Скачать 186.2 Kb.
Capitalism Kritik 1NC 2
T – Investment 1NC 4
Protectionism DA 1NC 5
Reservations CP 1NC 8
Mandates DA 1NC 10
Racism Frontline 14
Impacts Frontline 16
Case defense subject to change. Includes Util. that is subject to change too.
Their politics reinforce capitalism - movements become specialized markets to remedy guilt while nothing actually changes
Dean 5 —Prof PoliSci @ William Smith College, PhD PoliSci @ Columbia (Jodi, “Zizek Against democracy,” ebsco)
Unlike most critical thinkers identified with the Left, Zizek rejects the current emphasis on multicultural tolerance. He has three primary reasons for rejecting multiculturalism as it is currently understood in cultural studies and democratic theory. First, agreeing with Wendy Brown, he argues that multiculturalism today rests on an acceptance of global capital. Insofar as Capital’s deterritorializations create the conditions for the proliferation of multiple, fluid, political subjectivities, new social movements and identity politics rely on a political terrain established by global capital. Multiculturalism thus ultimately accepts and depends on the depoliticization of the economy: “the way the economy functions (the need to cut social welfare, etc.) is accepted as a simple insight into the objective state of things.” We might think here of feminist struggles over the right to an abortion, political work toward marriage benefits for same sex couples, and energies in behalf of movies and television networks that target black audiences. In efforts such as these, political energy focuses on culture and leaves the economy as a kind of unquestioned, taken-for-granted basis of the way things are. This is not to say that identity politics are trivial. On the contrary, Zizek fully acknowledges the way these new forms of political subjectivization “thoroughly reshaped our entire political and cultural landscape.” Rather, the problem is that capital has adapted to these new political forms, incorporating previously transgressive urges and turning culture itself into its central component. Zizek’s argument would be stronger were he to think of new social movements as vanishing mediators. Identity politics opened up new spaces and opportunities for capitalist intensification. As new social movements transformed the lifeworld into something to be questioned and changed, they disrupted fixed identities and created opportunities for experimentation. The market entered as provider of these opportunities. We might think here of gay media. As Joshua Gamson argues, while gay portal sites initially promised to offer safe and friendly spaces for gay community building, they now function primarily “to deliver a market share to corporations.” In this gay media, “community needs are conflated with consumption desires, and community equated with market.” My point, then, is that social victories paved the way for market incursions into and the commodification of ever more aspects of experience. And once cultural politics morphed into capitalist culture, identity politics lost its radical edge. For example, the Republican Right in the U.S. regularly accuses the Left of playing the race card whenever there is opposition to a non-Anglo political appointee. A second argument Zizek employs against multiculturalism concerns the way that multicultural tolerance is part of the same matrix as racist violence. On the one hand, multicultural “respect” for the other is way of asserting the superiority of the multiculturalist. The multiculturalist adopts an emptied out, disembodied perspective toward an embodied, ethnic other. The ethnic other makes the “universal” position of the multiculturalist possible. Not only does this attitude disavow the particularity of the multiculturalist’s own position, but it also repeats the key gesture of global corporate capital: the big corporations will eat up, colonize, exploit, and commodify anything. They aren’t biased. They are empty machines following the logic of Capital. On the other hand, tolerance towards the other “passes imperceptibly into a destructive hatred of all (“fundamentalist”) Others who do not fit into our idea of tolerance—in short, against all actual Others.” The idea is that the liberal democrat, or multiculturalist, is against hatred and harassment. Tolerance, then, is tolerance for another who also doesn’t hate or harass, that is, tolerance for an other who is not really so other at all. To this extent, the multicultural position blurs into a kind of racism such that respect is premised on agreement and identity. The other with deep fundamental beliefs, who is invested in a set of unquestionable convictions, whose enjoyment is utterly incomprehensible to me, is not the other of multiculturalism. For Zizek, then, today’s tolerant liberal multiculturalism is “an experience of the Other deprived of its Otherness (the idealized Other who dances fascinating dances and has an ecologically sound holistic approach to reality, while practices like wife-beating remain out of sight . . .).” Just as in Eastern Europe after the fall of communism, so today’s reflexive multicultural tolerance has as its opposite, and thus remains caught in the matrix of, a hard kernel of fundamentalism, of irrational, excessive, enjoyment. The concrete realization of rational inclusion and tolerance coincides with contingent, irrational, violence.
Capitalism makes war inevitable
Mark Harrison, Research fellow at the Hoover Institution and Professor of Economics at the University of Warwick, October 19, 2011, Capitalism at War http://ssrn.com/abstract=1992623
There is a persistent view that, without wars, capitalism would fall into depression (e.g. Steindl 1952; Baran and Sweezy 1966). The philosophy of “military Keynesianism” maintains that capitalist economies tend to suffer from a deficiency of demand, and will stagnate without frequent injections of demand into the circular flow of income. The deficiency can be made up by debt-financed military spending combined with the Keynesian multiplier. If so, it does not follow that “capitalism means war.” Rather, it implies one more way in which capitalism has reduced the costs of war. In this case, it is suggested that capitalism can supply war free of charge. If the weapons and armies were not bought up by the government, the resources they represent would be unused; this would make war a free lunch. The lunch will then be eaten, not because we are hungry, but because it is free.
Our alternative is to reject the Aff’s capitalist model of development
Movements against capitalism are possible now, our job as intellectuals is to attack the imperialist system at every turn
Wise (Director of Doctoral Program in Migration Studies & Prof of Development Studies; Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, Mexico) 9
(Raúl Delgado, Forced Migration and US Imperialism: The Dialectic of Migration and Development, Crit Sociol, 35: 767, ProQuest)
The theoretical framework outlined in this article for understanding the dialectic relationship between development and migration has four critical components. A Critical Approach to Neoliberal Globalization Contrary to the discourse regarding its inevitability (on this see Petras and Veltmeyer, 2000), we posit that the current phase of imperialist domination is historical and can and should be transformed. In this regard, it is fundamental to notice that ‘[t]he principal factor generating international migration is not globalization but imperialism, which pillages nations and creates conditions for the exploitation of labor in the imperial center’ (Petras, 2007: 51–2). A Critical Reconstitution of the Field of Development Studies The favoring of a singular mode of analysis based on the belief that free markets work as powerful regulatory mechanisms, efficiently assigning resources and providing patterns of economic convergence among countries and their populations, has clearly resulted in failure. New theoretical and practical alternatives are needed, and we propose a reevaluation of development as a process of social transformation through a multi-dimensional, multi-spatial, and properly contextualized approach, ‘using the concept of imperialism as an alternative explanatory framework of international capitalist expansion and the growing inequalities’ (Petras and Veltmeyer, 2000). This integral approach requires the consideration of the strategic and structural aspects of the dynamic of uneven contemporary capitalism development, which should be examined at the global, regional, national, and local levels. For this purpose it is crucial to understand, inter alia, a) the central role played by foreign investment in the process of neoliberal restructuring of peripheral economies, and b) the new modalities of surplus transfer characterizing contemporary capitalism. The Construction of an Agent of Change The globalization project led by the USA has ceased to be consensual: it has only benefited capitalist elites and excluded and damaged an overwhelming number of people throughout the world. Economic, political, social, cultural and environmental changes are all needed but a transformation of this magnitude is not viable unless diverse movements, classes, and agents can establish common goals. The construction of an agent of change requires not only an alternative theory of development but also collective action and horizontal collaboration: the sharing of experiences, the conciliation of interests and visions, and the construction of alliances inside the framework of South-South and South-North relations. A Reassessment of Migration and Development Studies The current explosion of forced migration is part of the intricate machinery of contemporary capitalism as an expression of the dominant imperialist project. In order to understand this process we need to redefine the boundaries of studies that address migration and development: expand our field of research and invert the terms of the unidirectional orthodox vision of the migration-development nexus in order to situate the complex issues of uneven development and imperialist domination at the center of an alternative dialectical framework. This entails a new way of understanding the migration phenomenon.
Перевела с английского Гринева Н. И. по изданию: Change your ihinkg change your life by Brian Tracy. S. F.: Berrett-Koehler Publishers,...