Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[4]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[4]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,38 +1,0 @@
1		-=Capitalism K=
2		-
3		-
4		-====The Capitalist regime has co-opted the way we value things, and look at ethics. It has created a fantasy where nothing but capitalism matters. We must overcome and traverse this ideology. Everything we have come to know is just a fiction set up by this fantasy, framed by those in a position of privilege who force us to make distinct concepts and characteristics of the world to benefit them. Reject this notion of exploitation and join me in putting on the critic ideological lenses by traversing this fantasy.====
5		-Slavoj Zizek, researcher at the institute of sociology at the university of Ljubljana, The Plague of Fantasies, 1997. Preface xi-xiii EM
6		-In caring for his own household, the city of Bucharest, Ceaujescu made a
7		-AND
8		-is - we are 'naturally' in ideology, our natural sight is ideological.
9		-
10		-
11		-====The claim that free speech leads to democratic debate and social progress is a neoliberal myth used to sustain the subjugation of the capitalist elite – the 1ACs faith in the free exchange of ideas displaces a focus on direct action and re-entrenches facets of oppression. ====
12		-**Tillett-Saks 13
13		-**Andrew Tillett-Saks (Labor organizer and critical activist author for Truth-Out and Counterpunch), Neoliberal Myths, Counterpunch, 11/7/13, http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/07/neoliberal-myths/ //LADI
14		-In the wake of the Brown University shout-down of Ray Kelly, champion
15		-AND
16		-freedom. To the contrary, direct action has always proved necessary.
17		-
18		-
19		-
20		-====Discursive framing is backwards—ideology and consumption patterns are determined by material inequalities. Discourse theory cedes politics by reducing radical action to 'transgressive' speech acts **Tumino '8** Stephen Tumino, professor of English at the University of Pittsburgh, "Materiality in Contemporary Cultural Theory," The Red Critique, Fall/Winter 2008, accessed 1/21/10 http://www.redcritique.org/FallWinter2008/materialityincontemporaryculturaltheory.htm====
21		-One of the mainstays of contemporary cultural theory is the argument that the social is primarily shaped by culture. Culture, that is, not as a collection of artifacts or an archive of progress, but, rather, following the writings of Antonio Gramsci, as "an arena of consent and resistance" (Stuart Hall, "Deconstructing" 239) over the shape of the social. Contemporary cultural theory has extended the understanding of culture beyond universalist, and, therefore, supposedly elitist assumptions and normative hegemonic conclusions about culture and instead focused on culture as "the articulation and activation of meaning" (Storey xiii) on the grounds that it is primarily discourse that possesses "the power and the authority to define social reality" (xii). The meaning(s) in a culture that secure and contest the dominant social arrangements are thought to lie in what Michel de Certeau calls "secondary production" (xiii), the sphere of consumption, rather than the economic sphere of production. In these terms, it is the "consumer who in effect 'produces in use'" (xiii) the meaning(s) of the culture that determines social reality. So much has such a focus on the daily practices of consumption and identification been "central to the project of cultural studies" (xi) that some have simply argued that "cultural studies could be described ... perhaps more accurately as ideological studies" (James Carey qtd. in Storey xii). The focus in cultural theory on the constitutive power of discourse to define social reality has shifted the attention of cultural studies from the wider social relations of production which shape ideology and consumption and in fact determine the social real, toward a market theory of culture which valorizes the excessive "uses" and "resignifications" of cultural commodities and in doing so transforms the subject of labor into the subject of consumption who, far from intervening into global capital, supports it through "resistant" desires and "rebellious" acts of consumption. Cultural theory, in other words, rests on the assumption that consumption determines production rather than the other way around. People's "lifestyles" (which is another way of referring to the commodities they consume and how they consume them) are thus assumed to be more significant, in these terms, than the labor relations they must enter into as a necessary precondition of consumption. Such an assumption concludes that the markers and beliefs that position individuals in culture as men and women, black, latino, gay,… are more important than the fact that they are wage workers that must first sell themselves daily to capital before they can acquire the cultural markers of identity. Such an understanding of the priority of the economic is seen on the cultural left as "left conservatism" (Butler, Bové, et. al.) because it forecloses on differences. But as Teresa Ebert has explained, "differences in class societies are always exploitative" (169) because they serve to divide and segment the working class and foster competition between the workers. At the core of the labor theory of culture is the explanation of how culturalism itself has an economic basis in the division of labor – and more specifically, in the crisis of overproduction that is endemic to capitalism since the 1970s—and reflects the interests of those who having had their material needs already met from the labor of the other can afford to focus on their desires in the market.
22		-
23		-
24		-====The state isn't the innocent hero they make it out to be, it's the dangerous joker that waits in the dark preying on the innocent. As long as action is taken in the context of the state, it's doomed to maintain the capitalist machine. This is especially true in the context of promoting rights. Even fiat can't escape the blood thirsty mindset of maximizing economic growth. Evans Tony Evans~~ Department of Politics, University of Southampton, Highfield~~ Citizenship and Human Rights in the Age of Globalization. ====
25		-This interpretation of civil society constitutes relations between public and private spheres that offer a unique opportunity for new forms of social power. This social power is located in the legitimation of rights, which are claimed by individuals as members of civil society. As expressed by Ellen Meiksins Wood, civil society x legitimasents "a particular network of social relations which does not simply stand in opposition to the coercive, `policing' and `administrative' functions of the state but represents the relocation of these functions, or at least some significant part of them."~~74~~ The role of the state is to oversee the existing order, to act as "night watchman" for guaranteeing "fair play" and the "rules of the game," rather than to initiate change, which is the role of civil society.~~75~~ All thought of transforming civil society through the formal political processes represented by the state is illusory.~~76~~ Although the image of the state as the guardian of individual human rights continues to be widely shared—including the image of the state acting as the agent of civil society in fulfilling the citizens' duty to deal with unacceptable inequalities—in this reading of civil society the state is more concerned with property, appropriation, exploitation, and securing the domination of particular economic interests, and it acts accordingly to protect the violation of these values. In short, the separation of public from private life, politics from economics, and the state from civil society provides a context where "political emancipation emancipates civil society from politics and opens the way for the unfettered materialism of interests."~~77~~
26		-
27		-
28		-====This is uniquely bad- affirming the resolution makes the state look like a best friend- the state is able to pull of the façade of caring for its citizenry when in reality its merely using them as a means to acquiring more capital- silences criticism because if the state looks perfect and reformatory then widespread coalitions have no focal points to rally around. This means that the 1AC forecloses the possibility of ever creating an authentic solution to capitalism because we A) fail to recognize it still pervades our lives and B) think that those conditions are a good thing. Actions taken within the capitalist system only reproduce and make the system stronger. ====
29		-
30		-
31		-====The ROB is to Evaluate the debate as a dialectical materialist—you are a historian inquiring into the determinant factors behind the 1AC **Tumino '1** Stephen Tumino, professor of English at the University of Pittsburgh, "What is Orthodox Marxism and Why it Matters Now More Than Ever Before," Red Critique, Spring 2001, http://redcritique.org/spring2001/whatisorthodoxmarxism.htm jss====
32		-Any effective political theory will have to do at least two things: it will have to offer an integrated understanding of social practices and, based on such an interrelated knowledge, offer a guideline for praxis. My main argument here is that among all contesting social theories now, only Orthodox Marxism has been able to produce an integrated knowledge of the existing social totality and provide lines of praxis that will lead to building a society free from necessity. But first I must clarify what I mean by Orthodox Marxism. Like all other modes and forms of political theory, the very theoretical identity of Orthodox Marxism is itself contested—not just from non-and anti-Marxists who question the very "real" (by which they mean the "practical" as under free-market criteria) existence of any kind of Marxism now but, perhaps more tellingly, from within the Marxist tradition itself. I will, therefore, first say what I regard to be the distinguishing marks of Orthodox Marxism and then outline a short polemical map of contestation over Orthodox Marxism within the Marxist theories now. I will end by arguing for its effectivity in bringing about a new society based not on human rights but on freedom from necessity. I will argue that to know contemporary society—and to be able to act on such knowledge—one has to first of all know what makes the existing social totality. I will argue that the dominant social totality is based on inequality—not just inequality of power but inequality of economic access (which then determines access to health care, education, housing, diet, transportation, . . . ). This systematic inequality cannot be explained by gender, race, sexuality, disability, ethnicity, or nationality. These are all secondary contradictions and are all determined by the fundamental contradiction of capitalism which is inscribed in the relation of capital and labor. All modes of Marxism now explain social inequalities primarily on the basis of these secondary contradictions and in doing so—and this is my main argument—legitimate capitalism. Why? Because such arguments authorize capitalism without gender, race, discrimination and thus accept economic inequality as an integral part of human societies. They accept a sunny capitalism—a capitalism beyond capitalism. Such a society, based on cultural equality but economic inequality, has always been the not-so-hidden agenda of the bourgeois left—whether it has been called "new left," "postmarxism," or "radical democracy." This is, by the way, the main reason for its popularity in the culture industry—from the academy (Jameson, Harvey, Haraway, Butler,. . . ) to daily politics (Michael Harrington, Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson,. . . ) to. . . . For all, capitalism is here to stay and the best that can be done is to make its cruelties more tolerable, more humane. This humanization (not eradication) of capitalism is the sole goal of ALL contemporary lefts (marxism, feminism, anti-racism, queeries, . . . ). Such an understanding of social inequality is based on the fundamental understanding that the source of wealth is human knowledge and not human labor. That is, wealth is produced by the human mind and is thus free from the actual objective conditions that shape the historical relations of labor and capital. Only Orthodox Marxism recognizes the historicity of labor and its primacy as the source of all human wealth. In this paper I argue that any emancipatory theory has to be founded on recognition of the priority of Marx's labor theory of value and not repeat the technological determinism of corporate theory ("knowledge work") that masquerades as social theory. Finally, it is only Orthodox Marxism that recognizes the inevitability and also the necessity of communism—the necessity, that is, of a society in which "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs" (Marx) is the rule.
33		-
34		-
35		-====Vote Neg to endorse revolutionary theory
36		-
37		-This is a prior question—we should affirm the historical necessity of communism **Tumino '12** Stephen Tumino, more marxist than Marx himself, "Is Occupy Wall Street Communist," Red Critique 14, Winter/Spring 2012, http://www.redcritique.org/WinterSpring2012/isoccupywallstreetcommunist.htm jss====
38		-Leaving aside that the purpose of Wolff's speech was to popularize a messianic vision of a more just society based on workplace democracy, he is right about one thing: Marx's original contribution to the idea of communism is that it is an historical and material movement produced by the failure of capitalism not a moral crusade to reform it. Today we are confronted with the fact that capitalism has failed in exactly the way that Marx explained was inevitable.~~4~~ It has "simplified the class antagonism" (The Communist Manifesto); by concentrating wealth and centralizing power in the hands of a few it has succeeded in dispossessing the masses of people of everything except their labor power. As a result it has revealed that the ruling class "is unfit to rule," as The Communist Manifesto concludes, "because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him." And the slaves are thus compelled to fight back. Capitalism makes communism necessary because it has brought into being an international working class whose common conditions of life give them not only the need but also the economic power to establish a society in which the rule is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme). Until and unless we confront the fact that capitalism has once again brought the world to the point of taking sides for or against the system as a whole, communism will continue to be just a bogey-man or a nursery-tale to frighten and soothe the conscience of the owners rather than what it is—the materialist theory that is an absolute requirement for our emancipation from exploitation and a new society freed from necessity! As Lenin said, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement" (What Is To Be Done?). We are confronted with an historic crisis of global proportions that demands of us that we take Marxism seriously as something that needs to be studied to find solutions to the problems of today. Perhaps then we can even begin to understand communism in the way that The Communist Manifesto presents it as "the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority" to end inequality forever.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-12-17 01:01:45.0

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Savaan

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-3

Round

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-1

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Dulles Kurian Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Marxist K

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Strake