Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake JD | Judge: Hertzig
Part 1 is the problem

Capitalists have created a ruse that socialists are starting to believe. It states that we need control of nuclear energy to revolt. This could be farther from the truth, not only do we not control production, but the energy production is harming the working class Kinder writes,

Nuclear Power and Production, Oakland California, August 15, 2011, Chris Kinder, Workers Vanguard o. 989
While I agree that the working class in power must remake the world, that Green Party reformism is a dead end, and that an exclusive focus on ending nukes is also reformist, I cannot understand your drive to promote a dangerous and dying capitalist industry such as nuclear power (“Greens’ Anti-Nuclear Hysteria Amnesties Capitalism,” WV 983, 08 July 2011). You say that the struggle must be for the energy concerns, and that this must be “part of the fight for a socialist revolution to establish an internationally planned economy under the control of workers councils.” Good. But then you say, “Only then, based on an international division of labor, will it be possible to consider whether it is really necessary to construct n\uclear power plants in thickly settled earthquake zones like Japan.” H-m-m, that sounds like damning with faint praise. Why withhold condemnation of such capitalist crimes? 

And, This hasn’t been an issue just in Japan, it is a mindset that supports Capitalism. We cannot sit by while capitalists try to convince us that they are taking care of the world with nuclear energy. Instead they are harming not only the environment but the working class Kinder 2, 

Trotskyists seek to breathe revolutionary life into the class struggle with the Transitional Program, saying: here’s what the revolutionaries want to do with the world to address the current needs of the masses. But the SL says, essentially, just put us in power, and then everything will be sorted out. Periodically, you mention some general slogans, such as “public works.” But you don’t say what sort of public works for today, and it sounds like you’re just reading an old quote. Aside from capitalism itself, climate change is the most devastating threat humanity has ever faced. It represents the ultimate in the rift between man and nature, of which Marx and Engels spoke. The working class needs to know: how will the revolutionaries deal with this? Of course we’re for technology, but we don’t just take over capitalist industry as is: we transform the entire economy into an engine for real human needs, which now must include: saving the planet. Which technologies will serve that end best? Many scientists now say that an economy based entirely on renewable technology is possible. Is the SL just not paying attention? Do you support the license extensions the capitalists demand for outdated nuclear plants which are becoming increasingly dangerous, or oppose them on safety grounds? If the latter, where do revolutionaries go next? We know what the capitalists will do: more coal, oil, gas and new nuclear. You don’t promote mountain top removal, fracking, coal gas, tar sands or shale oil (all of which must be stopped immediately under workers’ government, in my opinion). Yet instead of revolutionary, transitional demands to transform the economy, you defend a capitalist-promoted technology that has already compromised humanity’s future with radioactive waste, and could easily irradiate the entire planet. Why? Revolutionaries want to move beyond capitalism’s path of profit-driven destruction! Say clearly: only a revolutionary workers government can, with workers councils and careful planning, save the working class, humanity and the planet; and here’s how.

Moreover, Nuclear Production Fragments Labor another loss for the working class, Spence

Nuclear capital, Martin Spence, Capital and Class, 1982
If we now look at nuclear power more generally, we can identify its character as a specifically capitalist technology . First, nuclear power is a prime example of the highly-complex, capital - and energy - intensive technologies which are being favoured and developed . The substitution of capital for labour ran at 5 .8 per annum from 1960 to 1963, and 19 .6 from 1969 to 1973 ; the substitution of energy for labour ran at 17 from 1960 to 1966, and 33 from 1967 to 1971 . 19 These figures refer to industry as a whole, but within the energy industries the nuclear option clearly represents a reinforcement of this overall trend . It is estimated that the capital input per job is currently abut £800 p . a . in the coal industry, £2000 p . a . in gas and oil, £5000 in electricity supply, and £10,000 in nuclear power . 20 And, of course, no other industrial investment comes anywhere near matching the current nuclear power programme, which may cost about £60 bn . over ten years . We have seen the importance of the division of labour, in keeping workers powerless and management in control . It is difficult to envisage an industry which carries task fragmentation further than the nuclear industry, and this is in the nature of the technology itself and its associated hazards . For instance, if an accident occurs which leads to radioactive contamination of part of a nuclear plant, someone has to go into the contaminated area to clear up or carry out repairs . There are, however, national and international regulations concerning the radiation which workers can legitimately absorb within a given time . Consequently, the only way of carrying out these repairs is to send one worker after another into the danger area, to work for just a few minutes until the permitted level of exposure has been reached . The Indian Point reactors in the USA are a good example: in 1970, 700 welders were required to perform a single task at one station, and 1973, 2000 workers were needed for a job at another. 21 .

Further, the capitalist really do have everyone fooled. They tell us that these nuclear programs are state run. Since the 1960’s privately run for profit corporations have had control Spence 2, 

As soon as formerly-risky stages of the nuclear cycle start to look profitable, the the state has floated the possibility of handing it over to private industry . British Nuclear Fuels Ltd . (BNFL) is a good example . BNFL was set up by the 1970-74 Tory Government as a private company to deal with nuclear fuel preparation, treatment and reprocessing - and it has proved a very profitable concern . It continues at present to be wholly-owned by the Government, but the possibility of selling shares to private shareholders was mooted by the 1970 Government, and reiterated by its 1979 successor . The creation of BNFL in fact represents an asset-stripping job on the Atomic Energy Authority (AEA) by the Tories .' Much more recently, there has been talk of offering shares in Amersham Int . to the public . Thiscompany- formerly called the Radiochemical Centre - offers a highly profitable range of services in handling and processing radioactive materials .' This tendency for the state to try to create a `natural' free-market context for the nuclear industry goes back to the 1950s . Seeking to inject the necessary degree of competitiveness into the industry, the Government sponsored five nuclear consortia in the 1950s of which two had collapsed by the early 1960s . The lesson, however, was not learned . When Britain's second reactor programme was announced in the mid 1960s, based on the Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor (AGR) design, the first contract was offered to the weakest of the surviving three consortia . It duly went bust in 1969 . The whole attempt to create a `healthy competitive' spirit was a disaster.

The problem is clear, the privately owned corporations tell us the lie that A) we can only survive if we have nuclear energy and B) we don’t care about accidents. This seems to be an issue for the working class. In State’s like France they are so dependent on nuclear energy that the Capitalist can literally control the State. Accidents like Japan happen and the companies pay a nice settlement, then call it even. Half of the working class sits back and watches it happen, thinking this is the technology of the future, while indeed it is just a way to make the rich richer. 

Part 2 is the solution. We must affirm the resolution and get production prohibited before it is too late. The State may be built up on a capitalist house, but the regulations are the only way to get out of the fire that is nuclear power, the complexities are too much to handle in a revolution Spence 3, 

There is a real dilemma posed here for socialists . The class struggle is rooted in capitalist society, is inseparable from it, and surges up in the nuclear industry as everywhere else . But because the nuclear industry is so complex, so regimented, and characterised by such a drastic division of labour, workers' resistance cannot reasonably take a clear and progressive direction - it cannot reasonably aim at democratic control of the industry . It therefore takes the form of bloody-mindedness, low-level resistance, and evasion of regulations . Workers may even skip radiation-checks, and as a result radiate their own families when they get home . If they skip over necessary routine tasks in the construction or maintenance of a nuclear plant, they may contribute to an accident with horrific consequences . In other words, we are faced with a situation where the right to strike itself is called into question, because a nuclear reactor strike immediately transcends the conflict between management and labour to pose a direct physical threat to the entire local population . We have to make a choice, therefore . Either we renounce the right to strike, the right of workers to organise and defend themselves, the possibility of workers' control of the energy industry -or we renounce nuclear power . A further aspect of the nuclear division of labour is to be seen in the proliferation of small businesses which grow up, like parasites around the major plants. This is a recurrent feature of the centralisation of production, as we have already seen : small, often non-unionised concerns can provide useful services to the major industry, and this diversification of supply is a further guarantee against effective workers' action . At La Hague reprocessing plant in France, there is a flourishing sector of agencies providing part-time workers, who perform unskilled tasks often in the most radiated areas . It is the responsibility of the agencies, not of the plant, to monitor these workers' radiation doses . The agencies are not overcareful about this, we may be sure - they are more interested in guaranteeing a steady supply of workers, and receiving a steady income in commission . And the workers themselves, often unaware of the exact nature of radiation hazards, may often collaborate in side-stepping the regulations ."

Taking steps towards a non-nuclear energy is the first way to secure jobs for the working class. Without this step we can never have a revolution in the future. This is key.
Spence 4,
Technology is not neutral . It is not mere `technique' to be used for good or evil . A given technological system is not developed by `society' at large, but by a particular organisation or institution with a particular purpose in mind, and it will reflect a host of unspoken assumptions, prevalent within that organisation or institution . Means and ends are inseparable in technological matters as in all others . An hierarchical and centralising technology cannot logically be the means to a libertarian and democratic end . Bearing this in mind, it should be clear that the non-nuclear energy technologies described below are socially benign technologies in important ways . They emphasise conservation, the use of renewable and widely-available energy sources, and the efficient and responsible use of fossil fuels ; they emphasise the spread of energy generation, geographically and sectorally ; they emphasise that energy be provided in a form appropriate to its final use ; and put together, they spell out an energy strategy which could protect useful jobs in existing industries, and generate new jobs as well .

A stand is far from overdue. Yet, many socialists are still believing that we cannot do anything. Many see the anti-nuclear lobby as the middle class posing a threat to the working class We have to have some sort of cooperation to see that the problem doesn’t get any worse.
Spence 5,
If nuclear power is a capitalist phenomenon, and alternative energy a socialist response, then we might expect to find a natural affinity between the anti-nuclear movement on one side, and the left and labour movement on the other . In fact, things aren't that simple . The anti-nuclear movement tends to see the labour movement as bureaucratic, conservative, and traditionally pro-nuclear . The labour movement tends to see the anti-nuclear lobby as middle-class, utopian and as posing a threat to jobs . Nevertheless, an alliance between the two is necessary and possible . An understanding of the Labour Party's nuclear policies is a good starting point, to explore this possibility .

Its try or die for the affirmative. This problem is not going away without a stand in the nuclear energy field. In fact it will just get worse, the harms to the job field, the public, and accidents will just get worse and worse. This is the step to take us in the right direction as the working class.
Spence 6,
To sum up, the class struggle has taken a new twist . Capitalist development has thrown up new layers of workers, necessarily intelligent, articulate and critical, but in doing so it creates potential problems for itself. Because these workers can turn their skills against the system, not merely to defend themselves and others within it, but to construct positive and viable alternatives to it . The new movements, and developments within the labour movement, bear witness to the fact that these new sectors of the working-class are now on the move . The anti-nuclear movement is one important front on which battle is being joined - but only one . The need of the moment is to create effective alliances between the different movements, different sectors of workers, so as to push through the radical anti-capitalist measures described and discussed above . An anti-nuclear strategy, and the development of a nonnuclear energy programme, must form part of that wider campaign .

Couple of implications: a) non-uniques disadvantages to the aff; the situation can’t possibly get worse, because there’s already complete capitalist control. If there’s a risk the aff makes things better, we should affirm; b) automatically perms counterplans that aren’t mutually exclusive with the aff, because the aff can’t make things worse, so we should always affirm on the risk that the perm improves the situation.
Part 3 is the Role of the Judge.
Intervening into the ballot to block any from approving the capitalist resolution is essential – we must stifle the circulation of capital  and indeed the intellectual ideal of capitalism wherever possible to create new sites of solidarity.  Debate can be one of those places.  The ballot is key as a micro-gesture.  Resisting capitalism is our ultimate ethical obligation. Status quo modes of thought only serve to legitimize the system. Zizek and Daly 4 write
For Zizek it is imperative that we cut through this Gordian knot of postmodern protocol and recognize that our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the constitutive violence of today’s global capitalism and its obscene naturalization / anonymization of the millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world. … Full text available In this way, neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes of winning and losing as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgment in a neutral market place. Capitalism does indeed create a space for a certain diversity, at least for the central capitalist regions, but it is neither neutral nor ideal and its price in terms of social exclusion is exorbitant. That is to say, the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded ‘life-chances’ cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and, in consequence, social exclusion remains mystified and nameless (viz. the patronizing reference to the ‘developing world’). And Zizek’s point is that this mystification is magnified through capitalism’s profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity: to redirect (or misdirect) social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation.
Skip Capitalism is the reason other forms of exclusion exist – the aff is a prerequisite to effectuating change in any other types of exclusion And, put away your theory.  Fairness and any arbitrary standards you read are only used to silence voices.  Delgado.
Delgado, Law Prof at U. of Colorado, 1992 Richard, “Shadowboxing: An Essay On Power,” In Cornell Law Review, May

We have cleverly built power's view of the appropriate standard of conduct into the very term fair. Thus, the stronger party is able to have his/her way and see her/himself as principled at the same time. Imagine, for example, a man's likely reaction to the suggestion that subjective considerations -- a woman's mood, her sense of pressure or intimidation, how she felt about the man, her unexpressed fear of reprisals if she did not go ahead-- ought to play a part in determining whether the man is guilty of rape. Most men find this suggestion offensive; it requires them to do something they are not accustomed to doing. "Why," they say, "I'd have to be a mind reader before I could have sex with anybody?" http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy-tu.researchport.umd.edu/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh20.683371.8865704609andtarget=results_DocumentContentandreloadEntirePage=trueandrand=1205648031878andreturnToKey=20_T3285738252andparent=docview "Who knows, anyway, what internal inhibitions the woman might have been harboring?" And "what if the woman simply changed her mind later and charged me with rape?"  What we never notice is that women can "read" men's minds perfectly well. The male perspective is right out there in the world, plain as day, inscribed in culture, song, and myth -- in all the prevailing narratives. These narratives tell us that men want and are entitled  *820  to sex, that it is a prime function of women to give it to them, and that unless something unusual happens, the act of sex is ordinary and blameless. We believe these things because that is the way we have constructed women, men, and "normal" sexual intercourse.  Yet society and law accept only this latter message (or something like it), and not the former, more nuanced ones, to mean refusal. Why? The "objective" approach is not inherently better or more fair. Rather, it is accepted because it embodies the sense of the stronger party, who centuries ago found himself in a position to dictate what permission meant. Allowing ourselves to be drawn into reflexive, predictable arguments about administrability, fairness, stability, and ease of determination points us away from what  *821  really counts: the way in which stronger parties have managed to inscribe their views and interests into "external" culture, so that we are now enamored with that way of judging action. 

Thus, Your ballot is a question of how to align yourself as a subject of capitalism. Either you vote neg to uphold a system based on capital or you vote aff to reject the horrors of capitalism. This is an intellectual strategy aimed at freeing yourselves from the confines of capitalist thought. Only once we see how capitalism has forced us into wage-slavery can we escape being slaves. This debate isn’t about “solving” capitalism but rather about how we approach the political. Our politics rejects this capitalist ontology. Cap is a process of control and exclusion, which is exactly what they’ll try to do to make the aff not matter – this is an academic setting, make them deal with their discourse. If they don’t respond to the aff then the judge has an obligation to make them deal with their discourse by voting against a sytem based on cap. This is the first and only step—Capitalism replaces the human with the capitalist consumerist incapable of loving and results in the ontological extinction of humanity.