true;
the bourgeoisie is on the move with a series of universalizing projects which promise utterly to transform the world, penetrating and homogenizing social life across the globe. But instead of nourishing a growing proletariat, a missionary capitalism is destroying the working class formations of the older industrial order, at
least in the rich countries of the West. I do not want to overstate the unifying influence of the labour movement at its peak. I have already pointed out that worker mobilizations were given
the promise of the labour movement was that class solidarity would override particularisms, and even that proletarian internationalism would override state patriotism. And in instance after instance, where the successful use of the strike power demanded it, labour did indeed override the divisions of identity politics, even in the United States. Now that moderating influence has weakened. The basic lines of capitalist restructuring and the impact on organized labour are familiar. First, the expansion of global trade, itself promoted by the internationalizing of markets in finance and production, as well as by improvements in transportation and communications, has lead to the intensified exploitation of labour and resources across the globe. From Indonesia to China to Haiti, previously peripheral peoples and places are being incorporated into capitalist markets, with the consequence that organized workers in the mother countries find themselves competing with products made by low wage workers across the globe, including workers made docile by coercive authoritarian governments. Second, the power
by the particularistic divisions of race and ethnicity, and sometimes gender. Nevertheless, constellations patterning the policies of national governments have shifted. Organized labour has lost ground dramatically to new supra-national institutions created by capital. It is true, as
, once in existence, international organizations and networks, including multinational corporations and international banking organizations, together with their domestic corporate and financial allies who freely use the threat of disinvestment as leverage in their dealings with governments, become major constraints on the policy options of the state. Constraints on the state are also constraints on the ability of democratic publics, including the organized working class, to exert influence through electoral-representative
Panitch says, that the nation states are major authors of these institutions, and also continue to serve important functions for internationalizing capital.'" Nevertheless arrangements. The trade unions and political parties constructed by organized workers in the mother countries gained what influence they had through their leverage on governments, where
If capitalist internationalism circumscribes what national governments can do, it inevitably also circumscribes working class political power. Third, as a consequence of both internationalism and the shifting power constellations within nations, the economies and polities of the mother counties of industrial capitalism are being restructured, with dire consequences for the old working class. This process is most advanced in England and the United States where unions are weaker and welfare state protections less adequate. The old mass production industries which created the industrial working
strike power, trade union organization and working class voting numbers made them a force with which to be reckoned .
class are being dismantled or reorganized and decentralized, with the consequence that the numbers of blue collar workers are shrinking. And as communities
Those who remain have become excruciatingly vulnerable to the threat power of a mobile capital, unable to resist shrinking wages and benefits, and the worsening terms of work, including speedup, and forced overtime for some, and involuntary part-time or temporary work for others, all of which undermines union organization. At the same time, capitalists have launched a specifically political project to dismantle the institutional supports created by working class politics, by attacking unions, and slashing welfare state income and service protections which shielded workers from the market, and by discrediting Keynesian macro-economic political regulation." Finally, a capitalist class on th emove has launched an ideological campaign to justify and promote its expansionary mission. International markets exist, but they have also been cast as a superordinate order, operating according to a kind of natural law, penetrating national economies more deeply than they actually do, and beyond the reach of politics. In fact, this neo-laissez faire doctrine cloaks the capitalist class with the mantle once claimed by the proletariat. Capital is forging the way to the future, it is the
disperse and the mass media supplants the local pub, the old working class culture also crumbles.
great force for progress, the hope of humankind. And as with 19th century laissez faire notions to which this doctrine owes its main tenets, the ideology is touched with fanaticism, with a
Of course, this ideological campaign is as persuasive as it is because international markets are also real, and the palpable evidence of capital and goods mobility lends the sweeping doctrine of neo-laissez faire a certain material reality.
zealous utopianism that ignores the actual needs of the human subjects of any world order .
157
Vanova

2009-10
158 Capitalism K
AT- ID Politics: Turns Case Capitalism will use their movement to garner political backlash against oppression and pit movements against one another- Piven 95
(Frances Fox, Professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York., Globalizing Capitalism and the Rise of Identity Politics, http://socialistregister.com/socialistregister.com/files/SR_1995_Piven.pdf, VR)
universalizing capitalism has weakened the old industrial working class as a political force. No wonder unions and labour parties that were the instrument of this class have also lost their ideological footing. The imagery which gave-workingclass politics is 61an, the idea that the future belonged to the workers, and that workers acted for all humankind, has collapsed. That universalizing myth now belongs to a capitalist class on the move. The surge of identity politics is not just the result of a collapsing central governments or a receding class politics. It is also the result of the massive dislocations of people set in motion by capitalist restructuring. More and more people are being drawn into the orbit of capitalism. Considered abstractly, that process is universalizing. In the actual experience of people, it has had the effect of heightening particularistic identities and conflicts. Gellner, writing of an earlier phase of capitalist transformation
and the nationalist furies it helped to set loose, showed how an 'explosive blend of early industrialism (dislocation, mobility, acute inequality not hallowed by time and custom) seeks out, as it were, all the available nooks and crannies of cultural differentiation, wherever they be.'16 The pattern is being repeated in the contemporary era. In other words, instead
In all of these ways a
of wiping out the 'train of ancient and venerable prejudices,' the advance of global capitalism is whipping ancient prejudices to fever pitch. Identity politics is pervasive, and probably inevitable. But group conflict is likely to rise under some conditions, and subside under others. One important source of disturbance has to do with the large-scale migration of people spurred by capitalist penetration of subsistence agricultural economies, with the consequence that conflicts over land escalate, and people no longer able to survive in agriculture migrate to urban centres." At the same time, the spread of consumer culture also attracts people from the periphery, while the development of globe spanning circuits of communication and transportation facilitates the recruitment of cheap labour to the metropole.'"Every migration,' says Enzensberger, 'no matter what
triggered it, what motive underlies it, whether it is voluntary or involuntary, and what scale it assumes, leads to conflicts.'" Or as Jean Daniel, editor of Le Nouvel Observateur, warns about population movements and the 'unprecedented' mingling of peoples, we should remember that 'Babel
. . . was a curse.'" If
unfamiliar proximity is likely to intensify group consciousness and fractionalism, this is especially so when outsider groups are seen as competitors for limited jobs, neighbourhood space, honour and influence. In his last
book, Ralph Miliband wrote that intra-class conflicts among wage-earners involving race or gender or ethnicity or religion can reasonably be understood as the effort to find scapegoats to explain insecurity and alienation?' If he was not entirely. right, he was surely at least significantly right.
Group conflict is far more likely when people feel growing uncertainty about their own future and as is true in many instances, are experiencing real declines in living standards. When times get harder, and competition for scarce resources intensifies, theories about the Other, and how the Other is to blame for these turns in events, being ubiquitous, are readily available. And, of course, such interpretations are more likely to be seized upon when alternative and perhaps more systemic explanations of the
troubles people face are not available, or when such explanations yield no practicable line of action. No wonder there has been a spread of an identity politics, often a hate-filled identity politics, in the metropole. As Vaclav Have1 says, 'The world of our experiences seems chaotic, confusing.
. . And the fewer answers the era of
rational knowledge provides the more deeply it would seem that people, behind its back as it were, cling to the ancient certainties of their tribe.'* Finally, as so many times before, the group divisions of identity politics are being worsened by political elites who seize the opportunity for gaining advantage from popular division. In
...
particular, politicians on the Right - Le Pen's Front National in France, the Christian Right in the United States, the Freedom Party in Austria, the Falangists in Spain, the Lombardy League in Italy, or the Republicans in Germany where half a million immigrants arrived in 1992 alone - work to stoke the anger against outsiders. They draw popular attention away from the economic transformations underway, and try to hold or win anxious voters by directing resentment against outsiders. Or, as a retired Russian officer commented to a New York
Times reporter about the conflict between the Tatars and ethnic Russians, 'Half the population is building mosques, the other half is building churches. And the bosses are building big brick houses for themselves.' Once again, the United States is at the forefront. Last October, BusinessWeek editorialized about the 'unprecedented widening of the income gap between winners and losers in the workplace.' BusinessWeek worried that the losers might ignore its advice that 'Growth is the single most important salve for the high-risk, high gain society' and seek scapegoats, such as 'elitist big business.' There are of course reasons for Businessweek's concerns about the resurgence of class politics. Big
business is politically mobilized as never before, having
158
Vanova

2009-10
159 Capitalism K
AT- ID Politics: Turns Case

developed over the past two decades a range of vehicles to do ideological and policy warfare, from big think tanks, to revived trade associations, to new associations of peak corporations. Reflecting both these
developments and the changed international economic context in which they have unfolded, enormous changes have taken place in the American class structure, as the rich have gotten much richer, the poor much poorer, and most people have gotten poorer as well. National wealth increased, but the vast majority of wage earners lost ground, with the consequence that more people are working, working longer, and harder. The U. S. Census reported that beteen 1973 and 1989, the real income of male high school graduates dropped by a third; the income of those who didn't make it through high school dropped by 40 percent. And the palpable evidence of economic trauma also grew, in the form of visible poverty and pathology, of beggars and spreading homeless encampments in all of the major cities. Still, Businessweek needn't worry, at least not so far. Americans are being led by their political leaders to other scapegoats, and certain conditions prepare the way. For one thing, organized labour is on its back, its membership at 11 percent of the private sector labour force, down from 30 percent only two decades ago. For another,
economic changes are not the only shocks to the American psyche. Cultural changes which undermine the established bases of identity are contributing to widespread unease. Contested racial boundaries and, not less important, changing sexual and family mores are eroding a world in which whites were in command, men were men, women were women, and the rules for mating and family life were clear. Needless to say, in a society in which the culture of group identity figures so largely, changes of this sort generate a distinctive terror. In this sense, the numerous commentators who blame the black movement and the women's movement for the rightward shift of the past two decades are not entirely wrong. In a world of identity politics, mobilization by the Other is always a provocation. Thus economic and cultural change are combining to generate popular anxiety and anger. But the economic transformation, its impact on hard-hit groups, the measures that might moderate the transformation or its impact, do not figure much in American political discussion, except sometimes in the speculations of pundits trying to account for electoral discontent. Instead, public anger has easily been routed into the familiar channels of identity politics, as issues like immigration, crime, and welfare, all code terms for Afro-American and Latino minorities, (with welfare a code evoking wanton women besides) dominate the political discussion. Republican and Democratic leaders alike are following the precedents of American history. Hemmed in by a politically mobilized and aggressive capitalist class, party leaders promulgate arguments which account for the felt problems of ordinary people by singling out the Other. Political discourse is dominated by a narrative in which immigrants, or criminals, or welfare recipients, are variously pointed to as the source of America's problems.
159
Vanova

2009-10
160 Capitalism K
AT: Pragmatism (1/3) Movements focused on the state are inevitably co-opted by capital or become corrupt- we must move beyond a state of power relations- this is the only way to beat powerHolloway 2
(John, Ph.D in Political Science from the University of Edinburgh, Social Science Professor at Univ. of Puebla, Change the World Without Taking Power, http://libcom.org/library/change-world-without-taking-power-john-holloway, VR) At first sight it would appear obvious that winning control of the state is the key to bringing about social change. The
state claims to be sovereign, to exercise power within its frontiers. This is central to the common notion of democracy: a government is elected in order to carry out the will of the people by exerting power in the territory of the state. This notion is the basis of the social democratic claim that radical change can be achieved through constitutional means. The
argument against this is that the constitutional view isolates the state from its social environment: it attributes to the state an autonomy of action that it just does not have. In reality, what the state does is limited and shaped by the fact that it exists as just one node in a web of social relations. Crucially, this web of social relations centres on the way in which work is organised. The
fact that work is organised on a capitalist basis means that what the state does and can do is limited and shaped by the need to maintain the system of capitalist organisation of which it is a part. Concretely, this means that any government that takes significant action directed against the interests of capital will find that an economic crisis will result and that capital will flee from the state territory. Revolutionary movements inspired by Marxism have always been aware of the capitalist nature of the state.
Why then have they focused on winning state power as the means of changing society? One answer is that these movements have often had an instrumental view of the capitalist nature of the state. They have typically seen the state as being the instrument of the capitalist class. The
notion of an 'instrument' implies that the relation between the state and the capitalist class is an external one: like a hammer, the state is now wielded by the capitalist class in their own interests, after the revolution it will be wielded by the working class in their interests. Such a view reproduces, unconsciously perhaps, the isolation or autonomisation of the state from its social environment, the critique
of which is the starting point of revolutionary politics. To borrow a concept to be developed later, this view fetishises the state: it abstracts it from the web of power relations in which it is embedded.
The difficulty which revolutionary governments have experienced in wielding the state in the interests of the working class suggests that the embedding of the state in the web of capitalist social relations is far stronger and more subtle than the notion of instrumentality would suggest. The mistake of Marxist
revolutionary movements has been, not to deny the capitalist nature of the state, but to underestimate the degree of integration of the state into the network of capitalist social relations. An important aspect of this underestimation is the extent to which revolutionary (and, even more so, reformist) movements have tended to assume that 'society' can be understood as a national (that is, state-bound) society. If
society is understood as being British, Russian or Mexican society, this obviously gives weight to the view that the state can be the centre point of social transformation. Such an assumption, however, presupposes a prior abstraction of state and society from their spatial surroundings, a conceptual snipping of social relations at the frontiers of the state. The world, in this view, is made
up of so many national societies, each with its own state, each one maintaining relations with all the others in a network of inter-national relations. Each state is then the centre of its own world and it becomes possible to conceive of a national revolution and to see the state as the motor of radical change in 'its' society. The problem with such a view is that social relations have never coincided with national frontiers. The
current discussions of 'globalisation' merely highlight what has always been true: capitalist social relations, by their nature, have always gone beyond territorial limitations. Whereas the relation between feudal lord and serf was always a territorial relation, the distinctive feature of capitalism was that it freed exploitation from such territorial limitations, by virtue of the fact that the relation between capitalist and worker was now mediated through money. The mediation of social relations through money means a complete de-territorialisation of those relations: there is no reason why employer and employee, producer and consumer, or workers who combine in the same process of production, should be within the same territory. Capitalist social relations have never been limited by state frontiers, so that it has always been mistaken to think of the
160
Vanova

2009-10
161 Capitalism K
AT: Pragmatism (2/3)

capitalist world as being the sum of different national societies. The web of social relations in which the particular national states are
embedded is (and has been since the beginning of capitalism) a global web. The focusing of revolution on the winning of state power thus involves the abstraction of the state from the social relations of which it is part. Conceptually, the state is cut out from the clutter of social relations that surround it and made to stand up with all the appearance of being an autonomous actor.
Autonomy is attributed to the state, if not in the absolute sense of reformist (or liberal) theory, then at least in the sense that the state is seen as being potentially autonomous from the capitalist social relations that surround it. But, it might be objected, this is a crude misrepresentation of revolutionary strategy. Revolutionary movements inspired by Marxism have generally seen the winning of state power as just one element in a broader process of social transformation. This is certainly true, but it has generally been seen as a particularly important element, a focal point in the process of social change, one which demands a focussing of the energies devoted to social transformation. The focusing inevitably privileges the state as a site of power. Whether the winning of state power is seen as being the exclusive path for changing society or just as a focus for action, there is inevitably a channelling of revolt. The fervour of those who fight for a different society is taken up and pointed in a particular direction: towards the winning of state power. 'If we can only conquer the state (whether by electoral or by military means), then we shall be able to change society. First, therefore, we must concentrate on the central goalconquering state power'. So the argument goes, and the young are inducted into what it means to conquer
state power: they are trained either as soldiers or as bureaucrats, depending on how the conquest of state power is understood. 'First build the army, first build the party, that is how to get rid of the power that oppresses us'. The party-building (or army-building) comes to eclipse all else.
What was initially negative (the rejection of capitalism) is converted into something positive (institution-building, power-building). The induction into the conquest of power inevitably becomes an induction into power itself. The initiates learn the language, logic and calculations of power; they learn to wield the categories of a social science which has been entirely shaped by its obsession with power. Differences within the organization become struggles for power. Manipulation and maneuvering for power become a way of life. Nationalism is an inevitable complement of the logic of power. The idea that the state is the site of power involves the abstraction of the particular state from the global context of power relations. Inevitably, no matter how much the revolutionary inspiration is guided by the notion of world revolution, the focus on a particular state as the site for bringing about radical social change implies giving priority to the part of the world encompassed by that state over other parts of the world. Even the most internationalist of revolutions oriented towards state power have rarely succeeded in avoiding the nationalist privileging of 'their' state over
others, or indeed the overt manipulation of national sentiment in order to defend the revolution. The notion of changing society through the state rests on the idea that the state is, or should be, sovereign. State sovereignty is a prerequisite for changing society through the state, so the struggle for social change becomes transformed into the struggle for the defence of state sovereignty. The struggle against capital then becomes an anti-imperialist struggle against domination by foreigners, in which nationalism and anti-capitalism are blended. Self-determination
and state sovereignty become confused, when in fact the very existence of the state as a form of social relations is the very antithesis of self-determination. No matter how much lip service is paid to the movement and its importance, the goal of the conquest of power inevitably involves an instrumentalisation of struggle. The struggle has an aim: to conquer political power. The struggle is a means to achieve that aim. Those elements of struggle which do not contribute to the achievement of that aim are either given a secondary importance or must be suppressed altogether: a hierarchy of struggles is established. The instrumentalisation/ hierarchisation is at the same time an impoverishment of struggle. So many struggles, so many ways of expressing our rejection of capitalism, so many ways of fighting for our dream of a different society are simply filtered out, simply remain unseen when the world is seen through the prism of the conquest of power. We learn to suppress them, and thus to suppress ourselves. At the top of the hierarchy we learn to place that part of our activity that contributes to 'building the revolution', at the bottom come frivolous personal things like affective relations, sensuality, playing, laughing, loving. Class struggle becomes puritanical: frivolity must be suppressed because it does not contribute to the goal. The hierarchisation of struggle is a hierarchisation of our lives and thus a
161
Vanova

2009-10
162 Capitalism K
AT: Pragmatism (3/3)

hierarchisation of ourselves. The party is the organisational form which most clearly expresses this hierarchisation. The form of the party, whether vanguardist or parliamentary, presupposes an orientation towards the state and makes little sense without it. The party is in fact the form of disciplining class struggle, of subordinating the myriad forms of class struggle to the over-riding aim
of gaining control of the state. The fixing of a hierarchy of struggles is usually expressed in the form of the party programme. This instrumentalist impoverishment of struggle is not characteristic just of particular parties or currents (Stalinism, Trotskyism and so on): it is inherent in the idea that the goal of the movement is to conquer political power. The struggle is lost from the beginning, long before the victorious party or army conquers state power and 'betrays' its promises. It is lost once power itself seeps into the struggle, once the logic of power becomes the logic of the revolutionary process, once the negative of refusal is converted into the positive of power-building. And usually those involved do not see it: the initiates in power do not even see how far they have been drawn into the reasoning and habits of power. They
do not see that if we revolt against capitalism, it is not because we want a different system of power, it is because we want a society in which power relations are dissolved. You cannot build a society of non-power relations by conquering power. Once the logic of power is adopted, the struggle against power is already lost. The idea of changing society through the conquest of power thus ends up achieving the opposite of what it sets out to achieve. Instead of the conquest of power being a step towards the abolition of power relations, the attempt to conquer power involves the extension of the field of power relations into the struggle against power. What starts as a scream of protest against power, against the dehumanization of people, against the treatment of humans as means rather than ends, becomes converted into its opposite, into the assumption of the logic, habits and discourse of power into the very heart of the struggle against power. For what is at issue in the revolutionary transformation of the world is not whose power but the very existence of power. What is at issue is not who exercises power, but how to create a world based on the mutual recognition of human dignity, on the formation of social relations which are not power relations.
162
Vanova

Cap K FLHS

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Cap K FLHS

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Its The Revolution!!!

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

AT- Author Qualifications

Fort Lauderdale Debate

2NC- AT: Perm

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

2nc AT: Utopian Fiat/Alt Vague

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Link Overview- Abortions Bad Affirmative (Sharp)

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Link Overview- Biotechnology (Sharp)

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Link- Black Feminism (2/2)

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Link- Competitiveness Competitiveness reinforces the global capitalist order- Passavant 05

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Link Overview- Competitiveness (Passavant)

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Link Overview- Cosmetic Surgery (Sharp)

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Link Overview Cyborgs (Sharp)

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Link Overview- Democracy Promotion (Cox, Ikenberry, and Igonuchi)

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Link Overview- Education (Gebhard)

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Link- Homeland Security

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Link- Housing The housing market props up international corporations- Kenna 8

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Link- Marriage (2/2)

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate

Fort Lauderdale Debate