Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[47]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[47]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,13 +1,0 @@
1		-The university has become the cornerstone of production, where research and learning has become more and more focused on using students as capital for knowledge economies and mass capitalist globalization.
2		-Peters and Besley 06 (Michael A. Peters and A.C. Besley, Building Knowledge Cultures: Education and Development in the Age of Knowledge Capitalism, 2006, pp 24-25, 7/5/2016)
3		-It is not hard to make the leap from informatization and the postmodernization of production to an understanding of the implications for higher education or, indeed, schooling per se. In this context, we can easily talk of the informatization of knowledge production. We can recognize, as have many national governments, the significance of higher education in the knowledge economy, and the role of research in bolstering productivity. Many of the strategies concerning technology transfer have been centered on universities, with an emphasis on partnerships with business and the development of new start-up and spin-off companies. Governments have also tried to encourage the “clustering” of universities as a means of regional development. There has been a general reorientation of university curricula toward more practical and vocational knowledge, and university teachers and lectures are increasingly encouraged to engage in e-learning and to prepare their lectures as part of online courses. In this context, the questions of immaterial labor, intellectual property, and the culturalization of economic knowledge become leading policy issues. The World Bank recognizes the importance of tertiary education systems for developing and transitional economies, which face significant new trends regarding the convergent impacts of globalization, the information and communication revolutions, and the increasing importance of knowledge as a main driver of growth. The bank now argues that the role of tertiary education in the construction of knowledge economies and democratic societies is more influential than ever and that tertiary education is central to knowledge creation and production. At the same time, there is the danger of a growing digital divide between strata within developing countries between North and South. In a major report, Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education, the World Bank (2002) describes how tertiary education contributes to building up a country’s capacity for participating in an increasingly knowledge-based world economy. It also investigates policy options for tertiary education that have the potential to enhance economic growth and reduce poverty. In some ways, the report indicates new directions. While it expands on Higher Education: The Lessons of Experience (World Bank 1994), it also emphasizes new trends, particularly the emerging role of knowledge as a major driver of economic development, and greater competition from nontraditional providers in a “borderless education” environment. The report recognizes that modes of delivery and organizational structures will become transformed as a result of the communications revolution. It comments on the rise of market forces in tertiary education and the emergence of a global market for advanced human capital.
4		-The First Ammendment has become a tool of neoliberal governmentality furthering the capacity of corporations to influence decision-making
5		-Cohen, 2015 Cohen, Julie E., Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center “The Zombie First Amendment”, William and Mary Law Review, vol. 56, forthcoming 2015, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2473798anddownload=yes
6		-So far, I have argued that First Amendment scholars should pay more systematic attention to a set of developments that only partially overlaps the territory long conceived as the First Amendment’s traditional core. Many of those developments involve private economic activity and proprietary claims to information. In general, the Court has resolved First Amendment claims relating to private economic activity in a way that ratifies emerging distributions of information power. In this respect, contemporary First Amendment jurisprudence aligns with what scholars in a variety of fields have identified as a more general shift toward a neoliberal governmentality that emphasizes market liberties and a market-based approach to political participation.64 Constitutional law does not itself produce the shift toward neoliberal governmentality. As Morton Horwitz has observed, “A constitutional revolution can take place only when the intellectual ground has first been prepared.”65 Horwitz was describing the New Deal revolution in constitutional law, and more particularly the need to take careful note of its prehistory. As his research showed, the development of private and commercial law during both the antebellum period and the post-Civil War years established the distributive backdrop against which the constitutional disputes of the Lochner and New Deal eras were litigated. Economic regulation was commonplace in the nineteenth century, and initially emerged in ways that reinforced emerging patterns of industrial power, while judges came to understand the common law instrumentally, as a tool for promoting commerce and economic development.66 The judicial philosophy that produced Lochner was in part a reaction to perceived special-interest legislation that threatened property interests, but the turn toward social science methodology that progressive legal thought set in motion also tended to validate existing economic arrangements.67 Similarly, the First Amendment jurisprudence outlined in Part I takes its shape from an antecedent pattern of subconstitutional settlements and justifications that reflects perceived economic, commercial, and political imperatives. The point I want to make here is most aptly characterized as Hohfeldian: in the emerging information economy, the balance of rights, privileges, powers, and immunities that characterized the industrial economy and the regulatory frameworks put in place to constrain it is shifting.68 The transformation now underway in our political economy is engendering a corresponding shift in the distribution of legal power and privilege that extends across doctrinal boundaries and that is far more fundamental than the subject-matter divisions that such boundaries attempt to impose. A. Corporate Citizens in the Marketplace In both Citizens United and the earlier cases about the free speech rights of media companies on which the Citizens United majority relied, the Court took as given that corporations speak in the same ways that people do and that money enhances communicative power in a linear, additive way. Those assumptions are charmingly oldfashioned. In the contemporary information economy, the expressive power of capital is not additive but rather multiplicative and synergistic. One of the principal vehicles for the expressive power of capital is the corporate brand, and corporations rely on their brands to engage in norm entrepreneurship on a wide range of social, economic, and technical issues. The communicative impact of brands is backed by both old and new forms of legal and market privilege. Brand-driven corporate messaging is both increasingly pervasive and increasingly difficult to disentangle from the commercial and social contexts in which it is embedded.69 Logos and other indicia of corporate sponsorship adorn bodies, billboards, theaters and arenas, and other public spaces. In addition, corporate brand owners pursue a wide range of other branding opportunities that might yield bottomline benefits: product placements in films and television shows, displays on the uniforms and equipment of professional athletes, and so on. The modern corporation does not simply advertise its wares, however. It develops a “social media presence” on platforms like Facebook and Twitter, streaming updates to its followers about developments that might implicate its market or enhance its brand cachet. In addition, it develops gamified promotional strategies designed to recruit individual consumers as brand evangelists and reward them for their successes.70 These developments make the cumulative power of corporate messaging far greater than the Court’s discussion presumed. Although speech in the service of branding tends not to be overtly political, it reflects and reinscribes the ethos of consumerist, transactionally inflected participation that increasingly characterizes public discourse.71
7		-
8		-Capitalism perpetuates all other forms of oppression – we control the direction of their impacts.
9		-Bennett 12. Sara Bennett. Socialist Review is a monthly magazine covering current events, theory and history, books and arts reviews from a revolutionary socialist perspective. It is the sister publication of Socialist Worker. , May 2012, "Marxism and oppression," Socialist Review, http://socialistreview.org.uk/369/marxism-and-oppression //RS
10		-Marx recognised that oppression, far from being a natural and thus a permanent feature of human society, is a historical invention. True, the oppression of certain groups of people in society existed before capitalism. For example, Marx's collaborator Engels traced the origins of women's oppression to the formation of the family with the rise of class society. Despite the many changes to the family over the centuries, it persists to this day because it plays a crucial role in the continuation of the system, by bearing the brunt of the cost for caring for present and past generations of workers and the rearing of the next - all at our own expense. So, despite the fact that the majority of women in this country who can work do work, their role in the family means they still accept lower wages and fewer career opportunities. Other forms of oppression have arisen with the emergence of capitalism. So racism was created to justify the slave trade and imperialism and is perpetuated by the need to keep workers divided. Towards the end of the 19th century a new sexual identity, the "homosexual", was invented and portrayed as a threat to society and the maintenance of the family. What is common to all forms of oppression, however, is that they have a material basis and arise from the structures and dynamics of class society. Oppression serves to reinforce the interests of capitalism. But while Marx understood that some forms of oppression existed before capitalism, he also grasped the way the nature of oppression under capitalism was different to what had gone before. Under feudalism or slavery the mass of the population were either slaves, the property of masters, or serfs tied to particular pieces of land and bound to a lord. Such societies were rigidly hierarchical and were based on the idea that everyone had their "rightful place". Notions of freedom for those other than the rulers in society were rare and subordination in society was widely accepted. When new societies emerge so too do new ideas. The bourgeois revolutions that overthrew feudalism and paved the way for capitalism did so under the banner of "liberty, equality and fraternity", as the French Revolution put it. This was a huge step forward for humanity compared to previous societies. Under capitalism production takes the form of creating commodities to be sold in the market. Everything becomes a commodity, including our ability to labour. Workers are no longer tied to individual lords and masters. The new ideas of individual freedom and equality under capitalism reflect this new way of organising production. But in reality freedom for the vast majority of the human race is simply this ability to sell their labour power to one or another capitalist (provided, of course, that there is sufficient demand). Capitalism holds out the promise of liberation, but then denies it to the majority of society. Capitalist production increasingly comes to depend on the mass cooperation of workers, but as capitalism brings workers together so too it divides them from each other
11		-Our alternative is to vote negative to refuse to participate in activities that support capitalism – key to hollowing out capitalist structures.
12		-Herod 4. Herod, Columbia University Graduate and Political Activist, 2004 (James, Getting Free, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/06.htm, JC)
13		-It is time to try to describe, at first abstractly and later concretely, a strategy for destroying capitalism. This strategy, at its most basic, calls for pulling time, energy, and resources out of capitalist civilization and putting them into building a new civilization. The image then is one of emptying out capitalist structures, hollowing them out, by draining wealth, power, and meaning out of them until there is nothing left but shells. This is definitely an aggressive strategy. It requires great militancy, and constitutes an attack on the existing order. The strategy clearly recognizes that capitalism is the enemy and must be destroyed, but it is not a frontal attack aimed at overthrowing the system, but an inside attack aimed at gutting it, while simultaneously replacing it with something better, something we want. Thus capitalist structures (corporations, governments, banks, schools, etc.) are not seized so much as simply abandoned. Capitalist relations are not fought so much as they are simply rejected. We stop participating in activities that support (finance, condone) the capitalist world and start participating in activities that build a new world while simultaneously undermining the old. We create a new pattern of social relations alongside capitalist relations and then we continually build and strengthen our new pattern while doing every thing we can to weaken capitalist relations. In this way our new democratic, non-hierarchical, non-commodified relations can eventually overwhelm the capitalist relations and force them out of existence. This is how it has to be done. This is a plausible, realistic strategy. To think that we could create a whole new world of decent social arrangements overnight, in the midst of a crisis, during a so-called revolution, or during the collapse of capitalism, is foolhardy. Our new social world must grow within the old, and in opposition to it, until it is strong enough to dismantle and abolish capitalist relations. Such a revolution will never happen automatically, blindly, determinably, because of the inexorable, materialist laws of history. It will happen, and only happen, because we want it to, and because we know what we’re doing and know how we want to live, and know what obstacles have to be overcome before we can live that way, and know how to distinguish between our social patterns and theirs. But we must not think that the capitalist world can simply be ignored, in a live and let live attitude, while we try to build new lives elsewhere. (There is no elsewhere.) There is at least one thing, wage-slavery, that we can’t simply stop participating in (but even here there are ways we can chip away at it). Capitalism must be explicitly refused and replaced by something else. This constitutes War, but it is not a war in the traditional sense of armies and tanks, but a war fought on a daily basis, on the level of everyday life, by millions of people. It is a war nevertheless because the accumulators of capital will use coercion, brutality, and murder, as they have always done in the past, to try to block any rejection of the system. They have always had to force compliance; they will not hesitate to continue doing so. Nevertheless, there are many concrete ways that individuals, groups, and neighborhoods can gut capitalism, which I will enumerate shortly. We must always keep in mind how we became slaves; then we can see more clearly how we can cease being slaves. We were forced into wage-slavery because the ruling class slowly, systematically, and brutally destroyed our ability to live autonomously. By driving us off the land, changing the property laws, destroying community rights, destroying our tools, imposing taxes, destroying our local markets, and so forth, we were forced onto the labor market in order to survive, our only remaining option being to sell, for a wage, our ability to work. It’s quite clear then how we can overthrow slavery. We must reverse this process. We must begin to reacquire the ability to live without working for a wage or buying the products made by wage-slaves (that is, we must get free from the labor market and the way of living based on it), and embed ourselves instead in cooperative labor and cooperatively produced goods. Another clarification is needed. This strategy does not call for reforming capitalism, for changing capitalism into something else. It calls for replacing capitalism, totally, with a new civilization. This is an important distinction, because capitalism has proved impervious to reforms, as a system. We can sometimes in some places win certain concessions from it (usually only temporary ones) and win some (usually short-lived) improvements in our lives as its victims, but we cannot reform it piecemeal, as a system.¶ Thus our strategy of gutting and eventually destroying capitalism requires at a minimum a totalizing image, an awareness that we are attacking an entire way of life and replacing it with another, and not merely reforming one way of life into something else. Many people may not be accustomed to thinking about entire systems and social orders, but everyone knows what a lifestyle is, or a way of life, and that is the way we should approach it. The thing is this: in order for capitalism to be destroyed millions and millions of people must be dissatisfied with their way of life. They must want something else and see certain existing things as obstacles to getting what they want. It is not useful to think of this as a new ideology. It is not merely a belief-system that is needed, like a religion, or like Marxism, or Anarchism. Rather it is a new prevailing vision, a dominant desire, an overriding need. What must exist is a pressing desire to live a certain way, and not to live another way. If this pressing desire were a desire to live free, to be autonomous, to live in democratically controlled communities, to participate in the self-regulating activities of a mature people, then capitalism could be destroyed. Otherwise we are doomed to perpetual slavery and possibly even to extinction.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-12-16 22:43:21.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Aimun Khan

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Lake Highland Muhammed Khattak

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-29

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Westwood Mandavilli Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-NOVDEC - K - Capitalism

Tournament

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