Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[3]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[4]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[3]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-12 05:58:38.586
	1	+2016-09-12 05:58:38.0

Caselist.CitesClass[4]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,14 @@
	1	+Socialist societies need more energy – concerns of overconsumption are only true in a capitalist system that tries to keep the poor in poverty
	2	+Walters 13 – power plant operator and Socialist Organizer (David, The Socialist Case for Nuclear Energy, The Breakthrough 16 Nov 2013 http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/the-socialist-case-for-nuclear-energy Acc 9 Aug 2016) CW
	3	+Marx understood at least under communism, production would have to increase to alleviate the grinding poverty that prevailed in 90 percent of the world’s population of his day. In his 1847 essay The Principles of Communism, he posed the following question and provided an answer: What will be the consequences of the ultimate disappearance of private property? Society will take all forces of production and means of commerce, as well as the exchange and distribution of products, out of the hands of private capitalists and will manage them in accordance with a plan based on the availability of resources and the needs of the whole society. In this way, most important of all, the evil consequences which are now associated with the conduct of big industry will be abolished. There will be no more crises; the expanded production, which for the present order of society is overproduction and hence a prevailing cause of misery, will then be insufficient and in need of being expanded much further. Instead of generating misery, overproduction will reach beyond the elementary requirements of society to assure the satisfaction of the needs of all; it will create new needs and, at the same time, the means of satisfying them. It will become the condition of, and the stimulus to, new progress, which will no longer throw the whole social order into confusion, as progress has always done in the past. Big industry, freed from the pressure of private property, will undergo such an expansion that what we now see will seem as petty in comparison as manufacture seems when put beside the big industry of our own day. This development of industry will make available to society a sufficient mass of products to satisfy the needs of everyone. The same will be true of agriculture, which also suffers from the pressure of private property and is held back by the division of privately owned land into small parcels. Here, existing improvements and scientific procedures will be put into practice, with a resulting leap forward which will assure to society all the products it needs. In this way, such an abundance of goods will be able to satisfy the needs of all its members. This holds as true today as it ever did in the imagination of Karl Marx before the 1848 upheavals across the European continent. For today’s 7 billion (and growing) people, Socialism, which can only be built by harnessing the productive forces of the entire planet, promises what Marx wrote of in 1847. But we can do it wisely, and democratically, only if we eliminate the global imperialist system. Such a world of abundance will require more, not less energy. Yet, there is a belief, especially in the advanced Western countries of Europe and North America among Socialists and activists for social change, that humans “use too much.” This is an idea that has been absorbed from the forces around the Greens and others who think there are too many people, that we cannot possibly sustain so many people on Earth, and that if we brought the standard of living of the entire world up to that enjoyed by workers in these Western countries, the planet would be ruined. Doing so under capitalism, the world would be ruined. Capitalism has no way to lift the masses from poverty. Consider the following: There are 1.6 billion people with no electricity. Billions of people have no access to energy efficient mass transportation. Billions of people have little or no access to education and health care. Increasingly vicious wars and privatization continue to cause grinding poverty, dislocation and environmental destruction. Capitalism is the cause. To bring the entire world to the (rapidly dropping) levels of Western workers or “middle income” families would require not simply a fundamental increase in wealth redistribution and energy, but a vast per-capita increase in both. But the refrain from many environmentalists and even Socialists continued: “We use too much!” This is as reactionary as wanting to bust unions or launch wars of aggression of neo-colonial conquest.
	4	+
	5	+Socialism is a prereq – under capitalism there can be no discussion over the safety of new tech
	6	+Socialist Labor Party 81 (Socialism and Nuclear Power, A Socialist Labor Party Statement 1981 http://www.slp.org/res_state_htm/soc_nuc_power.html Acc 9 Aug 2016) CW
	7	+Socialists can bring many important insights to the questions and concerns raised by nuclear technology. However, two aspects of the socialist perspective on the nuclear power issue are primary. One is the socialist understanding that in a profit-motivated capitalist economy, nuclear power, like all other technology, will inevitably be developed and applied in an unsafe and environmentally destructive manner. The other is the realization that only in a socialist society democratically controlled by workers will it be possible to rationally assess how—or if—nuclear power can be safely harnessed. Certainly, no solution to the current nuclear danger can be found by taking the problem out of the social context in which it exists. The primary problem with any technology under capitalism—even nuclear technology, which admittedly poses special problems—is not that it is inherently safe or unsafe, but rather that it is controlled by a ruling-class minority which manipulates technology to serve its narrow economic interests. Accordingly, amidst the growing concern over the nuclear dangers posed both by commercial power plants and by the obscene proliferation of nuclear weapons, the task of Marxists is to consistently emphasize the need to free all technology from the fetters of capitalist productive relations.
	8	+Class focus must come first – it is the root cause of all oppression and turns case because it creates poverty and exploitation in the first place. Kovel 07,
	9	+Kovel, Prof. of Social Studies @ Bard, 2007 Joel, “The Enemy of Nature”, p. 140-
	10	+If, however, we ask the question of efficacy, that is, which split sets the others into motion, then priority would have to be given to class, for the plain reason that class relations entail the state as an instrument of enforcement and control, and it is the state that shapes and organizes the splits that appear in human ecosystems. Thus class is both logically and historically distinct from other forms of exclusion (hence we should not talk of "classism" to go along with "sexism" and "racism," and "species-ism"). This is, first of all, because class is an essentially man-made category, without root in even a mystified biology. We cannot, in other words, imagine a human world without gender distinctions - although we can imagine a world without domination by gender. But a world without class is eminently imaginable - indeed, such was the human world for the great majority of our species' time on earth, during all of which considerable fuss was made over gender. Historically, the difference arises because "class" signifies one side of a larger figure that includes a state apparatus whose conquests and regulations create races and shape gender relations. Thus there will be no true resolution of racism so long as class society stands, inasmuch as a racially oppressed society implies the activities of a class-defending state." Nor can gender inequality be legislated away so long as class society, with its state, demands the super-exploitation of woman's labor. Class society continually generates gender, racial, ethnic oppressions, and the like, which take on a life of their own, as well as profoundly affecting the concrete relations of class itself. It follows that class politics must be fought out in terms of all the active forms of social splitting. It is the management of these divisions that keeps state society functional. Thus though each person in a class society is reduced from what s/he can become, the varied reductions can be combined into the great stratified regimes of history - this one becoming a fierce warrior, that one a routine-loving clerk, another a submissive seamstress, and so on, until we reach today's personifications of capital and captains of industry. Yet no matter how functional a class society, the profundity of its ecological violence ensures a basic antagonism which drives history onward. History is the history of class society - because no matter how modified, so powerful a schism is bound to work itself through to the surface, provoke resistance (i.e. "class struggle"), and lead to the succession of powers. The relation of class can be mystified without end - only consider the extent to which religion exists for just this purpose, or watch a show glorifying the police on television - yet so long as we have any respect for human nature, we must recognize that so fundamental an antagonism as would steal the vital force of one person for the enrichment of another cannot be conjured away. The state is what steps forward to manage this conflict so that the ruling class gets its way without causing society to fly apart. It is the state's province to deal with class contradiction as it works itself out in numberless ways - to build its armies and use them in conquest (thereby reinforcing patriarchal and violent values), to codify property, to set forth laws to punish those who would transgress property relations, and to regulate contracts, and debts between individuals who play by the rules, to institutionalize police, courts and prisons to back up those laws, or to certify what is proper and right in the education of the young, or the marriage of the sexes, or establish the religions that justify God's ways to mere man, or to institutionalize science and education - in sum, to regulate and enforce the class structure, and to channel the flux of history in the direction of the elites. The state institutionalizes patriarchy as well as class, and hence maintains the societal ground for the gendered bifurcation of nature. Furthermore, inasmuch as the modern state is also a nation-state, it employs the attachment of a people to its land as a source of legitimation, and thus incorporates the history of nature into myths of wholeness and integrity. All aspects of the domination of nature are in fact woven into the fabric by means of which the state holds society together, from which it follows that to give coherence to this narrative and make a difference in it, we have to attend to the state and its ultimate dependence upon maintaining the class structure. All of this is to play a basic role in the unfolding of contemporary ecological struggles, as we discuss in the next section.
	11	+
	12	+The alternative is to invest in small modular reactors. More cheap and carbon free energy is necessary to bring people out of poverty –SMR’s are the best option since they are cheap and can be built anywhere. Key to sparking socialist energy revolution.
	13	+Walters 13 – power plant operator and Socialist Organizer (David, The Socialist Case for Nuclear Energy, The Breakthrough 16 Nov 2013 http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/the-socialist-case-for-nuclear-energy Acc 9 Aug 2016) CW
	14	+While massive amounts of renewable energy has been deployed in Europe, not a single fossil-fuel plant has been phased out as a result. Nuclear, however, immediately displaces a fossil-fuel generation plant. China, which today has 30 nuclear plants under construction, would be building 30 coal-fired plants if the nation could not or was not allowed to go nuclear. Socialists should not only be defending the right of developing countries to build nuclear power plants, we should be demanding the bosses’ governments do so, and expand its deployment. We should be fighting for workers governments to come to power to organize society along the lines outlined here. Socialists should oppose waste and inefficiency. These problems are worse in underdeveloped countries than in the advanced countries, but because per-capita energy use is much higher in the latter any amount of wasted energy generally compounds already existing problems from garbage to over-extraction of resources to pollution, as well as climate change. We should be for conservation and efficiency as a function of any rational society based on human needs and not profit. But this doesn’t mean lowering anyone’s standard of living (except the bankers and bosses, of course!). It really means a full-on reorganization of our productive and consumption capacity with the goal of raising the development level of the underdeveloped world in a rational and democratic manner, no longer under the jackboot of imperialism. What does this mean, really, in many underdeveloped countries where only 10 percent of the population has access to electricity? Does it mean a 50-inch flat-screen LCD television? A 24-cubic-foot sub-zero refrigerator? Central air conditioning and two SUVs in the front of a 3,000-square-foot home? Of course not. And yet, this seems to be what so many think when they object to raising the standard of living of the billions in underdeveloped countries to those of the West. No, it means this: it means the right to generate and use electricity. The right to the ubiquitous light switch we take for granted in the West. It means electric light available day and night, whenever an individual decides he or she wants to read, whenever a student wants to study. It means at least a small refrigerator where leftovers can be chilled without spoiling. It means a laptop computer and access to the Internet. It means, perhaps, a small television. It means some air conditioning, perhaps only in one room, so children don’t suffer diseases brought on by increasing temperatures in our world. It means an electric hotplate or stovetop so the 30,000 women and children who die every year in India from cooking with charcoal indoors can live. That is what energy means, and that is why we need more of it, a lot more, and why it has to be carbon free. This is what it will take to make all of Africa, India, and most of South Asia “developed.” The antinuclear movement condemns billions of people to decades’ more energy starvation because of misplaced liberal guilt over greenhouse gas emissions. Rather than coming up with truly better ways to produce energy, this movement wants us to down-gear and “use less.” This is why antinuclear idealism should be characterized as a reactionary response to the climate crisis, and it explains why Socialists who adapt to the Green ideology have lost their bearings. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) of 30MW to 300MWs can be built in mass production lines, lowering their cost. They can be set up in rural parts of any country and have an electricity grid literally built around them that could, eventually, be connected to and form a national grid that would enhance development and raise people’s standard of living. There are only two things holding this up.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-12 05:58:38.936

Judge

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

Opponent

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

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lynbrook Venkatesh Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SMR Cap K

Tournament

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