HEADER by xumiaomaio

VIEWS: 26 PAGES: 68

									Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                        Cap K
CHANG
                                                                CAPITALISM BAD
CAPITALISM BAD ........................................................................................................................................ 1
a secret.......................................................................................................................................................... 3
1NC ............................................................................................................................................................... 4
1NC ............................................................................................................................................................... 5
AT: Reformism .............................................................................................................................................. 6
AT: Reformism .............................................................................................................................................. 7
AT: Econ Turn ............................................................................................................................................... 8
AT: Econ Turn ............................................................................................................................................... 9
AT: Democracy Turn ................................................................................................................................... 10
AT: P / BOTH [1/4] ...................................................................................................................................... 11
AT: P / BOTH [2/4] ...................................................................................................................................... 12
AT: P / BOTH [3/4] ...................................................................................................................................... 13
AT: P / BOTH [4/4] ...................................................................................................................................... 14
AT: P / ALL OTHER INSTANCES .............................................................................................................. 15
2NC Ontology .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Link – Abortion ............................................................................................................................................ 17
Link – Health Care ...................................................................................................................................... 18
Link – Health Care ...................................................................................................................................... 19
TURNS CASE – Health Care ...................................................................................................................... 20
Turns case – disease / Health Care ............................................................................................................ 21
Turns case – disease / Health Care ............................................................................................................ 22
Turns case – disease / Health Care ............................................................................................................ 23
TURNS CASE – VETERANS...................................................................................................................... 24
TURNS CASE – VETERANS...................................................................................................................... 25
Link – Food Prices ...................................................................................................................................... 26
Link – Multiculturalism ................................................................................................................................. 27
Turns Case – Patriarchy ............................................................................................................................. 28
Turns Case – Patriarchy ............................................................................................................................. 29
Link – Immigration Good ............................................................................................................................. 30
Link – Immigration Good ............................................................................................................................. 31
Link – Immigration Good ............................................................................................................................. 32
Link – Immigration Good ............................................................................................................................. 33
Link – Immigration Good ............................................................................................................................. 34
Link – Cybersafety ...................................................................................................................................... 35
Link – Broadband ........................................................................................................................................ 36
Turns Case – Broadband ............................................................................................................................ 37
Link – The State .......................................................................................................................................... 38
Link – Social Services ................................................................................................................................. 39
Link – Social Services ................................................................................................................................. 40
Link – Social Services ................................................................................................................................. 41
Link – Social Services | Poverty .................................................................................................................. 42
Link – Social Services | Poverty .................................................................................................................. 43
Link – Social Services | Poverty .................................................................................................................. 44
Link – Hegemony ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Link – Hegemony ........................................................................................................................................ 46
Link – Multiculturalism | ID Politics .............................................................................................................. 47
Turns Case – Cap INCREASES Immigrant Flood ...................................................................................... 49
Link – Natives .............................................................................................................................................. 50
Turns Case – Natives .................................................................................................................................. 51
Turns Case – Natives .................................................................................................................................. 52
Impact – Laundry LIst / Extinction ............................................................................................................... 53
Impact – Racism ......................................................................................................................................... 54
Impact – WAR ............................................................................................................................................. 55
Impact – Environment ................................................................................................................................. 56


                                                                                                                                                                   1
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                  Cap K
CHANG
Impact – Laundry List / Extinction ............................................................................................................... 57
Impact – Terrorism ...................................................................................................................................... 58
Impact – Value to Life ................................................................................................................................. 59
Impact – Poverty ......................................................................................................................................... 60
Impact – Poverty ......................................................................................................................................... 61
Impact – Poverty ......................................................................................................................................... 62
Impact – Extinction | Poverty....................................................................................................................... 63
Cap Collapse Inevitable .............................................................................................................................. 64
XT / Cap Collapse Now | Inevitable ............................................................................................................ 65
XT / Cap Collapse Now | Inevitable ............................................................................................................ 66
XT / Alt Solvency ......................................................................................................................................... 67
XT / Alt Solvency ......................................................................................................................................... 68




                                                                                                                                                            2
Georgetown 2009                                                          Cap K
CHANG
                                               A SECRET
In the end, the communists will win.




                                       viva la revolucion, sillypants.




                                                                             3
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                               Cap K
CHANG
                                                                                 1NC
The aff is capital’s final strategy to save itself from crisis – social services induce quiescence by interpellating the
labor-force. This replicates their harms.

HALL 2
(Peter Hall, Bartlett Professor of Planning and Regeneration, University College London; President, Regional Studies Association; ―internationally renowned
authority on economic, demographic, cultural, and management issues‖ related to urban studies; Special Adviser on Strategic Planning to the British Government;
Member, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister‘s Urban Task Force, 2002, Cities of tomorrow, p. 368-70)

At the same time, a specifically Marxian view of planning emerged in the English-speaking world. To describe it adequately would require a course in Marxist theory.
But, in inadequate summary, it states that the structure of the capitalist city itself, including its land use and activity patterns, is the
result of capital in pursuit of profit. Because capitalism is doomed to recurrent crises, which deepen in
the current stage of late capitalism, capital calls upon the state, as its agent, to assist it by
remedying disorganization in commodity production, and by aiding the reproduction of the labor-
force. It thus tries to achieve certain necessary objectives: to facilitate continued capital accumulation , by ensuring rational
allocation of resources; by assisting the reproduction of the labor-force through the provision of social
services, thus maintaining a delicate balance between labor and capital and preventing social
disintegration; and by guaranteeing and legitimating capitalist social and property relations. As Dear
and Scott put it: ―In summary, planning is a historically-specific and socially-necessary response to the self-
disorganizing tendencies of privatized capitalist social and property relations as these appear in urban space.‖ In particular, it
seeks to guarantee collective provision of necessary infrastructure and certain basic urban services, and to reduce
negative externalities whereby certain activities of capital cause losses to other parts of the system. / But , since capitalism also wishes to
circumscribe state planning as far as possible, there is an inbuilt contradiction: planning, because
of this inadequacy, always solves one problem only by creating another. Thus, say the Marxists, nineteenth-century
clearances in Paris created a working-class housing problem; American zoning limited the powers of industrialists to locate at the most profitable locations. And
planning can never do more than modify some parameters of the land-development process; it cannot change its
intrinsic logic, and so cannot remove the contradiction between private accumulation and collective action. Further, the
capitalist class is by no means homogenous; different fractions of capital may have divergent, even contradictory interests, and complex alliances may be formed in
consequence; thus, latter-day Marxist explanations come close to being pluralist, albeit with a strong structural element. But in the process, ―The more that the State
intervenes in the urban system, the greater is the likelihood that different social groups and fractions will contest the legitimacy of its decisions. Urban life as a whole
becomes progressively invaded by political controversies and dilemmas. 64 /  Because traditional non-Marxian planning theory has
ignored this essential basis of planning, so Marxian commentators argue, it is by definition vacuous; it seeks to
define what planning ideally ought to be, devoid of all context; its function has been to depoliticize planning
as an activity, and thus to legitimate it. It seeks to achieve this by representing itself as the force which produces the various facets of real-
world planning. But in fact, its various activities – to develop abstract concepts that rationally represent real-
world processes, to legitimate its own activity, to explain material processes as the outcome of
ideas, to present planning goals as derived from generally shared values, and to abstract planning activity in terms of metaphors drawn from other fields like
engineering – all these are both very large and quite unjustified. The reality, Marxists argue, is precisely the opposite: viewed objectively, planning
theory is nothing other than a creation of the social forces that bring planning into existence. / It makes up a disturbing body of coherent criticism: yes, of course,
planning cannot simply be an independent self-legitimating activity, as scientific inquiry may claim to be; yes, of course, it is a phenomenon that – like all phenomena
– represents the circumstances of its time. As Scott and Roweis put it: . . . there is a definite mismatch between the world of current planning theory, on the one hand,
and the real world of practical planning intervention on the other hand. The one is the quintessence of order and reason in relation to the other which is full of disorder
and unreason. Conventional theorists then set about resolving this mismatch between theory and reality by introducing the notion that planning theory is in any case
not so much an attempt to explain the world as it is but as it ought to be.           Planning theory then sets itself the task of
rationalizing irrationalities, and seeks to materialize itself in social and historical reality (like Hegel‘s
World Spirit) by bringing to bear upon the world a set of abstract, independent, and transcendent
norms.68 It was powerful criticism. But it left in turn a glaringly open question, both for the unfortunate planner – whose legitimacy is now totally torn from him,
like the epaulette from the shoulder of a disgraced offer – and, equally for the Marxist critic: what, then, is planning theory
about? Has it any normative or prescriptive content whatsoever? The answer, logically, would appear to be no. One of
the critics, Philip Cooke, is uncompromising: The main criticism that tends to have been made,
justifiably, of planning is that it has remained stubbornly normative . . . in this book it will be argued that they
[planning theorists] should identify mechanisms which cause changes in the nature of planning to be
brought about, rather than assuming such changes to be either the creative idealizations of
individual minds, or mere regularities in observable events. 69




                                                                                                                                                                          4
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                           Cap K
CHANG
                                                                                1NC
The impact is both biological and ontological extinction of humanity.

SIMONOVIC 7
(Ljubodrag Simonovic, Ph.D., Philosophy; M.A., Law; author of seven books, 2007, A New World is Possible, ―Basis of contemporary critical theory of capitalism.‖)

The final stage of a mortal combat between mankind and capitalism is in progress. A specificity of
capitalism is that, in contrast to "classical" barbarism (which is of destructive, murderous and plundering nature), it annihilates life by
creating a "new world" – a "technical civilization" and an adequate, dehumanized and denaturalized man. Capitalism has eradicated man from his
(natural) environment and has cut off the roots through which he had drawn life-creating force. Cities are "gardens" of capitalism where degenerated creatures "grow".
Dog excrement, gasoline and sewerage stench, glaring advertisements and police car rotating lights that howl through the night - this is the environment of the "free
         By destroying the natural environment capitalism creates increasingly extreme climatic
world" man.
conditions in which man is struggling harder and harder to survive – and creates artificial living
conditions accessible solely to the richest layer of population, which cause definitive
degeneration of man as a natural being. "Humanization of life" is being limited to creation of micro-climatic conditions, of special
capitalistic incubators - completely commercialized artificial living conditions to which degenerated people are appropriate. The most dramatic truth is: capitalism can
                                                  For capitalism a "traditional man" is merely a temporary
survive the death of man as a human and biological being.
means of its own reproduction. "Consumer-man" represents a transitional phase in the capitalism-
caused process of mutation of man towards the "highest" form of capitalistic man: a robot-man. "Terminators" and other
robotized freaks which are products of the Hollywood entertainment industry which creates a "vision of the future" degenerated in a capitalist manner, incarnate
         alienated from man, which become vehicles for destruction of man and life. A new "super race" of robotized humanoids is being created,
creative powers,
which should clash with "traditional mankind", meaning with people capable ofloving, thinking, daydreaming, fighting for
freedom and survival - and impose their rule over the Earth. Instead of the new world, the "new man" is being created - who has been reduced to a level
of humanity which cannot jeopardize the ruling order. Science and technique have become the basic lever of capital for the destruction of the world and the creation of
"technical civilization". It is not only about destruction achieved by the use of technical means. It is about technicization of social institutions, of interpersonal
                              transformation of nature into a surrogate of "nature", increasing dehumanization of the society
relations, of the human body. Increasing
                               are direct consequences of capital's effort, within an increasingly merciless global
and increasing denaturalization of man
economic war, to achieve complete commercialization of both natural and the social
environment. The optimism of the Enlightenment could hardly be unreservedly supported nowadays, the notion of Marx that man imposes on himself only
such tasks as he can solve, particularly the optimism based on the myth of the "omnipotence" of science and technique. The race for profits has already caused
irreparable and still unpredictable damage to both man and his environment. By the creation of "consumer society", which means through the transition of capitalism
                      such a qualitative rise in destruction of nature and mankind has been
into a phase of pure destruction,
performed that life on the planet is literally facing a "countdown ". Instead of the "withering away" (Engels) of institutions
of the capitalist society, the withering away of life is taking place.

Alternative Text: “Reject the affirmative to abandon belief in capitalism.”

Adrian JOHNSTON, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of New Mexico, 2004, Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society, Volume 9 // Issue 3

Perhaps  the absence of a detailed practical roadmap in Žižek‘s political writings isn‘t a major shortcoming. Maybe, at
                       most important task is simply the negativity of the critical struggle, the effort to
least for the time being, the
cure an intellectual constipation resulting from capitalist ideology and thereby truly to open up the space for
imagining authentic alternatives to the prevailing state of the situation. Another definition of materialism offered by Žižek is that it
amounts to accepting the internal inherence of what fantasmatically appears as an external deadlock or hindrance 127 (with fantasy itself being defined
as the false externalization of something within the subject, namely, the illusory projection of an inner obstacle 128). From this
perspective, seeing through ideological fantasies by learning how to think again outside the confines of
current restrictions has, in and of itself, the potential to operate as a form of real revolutionary practice
(rather than remaining just an instance of negative/critical intellectual reflection). Why is this the case? Recalling the earlier analysis of commodity fetishism, the
              money as the universal medium of exchange (and the entire political economy grounded upon it) ultimately
social efficacy of
relies upon nothing 93 more than a kind of “magic,‖ that is, the belief in money‘s social efficacy by those using it in the processes of
exchange. Since the value of currency is, at bottom, reducible to the belief that it has the value
attributed to it (and that everyone believes that everyone else believes this as well), derailing capitalism by destroying its
essential financial substance is, in a certain respect, as easy as dissolving the mere belief in this substance‟s
powers. The ―external‖ obstacle of the capitalist system exists exclusively on the condition that
subjects, whether consciously or unconsciously, ―internally‖ believe in it—capitalism‘s life-blood, money, is simply a fetishistic crystallization of a
belief in others‘ belief in the socioperformative force emanating from this same material.




                                                                                                                                                                      5
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                               Cap K
CHANG
                                                      AT: REFORMISM
Fundamental nature of cap needs to be confronted – history disproves reformism

Paul Sweezy, Founding Editor, Monthly Review; renowned Marxist economist, 2004, ―Capitalism and the Environment,‖
http://www.monthlyreview.org/1004pms3.htm

Such is the inner nature, the essential drive of the economic system that has generated the
present environmental crisis. Naturally it does not operate without opposition. Efforts have always been made
to curb its excesses, not only by its victims but also in extreme cases by its more far-sighted leaders. Marx, in Capital,
wrote feelingly about nineteenth-century movements for factory legislation and the ten-hours bill,
describing the latter as a great victory for the political economy of the working class. And during the present century conservation
movements have emerged in all the leading capitalist countries and have succeeded in imposing certain limits on the more
destructive depredations of uncontrolled capital. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that without constraints of this kind arising within
the system, capitalism by now would have destroyed both its environment and itself. Not surprisingly, such constraints,
while sometimes interfering with the operations of individual capitalists, never go so far as to
threaten the system as a whole. Long before that point is reached, the capitalist class, including the
state which it controls, mobilizes its defenses to repulse environmental-protection measures perceived
as dangerously extreme. Thus despite the development of a growing environmental consciousness and the
movements to which it has given rise in the last century, the environmental crisis continues to deepen. There is
nothing in the record or on the horizon that could lead us to believe the situation will significantly
change in the foreseeable future. If this conclusion is accepted—and it is hard to see how anyone who has studied the history of
our time can refuse, at the very least, to take it seriously—it follows that what has to be done to resolve the environmental crisis,
hence also to insure that humanity has a future, is to replace capitalism with a social order based on an economy devoted not to
maximizing private profit and accumulating ever more capital but rather to meeting real human needs and restoring the environment
to a sustainably healthy condition.  This, in a nutshell, is the meaning of revolutionary change today.
Lesser measures of reform, no matter how desirable in themselves, could at best slow down the
fatal process of decline and fall that is already so far advanced. Is the position taken here in effect a
restatement of the traditional Marxist case for a socialist revolution ? Yes, but with one crucial proviso: The socialism to be
achieved must be conceived, as Marx and Engels always conceived it, as the quintessential negation of
capitalism—not as a society that eliminates the most objectionable features of capitalism such
as gross inequality of income, mass unemployment, cyclical depressions, financial panics, and
so on. It is capitalism itself, with its in-built attitude toward human beings and nature alike as
means to an alien end that must be rooted out and replaced. Humanity, having learned to perform miracles
of production, must at last learn to use its miraculous powers not to degrade itself and destroy its home but to make the world a
better place to live in for itself and its progeny for millennia to come.




                                                                                                                                        6
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                             Cap K
CHANG
                                                                   AT: REFORMISM
Cap causes extinction through ecocidal collapse – attempts to self-correct only make the problem worse

Liodakis 1
(George Liodakis, Professor of Social Science, Technical University of Crete,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3780/is_200104/ai_n8940388/pg_5)

The overall attempt to respond to the exacerbated ecological crisis, from the side of capital,
entails extensive recycling, economising on natural resources, the development of new
materials and non-polluting technologies, and an overall restructuring towards a `green
capitalism'. This restructuring of capital encompasses `eco-regulation', which mainly consists of an attempt to formulate `ecologically adjusted prices'.
These attempts and regulations, however, are usually proved ineffective insofar as they operate within the
system's logic, focus narrowly on the sphere of market exchange, and fail to understand that all
relevant phenomena (competition, externalities, etc.) are deeply embedded in capitalist production itself. They also
face great difficulties in internalising production cost, enhanced by the competitive contradiction of capital and the contradictory character of state regulation (see
Liodakis, 2000). As Marx has stressed, '[a] 11   thought of a common, all-embracing and farsighted control' of the
production and consumption of raw materials under capitalism is no more than a `pious wish',
flatly `irreconcilable with the laws of capitalist production' (1967 III: 118-20). It should be noted though, that
capitalism's only absolute limit is extinction of the human race (i.e., of exploitable labour power), and that the
restructuring of capitalism can potentially ameliorate or postpone the crisis, ensuring thus, for a certain time
span, the reproduction of the system (see Goodman and Redclift, 1991: 254). Given the law of conservation of matter and energy, however, there are
more proximate, both quantitative and qualitative, limits which put the sustainability of capitalism
under question (see J. O'Connor, 1988; Benton, 1989; M. O'Connor, 1994; Foster, 1995b, 1997). All attempts at ecological
restructuring basically concern the restructuring of property relations, through the market, the rearrangement of
competitive conditions, and the rationalisation of capitalist accumulation, without essentially affecting the impact of capitalist
rationality and private property on nature. The key thing for capitalism, however, is not the juridical form of private property, but rather
the social separation of labour power from natural conditions and the use of the latter as conditions of capital accumulation. Independently of any restructuring of
capital and property relations, or of any limited attempt at a valuation of nature, as long as the property of capital as a whole on nature is maintained, the squandering
                                                                   it is impossible to ensure the sustainability of
of nature and environmental destruction cannot be prevented. In other words,
capitalism and, within its limits, an essential reconciliation of people with nature . On the contrary,
the currently proposed further commoditisation of nature and privatisation of natural resources (see Dasgupta, 1990;
Chichilnisky, 1994), will most likely lead to an aggravation of the problem (see Liodakis, 1995,2000). Capitalist
restructuring implies a certain modification of the law of value and not a qualitative conversion or
a radical upsetting of the law itself. This modification derives specifically from the increasing
internationalisation of production, the changes in state regulation, the increasing externalities and the ecological
restructuring towards internalising these externalities, as well as from the continuous concentration of capital, which implies a
greater divergence of prices from commodity values in branches with a pronounced monopolistic character. In other words, this modification concerns the specific
manner in which the law of value operates under contemporary conditions. Insofar as natural resources are taken as a `free gift of nature ,          competition
leads to a permanent tendency to increase constant capital, as a crystallisation of alienated labour and natural resources
through the labour process, and consequently to a rising organic composition of capital. This tendency, which also serves the
needs of capital in increasing the productive power of labour and disciplining it in the context of the production process, creates a crisis-generating
pressure through the falling tendency of the rate of profit. This pressure tends toward an
increasing externalisation of production cost and, combined with an over-utilisation of natural
resources, leads to destructive consequences for the environment. Quantitative changes will be
permanently converted into qualitative changes resulting in a degradation of the environment. On
the other hand, the qualitative changes deriving from the real subsumption and capitalisation of nature (see M. O'Connor, 1993; 1994), the increasing socialisation
                                     the competitive race for the increase of relative surplus value,
(interdependence) of production on a global level and
will render further quantitative changes necessary, taking the form of technological
modernisation and of an increase in the organic composition of capital, and thus reinforcing the
above mentioned tendency. The overaccumulation crisis of capital tends, as the crisis unfolding since the mid '70s shows, to
a serious environmental degradation, following a dialectical process from the part to the whole,
the latterbeing the global economy and the planetary ecosystem.



                                                                                                                                                                        7
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                               Cap K
CHANG
                                                       AT: ECON TURN
“Economic crisis” is an endless repetition of the logic of capital – it can only be a “crisis” if you first accept capitalism –
rejecting the system in its entirety reveals the constructed nature of their impacts.

Slavoj Zizek, Senior Researcher, Institute for Social Studies, Ljubljana, 1997, ―Multiculturalism, or, the Cultural Logic of
Multinational Capitalism.‖

So, back to the recent Labour victory, one can see how it not only involved a hegemonic reappropriation of a series of motifs which
were usually inscribed into the Conservative field—family values, law and order, individual responsibility; the Labour ideological
offensive also separated these motifs from the obscene phantasmatic subtext which sustained them in the Conservative field—in
which ‗toughness on crime‘ and ‗individual responsibility‘ subtly referred to brutal egotism, to the disdain for victims, and other ‗basic
instincts‘. The problem, however, is that the New Labour strategy involved its own ‗message between the lines‘: we fully accept the
logic of Capital, we will not mess about with it.  Today, financial crisis is a permanent state of things the
reference to which legitimizes the demands to cut social spending, health care, support of culture and scientific
research, in short, the dismantling of the welfare state. Is, however, this permanent crisis really an objective
feature of our socio-economic life? Is it not rather one of the effects of the shift of balance in the
‗class struggle‘ towards Capital, resulting from the growing role of new technologies as well as from the direct
internationalization of Capital and the co-dependent diminished role of the Nation-State which was further able to impose certain
minimal requirements and limitations to exploitation? In other words, the crisis is an ‗objective fact‘ if and only if
one accepts in advance as an unquestionable premise the inherent logic of Capital—as more
and more left-wing or liberal parties have done. We are thus witnessing the uncanny spectacle of
social-democratic parties which came to power with the between-the-lines message to Capital
‗we will do the necessary job for you in an even more efficient and painless way than the
conservatives‘. The problem, of course, is that, in today‘s global socio-political circumstances, it is practically impossible
effectively to call into question the logic of Capital: even a modest social-democratic attempt to redistribute
wealth beyond the limit acceptable to the Capital ‗effectively‘ leads to economic crisis , inflation, a fall
in revenues and so on. Nevertheless, one should always bear in mind how the connection between ‗cause‘
(rising social expenditure) and ‗effect‘ (economic crisis) is not a direct objective causal one: it is
always-already embedded in a situation of social antagonism and struggle. The fact that, if one does not obey the limits
set by Capital, a crisis ‗really follows‘, in no way ‗proves‘ that the necessity of these limits is an objective necessity of economic
life. It should rather be conceived as a proof of the privileged position Capital holds in the
economic and political struggle, as in the situation where a stronger partner threatens that if you
do X, you will be punished by Y, and then, upon your doing X, Y effectively ensues.




                                                                                                                                        8
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                              Cap K
CHANG
                                                      AT: ECON TURN
The alt thus retroactively solves the turn

Slavoj Zizek, Senior Researcher, Institute for Social Studies, Ljubljana, 2K, Contingency, Hegemony, Universality, ―Class
Struggle or Postmodernism?‖

Precisely because of this internality of the Real to the Symbolic,it is possible to touch the Real through the
Symbolic - that is the whole point of Lacan's notion of psychoanalytic treatment; this is what the Lacanian notion of' the
psychoanalytic act is about - the act as a gesture which by definition touches the dimension of some impossible Real. This notion
of the act must be conceived of against the background of the distinction between the mere endeavour to solve a variety of
partial problems' within a given field and the more radical gesture of subverting the very structuring principle of this
field. An act does not simply occur within the given horizon of what appears to be `possible' - it redefines the very contours
of what is possible (an act accomplishes what, within the given symbolic universe, appears to he
impossible', yetit changes its conditions so that it creates retroactively the conditions ofits own
possibility.:. So when we are reproached by an opponent for doing something unacceptable. an act occurs
when we no longer defend ourselves by accepting the underlying premise that we hitherto shared with the opponent; in contrast,
we fully accept the reproach, changing the very terrain that made it unacceptable - an act occurs
when ouranswer to the reproach is `Yes, that it is precisely what I am doingl' In film, a modest, not quite appropriate recent example
would beKevin Kline's blurting out `I'm gay' instead of `Yes!' during the weddingceremony in in and Out: openly admitting the truth
that he is gay, andthus surprising not only us, the spectators, but even himself.51 In a seriesof recent (commercial) films, we find the
same surprising radical gesture.In Speed, when the hero (Keanu Reeves) is confronting the terrorist black-mailer partner who holds
his partner at gunpoint, he shoots not theblackmailer , but his own partner in the leg - this apparently senseless actmomentarily
shocks the blackmailer; who lets go of the hostage andruns away...In Ransom, when the media tycoon (Mel Gibson) goes on
television to answer the kidnappers request for two million dollars as a ransom for his son, he surprises everyone by saying that he
will offer two million dollars to anyone who will give him any information about the kidnappers, and announces that he will pursue
them to the end, with all his resources, if they do not release his son immediately This radical ges- ture stuns not only the
kidnappers - immediately after accomplishing it, Gibson himself almost breaks down, aware of the risk he is courting~ And finally,
the supreme case: when, in the flashback scene from The Usual Suspects, the mysterious Keyser Soeze (Kevin Spacey) returns
home and finds his wife and small daughter held at gunpoint by the members of a rival mob, he resorts to the radical gesture of
shooting his wife and daughter themselves dead - this act enables him mercilessly to pursue members of the rival gang, their
families, parents, friends, killing them. What these three gestures have in common is that, in a situation of the forced choice, the
subject makes the `crazy', impossible choice of, in a way striking at himself at what is most
precious to himself. This act, far from amounting to a case of impotent aggressivity turned on oneself, rather
changes the co-ordinates of the situation in which the subject finds himself: by cutting himself loose from
the precious object through whose possession the enemy kept him in check, the subject gains the space of free
action.




                                                                                                                                       9
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                  Cap K
CHANG
                                                 AT: DEMOCRACY TURN
Forced choice – it isn’t democracy or terror – their conception of politics forecloses liberation – ending capital is a
prerequisite to conceptualization of democracy beyond itself

Jodi Dean, Prof at Hobart and William Smith, Post Politics and the Technological Fetish, September 2003
(cf.hum.uva.nl/wetenschapsfilosofie/session3.pdf)

                                                           democracy remains a contested term, in no
The workshop questions elide democracy and politics. On the one side,
way reducible to liberal democracy. Indeed, its reconceptualization under current conditions is
presented as a political problem, we might even say as a political struggle. On the other side, democracy
emerges as the very horizon or frame of reference for politics, as a sort of limit beyond which
one should not venture. The resignification of democracy seems to rest, as Zizek writes, on ―the
fixity of the empty signifier ‗democracy‘‖ (Plague, 94). What the elision of democracy and politics suggests is that an
acceptance of democracy not only preconditions how we are to think about the problem of politics today but that this very
acceptance of democracy maybe itself our political problem.  Reconceiving democracy is constituted as the
problem because democracy is the limit of our thinking about politics. But what if this very
limit were called into question? What if this challenge is precisely what is necessary for
politics? What is beyond democracy? What beyond democracy remains unquestioned, taken for granted, and ―widely
acknowledged‖ to have ―diffused to every imaginable corner of our existence‖? What remains the assumed point of
reference for discussions of democracy? I agree with Zizek when he argues that global capital is what underlies
contemporary discussions of democracy, that the presumption of capital is what must be challenged, and that one way to approach
                                     By ―critique of democracy‖ I do not mean to imply ―and
this challenge is via a critique of democracy.
embrace of fascism, totalitarianism, or the like.‖ Zizek can be read this way, although I think a better reading of
Zizek emphasizes escaping the blackmail or forced choice of democracy or terror, of what we
have or the specter of something worse. No, in pushing the ―critique of democracy,‖ I have in mind a particular
lacunae in left thought. Radical democrats embrace a set of compelling arguments against liberal democracy. Yet, what they accept
instead of liberalism‘s emphasis on individual rights and neutral procedures tends to be either an appeal to idealized deliberations or
an emphasis on micropolitical resistances and the politics of the everyday. The big struggle—building a large movement and party
capable of challenging global capital, articulating a clear, divisive, avowedly ideological position—is rejected as a remnant of the
past. Increasingly prominent versions of micropolitics, such as those which appear in the singular actions of the multitude in Hardt
and Negri‘s Empire, argue moreover that the big struggle isn‘t necessary because it is already there, a dispersed and immanent
property of the plurality of little resistances. These little resistances are immediately, ontologically political. I don‘t buy it. There has
to be more to democracy than liberal proceduralism, on the one side, and immanentism, on the other. But, finding or helping
to produce this democracy today requires challenging its current conditions of impossibility,
global capital, and the way that democracy, or the norms and ideals associated with democracy,
service and protect communicative capitalism. More bluntly put, the Left will not be able properly to
conceive the problem of democracy until it acknowledges, first, that there is no democracy
today, that what we have instead are the illusory trappings and rhetorics of democracy in the
service of global inequalities and the consolidation of wealth in the hands of the few, and,
second, that the vital actions of organization and resistance confronting global capital are,
again, not indications of the rule of the demos and the liveliness of democratic engagement, but,
more simply, life and death struggles against the ever-increasing brutalities of capitalist
globalization.




                                                                                                                                         10
Georgetown 2009                                                                                               Cap K
CHANG
                                                 AT: P / BOTH [1/4]
1.) Plan focus bad – destroys stable ground by allowing severing advantages to get out of impact turns AND
encourages ideological irresponsibility – the impact is the K.

If we win a link the alt is functionally ban the plan – severance is a voter for equity.

2.) Interpellation closes agency – the plan brings workers back into the fold by promising them benefits structurally
located within capitalism – accepting this interpellation guts the perm

Eric GRAF, Professor of Spanish, University of Illinois, 2007, Cervantes and Modernity, 23-4




                                                                                                                        11
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                Cap K
CHANG
                                               AT: P / BOTH [2/4]
[CONTINUED – NO TEXT OMITTED]




3.) Belief is a yes/no question – perm falsely externalizes capital as having real substance – elements like money are
illusory constructions that only possess value because we believe in its value – that’s Johnston.

4.) We’ll impact turn their combinational net benefits to the perm – they’re a form of metaphysical centering which
annihilate thought by concealing truth-production
.
William Spanos, Literature—SUNY Binghampton, 2K
(America‘s Shadow, p. 48-51)




                                                                                                                         12
Georgetown 2009                                 Cap K
CHANG
                           AT: P / BOTH [3/4]
[CONTINUED – NO TEXT OMITTED]




                                                   13
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                Cap K
CHANG
                                               AT: P / BOTH [4/4]
5.) Default negative on the perm question – it’s their burden to win a risk of a net benefit comparative to our case turn
and alt solvency claims.

6.) [insert appropriate cap turns case]




                                                                                                                      14
Georgetown 2009                                                                                             Cap K
CHANG
                                    AT: P / ALL OTHER INSTANCES
Our impacts aren’t instance-based. You either believe in capitalism or you don’t – that’s 1NC Johnston.

Intrinsicness is a voter – lets them add random unpredictable planks precluding negative offense.

Multiple perms are a voter
   a.) Fairness – two second blips take minutes to adequately cover and lead to sandbagging and cherrypicking
   b.) Education – precludes in-depth discussion of combination in favor of throwing everything at the wall and seeing
what sticks
   c.) Reject the team – it’s key to set precedent and account for in-round timeskew abuse – uniquely true in the
context of a “reject all other instances” throwaway perm
  [d.)] links to conditionality more – each perm is a new world




                                                                                                                   15
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                         Cap K
CHANG
                                                                 2NC ONTOLOGY
Extend Simonovic – capitalism causes the ontological death of humanity by interpellating existence into robotic
calculations of capitalistic profit – this is worse than extinction

Richard   Rojcewicz, Professor of Philosophy, Point Park University, Executive Director, Simon Silverman Phenomenology Center, Duquesne University;
cotranslator of Heidegger‘s work, 2006, The Gods and Technology: A Reading of Heidegger, p. 140-1


It may well be that conservation will succeed and that technology will solve its own problems by
producing things that are safe and nonpolluting; nevertheless, the prime danger, which lies
deeper down, will remain. For the danger is not primarily to the existence of humans but to their essence: "The threat to
man does not come in the first instance from the potentially lethal effects of the machines and devices of technology. The genuine
threat has already affected humans—in their essence" (FT, 29/28). In a sense, the threat inherent in modern technology has already
been made good.      Though we have thus far averted a nuclear disaster, that does not mean the
genuine threat has been obviated. Humans still exist; they are not yet on the endangered species list. It would of
course be tragic if humans made that list. Yet, for Heidegger, there could be something more tragic, namely
for humans to go on living but to lose their human dignity, which stems from their essence. Here
lies the prime danger, the one posed not by technological things but by the disclosive looking that constitutes the essence of
modern technology. The prime danger is that humans could become (and in fact are already
becoming) enslaved to this way of disclosive looking. Thus what is primarily in danger is human
freedom; if humans went on living but allowed themselves to be turned into slaves—that would
be the genuine tragedy. The danger in modern technology is that humans may fail to see themselves as free followers, fail
to see the challenges directed at their freedom by the current guise of Being, and fail to see the genuine possibilities open to them to
work out their destiny. Then, not seeing their freedom, humans will not protect it. They will let it slip away and will become mere
followers, passively imposed on by modern technology, i.e., slaves to it, mere cogs in the machine. For Heidegger, there is an
essential connection between seeing and freedom. The way out of slavery begins with seeing, insight. But it is the right thing that
must be seen, namely, one's own condition. The danger is that humans may perfect their powers of scientific seeing and yet be
blind to that wherein their dignity and freedom lie, namely the entire domain of disclosedness and their role in it. Humans would then
pose as "masters of the earth," and yet their self-blindness would make them slaves.

Even if we don’t win a value to life claim, any ontological damage is a prerequisite to discussion of action

DILLON „99
(Professor of Politics, University of Lancaster, ―moral spaces,‖ JSTOR)

                                                                       As Heidegger-himself an especially
Heirs to all this, we find ourselves in the turbulent and now globalized wake of its confluence.
revealing figure of the deep and mutual implication of the philosophical and the political4-never
tired of pointing out, the relevance of ontology to all other kinds of thinking is fundamental and
inescapable. For one cannot say anything about anything that is, without always already having
made assumptions about the is as such. Any mode of thought, in short, always already carries an ontology sequestered within it. What
this ontological turn does to other regional modes of thought is to challenge the ontology within which they operate. The implications of that review reverberate
                                                                                    ontology at
throughout the entire mode of thought, demanding a reappraisal as fundamental as the reappraisal ontology has demanded of philosophy. With
issue, the entire foundations or underpinnings of any mode of thought are rendered problematic.
This applies as much to any modern discipline of thought as it does to the question of modernity as such, with the exception, it seems, of science, which, having long
ago given up the ontological questioning of when it called itself natural philosophy, appears now, in its industrialized and corporatized form, to be invulnerable to
                 With its foundations at issue, the very authority of a mode of thought and the
ontological perturbation.
ways in which it characterizes the critical issues of freedom and judgment (of what kind of
universe human beings inhabit, how they inhabit it, and what counts as reliable knowledge for
them in it) is also put in question. The very ways in which Nietzsche, Heidegger, and other continental philosophers challenged Western
ontology, simultaneously, therefore reposed the fundamental and inescapable difficulty, or aporia, for human being of decision and judgment. In other words,
whatever ontology you subscribe to, knowingly or unknowingly, as a human being you still have to act. Whether or not you know or acknowledge it, the ontology you
subscribe to will construe the problem of action for you in one way rather than another. You may think ontology is some arcane question of philosophy, but Nietzsche
                                                                        Decision, a fortiori political
and Heidegger showed that it intimately shapes not only a way of thinking, but a way of being, a form of life.
decision, in short, is no mere technique. It is instead a way of being that bears an understanding
of Being, and of the fundaments of the human way of being within it. This applies, indeed applies most, to those
mock innocent political slaves who claim only to be technocrats of decision making.




                                                                                                                                                                  16
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                     Cap K
CHANG
                                                 LINK – ABORTION
Their support for abortion is the perfection of capital – the rhetoric of choice is the ultimate legitimation of corporate
hegemony

Eugene McCarraher, Professor, Department of Humanities and Augustinian Tradition, U Villanova, 2001, ―Mammon‘s Deadly
Grin: The New Gospel of Wealth and the Old Gospel of Life,‖ qtd in Vox Nova, http://vox-nova.com/2008/08/22/eugene-mccarraher-
on-abortion-and-capitalism/

[This] political economy of death is the precondition for the emergence of ―choice‖ as the holy grail of
our moral culture. It’s neither coincidental nor unironical that the word so decisive in the
legitimation of corporate hegemony is also pivotal to the defense of abortion. First, both
abortion and corporate capitalism are justified in the liberal individualist language of self-
ownership and autonomous will. Second, the language of choice obscures and even nullifies the
moral substance of the choices made. And third, the alacrity with which ―choice‖ is now invoked
is, I suspect, an indication of how meaningless — and therefore how few –our choices have really
become. Abortion becomes more conceivable as a practice, not only when sex is utterly divorced from pregnancy,
but when the organization of work hampers or precludes the reproductive practices of sex, birth, and child-
rearing. If we are going to combat abortion, then I would suggest that we appropriate and transform the language of choice, and
argue that abortion is the hallmark of a culture that forces everything to pivot around the
accumulation of capital . We must tie abortion to a political economy that controls our work,
warps our practices of love, and compensates with the perverse but beguiling enchantments of
commodified freedom.




                                                                                                                            17
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                           Cap K
CHANG
                                                             LINK – HEALTH CARE
Their reform approach to healthcare does nothing but throw fairy dust in our faces – it naturalizes the underlying flaw
of capitalism’s profit motive – turns and outweighs case

Dissident Voice 9
(edited anti-capitalist newsletter; http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/06/health-care-reform/)

What we call a ―health care system‖ in America is by my standard a strange and almost incomprehensibly
corrupt and twisted thing. The continued existence of such a cruel and dysfunctional system requires that a great deal of
mind-fogging fairy dust be continually thrown in our faces by the health care industry and the
politicians they own. At all costs, they must inoculate us against the possibility that a spontaneous outbreak of common sense might infect the populace.
Rest assured that the strategists for the drug and insurance companies understand what they are
up against. They understand that to keep in place a fundamentally irrational system, they have to maintain an eternal vigilance to prevent dangerous principles
like logic, reason and fairness from entering into the healthcare equation. The ‗industry‘ must make for-profit medicine seem
normal, acceptable, and our only reasonable option. They must also make the kinds of publicly funded healthcare
systems operated by most every other nation on the planet seem weird, subversive and dangerous.
Much of the vacuous banter about ―healthcare reform‖ that appears in the press and in speeches by our politicians seems designed to be both boring and to make
healthcare issues appear very complex. Health insurance, in concept, is really not a devastatingly difficult thing to understand. Here‘s how it works: The insured pool
their resources so that when any of them get sick the pool pays for their care. The pool must also pay the system‘s administrative costs. This is the comprehensive list
of essential elements. It only seems so simple because it is. Most of     the complications involved in ―reforming‖ our present
system can be traced back to its fundamental design defect . We place a huge burden on our health
care system by demanding that “profit” be extracted from its operation. It is this design
characteristic that twists, perverts and distorts the very notion of health care in America . It seems obvious
that the first goal of a ―health care provider‖ should be to give the best possible care to those that are ―provided‖ for. Just as obviously, we can see that in our
for-profit health care system, delivery of actual care is a side effect. Is there really any question that a ―healthcare‖
system that allows insurance companies to deny coverage to people on the grounds that they may actually need medical care is one that has been hideously deformed,
diverted and subverted? It might be more accurately described as a ―profit delivery‖ system. But to the dismay of those
that are committed to spreading fairy dust, every healthcare system creates a product that can be examined. According to the W orld Health
Organization, our nation ranks 37th in the world in quality of care, placing just below Costa Rica and Dominica. Our system now
leaves about 50 million people without access to even basic medical care. But we are number one, and by a large margin, in cost
of medical services, executive compensation, and percentage of healthcare dollars spent on
administrative overhead. Without a generous quantity of fairy dust, a phony debate in the corporate
media, the complicity of a bought-off Congress, and a new President whose words support reform but whose
timid, incremental approach will likely only diminish the possibility of systemic change , the
inexcusably lame performance of our health care system would be recognized for what it is:
intolerable. Imagine your car came in 37th in the race, after you dropped more money than
anyone thought possible on the most expensive model that was available. If you really wanted to win, wouldn‘t it be best to pay attention to the fact that all 36 of
the much faster cars that beat you in the race use an engine design that is completely different from yours? What if you discovered that the other cars, in addition to
being faster, used only about half the fuel your car burned? Would you then go home and tinker with your carburetor in the hopes that a little tweaking would
                                                                          your only chance to
somehow overcome the poor performance that results from the basic design of your machine? Or would you consider it obvious that
compete successfully would be to replace your obsolete and incredibly expensive racecar with one
that has been designed to deliver a higher level of performance? When it comes to healthcare, President Obama seems to support the carburetor-tweaking approach.
According to an article by Bill Moyers, Obama was asked at a town hall meeting a couple of weeks ago about the possibility of switching to a single-payer national
health care system. He said that single-payer might ―make sense‖ but only if we were ―starting from scratch‖ to build a new health care system. Obama says our
current for-profit healthcare system is ―too large a percentage of our economy‖ to consider changing. To the fifty million Americans without any health insurance at
                                                              I am sure it appears that health
all, and to the millions more that are struggling under the crushing financial burden of our current system,
care is too large a percentage of our economy to consider not changing. It is only so very large because it has
gorged itself on our misery until it has become insupportable. If you discovered that leeches were attached to your flesh, would you decline to remove them on the
grounds that they had already consumed such a large a percentage of your blood that it would not be wise to disturb them now? Granted, if I were designing a brand
new health care system ―from the ground up,‖ I would not create one in which the primary mandate was to establish and maintain a parasitic executive class whose
                                                                                                                           regardless
main function was to generously award itself the largest share possible from funds that would otherwise be available to care for sick people. But
of whether we are in the process of creating, operating, maintaining, or ―reforming‖ our health
care system, what does not make sense is to retain the one design element that contains within it
a terminal conflict of interest that no tinkering can ever resolve . A for-profit system assumes that we can
somehow make people rich as a result of caring for the sick, but what we really do is make people sick by caring for the rich. One thing is




                                                                                                                                                                    18
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                              Cap K
CHANG
                                                              LINK – HEALTH CARE
[CONTINUED – NO TEXT OMITTED]
clear: despite spending tens of millions of dollars worth of their ill-gotten profits to buy off our politicians and deform public opinion on the issues, Americans are not
buying the traditional array of industry excuses any more. Even absent any substantial support for the idea in Washington or in the corporate mass media, about two-
thirds of our citizens want to switch to a single-payer system now. What is there really to argue or debate? Healthcare industry executives, some of the best paid
                                                                                                                             So
people on the planet, seem less than eager to appear before the public in front of a banner that reads, ―We‘re number thirty seven — and that‘s good enough!‖
they and their politicians and media outlets spread fairy dust. Virtually all of the current “reform” plans
being tossed about by our politicians, including the much-touted ―public option,‖ leave in place a network of for-profit private
insurance companies to administer the system. This arrangement fails completely to address our
systemic defect. For-profit healthcare is the problem. It cannot possibly be the solution. This is why I will
not be joining with the liberal groups that are frantically calling for us to support ―Obama‘s public option‖ against the forces of darkness. I don‘t believe that this is
                                       the forces of darkness have already wormed their way
where the battle should be fought. In my cosmology, it seems clear that
into Obama‘s plans and processes, rendering any and all detailed discussion of them a waste of
time.




                                                                                                                                                                      19
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                 Cap K
CHANG
                                      TURNS CASE – HEALTH CARE
Exploitation is inevitable in a capitalistic framework – health is just another commodity to be traded

Howard Waitzkin, Distinguished Professor, Departments of Sociology, Family and Community Medicine, and Internal Medicine,
University of New Mexico, 2K, the second sickness




                                                                                                                       20
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                              Cap K
CHANG
                                         TURNS CASE – DISEASE / HEALTH CARE
Capitalism makes disease spread inevitable – profit motive cripples health sector and community response – data
proves

Levins 2K
(Richard Levins is a professor of biology at Harvard University. He has achieved international recognition for his work over many
years in the field of epidemiology; ―is capitalism a disease?‖,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_4_52/ai_65805749/pg_15/?tag=content;col1)

A radical critique of medicine has to deal with the things that make people sick and the kind and quality of healthcare people get. A Marxist approach
to health would attempt to integrate the insights of ecosystem health, environmental justice, the social
determination of health, "healthcare for all," and alternative medicine. One aspect of my approach to the issues of
healthcare comes from my background as an ecologist. I looked at variability in health across geographic locations ,
occupational groups, age groups, or other socially defined categories. Just how variable, I asked, is the outcome in healthcare in different states in the United
States, different counties in Kansas, different provinces in Cuba, different health districts in a Brazilian state, or in a
Canadian province? Very interesting patterns emerged from that work. My colleagues and I examined the rate of infant
mortality in each of these regions, both as an average and how, in each place, the rates varied, reflecting the quality of healthcare , among other factors, from the
best to the worst. What we saw was that infant mortality rates in United States were more or less comparable to Cuba,
that Kansas had a rate a little higher than the U.S. average, while Rio Grande do Sur in Brazil had a more typical, and much higher,
third-world infant mortality rate. That Cuba scored so high was not very surprising. / However, when we viewed the same data
from the perspective of the range from the best to the worst rates of infant mortality, that is, the variability
within given populations, an effective measure of fairness, much more was revealed. The numbers for counties in Kansas showed the greatest
variation, while the numbers that compared U.S. states showed somewhat less difference. The difference across health districts of Rio Grande was even less, and the
least variation was in Cuba. Similar things happen when we look at all causes of death. Once again, we observed average rates as well as the
disparity; we divided the variation, the difference between best and worst, by the average. For Kansas the range divided by the
average is .85, but in Cuba it was .34. We saw that the cancer rates in Kansas and in Cuba are comparable, but the variability is higher in
Kansas than in Cuba. When we examined Canadian data, we found that Saskatchewan was somewhere between Kansas and Cuba. / The reason we chose these places
                              Canada, and Kansas all have capitalist economies in which investment decisions are
is that on the one hand Brazil,
based on maximizing profit rather than any social imperative meant to equalize economic circumstance. Saskatchewan and
Rio Grande do Sur along with Cuba have national health systems that provide fairly uniform coverage over a
given geographic area. The Canadian and Brazilian regions have the advantage of a better and more just healthcare
system but, unlike Cuba, they have the disadvantages of capitalism, giving them an intermediate
location in the variability of health outcomes. / This method can also be applied when comparing different diseases. One question we want
to answer is whether variability will be greater across states and other large geographic regions, or across small areas like counties. There are good reasons why it
might go either way. For example, weather could impact the data in large areas like states. But weather is not the only variable; others may vary greatly over smaller
geographic units, only to be lost in the averages we develop for large areas. When we are able to look at smaller areas, for example, like different neighborhoods
within the city of Wichita, Kansas, we find a threefold variation in infant mortality. We also notice that unemployment in Kansas averages 9 or 10 percent in most
Kansas counties but is 30 percent in northeast Wichita. Why? Because neighborhoods are not simply random pieces of environment. They're structured. Wherever
there is a rich neighborhood, you need a poor neighborhood, like northeast Wichita, to serve it. And so whenever we can get data across neighborhoods, we see very
large variations in social conditions and, as a consequence, in the quality and quantity of healthcare--clearly unnecessary from the point of view of any limitation in
our medical knowledge or resources. / Another interesting case can be found in Mexico, where a study was conducted of several villages, ranking them according to
how marginalized they were from Mexican life. Examined were such variables as whether there was running water or what proportion of the people spoke Spanish.
The research showed that the more marginal communities had worse health outcomes. But, unexpectedly, the data also showed that there was tremendous difference
among the outcomes in poor villages that you didn't get among the villages that were integrated into the Mexican economy. / It is an as-yet-unrecognized ecological
principle in public health that when a community or an individual organism is stressed for any reason (low income, a very severe climate, for example), it will be
extremely sensitive to other disparities. So, if people have very low income, changing seasonal temperatures become very important. For example, in late autumn and
early winter, emergency rooms have a lot of people coming in with burns from kerosene stoves, ovens, and other dangerous means used to compensate for inadequate
heat in their houses. For such people, a small difference in temperature can have a big effect on their health--one that doesn't affect the more affluent. The same is true
in relation to food. When people are unemployed, or if the prices go up, they cut back on food and other kinds of expenditures with an immediate impact on nutrition.
If you are a superb shopper, and if you clip all the coupons and scrutinize the supermarket ads, you might just get by on the Department of Agriculture poverty level
basket; the people who dream up these baskets assume you are a wiz at finding bargains. But suppose you are not so good, or that you read the ads but cannot get
away for two hours for comparison shopping. Or that you live in a neighborhood where the local supermarket was not as profitable as the national chain that owned it
thought it should be, and is gone, and with it your opportunity to get quality food. Or suppose that you would love to eat organic food for lunch but what you have is a
half-hour break to go down to the vending machines. Under those circumstances, individual differences in where you work, how much energy you have, whether you
can have a babysitter available or not, can have a big impact on your health. / The illusion of Choice / Poor health tends to cluster in poor communities. Conservatives
will say, "well, obviously poverty is not good for you, but after all, not all kids turn out badly. I made it, why can't you? Some people have become CEOs of
corporations who came out of that neighborhood." What they miss is the notion of increased vulnerability. The apparently trivial difference in experience can have a
vast effect on the health of someone who is marginal. Suppose a pupil is a bit nearsighted but, because she is tall, is seated at the back of the classroom. The teacher is
overworked and does not notice that the student cannot see the blackboard. She fidgets; she gets into a fight with the kid at the next desk. Suddenly she has become
someone with a "learning problem" and is transferred to a vocational course even though she might have been great poet. In a more affluent community, where the
classes are smaller and teachers pay attention, this kid would simply end up with glasses. Individual differences can come from anything, f rom personal experiences
growing up, even from genetics. But even when genetics is responsible for a given human characteristic, it is only responsible within a particular context. For instance,




                                                                                                                                                                      21
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                               Cap K
CHANG
                                          TURNS CASE – DISEASE / HEALTH CARE
[CONTINUED – NO TEXT OMITTED]
in a factory emitting toxic fumes, people will develop cancer at a higher rate; those most likely to develop the cancer have livers that are not able to effectively process
a particular chemical as well. This is a genetic variable and thus a genetic disease but it occurs only with exposure to those fumes. The cancer is not a result of genetics
alone; it is also caused by the environment. / Trivial biological differences can become the focus around which important life outcomes are located; the most obvious
is pigmentation. The difference in melanin between Americans of African and European origin is, from the point of view of genetics and physiology, trivial. It is
simply the way in which a pigment is deposited in the skin. Yet this difference can cost you ten years of life. So is this a lethal gene? Is this a gene for a higher spread
of pigmentation-one that also makes you more vulnerable to arrest? A standard geneticist would look at family histories and determine that if your uncle was arrested,
there would be a higher probability of you being arrested as well. Conclusion: the cause of criminality is genetic. Following the rules of genetics in this mechanistic
way, he or she will have proved that crime is hereditary. This makes as much sense as the notion that black people get more tuberculosis because they have bad genes.
Genetics is not an alternative explanation of social conditions; it a component of an investigation of causal factors. There is an intimate interdependence among
                                Behavior is one of the areas where public health workers want
biological, genetic, environmental, and social factors. /
to intervene, arguing that much that differentiates health outcomes in poor neighborhoods from
rich ones can be associated with behavior, such as smoking, exercise, and diet. Conservatives, finally
forced to concede that there are big differences in health outcomes between rich and poor, now say, "yes, this is because the poor make unwise decisions. The
appropriate remedy is education. We know that kids do better if their mothers have had more schooling, so what we need are education programs to teach people to
make the best of their situation." In fact, some health education programs are valuable. Safety orientation within factories does help people cope with unsafe
conditions. But let us take a closer look at this question of choice. The Centers for Disease Control, and others who deal with these issues, say only some things can be
chosen, while others are imposed by the environment. They would have us distinguish between disadvantages imposed o n us, that may be unfair and/or can be
eliminated, from those that were freely chosen and for which we can only blame ourselves. A Marxist confronted with choices among mutually exclusive categories
like choice versus environment, heredity versus experience, biological versus social, knows that the categories themselves must be challenged. Choice also implies the
lack of choice. Choices are always made from a set of alternatives that are presented to you by somebody else. We know this from e lections and from shopping. We
choose food, but only from the products a company has chosen to make available to us. The choice is distinguished by the lack of choice, that is, unchoice. The same
is true with respect to the opportunity to exercise choice. There are always preconditions to the exercise of choice. If the conditions of life are very poor or oppressive,
some of the things that are unwise choices under other circumstances become the lesser evil. / Public health people, like nearly everyone else, worry a great deal about
teen pregnancies, which generally are not a good idea. Teen mothers are not experienced; they may have difficulty taking care of their babies; and the babies are more
likely to be underweight. Nevertheless, it turns out that the health of a baby born to an African-American teenager is on the average better than the health of a baby
born to an African-American woman in her twenties. Why? The environment of racism erodes health to such an extent that it makes a certain amount of sense to have
your babies early if you're going to have them. This is something that is not obvious when you simply say, "teen pregnancy is a danger to people." We need to look at
teen pregnancy in a much broader social context before we can think about making it simply a public health issue. / Smoking is another example. Smoking increases
inversely with the degree of freedom one has at work. People who have few choices in life at least can make the choice to smoke. It is one of the few legitimate ways
in some jobs to take a break and step outside. So there are people who choose: "yes," they say, "it might give me cancer in twenty years, but it sure keeps me alive
today." The unhealthy choices people make are not irrational choices. We have to see them as constrained rationality, making the best of a bad situation. Most of the
apparently unwise decisions people make have a relative rationality to them when their circumstance is taken into account, so it is unlikely their behavior will change
simply by lecturing to them. You have to change the context within which choice is made. / Yet another dimension of choice is found in the way we perceive time.
When making a choice about health, we assume that something we do now will have an impact later on. That may seem obvious, but it is not the experience of
everyone. Most people, in fact, do not experience the kind or quality of freedom that gives them control over their own lives, that would allow them to say, "I will quit
smoking now so that I won't get cancer in twenty years." Not everyone can organize their lives along an orderly annual time scale. In the inner city of San Juan, in
Puerto Rico, the life pattern is such that one can work unloading a ship for twenty-three hours a day for two days, then sleep for three days, then unexpectedly work in
a restaurant for another two days because his or her cousin has to go to a funeral in the mountains. Time does not have the same structure when you can't make solid
plans now for what is going to happen to you later. / On the other hand, the lives of, say, academics are notable for the way time is organized. Students can and do
choose courses of study that, in two or three years, will prepare them for a career. On a shorter time scale, a professor may conveniently order his or her teaching
schedule around patterns of Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, or Tuesday and Thursday. Physicians decide when to see patients, when to be in the library, when to go
to seminars. So some people can actually structure their lives in such a way that we can actually make predictions. Not absolute predictions, obviously. Things can
come up; we can be hit by a car. But, basically, the more control you have over your life and your experience of life, the more it makes sense to make the kind of
decisions that public health experts recommend, the more the possibility, then, of exercising choice. So the answer to those who talk about decision-making and
choice is to tell them, first of all, to expand the range of choices. Secondly, they need to provi de the tools for making those choices. Third, of course, people need to
control their own lives, so that they can exercise all their faculties to make meaningful choices. In taking each of these steps, we directly challenge the false
dichotomies that rule thinking about public health and constrain it within predetermined societal boundaries. / What Can Be Done? / At a recent meeting I attended, a
paper was distributed that posed the following dilemma: Why, living in a democracy, where all citizens have the vote, do we permit policies that create inequalities
that have such a negative impact on our health? How do we explain this? We have schemes to improve agriculture but they increase hunger. We create hospitals and
they become the centers for the propagation of new diseases. We invest in engineering projects to control floods and they increase flood damage. What has gone
wrong? One answer might be that we are just not smart enough. Or the problems are just too complicated, or we are selfish, or we have some defect. Or, after having
failed to eliminate hunger, improve people's health, and do away with inequalities, and failed, perhaps we need to face facts and conclude that it just cannot be done.
Or perhaps we're just the kind of species that is incapable of living a cooperative life in a sensible relation to nature. / We should reject any of these unduly pessimistic
conclusions. The history of struggle is long and not without achievements. But   struggle is also difficult. For example, it is easy to
depend on the illusion of democracy and a beneficent government to solve our problems . But
when we look at the policies that emerge from those institutions of democracy, we see that those
ostensibly aimed at improving the people's lives are nearly always hobbled by some hidden side
condition. For instance, I am sure that on the whole, President Clinton would rather have people covered by health insurance than not. But that is subject to the
side condition that insurance industry profitability must be protected. He probably would like medicines to be cheaper, but only if the pharmaceutical industry
                                                                                                                                The basic
continues to make high profits. Abroad, the United States would like peasants to have land, but only if not expropriated from plantation owners.
reason that programs fail is not incompetence, ignorance, or stupidity, but because they are
constrained by the interests of the powerful. Sometimes we discover that part of a program is carded out successfully, and part not. An
enterprise zone might be established in an inner city that actually brings in investment, but there
is no impact on poverty because the assumption that benefits would trickle down was an illusion.
A reasonable return on investment was the goal of the developers. When that was achieved, nothing else mattered. / A good way to see how
these hidden constraints, these systemic barriers, operate is in the delivery of health services
elsewhere. Healthcare in the United States exists against background of this country's unrestrained




                                                                                                                                                                        22
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                               Cap K
CHANG
                                         TURNS CASE – DISEASE / HEALTH CARE
[CONTINUED – NO TEXT OMITTED]
capitalism. We have described at length both the prospects and problems of that system. But, in Europe, social democrats historically have taken a different
approach--one that acknowledges inequality as an obstacle. They have treated unemployment, for example, as a social problem rather than an inevitable byproduct of
a vigorous market. A town council will address it by financing a center for the unemployed, with counselors to advise them of their right to unemployment insurance
and other benefit programs. The center may even organize a support group where people can deal with their feelings about not being able to bring home an income to
the family. Local governments can address other social concerns. In London, there is a program to break down the isolation of young mothers, where they can meet
one another, share experiences, and provide support. Of course, none of these measures affects profitability or challenges the market. So the council cannot create
employment. Even the most farsighted programs initiated by European social democratic governments do not challenge the capitalist order in any way. What they do
is to try to make things more equitable--for instance, through progressive income taxes or generous unemployment insurance. In Sweden, transport workers demanded
improved food to reduce heart disease among truck drivers. They organized to improve the quality of food in the roadside canteens and collaborated with restaurant
owners and canteen owners and food was improved. In other places, unions have negotiated collective agreements to change shift work, hours of work, and working
conditions. The unions recognized that health concerns were but another aspect of class relations. / In some cases improving on-the-job health is relatively cost-free.
No employer will object to putting up a sign reminding workers to wear their hard hats on the construction site. But it begins to get a little tricky when you talk about
                                                                                    through government programs to
the reorganization of work or the expenditure of money. If the expenditure of money comes from taxes,
improve health, we can expect the business class to object. And if, after each new expenditure, they perceive some
interference with their competitive position, their opposition may take some political form, for example, the repeal
of some aspect of health and safety regulation. When an expenditure has to come from the individual employer, perhaps byway of
a union demand, they will be even more resistant. They will say that it is bad for competition and threaten to close
down and move somewhere else. If the union's demands deal with the organization of work itself, management will see workers impinging
on the very core of class prerogative. In that situation, only a powerful and well-organized labor movement will be able to impose changes. / When health policy is
looked at from the point of view of which issues involve a direct confrontation of fundamental, ruling-class interest, which ones involve simply relative benefits to a
class, and which are relatively neutral, we can predict which kinds of measures are possible. This highlights the lie in the notion that society is trying to improve health
for everybody. We need to see healthcare in a more complex way.      Health is part of the wage goods of a society, part of the value of labor power, and therefore
a   regular object of contention in class struggle. But health is also a consumer good, particularly for the affluent, who can buy
improvements in health for themselves. Rather than improve water quality, they buy bottled water; rather than improve air quality, they employ oxygen tanks in their
living rooms. Health is also a commodity invested in by the health industries, including, hospitals, HMOs, and pharmaceutical companies. They sell healthcare to as
                                                          Like any aggressive business, the health
large a market as can afford to pay for it; they even push it on people who do not need it.
industries engage in public relations--the winning of hearts and minds. Some of the clinics that were established in
Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War and earlier, during the Malayan insurrection, were for this purpose. Doctors, at great sacrifice, would go into the jungle and
                                                   seeing themselves either as bringing benefits to
set up clinics and work very hard under very difficult conditions for low pay,
people who needed it or, more consciously, as trying to prevent communism. it was yet another reincarnation of the
White Man's Burden that justified nineteenth-century imperialism. /If good health depends on one's capacity to carry out those activities that are necessary and
appropriate according to one's station in life, it matters how that station is determined. Those who can determine for themselves what constitutes necessary and
desirable activities are clearly different from the people who have that determination made for them. This distinction is clear when an employer negotiates health
                                                                                                                          health
insurance for his or her employees; for the employer, the cost of the benefits package will always come before what employees may think they need. So
is always a point of contention in class struggle. So is medical and scientific research; knowledge and ignorance are determined, as
in all scientific research, by who owns the research industry, who commands the production of knowledge production. There
is class struggle in the debates around what kind of research ought to be done. Increasingly, research in the health field is dominated by the pharmaceutical and
                There are intellectual concerns about how to analyze data, about how to think
electronic industries. /
about disease, about how widely we need to look at the epidemiological, historical, and social questions they raise; there are also issues of
health service and health policy. But they are all part of one integral system that has to be our
battleground in the future. We have to take up health as a pervasive issue as we do with problems of the environment; they are aspects of
class struggle, not an alternative to it.




                                                                                                                                                                       23
Georgetown 2009                                                                                        Cap K
CHANG
                                             TURNS CASE – VETERANS

Cap structurally makes exploitative treatment of veterans inevitable

MILLER 6
(Jason Miller, Member, Amnesty International; sociopolitical essayist with a degree in liberal arts,
http://www.rense.com/general71/amrcc.htm)

Representing a particularly searing indictment of America's Capitalist constitutional republic are the
500,000 US military veterans who experience homelessness each year. Conscripted or
manipulated by propaganda to fight in wars of imperial aggression (like Vietnam), homeless
veterans were used by the elites and cast aside like yesterday's garbage. The Veterans
Administration only provides housing for veterans who are chronically ill, has severely neglected
the needs of those with mental illness, and cut most Vietnam War Veterans adrift with no job
training. Risk your life to expand the American Empire and you get to spend the rest of your
days eating out of trash dumpsters.




                                                                                                          24
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                           Cap K
CHANG
                                            TURNS CASE – VETERANS
Capitalist profit motive subsumes case solvency – even if they make veterans eligible, VA hospitals and other services
will be closed and cut – veterans are deemed useless in a capitalist society

Maupin 7
(Caleb T. Maupin, Writer, Maelstrom Weekly Magazine, Workers World, ―1.8 million veterans get no health care,‖
http://www.workers.org/2007/us/vets-0705/)

Rosa Luxemburg, the Polish-born revolutionary and courageous opponent of imperialist war, wrote of   soldiers returning to
Germany after World War I that they had ―sacrificed the most blood and goods‖ but that they ―return to need
and misery, while billions has been heaped in the hands of a few.‖ / She would say the same
thing today about U.S. soldiers. / The young men and women who, often out of basic economic need, sign up for the
military are betrayed. Recruiters patrol the poor and oppressed neighborhoods bearing promises of
veterans‘ benefits. Capitalist politicians brag about how much they ―support the troops.‖ / But regardless of their
rhetoric, regardless of recruiters’ empty promises, there are currently in the U.S. 1.8 million veterans who have no
health insurance or any access to medical care, according to the Washington Post of June 21. / It seems that, even if young
people donate their bodies to the rulers of this country, they still can‘t get what is guaranteed to
everyone in socialist countries and even in some capitalist ones: healthcare provided to the people free of
charge. / It was already a scandal that 45 million people in the U.S. are without any health coverage. Now, at this time when
every big shot professes to love the troops who are fighting the rich man‘s war, it is doubly scandalous that even veterans can‘t get
health services. / The Post article added: ―The ranks of uninsured veterans have increased by 290,000 since 2000, said Stephanie
J. Woolhandler, the Harvard Medical School professor who presented her findings yesterday before the House Committee on
Veterans Affairs. About 12.7 percent of non-elderly veterans—or one in eight—lacked health coverage in 2004, the most recent year
for which figures are available, she said, up from 9.9 percent in 2000.‖ / Some of these veterans are eligible for
Veterans Administration care, but   there are no VA hospitals or facilities near them. The
government has closed many down recently—just as veterans with multiple problems
have been returning home. / Another recent study, conducted by Dr. Drew A. Helmer for the Baylor College of
Medicine, discovered that, in a group of 56 veterans returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, the average was
four physical health concerns for each one, and that 55 percent also had mental health issues. The study was published
in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. / Perhaps this callous disregard for veterans should
not be surprising. Under capitalism, workers are laid off when their work is no longer profitable;
public housing is reduced as homelessness rises; cuts are made to food stamp services; schools are crumbling and classrooms are
                                                          a system based on profit, when people
packed even as the incomes of the super-rich soar into the stratosphere. / In
are no longer useful tools for those who crowd the halls of power, they will be cast aside as
useless, no matter how many promises must be broken . The only recourse for veterans is to
organize and use their skills to fight back.




                                                                                                                                  25
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                       Cap K
CHANG
                                               LINK – FOOD PRICES
Solving food prices only delays the rev

ADEWALE 8
(Peluola Adewale, Democratic Socialist Movement, CWI Nigeria, Lagos, http://socialistworld.net/eng/2008/04/28worlda.html)

A Guinean told IRIN (April 1, 2008) after the government cancelled fuel subsidies even in the face
of growing anger against rising food prices, ―We thought it was [President] Conté who was at the root of our
problems and that with the appointment of [Prime Minister] Kouyaté, everything would settle. But unfortunately we realise that
neither of them can deliver happiness‖. The government of Guinea (Conakry) said it had to end the subsidies as one of
the conditions imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) if it is to receive IMF funding in future. More and more
working people will find out that nobody can deliver happiness for poor masses under
capitalism. Capitalism has become fetter to further human development. More and more
Workers and poor masses will look for alternative, which will take them close to genuine idea of
socialism. Already, the strategists of world capitalism have started seeing the serious danger the food
crisis poses to their iniquitous, profit-first system. The IMF Director General, Dominique Strauss-
Kahn, alarmed, ―As we know, learning from the past, those kind of questions sometimes end in war‖. This
war is not the one waged among contesting sections of capitalist class, but by the poor working masses and aimed
at the very foundation of the system that takes food, the basic need of life, out of their table. The
two of greatest events in human history, the French Revolution and Russian Revolution were
sparked by food crisis. Remembering this is a nightmare for the bastions of global capitalism.




                                                                                                                            26
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                               Cap K
CHANG
                                                       LINK – MULTICULTURALISM
(Multiculturalism – [their identity politics]) naturalizes identities produced by capitalism – precluding universal
struggle against capitalism, the root cause of their oppression in the first place

Sanford Schram, Professor, Social Theory and Policy, Graduate School of Social Work and Social R, Bryn Mawr College, 200 6,
Welfare discipline, 155-8

The popularity of the epithet ―bleeding-heart liberal‖ implies that compassionate liberalism is a redundancy not needed as it is in the case of conservatism.
Conservatives are more often vulnerable to the charge of not caring about society‘s problems, therefore making ―compassionate conservatism‖ either an oxymoron or
a distinctively new and hybrid form of conservatism that emphasizes the tough love of getting the less privileged to adhere to moral standards. Compassionate
liberalism, however, risks not only being a redundancy but also a parody. Bleeding heart liberals are attacked by some on the Right as allowing emotion to overcome
reasons, leading them to support misguided projects to engage in government-run schemes of social engineering that are well intended to address fundamental social
                              Bleeding-heart liberals are attacked by some on the left as allowing emotion to overcome reason,
and economic problems but are doomed to fail.
           naively think that ameliorist public policies will be sufficient for solving those problems
leading them to
even though those policies do not attack the way the existing structure of society manufactures
those social and economic problems. / In other respects, compassionate conservatism seems redundant and compassionate liberalism the
oxymoron. Conservatives emphasize values like family values, appeal to traditions, and engage in a politics of emotion; liberals are often posed as the ones who resist
emotional appeals and rely on reason. And compassion is a strong emotion, suggesting intense commitment. It is in this sense a ―thick‖ concept implying a deep level
of meaning. The historical commitment of liberalism to tolerance arises alongside the struggle for religious freedom in 17 th-century Europe and implies a ―thin‖
concept suggesting a reluctance to feel so strongly about any idea or value that you would ever express righteous indignation towards others who do not agree with
you. You would think the tolerance of liberalism would lead liberals to resist strong emotional reactions or intense commitments to any idea or value. The
preoccupation of conservatism with upholding moral standards of good and evil readily lends itself to intense commitments and strong emotional reactions, but
liberalism‘s tolerance for moral ambiguity should lead to tempering emotion and commitment, making compassion a word that liberals would not use. / Yet, as studies
in neuroscience suggest, emotion and reason may be more entwined than past thinking has allowed. Further, compassion as an emotion is a diffuse idea that lends
itself to ambiguities. Compassion does not necessarily mean intense commitment strong emotional reaction that is dedicated to caring about others based on explicit
moral standards, as is the case with compassionate conservatives who express a tough love for the needy by holding them to moral standards for their own good and
not practicing the ―soft bigotry of low expectations‖ as President Bush often called liberal tolerance. Compassion is more diffuse an idea than what is represented by
the conservative emphasis on caring for people by insisting that they be helped to adhere to moral standards. Liberals therefore can be compassionate as well, and they
do not have to give up their interest in promoting tolerance or recognizing moral ambiguity. / Today, however, it is not sufficient for compassionate liberalism to be
founded on the rock of toleration, religious or otherwise. The 18th-century Quaker colonists of Pennsylvania could still espouse a commitment of religious tolerance
that would lay the foundation for later abolitionism and participation in the Underground Railroad to usher slaves on their way to freedom in Canada. They could as
late as 1883 erect a statue of William Penn in a remote section of Philadelphia‘s massive Fairmount Park simply labeled ―Toleration,‖ as if that expression of liberal
compassion for the other in and of itself defined Penn and the other denizens of his woods. Yet today, toleration bespeaks of a paternalism that suggests ―we‖ tolerate
―you,‖ simultaneously reinscribing the boundary between ―us‖ and ―them‖ and privileging the ―us‖ in we over the ―them‖ in you. / Rather than toleration, a
compassionate liberalism looks to the discourse of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism can be defined as a philosophy of recognizing and appreciating cultural
differences, not so as to tolerate others of different cultural backgrounds than ourselves but to affirm their equal worth. As things would have it, multiculturalism itself
has been maligned as a cooptive discourse of global capitalism. Slavoj Zizek rejects multiculturalism as a producing a false, postmodern dialectic which bypasses the
more fundamental class antagonism still persisting in our very modern society. Instead, postmodern   multiculturalism leads to various forms of
repressive tolerance, inverted racism, respect without real love, and actual fear of otherness in
all of its problematic diversity. The idea of multiculturalism is , for Zizek, an empty gesture implying a desire
to change things for the better while actually working within the system to keep things the same.
This may well explain why multiculturalism is so popular with private corporate foundations as a
topic for grant projects – because it is consistent with the foundations‘ general orientation to promote ameliorist projects that make the existing society
less unjust without actually changing the fundamental structure of that society. Ultimately, for Zizek, postmodern multiculturalism leads
to denying our need to create a political constructed universality that enables us to challenge the
hegemonic power of capitalism. Zizek writes: How, then, is this multiculturalist ideological poetry embedded in today‘s global capitalism? The
problem which lurks beneath it is that of universalism . . . . That is to say, the ―real‖ universality of today‘s globalization through
the global market involves its own hegemonic fiction (or even ideal) of multiculturalist tolerance,
respect and protection of human rights, democracy, and so forth; it involves its own pseudo-
Hegelian ―concrete universality‖ of a world order whose universal features of the world market,
human rights and democracy, allow each specific ―life-style‖ to flourish in its particularity So a tension
inevitably emerges between this postmodern, post-nation state, ―concrete universality,‖ and the earlier ―concrete universality‖ of the Nation-State. / Additional
                                                                        it reinforces a politics of recognition at the
criticism of a politics of multiculturalism comes from Nancy Fraser, who notes that
expense of a politics of redistribution. Cultural identities become naturalized, and a sort of tribal politics sets in that is focused on which
group has been most victimized. With such an orientation in place, we risk becoming preoccupied with less-than-
fundamental slights to our presumed natural identities at the expense of overcoming our differences enough to forge
coalitions that can challenge power that continues to manufacture privilege and disadvantageness. Fraser proposes a politics of deconstruction that would not
naturalize but rather deconstruct identities as a way to making the necessary political coalition building possible. / So, perhaps, a compassionate liberalism today
might be best associated with a postmodern deconstructive politics that allows us to care for each other in all our diversity without essentializing or naturalizing those
differences to the point that we lose the   political capacity to act in concert.




                                                                                                                                                                       27
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                           Cap K
CHANG
                                          TURNS CASE – PATRIARCHY
Cap turns patriarchy

Coe et al. 7
(Neil Coe – Ph.D.; teaches Economic Geography, U Manchester, and Philip Kelly, Associate Professor and Visiting Senior
Research Fellow, National University of Singapore, and Henry Yeung, Professor of Economic Geography, National University of
Singapore, Economic geography, p. 354)




Cap makes patriarchy inevitable – five reasons

Miller-Young 9
(Mireille Miller-Young, Assistant Professor, Department of Feminist Studies, University of California, ―Women of Color,‖ google)

Capitalism & Patriarchy
• U.S. economic interests shape domestic and international policy, and women workers‘ everyday
lives as they are compelled to work for survival.
• Capitalist economic system shapes public and private life through class system and ―free
labor‖ markets.
• Economy is gendered: gendering of work, wealth, capital, finance, & economic policies.
• Capitalism supports patriarchy, by providing a means to privilege for (some) men, while
encouraging dependency in women.
• Feminization of Poverty-- women as particularly vulnerable to poverty due to being paid less
and working more (including unpaid domestic labor), and as a consequence, less assets and
wealth over their lives.




                                                                                                                                   28
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                               Cap K
CHANG
                                           TURNS CASE – PATRIARCHY
Cap turns fem – hierarchical command structures

Meszaros, 95 (Istvan Meszaros, Hungarian Marxist philosopher and Professor Emeritus at U. Sussex. ―Beyond Capital:
Toward a Theory of Transition.‖ p. 289)

Thus, given the economically secured extraction of surplus-labour and the corresponding mode of
political decision making under the private capitalist order of social metabolic reproduction, there can be
absolutely no room in it for the feminist agenda of substantive equality which would require a radical
restructuring of both the constitutive cells and the overall structural framework of the established system.
No one in their right mind could even dream about instituting such changes through the political
machinery of the capitalist order, in no matter how high an office, without exposing themselves to the
danger of being labelled female Don Quixotes. There is no danger of introducing the feminist agenda
even by surprise in capitalist systems, since there can be no room at all for it in the strictly circumscribed
framework of political decision making destined to the role of facilitating the most efficient economic
extraction of surplus-labour. Thus it is by no means accidental that the Indhira Gandhis, Margaret
Thatchers and Mrs Bandaranaikes of this world -and the last one despite her original radical left
credentials -did not advance in the slightest the cause of women's emancipation; if anything, quite the
opposite. The situation is very different in the postcapitalist systems of social metabolic reproduction and political decision
making. For, in virtue of their key position in securing the required continuity of surplus-labour extraction, they can initiate wholesale
changes in the ongoing reproduction process through direct political intervention. Thus the determination of the political personnel is
of a very different order here, in that its potential orientation is in principle much more open than under capitalism. For
notwithstanding the mythology of the 'open Society‘ (propagandized by authoritarian enemies like Hayek and Popper), under
capitalism the objectives and mechanisms of 'market society' remain unreliable taboos, strictly delineating the mandate and the
unquestioning orientation of the political personnel who cannot and would not contemplate seriously interfering with the established
economic extraction of surplus-labour; not even in its socialdemocratic embodiment. This difference in potential openness in the two
systems creates in principle also a space for introducing elements of the feminist agenda, as indeed the shortlived postrevolutionary
attempts testify to it in Russia. However, the potential openness cannot be actualized on a lasting basis under the postcapitalist rule
of capital, since the hierarchically managed extraction of surplus-labour reasserts itself as the crucial determining characteristic of
the social metabolism also under the changed circumstances. Thus the whole question of political mandate must be suitably
redefined, nullifying the possibility of both 'representation' (characteristic of the capitalist parliamentary setup, with the totally
unquestioning mandate of the representatives towards the established economic mode of surplus-labour extraction and capital
accumulation) and 'delegation', which used to characterize much of the socialist literature on the subject. An absolutely
unquestionable, depersonalized political authority the Party of the Party-state -must be superimposed
over the individual political personnel under the postcapitalist rule of capital, articulated in the form of the
strictest hierarchical command structure, oriented towards the maximal politically regulated extraction of
surplus-labour. This is what apriori excludes all possibility of 'making room for the feminist agenda'. Given
the significantly different role of politics in the two systems, under capitalism women may be safely
allowed to occupy at times even the highest political position, whereas under posrcapitalist conditions
they must be unceremoniously excluded from it. Under the postcapitalist system, therefore, even the
limited attempts of women to establish a new type of family relation in furtherance of their age-old
aspirations, which spontaneously surfaced in the immediate postrevolutionary years, must be liquidated.
For inasmuch as the politically secured and safeguarded maximal extraction of surplus-labour remains
the vital orienting principle of the social metabolism, with its necessarily hierarchical command structure,
the question of women's emancipation, with its demand for substantive equality -and by implication: for a
radical restructuring of the established social order, from its smallest constitutive cells to its most
comprehensive coordinating organs -cannot be entertained for a moment.




                                                                                                                                      29
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                               Cap K
CHANG
                                                        LINK – IMMIGRATION GOOD
Encouraging immigration is the vital strategy of the capitalist ruling class – sustains the engine of exploitation and
induces class fracture

Castles and Kosack 72
(Stephen Castles is Professor of Migration and Refugee Studies, and Director of the International Migration Institute (IMI), at the
University of Oxford. He is a sociologist and political economist, and currently works on global issues, migration and development,
and migration in Africa. From 2001-2006, he was Director of the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University; and Godula Kosack,
lecturer on sociology at Frankfurt and such, ―the function of labour immigration in western european capitalism,‖ new left review,
google)

Engels pointed out that ‗English manufacture must have, at all times save the brief periods of highest prosperity, an unemployed
reserve army of workers, in order to produce the masses of goods required by the market in the liveliest months.‘ [1]
Marx showed that the industrial reserve army or surplus working population is not only the necessary product of capital accumulation and the
associated increase in labour productivity, but at the same time ‗the lever of capitalist accumulation‘, „a condition of existence of the
capitalist mode of production‟. [2] Only by bringing ever more workers into the production process can
the capitalist accumulate capital, which is the precondition for extending production and applying new techniques. These new techniques throw
out of work the very men whose labour allowed their application. They are set free to provide a labour reserve which is available to be thrown into other sectors as the
interests of the capitalist require. ‗The whole form of the movement of modern industry depends, therefore, upon the constant transformation of a part of the labouring
population into unemployed or half-employed hands.‘ [3] The pressure of the industrial reserve army forces those workers who are employed to accept long hours and
poor conditions. Above all: ‗Taking them as a whole, the general movements of wages are exclusively regulated by the expansion and contraction of the industrial
           employment grows and the reserve army contracts, workers are in a better position to demand
reserve army.‘ [4] If
higher wages. When this happens, profits and capital accumulation diminish, investment falls and men are thrown out of work, leading to a growth of the
reserve army and a fall in wages. This is the basis of the capitalist economic cycle. Marx mentions the possibility of the workers seeing through the seemingly natural
law of relative over-population, and undermining its effectiveness through trade-union activity directed towards co-operation between the employed and the
unemployed. [5] / The labour aristocracy is also described by Engels and Marx. By conceding privileges to certain well-organized sectors of labour, above all to
craftsmen (who by virtue of their training could not be readily replaced by members of the industrial reserve army), the capitalists were able to undermine class
consciousness and secure an opportunist non-revolutionary leadership for these sectors. [6] Special advantages, sometimes taking the form of symbols of higher status
(different clothing, salary instead of wages, etc) rather than higher material rewards, were also conferred upon foremen and non-manual workers, with the aim of
distinguishing them from other workers and causing them to identify their interests with those of the capitalists. Engels pointed out that the privileges given to some
British workers were possible because of the vast profits made by the capitalists through domination of the world market and imperialist exploitation of labour in other
countries. [7] Lenin emphasized the effects of imperialism on class consciousness: ‗Imperialism . . . makes it economically possible to bribe the upper strata of the
proletariat, and thereby fosters, gives shape to, and strengthens opportunism.‘ [8] ‗. . . A section of the proletariat allows itself to be led by men bought by, or at least
paid by, the bourgeoisie‘, and the result is a split among the workers and ‗temporary decay in the working-class movement‘. [9] / The industrial reserve army and the
labour aristocracy have not lost their importance as mechanisms of domination in the current phase of organized monopoly capitalism. However, the way in which
they function has undergone important changes. In particular the maintenance of an industrial reserve army within the developed capitalist countries of West Europe
has become increasingly difficult. With the growth of the labour movement after the First World War, economic crises and unemployment began to lead to political
tensions which threatened the existence of the capitalist system. Capitalism responded by setting up fascist régimes in the areas where it was most threatened, in order
to suppress social conflict through violence. The failure of this strategy, culminating in the defeat of fascism in 1945, was accompanied by the reinforcement of the
non-capitalist bloc in East Europe and by a further strengthening of the labour movement in West Europe. In order to survive, the capitalist system had to aim for
continuous expansion and full employment at any price. But full employment strikes at a basic principle of the capitalist economy: the use of the industrial reserve
army to keep wages down and profits up. A substitute for the traditional form of reserve army had to be found, for without it capitalist accumulation is impossible.
Moreover, despite Keynsian economics, it is not possible completely to avoid the cyclical development of the capitalist econo my. It was therefore necessary to find a
                                                                                                                                        The
way of cushioning the effects of crises, so as to hinder the development of dangerous social tensions. / Immigrants as the New Industrial Reserve Army /
solution to these problems adopted by West European capitalism has been the employment of immigrant
workers from under-developed areas of Southern Europe or from the Third World. [10] Today, the unemployed masses of these areas form
a ‗latent surplus-population‘[11] or reserve army, which can be imported into the developed countries as the
interests of the capitalist class dictate. In addition to this economic function, the employment of immigrant
workers has an important socio-political function for capitalism: by creating a split between immigrant
and indigenous workers along national and racial lines and offering better conditions and status
to indigenous workers, it is possible to give large sections of the working class the
consciousness of a labour aristocracy. / The employment of immigrant workers in the capitalist production process is not a new
phenomenon. The Irish played a vital part in British industrialization. Not only did they provide a special form of labour for heavy work of a
temporary nature on railways, canals and roads; [12] their competition also forced down wages and conditions for other workers. Engels described Irish immigration
as a ‗cause of abasement to which the English worker is exposed, a cause permanently active in forcing the whole class downwards‘. [13] Marx described the
antagonism between British and Irish workers, artificially created by the mass media of the ruling class, as ‗the secret of the impotence of the English working class,
despite their organization‘. [14] As industrialization got under way in France, Germany and Switzerland in the latter half of the 19th century,
these countries too brought in foreign labour: from Poland, Italy and Spain. There were 800,000 foreign workers in the German Reich in 1907. More than a third of
the Ruhr miners were Poles. Switzerland had half a million foreigners in 1910–15 per cent of her total population. French heavy industry was highly dependent on
immigrant labour right up to the Second World War. According to Lenin, one of the special features of imperialism was ‗the decline in emigration from imperialist
                             into these countries from the more backward countries where lower wages are paid‘. [15] This was
countries and the increase in immigration
a main cause of the division of the working class. The fascist form of capitalism also developed its own specific form of exploiting
immigrant workers: the use of forced labour. No less then 7½ million deportees from occupied countries and prisoners of war were working in Germany by 1944,




                                                                                                                                                                        30
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                               Cap K
CHANG
                                                        LINK – IMMIGRATION GOOD
[CONTINUED – NO TEXT OMITTED]
replacing the men recruited for the army. About a quarter of German munitions production was carried out by foreign labour. [16] Compared with early patterns,
immigration of workers to contemporary West Europe has two new features. The first is its character as a permanent part of the economic structure. Previously,
immigrant labour was used more or less temporarily when the domestic industrial reserve army was inadequate for some special reason, like war or unusually fast
expansion; since 1945, however, large numbers of immigrant workers have taken up key positions in the productive process, so that even in the case of recession their
                                                                                                     Other groups which might
labour cannot be dispensed with. The second is its importance as the basis of the modern industrial reserve army.
conceivably fulfill the same function—non-working women, the disabled and the chronic sick, members of the lumpenproletariat whose
conditions prevent them from working, [17] have already been integrated into the production process to the extent to
which this is profitable for the capitalist system. The use of further reserves of this type would require costly social measures (e.g. adequate
kindergartens). The main traditional form of the industrial reserve army—men thrown out of work by rationalization and cyclical crises—is hardly available today, for
reasons already mentioned. Thus immigration is of key importance for the capitalist system. / The Development of
Immigration since 1945 / There are around eleven million immigrants [18] living in West Europe, making up about 5 per cent of total population. Relatively few have
gone to industrially less developed countries like Norway, Austria and Denmark, while large concentrations are to be found in highly industrialized countries like
Belgium, Sweden, West Germany, France, Switzerland and Britain. Our analysis concentrates on the four last-named which have about 90 per cent of all immigrants
in West Europe between them. / Most immigrants in Germany and Switzerland come from Southern Europe. The main groups in Germany are Italians (574,000 in
1970), Yugoslavs (515,000), Turks (469,000), Greeks (343,000) and Spaniards (246,000). In Switzerland, the Italians are by far the largest group (532,000 m 1969)
followed by Germans (116,000) and Spaniards (98,000). France and Britain also have considerable numbers of European immigrants, but in addition large contingents
from former colonies in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. France has 617,000 Spaniards, 612,000 Italians, 480,000 Portuguese, as well as 608,000 Algerians, 143,000
Moroccans, 89,000 Tunisians, about 55,000 black Africans and an unknown number (probably about 200,000) from the remaining colonies (euphemistically referred
to as Overseas Departments) in the West Indies and the African island of Réunion. The largest immigrant group in Britain comes from the Irish Republic (739,000 in
1966). Most of the other Europeans were displaced persons and the like who came during and after the war: Germans (142,000), Poles (118,000). Cypriots number
60,000. There are also an increasing number of South Europeans, often allowed in on a short-term basis for work in catering and domestic service. Coloured
immigrants comprise about one third of the total, the largest groups coming from the West Indies (269,000 in 1966), India (240,000) and Pakistan (75,000). [20] / The
migratory movements and the government policies which direct them reflect the growing importance and changing function of immigrant labour in West Europe.
Immediately after the Second World War, Switzerland, Britain and France recruited foreign workers. Switzerland needed extra labour for the export boom permitted
by her intact industry in the middle of war-torn Europe. The ‗European Voluntary Workers‘ in Britain (initially displaced persons, later Italians) were assigned to
specific jobs connected with industrial reconstruction. The reconstruction boom was not expected to last. Both Switzerland and Britain imposed severe restrictions on
foreign workers, designed to stop them from settling and bringing in their families, so that they could be dismissed and deported at the least sign of recession. France
was something of an exception: her immigration policy was concerned not only with labour needs for reconstruction, but also with permanent immigration to
counteract the demographic effects of the low birth-rate. / When West German industry got under way again after the 1949 Currency Reform there was at first no need
for immigrants from Southern Europe. An excellent industrial reserve army was provided by the seven million expellees from the former Eastern provinces of the
Reich and by the three million refugees from East Germany, many of whom were skilled workers. Throughout the fifties, the presence of these reserves kept wage-
growth slow and hence provided the basis for the ‗economic miracle‘. By the mid-fifties, however, special labour shortages were appearing, first in agriculture and
building. It was then that recruitment of foreign workers (initially on a seasonal basis [21]) was started. Here too, an extremely restrictive policy was followed with
regard to family entry and long-term settlement. ‗Rotation‘ of the foreign labour force was encouraged. In this stage, the use of immigrants in the countries mentioned
followed the pre-war pattern: they were brought in to satisfy special and, it was thought, temporary labour needs in certain sectors. They were, as an official of the
German employers‘ association put it, ‗a mobile labour potential‘. [22] / By the sixties, the situation was changing. Despite mild cyclical tendencies it was clear that
there was not going to be a sudden return to the pre-war boom-slump pattern. The number of immigrant workers grew extremely rapidly in the late fifties and early
sixties. Between 1956 and 1965 nearly one million new workers entered France. The number of foreign workers in West Germany increased from 279,000 in 1960 to
over 1·3 million in 1966. In Switzerland there were 326,000 immigrant workers (including seasonals) in 1956, and 721,000 in 1964. This was also the period of mass
immigration to Britain from the Commonwealth. [23] The change was not merely quantitative: immigrants were moving into and becoming indispensable in ever
more sectors of the economy. They were no longer filling gaps in peripheral branches like agriculture and building but were becoming a vital part of the labour force
in key industries like engineering and chemicals. Moreover, there was growing competition between the different countries to obtain the ‗most desirable‘ immigrants,
i.e. those with the best education and the least cultural distance from the receiving countries. The growing need for labour was forcing the recruiters to go further and
further afield: Turkey and Yugoslavia were replacing Italy as Germany‘s main labour source. Portugal and North Africa were replacing Italy and Spain in the case of
France. / As a result, new policies intended to attract and integrate immigrant workers, but also to control them better, were introduced. One such measure was the free
labour movement policy of the eec, designed to increase the availability of the rural proletariat of Sicily and the Mezzogiorno to West European capital. [24] Germany
and Switzerland liberalized the conditions for family entry and long-term settlement, while at the same time tightening political control through measures such as the
German 1965 Foreigners Law. France tried to increase control over entries, in order to prevent the large-scale clandestine immigration which had taken place
throughout the fifties and sixties (and still does, despite the new policy). At the same time restrictions were made on the permanent settlement of non-Europeans—
officially because of their ‗greater difficulties in integrating‘. In Britain, racialist campaigns led to the stopping of unrestricted Commonwealth immigration in 1962.
By limiting the labour supply, this measure contradicted the economic interests of the ruling class. The new Immigration Act of 1971, which could provide the basis
for organized and controlled labour recruitment on the German and French pattern, is a corrective, although its application for this purpose is not at present required,
since the ruling class has created an internal industrial reserve army through unemployment. / In view of the stagnant domestic labour force potential and the long-
term growth trend of the economy, immigrant labour has become a structural necessity for West European capitalism.
[25] It has a dual function today. [26] One section is maintained as a mobile fluctuating labour force, which can be moved from factory to factory or branch to branch
as required by the development of the means of production, and which can be thrown out of work and deported as required without causing social tensions. This
function was shown clearly by the West German recession of 1966–7, when the foreign labour force dropped by 400,000, although there were never more than 29,000
receiving unemployment benefit. As a United Nations study pointed out, West Germany was able to export unemployment to the home countries of the migrants. [27]
The other section is required for permanent employment throughout the economy. They are offered better conditions and the chance of long-term settlement. [28]
Despite this they still fulfil the function of an industrial reserve army, for they are given inferior jobs, have no political rights and may be used as a constant threat to
the wages and conditions of the local labour force. / Occupational Position / The immigrant percentage of the population given in the table above in no way reflects
the contribution of immigrants to the economy. They are mainly young men, whose dependents are sent for later if at all. Many of them remain only a few years, and
are then replaced by others, so that there are hardly any retired immigrants. Immigrants therefore have higher than average rates of economic activity, and make
contributions to health, unemployment and pension insurance far in excess of their demands on such schemes. [29] Particularly high rates of activity are to be found
among recently arrived groups, or among those who for social and cultural reasons tend not to bring dependents with them: Portuguese and North Africans in France,
Turks in Germany and Pakistanis in Britain. Immigrant workers are about 6·5 per cent of the labour force in Britain, 7–8 per cent in France, 10 per cent in West
Germany and 30 per cent in Switzerland. Even these figures do not show adequately the structural importance of immigrant labour, which is concentrated in certain
areas and types of work. / The overwhelming majority of immigrants live in highly industrialized and fast-growing urban areas like Paris, the Lyon region, the Ruhr,
Baden-Württemberg, London and the West Midlands. For example 31·2 per cent of all immigrants in France live in the Paris region, compared with only 19·2 per cent
of the total population. 9·5 per cent of the inhabitants of the Paris region are immigrants. [30] In Britain more than one third of all immigrants are to be found in
Greater London compared with one sixth of the total population. Immigrants make up 12 per cent of London‘s population. [31] / More important still is the
concentration in certain industries. Switzerland is the extreme case: the whole industrial sector is dominated by foreign workers who make up more than 40 per cent of
the factory labour force. In many branches—for instance textiles, clothing, building and catering—they outnumber Swiss employees. [32] Of the nearly two million




                                                                                                                                                                        31
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                               Cap K
CHANG
                                                        LINK – IMMIGRATION GOOD
[CONTINUED – NO TEXT OMITTED]
foreign workers in Germany in September 1970, 38.5 per cent were in the metal-producing and engineering industry, 24·2 in other manufacturing branches and 16·7
per cent in building. Foreign workers accounted for 13·7 per cent of total employment in metal producing and engineering. The proportion was even higher in some
industries with particularly bad working conditions, like plastic, rubber and asbestos manufacture (18·4 per cent). In building, foreign workers were 17·5 per cent of
the labour force. On the other hand they made up only 3·4 per cent of all employees in the services, although their share was much higher in catering (14·8 per cent).
[33] Similar concentrations were revealed by the 1968 Census in France: 35·6 per cent of immigrant men were employed in building and 13·5 per cent in engineering
and electrical goods. 28·8 per cent of foreign women were domestic servants. In Britain the concentration of immigrants in certain industries is less marked, and
different immigrant groups have varying patterns. The Irish are concentrated in construction, while Commonwealth immigrants are over-represented in metal
manufacture and transport. Pakistani men are mainly to be found in the textile industry and Cypriots in clothing and footwear and in distribution. European
immigrants are frequently in the services sector. Immigrant women of all nationalities tend to work in services, although some groups (Cypriots, West Indians) also
often work in manufacturing. [34] / In general immigrants are concentrated in certain basic industries, where they form a high proportion of the labour force. Together
with their geographical concentration this means that immigrant workers are of great importance in the very type of enterprise and area which used to be regarded as
the strongholds of the class-conscious proletariat. The real concentration is even greater than the figures show, for within each industry the immigrants tend to have
become predominant in certain departments and occupations. There can be hardly a foundry in West Europe in which immigrants do not form a majority, or at least a
high proportion, of the labour force. The same applies to monotonous production line work, such as car-assembly. Renault, Citroen, Volks-wagen, Ford of Cologne
and Opel all have mainly foreign workers on the assembly line (The British motor industry is an exception in this respect). / Perhaps the best indication of the
occupational concentration of the immigrant labour force is given by their socio-economic distribution. For instance a survey carried out in 1968 in Germany showed
that virtually no Southern Europeans are in non-manual employment. Only between 7 per cent and 16 per cent of the various nationalities were skilled workers while
between 80 per cent and 90 per cent were either semi-skilled or unskilled. [35] By comparison about a third of German workers are non-manual, and among manual
workers between one third and one half are in the skilled category in the various industries. In France a survey carried out at Lyon in 1967 found that where they
worked in the same industry, the French were mainly in managerial, non-manual or skilled occupations, while the immigrants were concentrated in manual
occupations, particularly semi-skilled and unskilled ones. The relegation to unskilled jobs is particularly marked for North Africans and Portuguese. [36] In Britain,
only about 26 per cent of the total labour force fall into the unskilled and semi-skilled manual categories, but the figure is 42 per cent for the Irish, 50 per cent for the
Jamaicans, 65 per cent for the Pakistanis and 55 per cent for the Italians. [37] / Immigrants form the lowest stratum of the working class carrying out unskilled and
semi-skilled work in those industrial sectors with the worst working conditions and/or the lowest pay. [38] The entry of immigrants at the bottom of the labour market
has made possible the release of many indigenous workers from such employment, and their promotion to jobs with better conditions and higher status, i.e. skilled,
supervisory or white-collar employment. Apart from the economic effects, this process has a profound impact on the class consciousness of the indigenous workers
concerned. This will be discussed in more detail below. / Social Position /             The division of the working class within the
production process is duplicated by a division in other spheres of society. The poor living conditions of
immigrants have attracted too much liberal indignation and welfare zeal to need much description here. Immigrants get the worst types of
housing: in Britain slums and run-down lodging houses, in France bidonvilles (shanty-towns) and overcrowded hotels, in Germany and Switzerland camps of
wooden huts belonging to the employers and attics in the cities. It is rare for immigrants to get council houses. Immigrants are discriminated against
by many landlords, so that those who do specialize in housing them can charge extortionate rents for inadequate facilities. In Germany and France,
official programmes have been established to provide hostel accommodation for single immigrant workers. These hostels do provide somewhat better material
                  they increase the segregation of immigrant workers from the rest of the
conditions. On the other hand
working class, deny them any private life, and above all put them under the control of the
employers 24 hours a day. [39] In Germany the employers have repeatedly attempted to use control over immigrants‘ accommodation to force
them to act as strike-breakers. / Language and vocational training courses for immigrant workers are generally provided only when it is absolutely necessary for the
production process, as in mines for example. Immigrant children are also at a disadvantage: they tend to live in run-down overcrowded areas where school facilities
are poorest. No adequate measures are taken to deal with their special educational problems (e.g. language difficulties), so that their educational performance is
usually below-average. As a result of their bad working and living conditions, immigrants have serious health problems. For instance they have much higher
tuberculosis rates than the rest of the population virtually everywhere. [40] As there are health controls at the borders, it is clear that such illnesses have been
contracted in West Europe rather than being brought in by the immigrants. / The inferior work-situation and living conditions of immigrants have caused some
bourgeois sociologists to define them as a ‗lumpen-proletariat‘ or a ‗marginal group‘. This is clearly incorrect. A group which makes up 10, 20 or 30 per cent of the
industrial labour force cannot be regarded as marginal to society. Others speak of a ‗new proletariat‘ or a ‗sub-proletariat‘. Such terms are also wrong. The first
implies that the indigenous workers have ceased to be proletarians and have been replaced by the immigrants in this social position. The second postulates that
immigrant workers have a different relationship to the means of production than that traditionally characteristic of the proletariat. In reality both indigenous and
immigrant workers share the same relationship to the means of production: they are excluded from ownership or control;
they are forced to sell their labour power in order to survive; they work under the direction and in
the interests of others. In the sphere of consumption both categories of workers are subject to the laws of the commodity
market, where the supply and price of goods is determined not by their use value but by their profitability for capitalists; both are victims of
landlords, retail monopolists and similar bloodsuckers and manipulators of the consumption-
terror. These are the characteristics typical of the proletariat ever since the industrial revolution, and on this basis immigrant and
indigenous workers must be regarded as members of the same class: the proletariat. But it is a divided
class: the marginal privileges conceded to indigenous workers and the particularly intensive exploitation of immigrants combine to create a barrier between the two
groups, which appear as distinct strata within the class. The division is deepened by certain legal, political and psychological factors, which will be discussed below. /
Discrimination / Upon arrival in West Europe, immigrants from under-developed areas have little basic education or vocational training, and are usually ignorant of
the language. They know nothing of prevailing market conditions or prices. In capitalist society, these characteristics are sufficient to ensure that immigrants get poor
jobs and social conditions. After a period of adaptation to industrial work and urban life, the prevailing ideology would lead one to expect many immigrants to obtain
better jobs, housing, etc. Special mechanisms ensure that this does not happen in the majority of cases. On the one hand there is institutionalized discrimination in the
form of legislation which restricts immigrants‘ civic and labour market rights. On the other hand there are informal discriminatory practices based on racialism or
xenophobia. In nearly all West European countries, labour market legislation discriminates against foreigners. They are granted labour permits for a specific job in a
certain firm for a limited period. They do not have the right to move to better-paid or more highly qualified positions, at least for some years. Workers who change
jobs without permission are often deported. Administrative practices in this respect have been liberalized to some extent in Germany and Switzerland in recent years,
due to the need for immigrant labour in a wider range of occupations, but the basic restrictiveness of the system remains. In Britain, Commonwealth immigrants (once
admitted to the country) and the Irish had equal rights with local workers until the 1971 Immigration Act. Now Commonwealth immigrants will have the same labour
market situation as aliens. The threat of deportation if an immigrant loses his job is a very powerful weapon for the employer. Immigrants who demand better
conditions can be sacked for indiscipline and the police will do the rest. [41] Regulations which restrict family entry and permanent settlement also keep immigrants in
inferior positions. If a man may stay only for a few years, it is not worth his while to learn the language and take vocational training courses. / Informal discrimination




                                                                                                                                                                        32
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                                Cap K
CHANG
                                                        LINK – IMMIGRATION GOOD
[CONTINUED]
is well known in Britain, where it takes the form of the colour bar. The pep study, [42] as well as many other investigations, has shown that coloured immigrants
encounter discrimination with regard to employment, housing and the provision of services such as mortgages and insurance. The more qualified a coloured man is,
the more likely he is to encounter discrimination. This mechanism keeps immigrants in ‗their place‘, i.e. doing the dirty, unpleasant jobs. Immigrants in the other
European countries also encounter informal discrimination. Immigrants rarely get promotion to supervisory or non-manual jobs, even when they are well-qualified.
Discrimination in housing is widespread. In Britain, adverts specifying ‗no coloured‘ are forbidden, but in Germany or Switzerland one still frequently sees ‗no
foreigners‘. / The most serious form of discrimination against immigrant workers is their deprivation of political rights. Foreigners may not vote in local or national
elections. Nor may they hold public office, which in France is defined so widely as to include trade-union posts. Foreigners do not generally have the same rights as
local workers with regard to eligibility for works councils and similar representative bodies. The main exception to this formal exclusion from political participation
concerns Irish and Commonwealth immigrants in Britain, who do have the right to vote (the same will not apply to those who enter under the 1971 Act). But the
Mangrove case shows the type of repression which may be expected by any immigrants who dare to organize themselves. Close police control over the political
activities of immigrants is the rule throughout Europe, and deportations of political and trade-union militants are common. After the May Events in France, hundreds
of foreign workers were deported. [43] Foreign language newspapers of the cgt labour federation have been repeatedly forbidden. The German Foreigners Law of
1965 lays down that the political activity of foreigners can be forbidden if ‗important interests of the German Federal Republic require this‘—a provision so flexible
that the police can prevent any activity they choose. Even this is not regarded as sufficient. When Federal Chancellor Willy Brandt visited Iran in March 1972 to do an
oil deal, the Shah complained strongly about Iranian students being allowed to criticize him in Germany. The Greek and Yugoslav ambassadors have also protested
about the activities of their citizens. Now the German Government is working on a new law which would go so far as to make police permission necessary even for
private meetings of foreigners in closed rooms. [44] / Prejudice and Class Consciousness / Discrimination against immigrants is a reflection of widespread hostility
towards them. In Britain, this is regarded as ‗colour prejudice‘ or ‗racialism‘, and indeed there can be no doubt that the hostility of large sections of the population is at
                                     Race relations theorists attribute the problems connected with immigration
present directed against black people.
partlyto the immigrants‘ difficulties in adapting to the prevailing norms of the ‗host society‘, and partly to the indigenous population‘s inbred distrust of the
newcomers who can be distinguished by their skin colour. The problems are abstracted from the socio-economic
structure and reduced to the level of attitudes. Solutions are to be sought not through political action, but through psychological and educational strategies. [45]
But a comparison of surveys carried out in different countries shows that hostility towards immigrants is
everywhere as great as in Britain, even where the immigrants are white. [46] The Italian who moves to the neighbouring country of
Switzerland is as unpopular as the Asian in Britain. This indicates that hostility is based on the position of immigrants in
society and not on the colour of their skin. / Racialism and xenophobia are products of the capitalist national state
and of its imperialist expansion. [47] Their principal historical function was to split the working class
on the international level, and to motivate one section to help exploit another in the interests of the ruling
class. Today such ideologies help to deepen the split within the working class in West Europe. Many indigenous workers do not perceive that they share a
common class position and class interests with immigrant workers. The basic fact of having the same relationship to the means of production is obscured by the local
                                                The immigrants are regarded not as class
workers‘ marginal advantages with regard to material conditions and status.
comrades, but as alien intruders who pose an economic and social threat. It is feared that they will take away the jobs of
local labour, that they will be used by the employers to force down wages and to break strikes. [48] Whatever the behaviour of the immigrant workers—and in fact
                                                              It is indeed the strategy of the
they almost invariably show solidarity with their indigenous colleagues—such fears are not without a basis.
employers to use immigration to put pressure on wages and to weaken the labour movement. [49]
The very social and legal weakness of the immigrants is a weapon in the hands of the employers. Other points of competition are to be found outside work,
                                                                                                                                                  By
particularly on the housing market. The presence of immigrants is often regarded as the cause of rising rents and increased overcrowding in the cities.
making immigrants the scapegoats for the insecurity and inadequate conditions which the capitalist
system inevitably provides for workers, attention is diverted from the real causes. / Workers often adopt
racialism as a defence mechanism against a real or apparent threat to their conditions. It is an incorrect response to a real problem. By preventing
working-class unity, racialism assists the capitalists in their strategy of „divide and rule‟ . The function of
racialism in the capitalist system is often obscured by the fact that racialist campaigns usually have petty-bourgeois leadership and direct their slogans against the big
industrialists. The Schwarzenbach Initiative in Switzerland—which called for the deportation of a large proportion of the immigrant population—is an example, [50]
as are Enoch Powell‘s campaigns for repatriation. Such demands are opposed by the dominant sections of the ruling class. The reason is clear: a complete acceptance
of racialism would prevent the use of immigrants as an industrial reserve army. But despite this, racialist campaigns serve the interests of the ruling class: they
increase tension between indigenous and immigrant workers and weaken the labour movement. The large working-class following gained by Powell in his racialist
                                                                                                       The
campaigns demonstrates how dangerous they are. Paradoxically, their value for capitalism lies in their very failure to achieve their declared aims. /
presence of immigrant workers is one of the principal factors contributing to the lack of class
consciousness among large sections of the working class. The existence of a new lower stratum
of immigrants changes the worker‘s perception of his own position in society. Instead of a dichotomic view of
society, in which the working masses confront a small capitalist ruling class, many workers now see themselves as belonging to an intermediate stratum, superior to
the unskilled immigrant workers. Such a consciousness is typified by an hierarchical view of society and by orientation towards advancement through individual
achievement and competition, rather than through solidarity and collective action. This is the mentality of the labour aristocracy and leads to opportunism and the
temporary decay of the working-class movement. / Immigration and Society / The impact of immigration on contemporary West European society may now be
summarized. / Economic effects: the new industrial reserve army of immigrant workers is a major stabilizing factor of the capitalist economy. By restraining wage
increases, immigration is a vital precondition for capital accumulation and hence for growth. In the long run, wages may grow more in a country which has large-scale
immigration than in one which does not, because of the dynamic effect of increased capital accumulation on productivity. However, wages are a smaller share, and
profits a larger share of national income than would have been the case without immigration. [51] The best illustration of this effect is obtained by comparing the
German and the British economies since 1945. Germany has had large and continuous increases in labour force due to immigration. At first wages were held back.
The resulting capital accumulation allowed fast growth and continuous rationalization. Britain has had virtually no growth in labour force due to migration
(immigration has been cancelled out by emigration of British people to Australia, etc). Every phase of expansion has collapsed rapidly as wages rose due to labour
shortages. The long-term effect has been stagnation. By the sixties, German wages overtook those of Britain, while economic growth and rationalization continued at




                                                                                                                                                                         33
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                        Cap K
CHANG
                                                     LINK – IMMIGRATION GOOD
[CONTINUED – NO TEXT OMITTED]
an almost undiminished rate. / Social effects: The inferior position of immigrant workers with regard to employment
and social conditions has led to a division of the working class into two strata. The split is maintained by
various forms of discrimination and is reinforced by racialist and xenophobic ideologies, which the ruling class can disseminate widely through its hegemony over the
means of socialization and communication. Large sections of the indigenous workers take the position of a labour aristocracy, which objectively participates in the
exploitation of another group of workers. / Political effects:the decline of class consciousness weakens the working-
class movement. In addition, the denial of political rights to immigrants excludes a large section of the working class from political activity, and hence
weakens the class as a whole. The most exploited section of the working class is rendered voiceless and powerless. Special forms of repression
are designed to keep it that way.




                                                                                                                                                                 34
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                              Cap K
CHANG
                                                             LINK – CYBERSAFETY
Their concern with cybersafety replicates capital – its drive towards networked adaptability installs fundamental
capitalist drives in the human consciousness

Stefan Helmreich, Assistant Professor of Science and Society, NYU; Ph.D., cultural anthropology, Stanford University, 2K,
―Flexible Infections: Computer Viruses, Human Bodies, Nation-States, Evolutionary Capitalism,‖ Science, Technology, and Human
Values 25(4)

In "The End of the Body?" (1992) and Flexible Bodies (1994), Emily Martin discusses how images of the human immune system are transforming under the political
                                                     the immune system is becoming a mirror for an
economic changes associated with advanced capitalism. She contends that
economic system characterized by the geographically and temporally flexible and specific responses of
decentralized capital to global fluctuations in interest and exchange rates, labor laws, and markets (see Harvey 1989). Martin claims that
the logic of advanced capitalist flexible specialization is taking up residence in our very bodies and that our health and fitness as laborers will be increasingly
measured in terms of our ability to psychologically and-most importantly for her argument-biologically adjust to rapid change. She argues that prevailing structures of
domination organized around race, class, gender, and sexuality will be reinscribed in new and more insidious ways, with peo- ple who diverge from the normative
                                                                                                                            Images of the body as an
identity of the male, white, middle-class healthy person designated as having inflexible and insufficiently specific immune systems.
                 are being crafted in concert with a new economic order characterized by perpetual
agile, adaptive entity
innovation and flexible specialization. / Recent suggestions about how best to protect computers
against viruses have capitalized on analogies to evolution, and these analogies have high-lighted the notion of
adaptability. The idea is to make operating systems more diverse and flexible so as to continually "outsmart" or "outevolve" new
viruses. Computer scientist Danny Hillis once noted that ―so long as formats like UNIX [a network operating system] become a universal standard, we'll have
awful problems with viruses no matter how many vaccines and quarantines we come up with. What we want in networked computing is a diversity of operating
                                                                                                                            diversity Hillis speaks
standards. We want each computer to be a slight variant of the standard, maybe one that is slowly evolving‖ (Kelly 1991, 18-19) / The
                       is already coming about as the software companies that manufacture these systems engage in niche
of in computer operating systems
marketing and attempt to bring open-source operating sys-tems like Linux into engagement with market
dynamics. The solution to the problem of giving computer operating systems immunity to
viruses, solved initially in terms of the biological metaphor, is played out on the field of flexibly
specific capitalist production, from where it can double back to confirm the validity of the
biological metaphor. But Hillis and others are not the only ones enthusiastic about evolutionary metaphors. The notion of adaptability has been taken to
heart by people who have been writing defenses against what are called "polymorphous viruses." According to Symantec, an antivirus research center, "Like the
human AIDS virus that mutates frequently to escape detection by the body's defenses, the polymorphic computer virus likewise mutates to escape detection by anti-
virus software that compares it to an inventory of known viruses" (Symantec 1999). What is needed, accord- ing to companies like Internet Security Systems (1999),
is "Adaptive Secu- rity Management." / Emily Martin (1994) claims that two visions of the immune system exist- one as a flexible and responsive system modeled on
late capitalist economic formations, and one as a bounded and defensive unit modeled on the milita- ristic nation-state-and at first glance they appear logically
contradictory. The flexibility of global capital and the rigidity of a stiffly hierarchical milita- ristic state seem to Martin initially incompatible. But as David Harvey
(1989) has pointed out, and as Martin recognizes,   flexible strategies of capital invest- ment and production rely on the
existence of strict differences between and within nations. Crossing borders to take advantage of differences in labor laws and exchange and
interest rate fluctuations requires that nations have somewhat stable boundaries, and that these be stabilized by traditional nationalist rhetoric. / A prescient
passage from Denning about the integrity of computer sys- tems in the age of flexible specialization reveals how both flexibility and sta- bility must
be maintained at the same time: "As elect onic networking spreads around the globe, making possible new international
interactions and break ing barriers of language and time, so rise the risks of damage to valuable information and the
anxiety of attacks by intruders, worms, and viruses" (1990b, iii). By "electronic networking," Denning refers
to the practices that make possible the international flow of flexible capital and by "risks of dam-
age to valuable information," he is invoking the model of the computer as an immune system
nation-state needing militaristic protection of its integrity. We can understand why the FBI and
multinational corporations have begun to work together here; the state is invested in keeping national
economic mar- kets in place, as are companies that leap from context to context to exploit dif-
ferences between labor and financial markets (see Harvey 1989; Maurer 1995).




                                                                                                                                                                      35
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                              Cap K
CHANG
                                                         LINK – BROADBAND
Expansion of computer networking is the perfection of capital – their aff just allows the marketplace to deeply
penetrate the public consciousness again and again and again

Dan Schiller, Ph.D., Professor @ the Graduate School of Information Science, University of Illionois, teaching the political economy of information,   2K,
Digital capitalism, introduction




                                                                                                                                                       36
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                   Cap K
CHANG
                                           TURNS CASE – BROADBAND

Capitalism structurally devalues broadband – reduces service, innovation, infrastructure

Minoofar 5/27/09
(Payam Minoofar, Ph.D.; U California, analytical chemistry scientist, ―First in capitalism, last in broadband,‖
http://payam.minoofar.com/2009/05/27/first-in-capitalism-last-in-broadband/)

Extolling the virtues of a ―pure and unadulterated capitalism‖ has always been in vogue in the
United States, and it has never changed the fact the country is lagging in many critical measures of
quality of life, chief among them life expectancy and infant mortality. Now we can add broadband speed to the
list, though broadband speed is hardly a measure of quality of life. It is a damn nice measure of excess, that
one characteristic for which the USA is best known. It‘s nice to know to know that monopoly power is still
worshipped in the United States for the excess power and wealth it concentrates in the hands
of the few. Who cares that monopoly power never delivers better service at a lower price, innovation
(Microsoft still doesn‘t get the iPod), improvements in infrastructure, or a functioning marketplace?




                                                                                                                     37
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                                Cap K
CHANG
                                                                  LINK – THE STATE
Their use of the state makes capitalism inevitable – sustains the form.

Slavoj Zizek, Senior Researcher, Institute for Social Studies, 2002, Revolution at the Gates

The first thing that strikes today‘s reader is how directly readable Lenin‘s texts from 1917 are: there is no need for long explanatory notes – even if the strange-
sounding names are unknown to us, we immediately get what was at stake. Form today‘s distance, the texts display an almost classical clarity in tracing the contours
                                                                                      in spring 1917, after the February Revolution which toppled the
of the struggle in which they participate. Lenin is fully aware of the paradox of the situation:
tsarist regime, Russia was the most democratic country in the whole of Europe, with an unprecedented degree of mass
mobilization, freedom of organization and freedom of the press – yet this freedom made the situation non-transparent, thoroughly
ambiguous. If there is a common thread running through all Lenin‘s texts written between the two revolutions (the February one and the October one), it is his
insistence on the gap which separates the ―explicit‖ formal contours of the political struggle between the
multitude of parties and other political subjects from its actual social stakes (immediate peace, the distribution of land, and, of course, ―all
power to the soviets,‖ that is, the dismantling of the existing state apparatus and its replacement with the new
commune-like forms of social management). This gap is the gap between the revolution qua the imaginary explosion
of freedom in sublime enthusiasm, the magic moment of universal solidarity when ―everything seems possible,‖ and the hard work of social
reconstruction which is to be performed if this enthusiastic explosion is to leave its traces in the inertia
of the social edifice itself. / This gap – a repetition of the gap between 1789 and 1793 in the French Revolution – is the very space
of Lenin‘s unique intervention: the fundamental lesson of revolutionary materialism is that revolution
must strike twice, and for essential reasons. The gap is not simply the gap between form and content: what the ―first
revolution‖ misses is not the content, but the form itself – it remains stuck in the old form,
thinking that freedom and justice can be accomplished if we simply put the existing state
apparatus and its democratic mechanisms to use. What if the ―good‖ party wins the free elections
and ―legally‖ implements socialist transformation? (The clearest expression of this illusion, bordering on the ridiculous, is Karl
Kautsky‘s thesis, formulated in the 1920s, that the logical political form of the first stage of socialism, of the passage from capitalism to socialism, is the parliamentary
coalition of bourgeois and proletarian parties.) Here there is a perfect parallel with the era of early modernity, in which opposition to the Church ideological hegemony
                                                                                            the partisans of the ―first revolution‖
first articulated itself in the very form of another religious ideology, as a heresy: along the same lines,
want to subvert capitalist domination in the very political form of capitalist democracy. This is the
Hegelian ―negation of negation‖: first the old order is negated within its own ideologico-political form; then this form itself has to be
negated. Those who oscillate, those who are afraid to take the second step of overcoming this form itself, are those who (to repeat Robespierre) want a
―revolution without revolution‖ – and Lenin displays all the strength of his ―hermeneutics of suspicion‖ in discerning the different forms of this retreat.




                                                                                                                                                                        38
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                           Cap K
CHANG
                                             LINK – SOCIAL SERVICES
Their extension of social services induces quiescence – it’s intended to reintegrate workers into the capitalist system,
sustaining the totality of their oppresion

Mink and O‟Connor 4
(Gwendolyn Mink, Professor of Politics, the University of California at Santa Cruz, Alice O'Connor, Ph.D.; Professor of United States
Public Policy, UCSB, Poverty in the United States, p. 795-6)




                                                                                                                                  39
Georgetown 2009                            Cap K
CHANG
                  LINK – SOCIAL SERVICES
[CONTINUED]




                                              40
Georgetown 2009                            Cap K
CHANG
                  LINK – SOCIAL SERVICES
[CONTINUED]




                                              41
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                               Cap K
CHANG
                                    LINK – SOCIAL SERVICES | POVERTY
Social services targeted at the poor are quintessential reformist politics which just save the system – market-centered
society guarantees a vicious cycle of intensifying poverty.

Sanford Schram, Professor, Social Theory and Policy, Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research, Bryn Mawr
College, 2006, Welfare discipline

Asset-building policy discourse resonates with market principles and that makes it attractive to
those who are seeking ways of promoting public policies to support low-income families within the
limits of a market-centered society. Its consonance with market principles makes it an appealing
discourse for private foundations which in recent years have prided themselves on promoting innovative ideas for
social reform that are simultaneously feasible because they do not challenge the hegemony of
market logic for structuring social relations. The Ford Foundation, like the Mott Foundation, the Annie E. Casey
Foundation, the Schwab Foundation, and others, found asset-building policy a very appealing idea and has developed a major
initiative to fund research and publishing projects designed to champion the idea. Asset building by individuals and communities is
now one of three major funding streams for the Ford Foundation. In 2002, the Ford Foundations spent $143.0 million in grants to
fund research and demonstration projects for this area compared with $239.9 million for peace and social justice and $134.1 million
for knowledge, creativity, and freedom, its other two major areas for funding. Asset building has become the main
idea for organizing the Ford Foundation‘s efforts to fund projects designed to help attack the persistence of
poverty in the United States and elsewhere. / Why is the Ford Foundation so willing to commit as much money as it has to
promoting an asset-building policy discourse? While some have suggested that foundations unreflectively serve elite interests of
their wealthy sponsors, an even better explanation than a conspiracy of the elite is a conspiracy of discourse.
The latter I would argue is an even more insidious way of consolidating the power of capitalism. / The Ford Foundation
has over time built a sizeable staff and devoted large sums of money to promote work on asset building. It has in the process
commissioned several books on the topic to further champion the idea. Perhaps the most striking is Michelle Miller-Adams‘s Owning
Up: Poverty, Assets, and the American Dream, published in 2002 by the Brookings Institution. As a foundation executive and
political scientist, Miller-Adams was a logical person to be asked by the Ford Foundations to write a book that would introduce the
idea of asset building for the poor to a broader audience. Her previous book had been about the World Bank. Taking the books
together suggests a focus more on how granting agencies are doing good works than on whether either the World bank‘s policies or
asset-building initiatives have a distinctive politics. Both books use stories from selected cases to emphasize what good is being
done by those developing and funding these initiatives. As well-written and informative as they are, these are not critical works, nor
are they intended to be a basis for a serious assessment of the policies in either case. Instead, the emphasis is on letting
a broader audience get to know about an area of assisting the poor that is assumed to be
basically good. / In the case of asset building, it is clear the Ford Foundation wants more people to know about this way to
frame social welfare policy reform. Now, this could be seen as indicating that a private elite foundation is committed to
making social welfare policy change safe for capitalism. That it has that effect does not mean that it is the intentional result of elite
planners, even if asset-building discourse seems overly focused on changing poor people‘s psychology and behavior. Instead, I
would argue that the Ford Foundation is so keen to champion asset-building discourse for discursive reasons. The Ford Foundation
is positioned in the institutional matrix of the globalizing capitalist social order to help make that system work more humanely. Its
job is to find a way to talk about social change without actually calling for social transformation.
A discourse of amelioration is what the Ford Foundation needs to fulfill its own mission. I suspect it is for the Ford
Foundation and other foundations the grantor‘s equivalent of a God-send that asset-building discourse came along, giving
them a whole new terrain to work over, nurture, and support, for it affords multiple opportunities to talk about
helping the poor fit into the existing structure of a market-centered society without having to
question the fundamental principles of that society. / The Ford Foundation is at pains to note that it gives priority
to proposed projects that will have as broad an impact as possible: ―Because its funds are limited in relation to the great number of
worthwhile proposals received, the Foundation directs its support to activities that are within its current interests and are likely to
have wide effect.‖ At the same time, the foundation stresses that the initiative is designed to support largely research on this topic
that will help the foundation further its overriding goals, which are to ―strengthen democratic values; reduce poverty and injustice;
promote international cooperation; and advance human achievement.‖ / While the rhetoric is thick in human rights,
democracy, and social justice, Ford‘s asset-building initiative is quintessential reformist politics,
making it ideal for a private corporate foundation dedicated to improving the existing society and addressing its
fundamental social and economic problems within the existing structure of that society. Asset-building discourse
positions the poor as subpar consumers, investors, and wealth generators who need to be
assisted to better participate in the existing system of wealth acquisition in ways that would
mean acting more middle class so that they could actually become middle class. Now, there is nothing


                                                                                                                                        42
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                            Cap K
CHANG
                                    LINK – SOCIAL SERVICES | POVERTY
[CONTINUED]
                                                                  it is one that risks reinscribing the idea
wrong with this tautology per se; but it is a quintessential reformist discourse and
that the poor need to learn to act middle class before they are to become middle class, when in fact there is at
least as much evidence that the opposite is true – the poor will act middle class once they are given the resources to do so.
Therefore, while imputing a cycle of poverty to the poor, asset-building discourse risks
becoming its own vicious cycle where we saddle the poor with debts and diverted income
streams that do not produce appreciable assets and only weigh them down in their struggle to
escape poverty.




                                                                                                                                43
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                               Cap K
CHANG
                                    LINK – SOCIAL SERVICES | POVERTY
Social services force the poor to internalize a role as capitalists – preventing confrontation with structural problems

Sanford Schram, Professor, Social Theory and Policy, Graduate School of Social Work and Social Resaerch, Bryn Mawr
College, 2006, Welfare discipline, 124-5

What has asset-building discourse wrought? In the formative years of the 1990s, asset-building initiatives
were concentrated on reforming welfare policy to ease asset limits for qualifying for cash
assistance, Food Stamps, and other programs, as well as creating space in welfare policies for IDAs and support
for microenterprise development by welfare recipients and other low-income persons. Eventually, more ambitious asset-
building initiatives in the form of increasing the ability of low-income families to own their homes have become
popular. / The easing of asset limits is noncontroversial, if not a major boon to the economic well-being of low-
income individuals, because they increasingly do not qualify for welfare and related benefits for
reason such as time limits, work requirements, sanctions policies, and administrative barriers.
Microenterprise efforts have been more limited and flounder on the shoals of the risks associated with small business start-up. Most
small businesses fail. The success of IDAs has been mixed at best. Jared Bernstein notes: The asset-building idea that has gone
farthest politically and has the greatest bipartisan support the Individual Development Account (IDA), a subsidized savings account.
IDA demonstration projects currently going on around the country, funded by a 1998 federal pilot program and by nonprofit groups,
work like this: low-income persons make deposits to an IDA and their withdrawals – so long as they are for approved expenditures,
such as education, housing or an independent business – are matched at the multiple, typically 2-to-1 or 3-to-1. The amount of
dollars matched is capped to control program costs. The approach combines a savings incentive with a form
of income distribution, in the hope of encouraging the poor to acquire the financial habit of the
middle class. What could be wrong with that? A common objection from liberals is that IDAs are fine as far as they go, but the
poor can‘t save enough to make much difference, even with the incentive of generous matches. This, by itself, wouldn‘t be so bad,
critics say, but the effort that think tanks, advocates and policymakers are putting into asset
development is taking energy and resources away from other activities that could make a
difference. Research on IDAs does suggest, not surprisingly, that most of the poor are hard pressed to save much. /
Additionally, Bernstein notes concerns about the individualistic political consciousness in such an
approach that seeks to get the poor to internalize the role as capitalists while distracting
attention away from the more structural sources of poverty. Yet, more critically, Bernstein‘s major
concern is not that IDAs are not in the end good policy in assisting the poor in the long run to escape poverty but that, ironically, they
are not politically feasible. In order to make such an approach really effective in attacking poverty, the government would have to
spend much more money in matching savings. Further, if the necessary matching were done nationwide as a matter of national
policy, it would pose a cost way beyond what the conservative champions of such an individualistic approach would be willing to
                                                                                                  The
even begin to think about supporting. In the end, according to Bernstein, IDAs are, for now at least, politically unrealistic.
discourse of what is politically feasible is often its opposite – utopian, at least in thinking that it
can extract real resources from those who do not want to give them up simply by sugar-coating
such demands.




                                                                                                                                      44
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                               Cap K
CHANG
                                                    LINK – HEGEMONY

The aim of heg is to spread capitalism.

FERGUSON 4
(Niall Ferguson, Professor of History @ Harvard, Colossus, p. 10)

To the majority of Americans, it would appear, there is not contradiction between the ends of
global democratization and the means of American military power. As defined by their president, the
democratizing mission of the United States is both altruistic and distinct from the ambitions of past empires, which (so it is generally
                                                                                                                  as a
assumed) aimed to impose their own rule on foreign peoples. The difficulty is that President Bush's ideal of freedom
universal desideratum rather closely resembles the Victorian ideal of "civilization." "Freedom"
means, on close inspection, the American model of democracy and capitalism; when Americans speak of
"nation building" they actually mean "state replicating," in the sense that they want to build
political and economic institutions that are fundamentally similar, though not identical, to their own. They
may not aspire to rule, but they do aspire to have others rule themselves in the American way. Yet the very act of
imposing "freedom" simultaneously subverts it. Just as the Victorians seemed hypocrites when they spread
"civilization" with the Maxim gun, so there is something fishy about those who would democratize Fallujah
with the Abrams tank. President Bush's distinction between conquest and liberation would have been entirely familiar to the
liberal imperialists of the early 1900s, who likewise saw Britain's far-flung legions as agents of emancipation (not least in the Middle
East during and after WWI.)

Heg produces an endless cycle of genocidal wars in the name of the sustaining capital

Meszaros 7
(Professor Emeritus, Philosophy and Political Theory, University of Sussex, ―The Only Viable Economy,‖ Monthly Review,
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0407meszaros.htm)

                    have to face up to the reality – and the lethal dangers – arising from global
In our time, by contrast, we
hegemonic imperialism, with the United States as its overwhelmingly dominant power.7 In contrast to
even Hitler, the United States as the single hegemon is quite unwilling to share global domination with any rival. And that is not
                                               The problems are much deeper. They assert themselves
simply on account of political/military contingencies.
through the ever-aggravating contradictions of the capital system's deepening structural crisis. U.S.
dominated global hegemonic imperialism is an -- ultimately futile -- attempt to devise a solution to
that crisis through the most brutal and violent rule over the rest of the world, enforced with or without
the help of slavishly "willing allies," now through a succession of genocidal wars. Ever since the
1970s the United States has been sinking ever deeper into catastrophic indebtedness. The fantasy
solution publicly proclaimed by several U.S. presidents was "to grow out of it." And the result: the diametrical opposite, in the form
                                      Accordingly, the United States must grab to itself, by any means at
of astronomical and still growing indebtedness.
                      most violent military aggression, whenever required for this purpose, everything it can,
its disposal, including the
through the transfer of the fruits of capitalist growth -- thanks to the global socioeconomic and
political/military domination of the United States -- from everywhere in the world. Could then any sane
person imagine, no matter how well armored by his or her callous contempt for "the shibboleth of equality," that U.S. dominated
global hegemonic imperialism would take seriously even for a moment the panacea of "no growth"? Only the worst kind of bad faith
could suggest such ideas, no matter how pretentiously packaged in the hypocritical concern over "the Predicament of Mankind." For
a variety of reasons there can be no question about the importance of growth both in the present and in the future. But to say so
must go with a proper examination of the concept of growth not only as we know it up to the present, but also as we can envisage its
                   Our siding with the need for growth cannot be in favor of unqualified growth.
sustainability in the future.
The tendentiously avoided real question is: what kind of growth is both feasible today, in
contrast to dangerously wasteful and even crippling capitalist growth visible all around us? For
growth must be also positively sustainable in the future on a long-term basis.




                                                                                                                                      45
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                          Cap K
CHANG
                                                  LINK – HEGEMONY
US hegemony is synonymous with global capitalistic domination – the impact is twin existential cataclysms – nuclear
omni-erasure and ecological suicide

John Foster, Professor of Sociology, University of Oregon; Editor, Monthly Review, 2005,
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0905jbf.htm

The unprecedented dangers of this new global disorder are revealed in the twin cataclysms to
which the world is heading at present: nuclear proliferation and hence increased chances of the outbreak of nuclear
war, and planetary ecological destruction. These are symbolized by the Bush administration‘s refusal to sign the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to limit nuclear weapons development and by its failure to sign the Kyoto Protocol as a first step in
controlling global warming. As former U.S. Secretary of Defense (in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations) Robert McNamara
stated in an article entitled ―Apocalypse Soon‖ in the May–June 2005 issue of Foreign Policy: ―The United States has never
endorsed the policy of ‗no first use,‘ not during my seven years as secretary or since. We have been and remain prepared to initiate
the use of nuclear weapons—by the decision of one person, the president—against either a nuclear or nonnuclear enemy whenever
                                          nation with the greatest conventional military force and the
we believe it is in our interest to do so.‖ The
willingness to use it unilaterally to enlarge its global power is also the nation with the greatest
nuclear force and the readiness to use it whenever it sees fit—setting the whole world on edge. The nation that contributes
more to carbon dioxide emissions leading to global warming than any other (representing approximately a quarter of the world‘s
total) has become the greatest obstacle to addressing global warming and the world‘s growing environmental problems—raising
the possibility of the collapse of civilization itself if present trends continue. The United States is
seeking to exercise sovereign authority over the planet during a time of widening global crisis: economic
stagnation, increasing polarization between the global rich and the global poor, weakening U.S.
economic hegemony, growing nuclear threats, and deepening ecological decline. The result is a heightening of international
instability. Other potential forces are emerging in the world, such as the European Community and China, that could eventually
challenge U.S. power, regionally and even globally. Third world revolutions, far from ceasing, are beginning to gain momentum
again, symbolized by Venezuela‘s Bolivarian Revolution under Hugo Chávez. U.S. attempts to tighten its imperial grip on the Middle
East and its oil have had to cope with a fierce, seemingly unstoppable, Iraqi resistance, generating conditions of imperial
overstretch. With the United States brandishing its nuclear arsenal and refusing to support international agreements on the control
of such weapons, nuclear proliferation is continuing. New nations, such as North Korea, are entering or can be expected soon to
enter the ―nuclear club.‖ Terroristblowback from imperialist wars in the third world is now a well-
recognized reality, generating rising fear of further terrorist attacks in New York, London, and elsewhere. Such vast and
overlapping historical contradictions, rooted in the combined and uneven development of the global
capitalist economy along with the U.S. drive for planetary domination, foreshadow what is potentially the most
dangerous period in the history of imperialism. The course on which U.S and world capitalism is now
headed points to global barbarism—or worse. Yet it is important to remember that nothing in the development
of human history is inevitable. There still remains an alternative path—the global struggle for a humane,
egalitarian, democratic, and sustainable society.




                                                                                                                                 46
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                 Cap K
CHANG
                                 LINK – MULTICULTURALISM | ID POLITICS
ID politics directly fractures coalitions – kills class struggle
Slavoj Zizek, Senior Researcher, Institute for Social Studies, Ljubljana, 1997, ―Multiculturalism, or, the Cultural Logic of
Multinational Capitalism.‖

And, mutatis mutandis, the same goes for today‘s capitalist who still clings to some particular cultural heritage, identifying it as the
secret source of his success—Japanese executives participating in tea ceremonies or obeying the bushido code—or for the inverse
                                                                                       this very reference to a
case of the Western journalist in search of the particular secret of the Japanese success:
particular cultural formula is a screen for the universal anonymity of Capital. The true horror does
not reside in the particular content hidden beneath the universality of global Capital, but rather in the fact that
Capital is effectively an anonymous global machine blindly running its course, that there is effectively no
particular Secret Agent who animates it. The horror is not the (particular living) ghost in the (dead
universal) machine, but the (dead universal) machine in the very heart of each (particular living)
ghost. The conclusion to be drawn is thus that the problematic of multiculturalism—the hybrid coexistence of diverse cultural life-
worlds—which imposes itself today is the form of appearance of its opposite, of the massive presence of capitalism as universal
world system: it bears witness to the unprecedented homogenization of the contemporary world. It is effectively as if, since the
horizon of social imagination no longer allows us to entertain the idea of an eventual demise of capitalism—since, as we might put it,
everybody silently accepts that capitalism is here to stay—critical energy has found a substitute
outlet in fighting for cultural differences which leave the basic homogeneity of the capitalist
world-system intact. So we are fighting our pc battles for the rights of ethnic minorities, of gays and lesbians, of different life-
styles, and so on, while capitalism pursues its triumphant march—and today‘s critical theory, in the guise of ‗cultural studies‘,
is doing the ultimate service to the unrestrained development of capitalism by actively
participating in the ideological effort to render its massive presence invisible: in a typical
postmodern ‗cultural criticism‘, the very mention of capitalism as world system tends to give rise
to the accusation of ‗essentialism‘, ‗fundamentalism‘ and other crimes. The structure here is that
of a symptom. When one is dealing with a universal structuring principle, one always automatically assumes that—in principle,
precisely—it is possible to apply this principle to all its potential elements, and that the empirical non-realization of the principle is
merely a matter of contingent circumstances. A symptom, however, is an element which—although the non-realization of the
universal principle in it appears to hinge on contingent circumstances—has to remain an exception, that is, the point of suspension
of the universal principle: if the universal principle were to apply also to this point, the universal system itself would disintegrate. As
is well known, in the paragraphs on civil society in his Philosophy of Right, Hegel demonstrated how the large class of ‗rabble‘
(PÖebel) in modern civil society is not an accidental result of social mismanagement, inadequate government measures or
economic bad luck: the inherent structural dynamics of civil society necessarily give rise to a class which is excluded from the
benefits of civil society, a class deprived of elementary human rights and therefore also delivered of duties towards society, an
element within civil society which negates its universal principle, a kind of ‗un-Reason inherent to Reason itself‘—in short, its
symptom. Do we not witness the same phenomenon today, and in even stronger shape, with the growth of an underclass excluded,
sometimes for generations, from the benefits of affluent liberal-democratic society? Today‘s ‗exceptions‘—the homeless, the
ghettoized, the permanently unemployed—are the symptom of the late capitalist universal system, a growing and permanent
reminder of how the immanent logic of late capitalism works: the proper capitalist utopia is that, through appropriate measures (for
progressive liberals, affirmative action; for conservatives, a return to self-reliance and family values), this ‗exception‘ could be—in
the long term and in principle, at least—abolished. And is not a homologous utopia at work in the notion of a ‗rainbow coalition‘: in
the idea that, at some utopian future moment, all ‗progressive‘ struggles—for gay and lesbian rights, for the rights of ethnic and
religious minorities, the ecological struggle, the feminist struggle, and so on—will be united in the common ‗chain of equivalences‘?
Again, this necessity of failure is structural: the point is not simply that, because of the empirical
complexity of the situation, all particular ‗progressive‘ fights will never be united, that ‗wrong‘
chains of equivalences will always occur—say, the enchainment of the fight for African-American ethnic identity with
patriarchal and homophobic ideology—but rather that emergencies of ‗wrong‘ enchainments are grounded
in the very structuring principle of today‘s ‗progressive‘ politics of establishing ‗chains of
equivalences‘: the very domain of the multitude of particular struggles with their continuously
shifting displacements and condensations is sustained by the ‗repression‘ of the key role of
economic struggle—the leftist politics of the ‗chains of equivalences‘ among the plurality of
struggles is strictly correlative to the silent abandonment of the analysis of capitalism as a global
economic system and to the acceptance of capitalist economic relations as the unquestionable
framework. [24] The falsity of elitist multiculturalist liberalism thus resides in the tension between
content and form which characterized already the first great ideological project of tolerant universalism, that of freemasonry:
the doctrine of freemasonry (the universal brotherhood of all men based on the light of Reason) clearly clashes with its form of
expression and organization (a secret society with its rituals of initiation)—the   very form of expression and


                                                                                                                                        47
Georgetown 2009                                                                             Cap K
CHANG
articulation of freemasonry belies its positive doctrine. In a strictly homologous way, the
contemporary ‗politically correct‘ liberal attitude which perceives itself as surpassing the
limitations of its ethnic identity (‗citizen of the world‘ without anchors in any particular ethnic
community), functions, within its own society, as a narrow elitist upper-middle-class circle clearly
opposing itself to the majority of common people, despised for being caught in their narrow
ethnic or community confines.




                                                                                                 48
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                          Cap K
CHANG
                       TURNS CASE – CAP INCREASES IMMIGRANT FLOOD

Cap forces immigrant flood – screws conditions elsewhere

BEITER 6
(greg beiter, socialist alternative, http://socialistworld.net/eng/2006/05/01us.html)

Recent years have seen a massive wave of immigration to the United States from the ―Third
world,‖ especially Latin America. Politicians and corporate media personalities like CNN‘s Lou Dobbs continually attack these
undocumented workers as ―illegal aliens‖ and ―criminals.‖
The real criminals, however, are not immigrant workers, but the corporate chieftains and politicians
who, in their insatiable lust for profits, plunder the natural resources of poor countries, set up
sweatshops, and wage wars for oil and empire. It is their policies that create the grinding poverty
and social breakdown throughout the neo-colonial world which forces millions to flee their home
countries in search of work here.
While U.S. corporations earn record profits, 128 million people in Latin America live on less than
$2 per day (USAID.org). More than 130 million have no access to safe drinking water, and only
one in six persons enjoy adequate sanitation service (NACLA.org).
Big business sets up shop in all corners of the world, searching for the cheapest labor and slackest environmental regulations. They
argue that in a globalised world we need ―free trade‖ and capital should be free to pick up and move to any country with the best
market conditions - yet they oppose the rights of workers to move to countries with more favorable labor markets.




                                                                                                                                 49
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                               Cap K
CHANG
                                                       LINK – NATIVES
Their attempt to help Natives backfires – it manifests self-referential racism as Otherization from the empty global
perspective of capital, turning case. Root cause of oppression is maintained.

Slavoj Zizek, Senior Researcher, Institute for Social Studies, Ljubljana, 1997, ―Multiculturalism, or, the Cultural Logic of
Multinational Capitalism.‖

How, then, does the universe of Capital relate to the form of Nation-State in our era of global capitalism? Perhaps, this relationship
is best designated as ‗auto-colonization‘: with the direct multinational functioning of Capital, we are no longer dealing with the
standard opposition between metropolis and colonized countries; a global company as it were cuts its umbilical cord with its mother-
nation and treats its country of origins as simply another territory to be colonized. This is what disturbs so much the patriotically
oriented right-wing populists, from Le Pen to Buchanan: the fact that the new multinationals have towards the French or American
local population exactly the same attitude as towards the population of Mexico, Brazil or Taiwan. Is there not a kind of poetic justice
in this self-referential turn? Today‘s global capitalism is thus again a kind of ‗negation of negation‘, after national
capitalism and its internationalist/colonialist phase. At the beginning (ideally, of course), there is capitalism within the confines of a
Nation-State, with the accompanying international trade (exchange between sovereign Nation-States); what follows is the
relationship of colonization in which the colonizing country subordinates and exploits (economically, politically, culturally) the
colonized country; the final moment of this process is the paradox of colonization in which there are only colonies, no
colonizing countries—the colonizing power is no longer a Nation-State but directly the global
company. In the long term, we shall all not only wear Banana Republic shirts but also live
in banana republics. And, of course, the ideal form of ideology of this global capitalism is
multiculturalism, the attitude which, from a kind of empty global position, treats each
local culture the way the colonizer treats colonized people—as ‘natives’ whose mores are
to be carefully studied and ‘respected’. That is to say, the relationship between traditional
imperialist colonialism and global capitalist self-colonization is exactly the same as the
relationship between Western cultural imperialism and multiculturalism: in the same way that global
capitalism involves the paradox of colonization without the colonizing Nation-State metropole, multi-culturalism involves
patronizing Eurocentrist distance and/or respect for local cultures without roots in one‘s own
particular culture. In other words, multiculturalism is a disavowed, inverted, self-referential form of
racism, a ‗racism with a distance‘—it ‗respects‘ the Other‘s identity, conceiving the Other as a
self-enclosed ‗authentic‘ community towards which he, the multiculturalist, maintains a distance
rendered possible by his privileged universal position. Multiculturalism is a racism which empties its own
position of all positive content (the multiculturalist is not a direct racist, he doesn‘t oppose to the Other the
particular values of his own culture), but nonetheless retains this position as the privileged empty
point of universality from which one is able to appreciate (and depreciate) properly other particular cultures—the
multiculturalist respect for the Other‘s specificity is the very form of asserting one‘s own
superiority.




                                                                                                                                      50
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                      Cap K
CHANG
                                           TURNS CASE – NATIVES
Cap makes destruction of natives inevitable

Ward Churchill, fmr professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, 1983, Marxism and Native Americans, p. 110




                                                                                                                        51
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                   Cap K
CHANG
                                                TURNS CASE – NATIVES
Cap is the root cause of native genocide.

Robert Avakian, Chairman, Revolutionary Communist Party, 2002, ―The New Situation and the Great Challenges,‖
Revolutionary Worker 1143

But think of the reasoning that you're hearing to justify what the U.S. imperialists are doing-or what Israel is doing with the
                                                                                          the U.S.
Palestinians, to take one part of this whole picture-and then reflect back on what happened during the time when
was seizing the land of the Native Americans and committing genocide against them. For example, we
hear all this stuff now in the news about smallpox-the danger that smallpox could be used as a weapon of war, a "weapon of mass
                                                                           westward forces of
destruction." But who has actually used smallpox as a weapon of mass extermination? The
expansion of U.S. capitalism and slavery—the same system that today has become U.S. imperialism-
that same system deliberately, knowingly gave smallpox-infested blankets to Native Americans as a weapon
of war essentially. So let's remember who has actually done this. I mean, they're always talking about what this or that country or
regime would do, how they would use weapons of mass destruction if they could, but who has already done this on a massive scale,
in many parts of the world, as well as within the U.S itself-who has already used weapons of mass destruction, on a massive scale,
whether it's nuclear weapons or smallpox as a weapon of war? If you go back and do research, and look into what was
written in the media and said by the representatives of the U.S. capitalist system, say in the latter part of
the 19th century when they were completing the genocide against the Native Americans and the theft of their lands, whom
do you think was portrayed as the "evil-doers" in those days? Do you think it was the cavalry? Do you think it
was these people who carried out massacres and committed sexual mutilation of the dead bodies of Native American women, who
mutilated children and made tokens and war trophies out of the body parts of the Native peoples that they slaughtered? Do you
think that's who was portrayed as the hideous "evil-doers"? Of course not. It was the "savage" Indians. When finally
the Native peoples had had enough and found a way to strike back, they didn't always strike back in the most "neat" way.
Sometimes they did go to a farm and burn the whole farm down and kill all the people there, including the children-and then this was
                                                                                                     and when they
cited as proof that they were the "savages" who then had to be wiped out because finally they fought back,
fought back, they didn't always fight back by the Marquis of Queensberry rules. They perhaps on occasion did one little part of
what had been done to them on a massive scale, and this became justification for doing it on an even broader scale or for
completing the genocide.




                                                                                                                                     52
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                            Cap K
CHANG
                                  IMPACT – LAUNDRY LIST / EXTINCTION
Capitalism makes extinction structurally inevitable and produces disease, famine, ecocide, and oppression.

Deborah Cook, Professor of Philosophy, University of Windsor, 2006, ―Staying Alive: Adorno and Habermas on Self-Preservation
Under Late Capitalism.‖

In the passage in Negative Dialectics where he warns against self-preservation gone wild, Adorno states that it is ―only as reflection
upon … self-preservation that reason would be above nature‖ (1973, 289). To rise above nature, then, reason must become
―cognizant of its own natural essence‖ (1998b, 138). To be more fully rational, we must reflect on what Horkheimer and Adorno once
called our underground history (1972, 231). In other words, we must recognize that our behavior is motivated and shaped by
instincts, including the instinct for self-preservation (Adorno 1998a, 153). In his lectures on Kant, Adorno makes similar remarks
when he summarizes his solution to the problem of self-preservation gone wild. To remedy this problem, nature must first become
conscious of itself (Adorno 2000, 104). Adopting the Freudian goal of making the unconscious conscious, Adorno also insists that
this critical self-understanding be accompanied by radical social, political, and economic changes that would bring to a halt the self-
immolating domination of nature. This is why mindfulness of nature is necessary but not sufficient to remedy unbridled self-
                          society must be fundamentally transformed in order rationally to
preservation. In the final analysis,
accommodate instincts that now run wild owing to our forgetfulness of nature in ourselves . By
insisting on mindfulness of nature in the self, Adorno champions a form of rationality that would tame self-preservation, but in
contrast to Habermas, he thinks that the taming of self-preservation is a normative task rather than an accomplished fact. Because
self-preservation remains irrational, we now encounter serious environmental problems like those connected
with global warming and the greenhouse effect, the depletion of natural resources, and the death
of more than one hundred regions in our oceans. Owing to self-preservation gone wild, we have
colonized and destabilized large parts of the world, adversely affecting the lives of millions,
when we have not simply enslaved or murdered their inhabitants outright. Famine and disease
are often the result of ravaging the land in the name of survival imperatives. Wars are waged in
the name of self-preservation: with his now notoriously invisible weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein
was said to represent a serious threat to the lives of citizens in the West. The war against terrorism, waged in
the name of self-preservation, has seriously undermined human rights and civil liberties; it has also been
used to justify the murder, rape, and torture of thousands. As it now stands, the owners of the means of
production ensure our survival through profits that, at best, only trickle down to the poorest members of society. Taken in
charge by the capitalist economy, self-preservation now dictates that profits increase
exponentially to the detriment of social programs like welfare and health care. In addition, self-
preservation has gone wild because our instincts and needs are now firmly harnessed to
commodified offers of satisfaction that deflect and distort them. Having surrendered the task of
self-preservation to the economic and political systems, we remain in thrall to untamed survival
instincts that could well end up destroying not just the entire species, but all life on the planet.




                                                                                                                                   53
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                                    Cap K
CHANG
                                                                    IMPACT – RACISM
Cap makes racism inevitable.

Taylor 2
(Alex Taylor; writer, the Socialist Worker, http://socialistworker.org/2002-2/431/431_08_Racism.shtml, dashes in original)

FOR MANY people coming to radical politics--Blacks and whites alike--hatred of racism and a desire to get rid of it is a huge motivating factor. This is in contrast to
some of the common assumptions about where racism comes from. The first is that racism is part of human nature--that it's always existed and always will. The
second is the liberal idea of racism--that it comes from people's bad ideas, and that if we could change these ideas, we could get rid of it. Both assumptions are wrong.
                                                                                                       racism originated with
Racism isn't just an ideology but is an institution. And its origins don't lie in bad ideas or in human nature. Rather,
capitalism and the slave trade. As the Marxist writer CLR James put it, "The conception of dividing people by race begins with the slave trade.
This thing was so shocking, so opposed to all the conceptions of society which religion and philosophers had…that the only justification by which humanity could
                                                                                 History proves this point. Prior to the advent of
face it was to divide people into races and decide that the Africans were an inferior race."
capitalism, racism as a systematic form of oppression did not exist. For example, ancient Greek and Roman societies
had no concept of race or racial oppression. These weren't liberated societies. They were built on the backs of slaves. And these societies created an
ideology to justify slavery. As the Greek philosopher Aristotle put it in his book Politics, "Some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter,
slavery is both expedient and right." However, because slavery in ancient Greece and Rome was not racially based, these societies had no corresponding ideology of
racial inferiority or oppression. In fact,   Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Early Christian societies had a favorable
image of Blacks and of African societies. Septemus Severenus, an emperor of Rome, was African and almost certainly Black. "The ancients did accept the
institution of slavery as a fact of life; they made ethnocentric judgments of other societies; they had narcissistic canons of physical beauty," writes Howard University
professor Frank Snowden in his book Before Color Prejudice. "Yet nothing comparable to the virulent color prejudice of modern time existed in the ancient world.
This is the view of most scholars who have examined the evidence." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RACISM ORIGINATED with the modern slave trade. Just as the
slaveholders of ancient Greece and Rome created an ideology that their barbaric slave system was "natural," so did the modern slave-owning class. There was one
                                                                                                                                                    As
important difference. According to them, slavery was "natural" because of race. Africans were not human beings, and therefore, they were born to be slaves.
historian Eric Williams writes in his book Capitalism and Slavery, "Slavery was not born of racism; rather, racism was the
consequence of slavery." Again, history bears this out. If racism had existed prior to the slave trade, then Africans would have been the first group of
people to be enslaved. But, in the early years of colonial America, slavery was not racially based. Initially, the colonists attempted to enslave Native Americans. They
also imported thousands of white indentured servants. White servants were treated like slaves. They were bought, sold, put up as stakes in card games and raped,
                                                                in the early years of colonial America, there was
beaten and killed with impunity. Not only was servitude a multiracial institution
    surprising degree of equality between Blacks and whites. For example, in 17th century Virginia, Blacks
also a
were able to file lawsuits, testify in court against whites, bear arms and own property, including
servants and slaves. In other words, 17th century Blacks in Virginia had more rights than Blacks in the Jim Crow South during the 20th century.
Colonial records from 17th century Virginia reveal that one African slave named Frances Payne bought his freedom by earning enough money to buy three white
servants to replace him. Such events prove the point that institutional racism did not exist in the early years of slavery--but was created later. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OVER TIME, the slaveholding class gradually came to the conclusion that racism was in its interest and that it must be deeply embedded in all of society's
institutions. There were several reasons for this conclusion. First, indentured servitude was no longer sufficient to meet the demand for labor as industry developed in
Britain and put new demands on the colonial economy. Also, by the middle of the 17th century, African slaves began to live longer than five to seven years--the
standard period for indentured servitude. Put in the cold terms of economic reality, slavery became more profitable than indentured servitude. Finally, Africans, whose
children could also be enslaved, were more easily segregated and oppressed than servants or Native Americans. As Williams summarized this process: "Here then, is
the origin of Negro slavery. The reason was economic, not racial; it had to do not with the color of the laborer, but the cheapness of the labor…This was not a theory,
it was a practical conclusion deduced from the personal experience of the planter. He would have gone to the moon, if necessary, for labor. Africa was nearer than the
moon." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BUT THE most important reason that the planter class created a racially based slave system was not economic, but political--the age-
old strategy of divide and rule. The "slaveocracy" was a tiny, extremely wealthy minority surrounded by thousands of people whom it had enslaved, exploited or
conquered. Its greatest fear was that slaves and servants would unite against it--and this fear was legitimate. For example, Bacon's Rebellion of 1676 began as a protest
against Virginia's policy against native Americans, but turned into an armed multiracial rebellion against the ruling elite. An army of several hundred farmers, servants
and slaves demanding freedom and the lifting of taxes sacked Jamestown and forced the governor of Virginia to flee. One thousand soldiers were sent from England to
put it down. The rebel army held out for eight months before it was defeated. Bacon's Rebellion was a turning point. It made clear to the planters that for their class to
survive, they would have to divide the people that they ruled--on the basis of race. Abolitionist and ex-slave Frederick Douglass put it this way: "The
slaveholders…by encouraging the enmity of the poor, laboring white man against the Blacks, succeeded in making the said white man almost as much a slave as the
Black himself…Both are plundered, and by the same plunderers." Or, as Douglass also said, "They divided both to conquer each.                 Over time, the
institution of racism became firmly established--both as a means of legitimizing slavery, but also as
a means of dividing poor people against one other. While the Civil War smashed the planters' slave system, it did not end the
institution of racism. The reason for this is that racism had further uses for capitalism. Similar to the slave societies of antiquity and of the early U.S., under
capitalism today, a small, wealthy minority exploits and oppresses the immense majority of
people. Racism is the main division among workers today, and it provides a convenient
scapegoat for problems created by the system. But ordinary people--regardless of their race--don't benefit from racism.
It's no coincidence that the historical periods in which workers as a whole have made the greatest
gains--such as the 1930s and the 1960s--have coincided with great battles against racism.
Capitalism created racism and can't function without it. The way to end racism once and for all is to win a
socialist society--in which the first priority is abolishing all traces of exploitation and racism.




                                                                                                                                                                             54
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                         Cap K
CHANG
                                                       IMPACT – WAR
No uniqueness to their war impacts – capitalism makes war in defense of imperialistic globalization inevitable –
causing extinction

MESZAROS 3
(Istvan Meszaros, Professor Emeritus, U Sussex; earlier Chair of Philosophy at Sussex; earlier Professor of Philosophy and Social
Science, York University)

                                                            the objective of the feasible war at the
Today the situation is qualitatively different for two principal reasons. First,
present phase of historical development, in accordance with the objective requirements of imperialism—world
domination by capital‘s most powerful state, in tune with its own political design of ruthless authoritarian
―globalization‖ (dressed up as ―free exchange‖ in a U.S. ruled global market)—is ultimately unwinnable,
foreshadowing, instead, the destruction of humankind. This objective by no stretch of imagination could be
considered a rational objective in accord with the stipulated rational requirement of the ―continuation of politics by other means‖
conducted by one nation, or by one group of nations against another.             Aggressively imposing the will of one
powerful national state over all of the others, even if for cynical tactical reasons the advocated war is absurdly
camouflaged as a ―purely limited war‖ leading to other ―open ended limited wars,‖ can therefore be
qualified only as total irrationality. The second reason greatly reinforces the first. For the weapons already available for
waging the war or wars of the twenty first century are capable of exterminating not only the adversary but the whole
of humanity, for the first time ever in history. Nor should we have the illusion that the existing weaponry marks the very end of
the road. Others, even more instantly lethal ones, might appear tomorrow or the day after
tomorrow. Moreover, threatening the use of such weapons is by now considered an acceptable
state strategic device. Thus, put reasons one and two together, and the conclusion is inescapable:
envisaging war as the mechanism of global government in today‘s world underlines that we find
ourselves at the precipice of absolute irrationality from which there can be no return if we accept
the ongoing course of development. What was missing from von Clausewitz‘s classic definition of war as the
―continuation of politics by other means‖ was the investigation of the deeper underlying causes of war and the possibility of their
                                                                                  For the war of the twenty first
avoidance. The challenge to face up to such causes is more urgent today than ever before.
century looming ahead of us is not only ―not winnable in principle.‖ Worse than that, it is in principle unwinnable.
Consequently, envisaging the pursuit of war, as the Bush administration‘s September 17, 2002 strategic document does, make
Hitler‘s irrationality look like the model of rationality.




                                                                                                                               55
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                             Cap K
CHANG
                                                          IMPACT – ENVIRONMENT
Cap causes extinction through ecocidal collapse – attempts to self-correct only make the problem worse

Liodakis 1
(George Liodakis, Professor of Social Science, Technical University of Crete,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3780/is_200104/ai_n8940388/pg_5)

The overall attempt to respond to the exacerbated ecological crisis, from the side of capital,
entails extensive recycling, economising on natural resources, the development of new
materials and non-polluting technologies, and an overall restructuring towards a `green
capitalism'. This restructuring of capital encompasses `eco-regulation', which mainly consists of an attempt to formulate `ecologically adjusted prices'.
These attempts and regulations, however, are usually proved ineffective insofar as they operate within the
system's logic, focus narrowly on the sphere of market exchange, and fail to understand that all
relevant phenomena (competition, externalities, etc.) are deeply embedded in capitalist production itself. They also
face great difficulties in internalising production cost, enhanced by the competitive contradiction of capital and the contradictory character of state regulation (see
Liodakis, 2000). As Marx has stressed, '[a] 11   thought of a common, all-embracing and farsighted control' of the
production and consumption of raw materials under capitalism is no more than a `pious wish',
flatly `irreconcilable with the laws of capitalist production' (1967 III: 118-20). It should be noted though, that
capitalism's only absolute limit is extinction of the human race (i.e., of exploitable labour power), and that the
restructuring of capitalism can potentially ameliorate or postpone the crisis, ensuring thus, for a certain time
span, the reproduction of the system (see Goodman and Redclift, 1991: 254). Given the law of conservation of matter and energy, however, there are
more proximate, both quantitative and qualitative, limits which put the sustainability of capitalism
under question (see J. O'Connor, 1988; Benton, 1989; M. O'Connor, 1994; Foster, 1995b, 1997). All attempts at ecological
restructuring basically concern the restructuring of property relations, through the market, the rearrangement of
competitive conditions, and the rationalisation of capitalist accumulation, without essentially affecting the impact of capitalist
rationality and private property on nature. The key thing for capitalism, however, is not the juridical form of private property, but rather
the social separation of labour power from natural conditions and the use of the latter as conditions of capital accumulation. Independently of any restructuring of
capital and property relations, or of any limited attempt at a valuation of nature, as long as the property of capital as a whole on nature is maintained, the squandering
                                                                   it is impossible to ensure the sustainability of
of nature and environmental destruction cannot be prevented. In other words,
capitalism and, within its limits, an essential reconciliation of people with nature . On the contrary,
the currently proposed further commoditisation of nature and privatisation of natural resources (see Dasgupta, 1990;
Chichilnisky, 1994), will most likely lead to an aggravation of the problem (see Liodakis, 1995,2000). Capitalist
restructuring implies a certain modification of the law of value and not a qualitative conversion or
a radical upsetting of the law itself. This modification derives specifically from the increasing
internationalisation of production, the changes in state regulation, the increasing externalities and the ecological
restructuring towards internalising these externalities, as well as from the continuous concentration of capital, which implies a
greater divergence of prices from commodity values in branches with a pronounced monopolistic character. In other words, this modification concerns the specific
manner in which the law of value operates under contemporary conditions. Insofar as natural resources are taken as a `free gift of nature ,          competition
leads to a permanent tendency to increase constant capital, as a crystallisation of alienated labour and natural resources
through the labour process, and consequently to a rising organic composition of capital. This tendency, which also serves the
needs of capital in increasing the productive power of labour and disciplining it in the context of the production process, creates a crisis-generating
pressure through the falling tendency of the rate of profit. This pressure tends toward an
increasing externalisation of production cost and, combined with an over-utilisation of natural
resources, leads to destructive consequences for the environment. Quantitative changes will be
permanently converted into qualitative changes resulting in a degradation of the environment. On
the other hand, the qualitative changes deriving from the real subsumption and capitalisation of nature (see M. O'Connor, 1993; 1994), the increasing socialisation
                                     the competitive race for the increase of relative surplus value,
(interdependence) of production on a global level and
will render further quantitative changes necessary, taking the form of technological
modernisation and of an increase in the organic composition of capital, and thus reinforcing the
above mentioned tendency. The overaccumulation crisis of capital tends, as the crisis unfolding since the mid '70s shows, to
a serious environmental degradation, following a dialectical process from the part to the whole,
the latterbeing the global economy and the planetary ecosystem.



                                                                                                                                                                     56
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                           Cap K
CHANG
                                 IMPACT – LAUNDRY LIST / EXTINCTION
Capitalism causes sexism, racism, poverty, and nuclear annihilation

Webb, 04 (Sam Webb, National Chairman, Communist Party USA. ―War, Capitalism, and George W. Bush.‖ 4-20-04.
http://www.pww.org/article/view/ 4967/1/207/O)

Capitalism was never a warm, cuddly, stable social system. It came into the world dripping with blood from
every pore, as Marx described it, laying waste to old forms of production and ways of life in favor of new, more
efficient manufacturing. Since then it has combined nearly uninterrupted transformation of the instruments
of production with immense wealth for a few and unrelieved exploitation, insecurity, misery, and racial and
gender inequality for the many, along with periodic wars, and a vast zone of countries imprisoned in a
seemingly inescapable web of abject poverty. Yet as bad as that record is, its most destructive effects on
our world could still be ahead. Why do I say that? Because capitalism, with its imperatives of capital
accumulation, profit maximization and competition, is the cause of new global problems that threaten the
prospects and lives of billions of people worldwide, and, more importantly, it is also a formidable barrier to
humankind‘s ability to solve these problems. Foremost among these, in addition to ecological degradation,
economic crises, population pressures, and endemic diseases, is the threat of nuclear mass annihilation. With the end of
the Cold War, most of us thought that the threat of nuclear war would fade and with it the stockpiles of nuclear weapons. But those
hopes were dashed. Rather than easing, the nuclear threat is more palpable in some ways and caches of nuclear
weapons are growing. And our own government possesses the biggest stockpiles by far. Much like previous
administrations, the Bush administration has continued to develop more powerful nuclear weapons, but with a twist: it insists on its
singular right to employ nuclear weapons preemptively in a range of military situations. This is a major departure from earlier U.S.
policy – the stated policy of all previous administrations was that nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort to be used only in
circumstances in which our nation is under severe attack. Meanwhile, today‘s White House bullies demonize, impose sanctions,
and make or threaten war on states that are considering developing a nuclear weapons capability. Bush tells us that this policy of
arming ourselves while disarming others should cause no anxiety because, he says, his administration desires only peace and has
no imperial ambitions. Not surprisingly, people greet his rhetorical assurances skeptically, especially as it becomes more and more
obvious that his administration‘s political objective is not world peace, but world domination, cunningly couched in the language of
―fighting terrorism.‖ It is well that millions of peace-minded people distrust Bush‘s rhetoric. The hyper-aggressive gang in
the Oval Office and Pentagon and the absolutely lethal nature of modern weapons of mass destruction
make for a highly unstable and explosive situation that could cascade out of control. War has a logic of its
own. But skepticism alone is not enough. It has to be combined with a sustained mobilization of the world community – the other
superpower in this unipolar world – if the hand of the warmakers in the White House and Pentagon is to be stayed. A heavy
responsibility rests on the American people. For we have the opportunity to defeat Bush and his counterparts in Congress in the
November elections. Such a defeat will be a body blow to the policies of preemption, regime change, and saber rattling, and a
people‘s mandate for peace, disarmament, cooperation, and mutual security. The world will become a safer place. In the longer
run, however, it is necessary to replace the system of capitalism. With its expansionary logic to accumulate
capital globally and its competitive rivalries, capitalism has an undeniable structural tendency to militarism
and war. This doesn‘t mean that nuclear war is inevitable. But it does suggest that nuclear war is a latent,
ever-present possibility in a world in which global capital is king. Whether that occurs depends in large
measure on the outcome of political struggle within and between classes and social movements at the
national and international level.




                                                                                                                                 57
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                              Cap K
CHANG
                                                 IMPACT – TERRORISM
Capital turns terror – blowback and underdevelopment

John Foster, Professor of Sociology, University of Oregon; Editor, Monthly Review, ―Imperialism and Empire, 2001, google

Socialism or Barbarism, however, would appear to suggest an altogether different interpretation, one that sees U.S.
imperialism as central to the terror crisis. In this view, the terrorists attacking the W orld Trade Center and
the Pentagon, were not attacking global sovereignty or civilization (it wasn‘t the United Nations in New
York that was attacked) — much less the values of freedom and democracy as claimed by the U.S. state —
but were deliberately targeting the symbols of U.S. financial and military power, and thus of U.S. global power. As
unjustifiable as these terrorist acts were in every sense, they nonetheless belong to the larger
history of U.S. imperialism and the attempt of the U.S. to establish global hegemony — particularly to the history of its
interventions in the Middle East. Further, the United States responded not through a process of global constitutionalism,
nor in the form of a mere police action, but imperialistically by unilaterally declaring war on international terrorism and setting loose
                                                          In Afghanistan, the U.S. military is seeking to
its war machine on the Taliban government in Afghanistan. /
destroy terrorist forces that it once played a role in creating. Far from adhering to its own constitutional
principles in the international domain the U.S. has long supported terrorist groups whenever it served its
own imperialist designs, and has itself carried out state terrorism, killing civilian populations . Its
new war on terrorism, Washington has declared, may require U.S. military intervention in numerous countries beyond Afghanistan
— with such nations as Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines already singled out as possible locales for
                    All of this, coupled with a worldwide economic downturn and increased
further interventions.
repression in the leading capitalist states, seems to suggest that capital‘s ―destructive
uncontrollability‖ is coming more and more to the fore. Imperialism, in the process of blocking autocentric
development — i.e., in perpetuating the development of underdevelopment — in the periphery, has bred
terrorism, which has blown back on the leading imperialist state itself, creating a spiral of
destruction without apparent end. Since global government is impossible under capitalism, but necessary in the more
globalized reality of today, the system, Mészáros insists, is thrown increasingly upon the ―extreme violent rule of the whole world by
one hegemonic imperialist country on a permanent basis: an...absurd and unsustainable way of running the world order.‖ (p. 73).




                                                                                                                                     58
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                                Cap K
CHANG
                                                                 IMPACT – VALUE TO LIFE
Capitalism destroys value to life.

Michael Dillon, Professor, University of Lancaster, 1999, ―Another Justice,‖ Political Theory 27(2), JSTOR

                         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
Otherness is born(e) within
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,
                                                                    The very indexicality required of sovereign
of a self-possession that would enable it ultimately to adjudicate everything.
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.




                                                                                                                                                                        59
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                            Cap K
CHANG
                                                               IMPACT – POVERTY
Surplus labor

Chris McMillan, doctoral student at Massey University, 2008, ―Zizek‘s Marxism,‖ google

                                                     Poverty is necessary; without the reserve army
Thus we can see how surplus operates in relationship to poverty within capitalism.
of surplus labour that is poverty, the capitalist wage system would be unable to function. For this reason,
however, poverty as an excess is also necessarily excluded; the same capitalist dynamic of lack and excess which creates poverty allows the subject to repress it‘s
                                                                     These take the form of either band-aid
existance. This repression can be seen in our contemporary capitalist responses to poverty.
super-ego solutions, such as charity and fair trade or a ‗purification‘ of the capitalism process
through institutions like the World Bank. / Alternatively, poverty-as-surplus is simply ignored, disavowed, much like the waste on Santa
Monica beach. / What these responses have in common is that they are unable to acknowledge the fundamental status of poverty as a required reserve-surplus. A
constitutive exception, which Zizek labels the concrete universal that allows for the continued functioning of capitalism.


Resource overconsumption and distribution

Trainer „95
(Ted Trainer, Professor, University of Wales, The Conserver Society; Alternatives for Sustainability, p. 5)

The Third World problem has many causes but it is primarily due to the way the global economy distributes wealth, the
overconsumption of the rich countries and the disastrous mistaken conception of development that has been pursued.
Development has been defined essentially as an increase in business turnover, i.e., as indiscriminate economic growth. This inevitably results in the
allocation of the lion's share to the rich few, inappropriate development, the neglect of the
urgent needs of the poor majority, and in the application of most Third World productive capacity
to the interests of the rich. There cannot be satisfactory, appropriate development in the Third World unless the
rich countries move down to much lower per capita resource use, allow drastic redistribution of world wealth, and enable
most Third World land, labour and capital to produce what Third World people need. In other words, 'The rich must live more simply so
that the poor may simply live.'

Non-generalizable industrialization

Istvan Meszaros, Professor Emeritus, U Sussex, 1995, Beyond Capital, p. 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
                                                                                                                            as the self-
majority of humankind by a mere handful of capitalistically developed countries—hardly more than the G7—do not matter at all. For,
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, ignoring 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 results through ‗modernization‘ and ‗free-marketization.‘ Not
to mention the fact that  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 plant‘s limited
resources—enormously damaging already, although at present practiced only be the privileged
tiny minority—would make the whole system instantly collapse.




                                                                                                                                                                     60
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                 Cap K
CHANG
                                                    IMPACT – POVERTY
Continual gap growth

KASSIOLA „90
(Joel Jay, The Death of Industrial Civilization: The Limits to Economic Growth and the Repoliticization of Advanced Industrial
Society, p. 77)

In opposition to the defenders of unlimited economic growth, I would argue that it is they who are the real elitists. They argue in favor of
economic growth as the only policy to improve absolutely but not relatively (which would hurt the rich's
comparative standing), the gains of the poor. This is predicated upon the omission or even suppression of
the alternative policy of redistribution. An alternative policy, of course, would harm the elite members (probably in both absolute and
relative senses). Furthermore, the social policy of solving the problem of poverty through economic growth actually helps the
rich increase their advantages as indicated by distribution data in both advanced and
developing industrial countries.




                                                                                                                                        61
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                             Cap K
CHANG
                                                               IMPACT – POVERTY

Cap’s the structural root cause of global poverty – economic imperialism

Michael Parenti, Ph.D., Political Science, Yale; internationally renowned author and lecturer, 2007, ―How Capitalism Creates
Poverty in the World,‖ google

                               is it that as corporate investments and foreign aid and international loans to
There is a ―mystery‖ we must explain: How
poor countries have increased dramatically throughout the world over the last half century, so has poverty? The number of
people living in poverty is growing at a faster rate than the world‘s population. What do we make of this? / Over the last half
century, U.S. industries and banks (and other western corporations) have invested heavily in those poorer regions of Asia, Africa, and Latin America known as the
―Third World.‖ The transnationals are attracted by the rich natural resources, the high return that comes from low-paid labor, and the nearly complete absence of
taxes, environmental regulations, worker benefits, and occupational safety costs. / The U.S. government has subsidized this flight of capital by granting corporations
tax concessions on their overseas investments, and even paying some of their relocation expenses---much to the outrage of labor unions here at home who see their
                transnationals push out local businesses in the Third World and preempt their
jobs evaporating. / The
markets. American agribusiness cartels, heavily subsidized by U.S. taxpayers, dump surplus products in other
countries at below cost and undersell local farmers. As Christopher Cook describes it in his Diet for a Dead Planet, they expropriate the best land in
these countries for cash-crop exports, usually monoculture crops requiring large amounts of pesticides, leaving less and less acreage for the hundreds of varieties of
                                          By displacing local populations from their lands and robbing them of their self-
organically grown foods that feed the local populations. /
          corporations create overcrowded labor markets of desperate people who are forced into
sufficiency,
shanty towns to toil for poverty wages (when they can get work), often in violation of the countries‘ own minimum wage laws. / In
Haiti, for instance, workers are paid 11 cents an hour by corporate giants such as Disney, Wal-Mart, and J.C. Penny.
The United States is one of the few countries that has refused to sign an international convention for the abolition of child labor and forced labor. This position stems
from the child labor practices of U.S. corporations throughout the Third World and within the United States itself, where children as young as 12 suffer high rates of
injuries and fatalities, and are often paid less than the minimum wage. / The savings that big business reaps from cheap labor abroad are not passed on in lower prices
to their customers elsewhere. Corporations do not outsource to far-off regions so that U.S. consumers can save money. They outsource in order to increase their
margin of profit. In 1990, shoes made by Indonesian children working twelve-hour days for 13 cents an hour, cost only $2.60 but still sold for $100 or more in the
              U.S. foreign aid usually works hand in hand with transnational investment. It subsidizes construction of the
United States. /
infrastructure needed by corporations in the Third World: ports, highways, and refineries. / The aid given to Third World
governments comes with strings attached. It often must be spent on U.S. products, and the recipient nation is required to give investment
preferences to U.S. companies, shifting consumption away from home produced commodities and foods in favor of imported ones, creating more dependency, hunger,
and debt. / A good chunk of the aid money never sees the light of day, going directly into the personal coffers of sticky-fingered officials in the recipient countries. /
Aid (of a sort) also comes from other sources. In 1944, the United Nations created the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Voting power in both
organizations is determined by a country‘s financial contribution. As the largest ―donor,‖ the United States has a dominant voice, followed by Germany, Japan,
France, and Great Britain. The IMF operates in secrecy with a select group of bankers and finance ministry staffs drawn mostly from the rich nations. / The World
Bank and IMF are supposed to assist nations in their development. What actually happens is another story. A poor country borrows from the World Bank to build up
some aspect of its economy. Should it be unable to pay back the heavy interest because of declining export sales or some other reason, it must borrow again, this time
from the IMF. / But the IMF imposes a ―structural adjustment program‖ (SAP), requiring debtor countries to grant tax breaks to the transnational corporations, reduce
                                                                                                  debtor nations are pressured to
wages, and make no attempt to protect local enterprises from foreign imports and foreign takeovers. The
privatize their economies, selling at scandalously low prices their state-owned mines, railroads, and utilities to private corporations. / They are forced to
open their forests to clear-cutting and their lands to strip mining, without regard to the ecological damage done. The debtor nations also must cut back on subsidies for
health, education, transportation and food, spending less on their people in order to have more money to meet debt payments. Required to grow cash crops for export
earnings, they become even less able to feed their own populations. / So it is that throughout the Third World, real wages have declined, and national debts have
soared to the point where debt payments absorb almost all of the poorer countries‘ export earnings---which creates further impoverishment as it leaves the debtor
country even less able to provide the things its population needs. / Here then we have explained a ―mystery.‖ It is, of course, no mystery at all if you don‘t adhere to
                                                                           Loans, investments, and
trickle-down mystification. Why has poverty deepened while foreign aid and loans and investments have grown? Answer:
most forms of aid are designed not to fight poverty but to augment the wealth of transnational
investors at the expense of local populations. / There is no trickle down, only a siphoning up from the
toiling many to the moneyed few. / In their perpetual confusion, some liberal critics conclude that foreign aid and IMF and World Bank structural adjustments ―do not
work‖; the end result is less self-sufficiency and more poverty for the recipient nations, they point out. Why then do the rich member states continue to fund the IMF
and World Bank? Are their leaders just less intelligent than the critics who keep pointing out to them that their policies are having the opposite effect? / No, it is the
critics who are stupid not the western leaders and investors who own so much of the world and enjoy such immense wealth and success. They pursue their aid and
                                                                                    purpose behind their investments, loans, and
foreign loan programs because such programs do work. The question is, work for whom? Cui bono? / The
aid programs is not to uplift the masses in other countries. That is certainly not the business they are in. The purpose is to
serve the interests of global capital accumulation, to take over the lands and local economies of
Third World peoples, monopolize their markets, depress their wages, indenture their labor with
enormous debts, privatize their public service sector, and prevent these nations from emerging
as trade competitors by not allowing them a normal development. / In these respects,
investments, foreign loans, and structural adjustments work very well indeed.




                                                                                                                                                                     62
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                  Cap K
CHANG
                                        IMPACT – EXTINCTION | POVERTY
Growth imperative makes extinction and global poverty inevitable – alt is key to solve.

Meszaros 7
(Professor Emeritus, Philosophy and Political Theory, University of Sussex, ―The Only Viable Economy,‖ Monthly Review,
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0407meszaros.htm)

That is where the incorrigible divorce of capitalistic growth from human need and use – indeed its potentially
most devastating and destructive counter-position to human need -- betrays itself. Once the fetishistic
mystifications and arbitrary postulates at the root of the categorically decreed false identity of growth and productivity are
peeled away, it becomes abundantly clear that the kind of growth postulated and at the same time
automatically exempted from all critical scrutiny is in no way inherently connected with
sustainable objectives corresponding to human need. The only connection that must be asserted and defended
at all cost in capital's social metabolic universe is the false identity of -- aprioristically presupposed – capital expansion and circularly
corresponding (but in truth likewise aprioristically presupposed) "growth," whatever might be the consequences
imposed on nature and humankind by even the most destructive type of growth. For capital's real
concern can only be its own ever enlarged expansion, even if that brings with it the destruction of
humanity. In this vision even the most lethal cancerous growth must preserve its conceptual primacy over (against) human need
and use, if human need by any chance happens to be mentioned at all. The characteristically self-serving false
alternative of "growth or no growth" is evident even if we only consider what would be the
unavoidable impact of the postulated "no growth" on the grave conditions of inequality and
suffering in capital's social order. It would mean the permanent condemnation of humanity's
overwhelming majority to the inhuman conditions which they are now forced to endure. For they
are now in a literal sense forced to endure them, by their thousands of millions, when there
could be created a real alternative to it. Under conditions, that is, when it would be quite
feasible to rectify at least the worst effects of global deprivation: by putting to humanly
commendable and rewarding use the attained potential of productivity, in a world of now
criminally wasted material and human resources.




                                                                                                                                         63
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                          Cap K
CHANG
                                                     CAP COLLAPSE INEVITABLE
Capitalism’s collapse is inevitable – bond yield bottoming and money printing

CNBC 5/15
(CNBC, May 15, 2009, http://www.cnbc.com/id/30742936/)

Unless the system is cleaned out of losses, "the        way communism collapsed, capitalism will collapse," according to
Faber. "The best way to deal with any economic problem is to let the market work it through." / US Will Go Bust / The Federal Reserve's policy of
printing money is destabilizing the markets and creating "enormous volatility" said Faber, who in his latest "Gloom,
Boom & Doom Report" wrote that it was money printing that had pushed stock prices up. / "The US government for sure will go bust. That
I guarantee you. Not tomorrow, but it will go bust ," he added. / US government bond yields bottomed out in December 2008, he said. / "I think
this is the beginning of a long-term bear market. And I think the government will have to keep interest rates artificially low
because deficits will be too high," Faber said. As for the recent rally in the stock market, most investors missed it because they focused on the
economy rather than look at the technicalities. "People said fundamentals are bad and markets are going up for no reason. But money
printing is a reason," he said, explaining why quantitative easing will continue. / "The worse the statistics will be, the more money
will be printed. Believe me, globally all the central banks will print money like there's no tomorrow."
[Faber is a renowned investment analyst. Wikipedia: ―Dr. Faber is a regular contributor to several leading publications around the
world, Forbes and "International Wealth" which is a sister publication of the "Financial Times" amongst them. He also contributes to
several websites, such as Financial Intelligence and Asian Bond Portal, to name two. Others include Forbes, Die Welt, Finanzen,
Boerse, AME Info, Swiss Radio, Apple Hong Kong and Taiwan, Quamnet, Winners, Wealth and Oriental Daily. These, he writes on
a regular basis. He also writes occasionally for the Herald Tribune, Wall Street Journal and Borsa E Finanza.‖]


Voting neg is key to transition to a better society post-collapse – anything else is just a permutation within the
capitalist order

MICHAEL O'McCARTHY, writer, counterpunch; internationally published political journalist; progressive activist, 200 8, ―Is
capitalism collapsing? If so, who rules?‖ http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/4400/81/

Now in the United States, the pain, horror and guilt, (as in being "guilty") of the Iraq war aside, citizens are beginning to pay the hindmost. What was first apparent
was the skyrocketing cost of highway – street driving gas costs. Getting to or from work; picking up kids at school; going shopping, all begin to suddenly cost far
more than the average citizen can quickly absorb. Lying just beneath the surface however was the next great gouge in the side of Joe and Joan, Juan and Juanita,
Shamika and Ahmed, Chou and Lin: the great American dream of a homestead was exploding like a … bubble bath bubble!
/ What else the Wall Street Boys (and Girls given the likes of Martha) don‘t know, no matter how smart they pretend to be, is consequences of their "game." / Thus,
there are three crucial questions: / Is this "crisis" just a permutation within what once was a capitalist
economic order now taking place in what is more accurately labeled Pseudo Capitalism, (to borrow a term from my friend Steve Bindman‘s forth coming
book, PSEUDO CAPITALISM – Socialism for the Rich and the Coming Crisis?) / And if not – a complete collapse of this mutated form of statist government? /
And if the latter, who will rule? / The first two questions require more analysis than this article can provide. But the last question is
demanding even if it‘s another form of Pseudo Capitalist crisis that is sledge hammering the average person into poverty and ruin. / Who will rule? Where is a
democratic party with a socially oriented central plan to solve this crisis and to bring about long term planning that will make the economy democratic, the only real
solution to the theft of the US government and fraudulent corporations that bought our government?     Why aren‘t the "progressives" of the Left
out in the streets leading the charge for a centrally planned economy in the hands of socially democratically oriented politicians? It‘s time we stop letting
the liberal "progressives" play catch-up with Obama. We are way past bemoaning his pro-imperialist foreign policy; his pro-COINTELPRO attitude towards the
nation‘s spy apparatus; his pathetic take on the healthcare monopoly.




                                                                                                                                                                   64
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                              Cap K
CHANG
                                  XT / CAP COLLAPSE NOW | INEVITABLE
Cap collapsing now – polls prove public mindset shift

JOHNSTON 4/10
(Matthew Johnston, Writer, The Western Standard, http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2009/04/libertarian-party-47-of-
americans-reject-capitalism.html)

                                                    Independent Political Report today, Director of
In a fundraising letter from the U.S. Libertarian Party published by the
Communications Donny Ferguson writes: Somewhere, Barack Obama is smiling – and your freedoms are in greater
danger now than perhaps at any other point in our nation‘s history. You see, a new national poll finds

only 53% of Americans say capitalism is better than socialism. Another 27% aren‘t sure
which one is better. Really. And it gets even worse when you talk to people under 30.      Only 37% say capitalism works better
than socialism. 30% are too ignorant to know which one works better. One third of them, 33%, proudly claim socialism is the way to
go!These are the people who will be picking elected officials for the next 50 years. And as Barack
                                                                                              and more Americans
Obama, and Republicans in states like Indiana and California, continue to expand government, more
will simply give up and join the 47% who think the rubble of the Soviet Union is a blueprint for freedom. They only
need to convince 3% of Americans to give up to have their anti-capitalist majority.


Cap collapse now – unregulated expansion – NOW IS THE TIME TO CONTEST

The Guardian 6/23
(the guardian, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/23/pope-caritas-capitalism-encyclical, ellipses in
original)

Böckenforde suggests the       present crisis of capitalism presents a marvellous opportunity for its
opponents: The current evident collapse of capitalism because of its unlimited and almost
unregulated expansion can, and should, allow the social doctrine of the church a radical contestation of
it ... For their part, conservatives in Rome are still reeling from the fact that earlier the Vatican daily Osservatore Romano carried a
big front page piece (with photo) of one Gordon Brown, setting out his ideas for a global response to the banking
crisis. Whether or not Benedict sides with the German scholar and his calls for an outright drive against capitalism, the encyclical is
unlikely to make pleasant reading for capitalists.
[Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde is a reputable german scholar]




                                                                                                                                     65
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                          Cap K
CHANG
                                         XT / CAP COLLAPSE NOW | INEVITABLE

Cap is collapsing and its death is structurally inevitable – this ev is from a reformed conservative

McDonnald 6/10
(Paul McDonnald, has taught economics file at several universities; writing at the Christian Science Monitor,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0610/p09s01-coop.html)

Recessions, like hurricanes, leave wreckage behind – bankrupt businesses, high
unemployment, and sometimes even tattered philosophies. The philosophy of economic conservatism has long been one of unquestioned
deregulation. Conservatives have considered it as a way of unhooking government leashes that the economy strains against, setting it free to run at full speed
and lead us to wealth. But this philosophy seemed to collapse in the moral and financial wreckage of today's
recession. Like many conservatives, I was left facing uncomfortable questions, chiefly: Is
capitalism itself fatally flawed? I decided to consult a few past thinkers. In "The Communist Manifesto" (1848), Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels propose that capitalism has inherent weaknesses. Marx said these would lead capitalist economies to collapse and become
government-run socialist economies, and eventually utopian systems that he called communist. Today his words sound eerily current , like
answers on a Sunday morning political show: Interviewer: "Mr. Marx, not that long ago, lovers of capitalism pronounced your ideas dead. Now, according to at least
one source, we are all socialists. What changed?" Marx: "It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on its trial, each time more
threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society."     Interviewer: "Nowadays we call these 'crises' recessions. You predicted that over time,
capitalism would become dominated by larger and larger firms." Marx: "[T]he concentration of capital and land in a few
hands." Interviewer: "And how does this concentration bring on socialism?" Marx: "By paving the way for more
extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are
prevented." Interviewer: "So the bigger firms become, the harder they fall. In the US economy, some firms have become 'too
big to fail,' and the government has moved in. As this plays out, what will happen to capitalism?" Marx: " Its fall and the victory
of the proletariat are equally inevitable." Marx's disturbing words seemed even more prescient to me when I thought about what has
happened in the US banking industry. As recently as 1980, the US was a nation of mostly small - and medium-sized
banks. Employees knew, often on a personal basis, both the depositors and the borrowers. Deposits that were not loaned out had to be kept in low-risk
investments such as government bonds. People who claimed the mantle of conservatism dismantled the regulations behind this system. This shook the industry.
Through mergers and acquisitions, resources were centralized. The number of banks declined.
Huge conglomerates arose and created the complex world of global finance that later collapsed.
This is capitalism's dark side of impersonal corporation




                                                                                                                                                                  66
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                                                             Cap K
CHANG
                                                               XT / ALT SOLVENCY
[Extend and contextualize 1NC Johnston]

Theory creates movements – their limited view of the political is exactly what reinscribes the corporate narrative of
capital

Kerry Burch, Assistant Professor, Philosophy of Education, Northern Illinois University, 2001, ―The Significance of Critical
Pedagogy for Cultural Studies,‖ Theory and Event 5:3, Muse

Giroux shows how some new Left theorists, while recognizing the importance of class, also "made visible…interconnected forms of oppression organized against
women, racial minorities, gay men and lesbians, the aged, the disabled, and others" (25). On this basis, Giroux argues that      insurgent political
movements in the United States during the 1960s and after were positively affected by theoretical
work which initially emerged from the cultural realm but which evolved into a more classic political instantiation. According to Giroux, since Rorty and
Gitlin privilege class at the exclusion of other sites of identity construction, they overlook the vital pedagogical relation which
can potentially transform sites of cultural interpretation into a heightened political awareness, the obvious precondition for
heightened political action. To support this position, Giroux points to the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACTUP) and to feminist theorists, both of whom
broadened the scope of the political first through a cultural aegis. Giroux is persuasive in showing how Rorty and Gitlin's prescriptions, taken to their logical
                                                    The danger in adopting such a constricted view of the political
conclusion, would result in a deculturalization of politics.
within the academy is that it tacitly erects a protective, curricular shield around the corporate
narratives which increasingly govern the production of youth identity and desire. / This discourse is troubling because it separates culture from politics and
leaves little room for capturing the contradictions within dominant institutions that open up political and social possibilities for contesting
domination, doing critical work within the schools and other public spheres, of furthering the capacity of
students and others to question oppressive forms of authority and the operations of power (31,
emphasis added).



Personal comprehension is critical in and of itself – relegating politics to government policy proper causes mental
deputy politics – the impact is replication of violence

Kappeler 95
(Susanne Kappeler, The Will to Violence, p. 10-11)

Yetour insight that indeed we are not responsible for the decisions of a Serbian general or a Croatian
president tends to mislead us into thinking that therefore we have no responsibility at all, not even
for forming our own judgment, and thus into underrating the responsibility we do have within our
own sphere of action. In particular, it seems to absolve us from having to try to see any relation between our own actions and those events, or to
recognize the connections between those political decisions and our own personal decisions. It not only shows that we participate in what Beck calls 'organized
irresponsibility', upholding the apparent lack of connection between bureaucratically, institutionally, nationally, and also individually organized separate competences.
It also proves the phenomenal and unquestioned alliance of our personal thinking with the thinking of the major power mongers, For we tend to think that we cannot
'do' anything, say, about a war, because we deem ourselves to be in the wrong situation because we are not where the major decisions are made. Which is why
many of those not yet entirely disillusioned with politics tend to engage in a form of mental deputy politics, in the style of
'what would I do if I were the general, the prime minister, the president , the foreign minister or the minister of
defense?' Since we seem to regard their mega spheres of action as the only worthwhile and truly effective ones, and since our political analyses tend to dwell there first
of all, any question of what I would do if I were indeed myself tends to peter out in the comparative
insignificance of having what is perceived as 'virtually no possibilities': what I could do seems petty and futile. For my own action I obviously desire the range of
action of a general, a prime minister, or a General Secretary of the UN - finding expression in ever more prevalent formulations like 'I want to stop this war', 'I want
                                                             'We are this war', however, even if we do not
military intervention', 'I want to stop this backlash', or 'I want a moral revolution.
command the troops or participate in co-called peace talks, namely as Drakulic says, in our non-comprehension' :
our willed refusal to feel responsible for our own thinking and for working out our own understanding, preferring innocently to drift along
the ideological current of prefabricated arguments or less than innocently taking advantage of the advantages these offer. And we 'are' the war in our 'unconscious
                                                                                                readiness, in other words, to build
cruelty towards you', our tolerance of the 'fact that you have a yellow form for refugees and I don't'- our
identities, one for ourselves and one for refugees, one of our own and one for the 'others.' We share in the responsibility for this
war and its violence in the way we let them grow inside us, that is, in the way we shape 'our
feelings, our relationships, our values' according: to the structures and the values of war and
violence.




                                                                                                                                                                     67
Georgetown 2009                                                                                                          Cap K
CHANG
                                                  XT / ALT SOLVENCY
Every rejection matters

John Foster, Professor of Sociology, University of Oregon; Editor, Monthly Review, 2008, ―Capitalism versus the planet,‖
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/747/38655

Is humanity going to pull through this environmental crisis? If it is, what are the changes that are necessary?
Well, I think there are a couple of ways you could answer that question — one way would be that, as Noam Chomsky has answered
it, it‘s a question of optimism or pessimism, and in some way that‘s a psychological issue.   The really important thing is not
what we think the chances are, but what we‘re going to do. So if you think that there‘s a 1% chance that we‘re not going to
destroy the planet, and practically speaking, all living species, what matters is not that you think there‘s only a 1% chance, but
whether you‘re on the side of the 1% or not. So what matters is what we do. Certainly there are ways that we can get out of this
        do think that under capitalist system, if the logic of capital is predominant — that our society has as its primary
crisis. I
motivation the accumulation of capital and profits at the expense of nearly everything else — the      chances of the world
getting out of this alive are very, very dim. But it‘s within the power of humanity to pull us away
from the logic of capital. This invites the question of a social system which is something quite different. We won’t get there all
at once, but every radical thrust away from it gives us more of a chance , so we need to prioritize human needs
and decrease human waste. We have to prioritise human access to water, food and those basic things that human beings really
need. And we have to move away from those goods and processes and commodities that exist
only so that corporations can make a profit. Eventually, we have to politically transform our system and transform
our production. The reason we have to transform production is because that is the human relation to nature, its metabolism with
nature. The only way we can deal with the ecological problem is to change the way in which we relate to
nature through our production, and   that is precisely what the existing system won‘t allow us to address.




                                                                                                                                  68

								
To top