Capitalism Kritik -- SCFI 12x

vainclamInternet and Web Development

Dec 14, 2013 (8 years and 1 month ago)

579 views

Capitalism Kritik


Negative

1NC

(long)

Capitalism has reached its tipping point and now is key



the revolution is coming and
will be successful

Hunziker 2012

(Robert

website that posts political articles and has been claimed to be the best political newsletter by Out of Bounds Magazine, ‘12

(CounterPunch.org Robert, 7/11, “Capitalism’s Boundless War”,
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/07/11/capitalisms
-
boundless
-
war/
) CW



The
streets of the world’s capital cities are war zones of hopelessness
, but as
people gather together, this
despair transforms into a fierce determination, underlain b
y great expectations
,
like in 1848, when the
only European
-
wide collapse of the status quo occurred in the Revolutions of 1848 also popularly
known at the time as: The Spring of Nations. Similar to that challenge of authority over 150 years ago,
as of toda
y, an epic battle, an undeclared war, rages around the world, erupting every week in
another capital city, challenging the legitimacy and credibility of capitalism.

For example, July 9th, 2012, Qatif,
Saudi Arabia, one of the country’s largest
-
ever demonst
rations left two dead and 12 injured when security forces confronted street protestors
after the shooting of Sheikh Nimr al
-
Nimr, a prominent anti
-
government activist and Shia cleric.


The Revolutions of 1848
ultimately involved 50 countries throughout Eur
ope and Latin America. At the time, there was no
coordination among dissenters, but widespread dissatisfaction with political leadership was infectious
across borders and beyond ethnic differences.

Citizens of the world wanted more participation in how the
ir lives were
determined, i.e., democracy. Tens of thousands lost their lives in a futile effort, a bloody affaire that ended as abruptly a
s it began, within one
year, forever memorialized by the words of Pierre
-
Joseph Proudhon (French philosopher and econ
omic theorist, 1809
-
1865), “We have been
beaten and humiliated… scattered, imprisoned, disarmed and gagged. The fate of European democracy has slipped from our hands.



Dissatisfaction with political leadership (and, by inference, the capitalist state) tod
ay is more
ubiquitous than in 1848 because instantaneous communication knows no barriers. Furthermore, what
is known is this: Capitalism has failed as an economic system for society at large. By
disproportionately favoring an elite minority who have gamed
their own system, thus, sealing their
own fate, capitalism has become as pejorative a term today as aristocrat was in 1848.
And, because history
has demonstrated, time and again, that no socio
-
economic system is static, this brings to the forefront questio
ns about the likely life cycle for
modern
-
day capitalism. Is it passé, an economic system that has already outlived its usefulness? And, if so, then, where are the var
ious
impulses of dissent headed, pointed in what direction, if not capitalism? These are
questions that would otherwise be deemed inappropriate, if
not for the current state of world affaires, but the answers are yet to be formulated.


This grandiose worldwide dissatisfaction
with the status quo is not business as usual like a normal business
cycle, which ends with renewal of
prosperity. No, by all appearances, this is a deep
-
seated disintegration of economic relationships,
which have existed in a delicate balance of competing interests for 200 years.¶

Every war has a
catalyst, and the capitali
sts themselves have brought on this one by depriving the bourgeoisie and
proletariat a fair share of the bounty on a worldwide basis in places like the United States, Indonesia,
South Korea, Chile, and throughout Europe. Now that capitalism is universal, t
he population of the
world sees its effects in unison

rather than individually by nation
-
state, but the problem is not capitalism per se. The problem is
abuse of the capitalist system by capitalists. What is the evidence of this abuse?


The evidence is ten
s and hundreds of
thousands of people in the streets chanting, sloganeering, “End the Oligarchy” in NYC, “Democracy
Not Corporatization” in Paris “Fraude Pobreza” or “Fraud and Poverty” in Madrid, “Hands Off Our
Pensions” in Athens, tens of thousands demon
strating in front of Indonesia’s presidential palace in
Jakarta demanding a decent living wage, tens of thousands of students in Santiago protesting the
profiteering in the state educational system, hundreds of Malaysian lawyers staging street protests
opp
osed to governmental plans to ban street rallies, and uppermost in the consciousness of this
worldwide sloganeering is a profound repugnance of corporate greed, or crony capitalism, and a
deep
-
seated hostility towards the chicanery behind Wall Street/banki
ng practices as well as the
‘perceived’ embezzlement of valuable nation
-
state resources by the wealthy elite via political
influence and subterfuge within taxation policies that favor only the rich. We know this is true
because the sloganeering and the pla
cards held up high within the masses of tens of thousands of
people tell this story for the whole world to see.¶

T
he elites of capitalism have only themselves to
blame for igniting the flames of dissent
, which have manifest as the result of a combination o
f events that have accumulated
these past years, like
the “perfect storm”
bringing on protests from Montreal
-
to
-
Beijing
-
to
-
Mumbai
-
to
-
Moscow
-
to
-
Paris
-
to
-
Santiago
-
to
-
NYC. The antecedents to this war are:


Worldwide trade agreements, like NAFTA, favoring corp
orate profit at the expense of labor and
environmental integrity, and this same formula is found within all worldwide trade pacts. The World Trade Organization (”WTO”
), the pre
-
eminent trade organization, is accused of widening the social gap between rich
and poor by promoting globalization at the expense of labor’s
rights. American workers recognize this as the outsourcing of good paying jobs from America to low wage countries with loose
labor codes that
embody circa 19th century labor standards whilst ope
rating in the 21st.


According to Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman in Top 10
Reasons to Shutter the WTO, Mother Jones, Nov. 1999, “Commercialism trumps human rights, democracy, the environment, and labo
r, while
communities and developing nations get th
e shaft.” They claim the WTO’s elitists’ promotions facilitate global commerce for multinational
wealthy interests at the expense of efforts to promote local economic development and policies that move communities, countri
es, and regions
in the direction o
f greater self
-
reliance. Thus, fragmenting and dispersing the framework of communities or countries that otherwise constitute
a source of internal development. For example, infant domestic industries in developing countries are crushed by multinationa
ls, c
ausing
massive social dislocation of millions of workers who have no safety net.


It is no secret amongst protestors of the WTO that the elites, by
undercutting labor and disregarding environmental concerns, as well as cavalierly co
-
opting the sanctity of
local economic development, utilize
the WTO as a platform to further ‘globalization’ purely to the benefit of multinational corporate elites. Jack Welch, the for
mer CEO of General
Electric, speaks for the multinationals when he says, “Ideally, you’d have e
very plant you own on a barge.” The barge could be moved to
whichever country happens to have the cheapest labor (A Dirty History of Discrimination and Ignorance, Amanda Wilson, ATLIS
-
Atlantic
International Studies Organization.)


WTO demonstrations have b
ecome such a regular feature at WTO meetings that they should be listed on
the official WTO program of events, and combined with today’s elitist’s greed, corruption, and chicanery amongst Wall Street,

politicians, and
commercial bankers, the long
-
standing
issues surrounding the WTO add fuel to the raging fires… connecting the dots of ‘informed’ dissent.


Connecting the dots became much easier with the Granddaddy of All Financial Ineptitude and Corruption, the biggest
-
ever corporate heist,
resulting in the 2
007
-
08 worldwide financial meltdown, connecting huge dots for all to see, glaringly exposing the whole enchilada, other than
the mystery of why nobody has gone to jail (see: Coup of the Elites, CounterPunch June 26, 2012.) Arguably,

this monumental
debacle

has served as the catalyst for capitalism’s boundless war. At the end of the day, this brutal
take down of the entire world economy may be the demise of capitalism because it is breaking down
the financial/economic system like never before.

Otherwise, the

final arbiters of financial order and stability, the world’s
Central Bankers, would not be scrambling month
-
after
-
month,
injecting trillions into banking liquidity, buying sovereign
debt, propping up this monstrous on
-
going disaster, like the Lernaean Hyd
ra of Greek mythology, as
soon as one head is lopped off, another two appears, as one country is poisoned by insolvency
followed by another. And, it is the average taxpayer who supports, and pays for, the errors and
malfeasance of the elite

who profited so

handsomely on the backs of innocent citizenry from Sydney westward to Fairbanks.


The
Great Heist of 2007
-
08 is the culmination of corporate hubris, previewed a decade earlier, when Enron, which company was a major part of
George Bush’s political career, and a company with few tangible assets, learned how to ‘cook the books’ because of

political liberalization, via
contacts in the right places, allowing companies to operate in countries previously forbidden, thus, adding to the complexity

of their
operations, and they used financial derivatives to manage risk but actually as an effectiv
e tool to obscure their corrupted financial results. This
is a continuing problem to this day; for example, JP Morgan Chase recently reported loses of $2 billion, but oops… no wait a
minute, maybe it’s
$30 billion. Even the bankers are not sure of their tr
ue gains or losses with the complexity of modern
-
day financial instruments. Isn’t is obvious
that incalculable financial manias should not be part of commercial banking,
the reservoirs of public savings, but this is only
a portion of the games elites play
with the public’s money.
What is the hapless public to think when a former governor
and a former U.S. Senator, a figure of pubic trust, like Jon Corzine of MF Global testifies before Congress, Dec. 2011, he do
es not know where
the hundreds of millions of c
ustomer’s money in MF Global disappeared to… huh… he was CEO?


One after another, whenever or
wherever an opening occurs to ‘game the system’ the elite have jumped at the opportunity, including
paid
-
for political influence to skew tax laws in favor of the
rich at the expense of average taxpayers
who shoulder the burden of a national debt that is overly inflated because of fancy tax laws the allow
leading figureheads in society
, like Mitt Romney,
to pay a tax of only 15%, a lower rate than paid by his
garbag
e collector.


I
t is always the average person, the average taxpayer who shoulders the burden
whenever corporate malfeasance surfaces to trash national economies
, as in Europe today where public employee
and general worker benefits have been crucified by au
sterity measures (dictated by the IMF, World Bank, and EU)
to heal battered
national treasuries as if an epidemic of old, like the Black Death, swept across the countryside,
ravaging lives. It is no wonder people of all stripes, like doctors, lawyers, truc
k drivers, and teachers
take to the streets. They are being sacrificed on an altar of corporate malfeasance and corruption
whilst accumulation of wealth is seen as an exclusive club reserved for only those who are already
rich
, similar to Louis XVI’s reign

in 18th century France.


The world is getting a taste of history, of what it was like in
the late 18th century, a few years before the French Revolution burst lose on the scene, beheading
one aristocrat after another, as quickly as they could gather them
up, simply because they were rich,
but there were obviously deeper meanings behind this slaughter. For example, France’s national
treasury was empty as a result of empire building and foreign wars, and this was aggravated by nasty
disagreement over reform
of the taxation system, which was grossly inequitable, leading to paralysis,
and an agrarian crisis with food shortages, an ambitious bourgeoisie allied with aggrieved peasants
and wage
-
earners influenced by enlightenment ideals, and years of pent
-
up resen
tment of a dying
seigniorial system.¶

In the end, it was the people in the streets of Paris that served as the spark that
led to outright rebellion and death at the hand of dreadful black
-
hooded executioners in the public
square
, the Place de la Révolution
. The guillotine was most active during the “Reign of Terror“, in the summer of 1794, when, in a single
month, more than 1,300 people (over 40 daily) were executed.


The lesson of history, which bewilderingly continues to
repeat itself, is: The people in t
he streets ultimately determine the fate of incorrigible governments
that are embedded with unscrupulous sources of financial power. These scenarios never end on a
sanguine note but often times end in a sanguinary manner.


Investing in transportation infra
structure

enables the recovery and flow

of capital


our task is to destroy these avenues, not repair them.

Bryant ’11

(Levi
,

Philosophy Professor at Collins University,

December 1
st
, 2011,

Onticology and
Politics

,
http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/onticology
-
and
-
politics/
)


So if I consider myself a Marxist materialist then why am I embracing realism? Part of the reasons arise
from the very sort of criti
cal historical meditation you bring up in your remarks. In my view, the move
beyond Fordist modes of production consisted in a shift to media/knowledge/information production
roughly at the behest of biopower. Nonetheless, this form of production


while it
self tarrying with the
incorporeal

is grounded in a physical infrastructure.
Flows of capital and the ability of capital to
exercise its power literally needs highways, satellites, trains, farms, land, fiber optic cables, ocean
going ships, and so on. Wit
hout these channels of transportation and information transfer, coupled
with sources of calories and energy to run these engines, capital is unable to continue itself for, as
Harvey points out, capital only exists in the motion of capital.

For me this Marx
ist thesis about motion
and being is true of all objects. Consequently
, if you wish to smash an object you have to find a way to
halt its internal motion or the process by which it sustains, continues, and propagates itself
. To get a
sense of what I’m talk
ing about, take the example of OWS. I am absolutely on the side of the OWSers,
but I also find myself frustrated as it seems to me that much of it is unfolding at the level of an ideology
critique (cultural Marxism) and a desire to persuade these governmen
tal and corporate forces that is
doomed to fall on deaf ears. Occupations are taking place everywhere except, I think, in the places
where they would have a chance to make a real difference and produce real results
.


Left unchecked, capitalism makes
extinction inevitable

Meszaros 2000
(Istvan, Prof. of Philosophy @ Univ. of Sussex.
Monthly Review.

January, LN)


Given the way in which the ongoing tends of global development assert themselves
, in a clearly
identifiable way,
we may have perhaps a few dec
ades to bring to a halt their destuctiveness, but
certainly not centuries.

The great liberal economist,
Schumpeter, used to characterize

and idalize

capitalissm as a system of “productive destruction.” This was, on the whole, true of capital’s
ascending ph
ase of development
. Today, by contrast,
we have reached a stage when, instead of
“productive destruction,” we are even increasingly confronted by capital’s destructive production,
proceeding on a frightening scale.

You ask: “do you think that great mass mo
vements have a chance to
blossom again” in the age of globalization and under the “third way” of European social democracy? For
me the “third way” is nothing more than a wishful fantasy, in defense of the established, untenable,
order.
Sociologists

like Ma
x Scheler
have been predicting for almost a century the merging of the
classes into a happy “middle
-
class”

one could only wonder: the middle of what? In reality, social
polarization in our time is greater than ever before, making a mockery of the old socia
l democratic
expectations of eliminating

or at least greatly reducing

inequality through “progressive taxation.”
As things turned out, we saw the diametrical opposite. To give you just two, very recent, examples: 1.)
according to the Budget Office of the U
.S. Congress (no “left
-
wing exaggerator,” for sure),
the income of
the top 1 percent is equivalent to that of the bottom one hundred million people, i.e. nearly 40
percent of the population.

Twenty years ago it was “only” 1 percent against forty
-
nine milli
on, i.e., less
than twenty percent of the U.S. population. Some “equalization” and “merging of the classes into one
another!” 2
.) In England child poverty trebled in the last twenty years, and continued to be aggravated
under the “New Labour” government in

the last two and a half years
. The “new labour” government
preaches the vacuous “third way” sermon, and practices with ever greater severity the politics of
antilabor measures, imposing even such policies which Mrs. Thatcher did not dare to introduce, cut
ting
the Welfare State in every possible way, including even the precarious livelihood of the handicapped.
Only a fool can assume that this can go on forever
. So, in answer to your question,
I am firmly
convinced that there is a future for a radical mass m
ovement, not only in England but also in the rest
of the world. Or, to put it another way, if there is no future for such a movement, there can be no
future for humanity itself.

If I had to modify Rosa Luxemburg’s dictum, in relation to the dangers we
face
,
I would add to “socialism or barbarism:” “barbarism if we are lucky”

in the sense that
extermination of humankind is the ultimate concomitant of capital’s destructive course of
development. And the world of that third possibility, beyond the alternatives

of “socialism or
barbarism,” would be fit only for cockroaches, which are said to be able to endure lethally high levels
of nuclear radiation. This is the only rational meaning of capital’s third way.




The alternative is to Occupy [Insert Affirmative In
frastructure].


Rather than repair the circulatory system, we must block the arteries and force a heart
attack on the system. This necessitates a rejection of the 1AC

Bryant ’11

(Levi Bryant, December 1
st
, 2011, Philosophy Professor at Collins University,

Onticology and
Politics, http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/onticology
-
and
-
politics/)

To get a sense of what I’m talking about
, take the example of OWS
. I am absolutely on the side of the
OWSers, but I also find myself
frustrated

as it seems to me
that much of it is unfolding at the level of an
ideology critique (cultural Marxism) and a desire to persuade these governmental and corporate
forces that is doomed to fall on deaf ears. Occupations are taking place everywhere except
, I
think,
in
the places where they would have a chance to make a real difference and produce real results. If we
think of capitalist social systems as being akin to an organic body, then these social systems will have
a circulatory system and a nervous system
. The nervous system of a capitalist social system would be
the various mediums through which information is transmitted
(internet, phones, television,
newspapers, etc) as well that the events that take place in those systems (images, songs, reports,
narra
tives, articles, etc
), while the circulatory system would be the various paths of distribution and
production the system requires to produce this sort of social structure such as highways, trains,
airports, portions of the internet used for monetary exchan
ge, farms, shipping lanes, etc. The political
goal of the critic of capitalism requires causing capitalism to have a stroke or a heart attack

(continuing with the metaphor of circulatory systems). But if that’s to be done,

it’s necessary to occupy
not a pa
rk in front of Wall Street or a governors office, but rather the arteries capitalism needs to
survive. Why not occupy the highways? Why not occupy the ports

(Oakland was a good move)? Why
not occupy the internets, finding ways to block commerce traffic? My

view is that if all focus is on the
nervous system,
these infrastructural dimensions are entirely missed and we end up with a form of
political engagement that is merely one more form of information production leaving the basic
structure of the system int
act.
This is why I’m an object
-
oriented ontologist



1NC (Short)

Investing in transportation infrastructure enables the recovery and flow of capital


our task is to destroy these avenues, not repair them.

Bryant ’11

(Levi, Philosophy Professor at Collins
University, December 1
st
, 2011, “Onticology and
Politics”,
http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/onticology
-
and
-
politics/
)


So if I consider myself a Marxist
materialist then why am I embracing realism? Part of the reasons arise
from the very sort of critical historical meditation you bring up in your remarks. In my view, the move
beyond Fordist modes of production consisted in a shift to media/knowledge/inform
ation production
roughly at the behest of biopower. Nonetheless, this form of production


while itself tarrying with the
incorporeal

is grounded in a physical infrastructure.
Flows of capital and the ability of capital to
exercise its power literally need
s highways, satellites, trains, farms, land, fiber optic cables, ocean
going ships, and so on. Without these channels of transportation and information transfer, coupled
with sources of calories and energy to run these engines, capital is unable to continu
e itself for, as
Harvey points out, capital only exists in the motion of capital.

For me this Marxist thesis about motion
and being is true of all objects. Consequently
, if you wish to smash an object you have to find a way to
halt its internal motion or t
he process by which it sustains, continues, and propagates itself
. To get a
sense of what I’m talking about, take the example of OWS. I am absolutely on the side of the OWSers,
but I also find myself frustrated as it seems to me that much of it is unfoldin
g at the level of an ideology
critique (cultural Marxism) and a desire to persuade these governmental and corporate forces that is
doomed to fall on deaf ears. Occupations are taking place everywhere except, I think, in the places
where they would have a c
hance to make a real difference and produce real results.


Left unchecked, capitalism makes extinction inevitable

Meszaros 2000
(Istvan, Prof. of Philosophy @ Univ. of Sussex.
Monthly Review.

January, LN)


Given the way in which the ongoing tends of global

development assert themselves
, in a clearly
identifiable way,
we may have perhaps a few decades to bring to a halt their destuctiveness, but
certainly not centuries.

The great liberal economist,
Schumpeter, used to characterize

and idalize

capitalissm as
a system of “productive destruction.” This was, on the whole, true of capital’s
ascending phase of development
. Today, by contrast,
we have reached a stage when, instead of
“productive destruction,” we are even increasingly confronted by capital’s destruct
ive production,
proceeding on a frightening scale.

You ask: “do you think that great mass movements have a chance to
blossom again” in the age of globalization and under the “third way” of European social democracy? For
me the “third way” is nothing more t
han a wishful fantasy, in defense of the established, untenable,
order.
Sociologists

like Max Scheler
have been predicting for almost a century the merging of the
classes into a happy “middle
-
class”

one could only wonder: the middle of what? In reality, so
cial
polarization in our time is greater than ever before, making a mockery of the old social democratic
expectations of eliminating

or at least greatly reducing

inequality through “progressive taxation.”
As things turned out, we saw the diametrical opposi
te. To give you just two, very recent, examples: 1.)
according to the Budget Office of the U.S. Congress (no “left
-
wing exaggerator,” for sure),
the income of
the top 1 percent is equivalent to that of the bottom one hundred million people, i.e. nearly 40
percent of the population.

Twenty years ago it was “only” 1 percent against forty
-
nine million, i.e., less
than twenty percent of the U.S. population. Some “equalization” and “merging of the classes into one
another!” 2
.) In England child poverty trebled i
n the last twenty years, and continued to be aggravated
under the “New Labour” government in the last two and a half years
. The “new labour” government
preaches the vacuous “third way” sermon, and practices with ever greater severity the politics of
antila
bor measures, imposing even such policies which Mrs. Thatcher did not dare to introduce, cutting
the Welfare State in every possible way, including even the precarious livelihood of the handicapped.
Only a fool can assume that this can go on forever
. So, i
n answer to your question,
I am firmly
convinced that there is a future for a radical mass movement, not only in England but also in the rest
of the world. Or, to put it another way, if there is no future for such a movement, there can be no
future for hum
anity itself.

If I had to modify Rosa Luxemburg’s dictum, in relation to the dangers we
face,
I would add to “socialism or barbarism:” “barbarism if we are lucky”

in the sense that
extermination of humankind is the ultimate concomitant of capital’s destruc
tive course of
development. And the world of that third possibility, beyond the alternatives of “socialism or
barbarism,” would be fit only for cockroaches, which are said to be able to endure lethally high levels
of nuclear radiation. This is the only rat
ional meaning of capital’s third way.




The alternative is to Occupy [Insert Affirmative Infrastructure].


Rather than repair the circulatory system, we must block the arteries and force a heart
attack on the system. This necessitates a rejection of the
1AC

Bryant ’11

(Levi Bryant, December 1
st
, 2011, Philosophy Professor at Collins University, Onticology and
Politics, http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/onticology
-
and
-
politics/)

To get a sense of what I’m talking about
, take the example of OWS
. I am absolutely on the side of the
OWSers, but I also find myself
frustrated

as it seems to me
that much of it is unfolding at the level of an
ideology critique (cultural Marxism) and a desire to persuade these governmental and corporate
forces that is d
oomed to fall on deaf ears. Occupations are taking place everywhere except
, I think,
in
the places where they would have a chance to make a real difference and produce real results. If we
think of capitalist social systems as being akin to an organic body,

then these social systems will have
a circulatory system and a nervous system. The nervous system of a capitalist social system would be
the various mediums through which information is transmitted
(internet, phones, television,
newspapers, etc) as well t
hat the events that take place in those systems (images, songs, reports,
narratives, articles, etc
), while the circulatory system would be the various paths of distribution and
production the system requires to produce this sort of social structure such as

highways, trains,
airports, portions of the internet used for monetary exchange, farms, shipping lanes, etc. The political
goal of the critic of capitalism requires causing capitalism to have a stroke or a heart attack

(continuing with the metaphor of cir
culatory systems). But if that’s to be done,

it’s necessary to occupy
not a park in front of Wall Street or a governors office, but rather the arteries capitalism needs to
survive. Why not occupy the highways? Why not occupy the ports

(Oakland was a good m
ove)? Why
not occupy the internets, finding ways to block commerce traffic? My view is that if all focus is on the
nervous system,
these infrastructural dimensions are entirely missed and we end up with a form of
political engagement that is merely one mor
e form of information production leaving the basic
structure of the system intact.
This is why I’m an object
-
oriented ontologist


Link


Generic


Neither the discourse nor the action of the plan can be separated from capitalism.



Belding ’11

(Michael Belding, Journalist of Transportation, December 7
th
, 2011, Rail, Road
Infrastructure is part of Orthodox Capitalism,
http://www.iowastatedaily
.com/opinion/article_24724abe
-
1a13
-
11e1
-
b3e3
-
001cc4c03286.html
)


California's recent decision to continue with its plans to build a high
-
speed rail system, despite criticism
from Republicans, highlights the importance of investment in infrastructure. The p
roject carries a high
cost, $98 billion, and will not be finished until 2033. However, transportation infrastructure and
accommodation facilitates the economic growth we need.
Building roads and railways
, however,
provides a space in which people can move
and trade
. In ancient times, this investment in creating a
place for business consisted of building a new forum. Now, we build roads. It's not a matter of being
Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal.
Investment in infrastructure goes across party

lines
.
Historically speaking, there have been many reasons for building such projects as the Interstate Highway
System. Chances are good that you use it every break to get home. I use it every day to drive down here
from my home. Ideologically,
government

support of public works


roads, canals and the

like


is
not a new idea
.
Adam Smith advocated government support of infrastructure (as well as the judicial
branch, a standing army and public education for the poor) when he laid the groundwork for the
cap
italism that so defines our way of life
. Funding infrastructure is, in classical conservative thought,
orthodox.


Transportation infrastructure is a capitalist tool that is necessary to complete the
integration of the populace into the globalized system an
d inevitably serve as the
foundation for expansion, guaranteeing imperialism and unchecked violence.

Smith 2008

(Jason, assistant professor of history at the University of New Mexico, "The New Deal Order," Enterprise and Society Vol. 9 N
um
3 2008, Muse Ma
ttG)


By using the
lens

of political economy to focus on the New Deal's public works spending
,
we can begin
to see the

outlines of a different interpretation. The huge amount of funds devoted to public construction, the far
-
reaching federal efforts
investe
d in directing this money, and the
long
-
run impact of the infrastructure

itself form the components of the story of a public
works revolution.
9

This revolution helped justify the new role of the federal government in American life,
legitimizing

intellectually and physically

what has come to be known as
Keynesian management of the economy
.
By
sponsoring

this
infrastructure
,
New Dealers
remade the built environment that managed the movement
of people, goods, electricity, water, and

[End Page 524]

waste
. Among the New Deal's projects were some of the largest and
most significant structures ever built in human history.
10

These programs not only anticipated the

national
highways

and
the military
-
industrial complex;
in the postwar period

government
-
sponsored
economic developm
ent

also
looked
abroad.

For example, Harry
Truman
's Point IV program was
conceived

of

as an international PWA,
building roads and
airports in countries like Afghanistan and Vietnam
. Similarly, Lyndon
Johnson's vision of exporting
Keynesian style economic d
evelopment to Southeast Asia

by replicating the Tennessee Valley Authority on the Mekong
Delta reflected the powerful example set by the New Deal. After World War II, construction firms like Bechtel and Brown & Roo
t (today a
subsidiary of Halliburton) took

their expertise overseas as well.
The New Deal's public

works programs employed millions of
unemployed workers, both urban and rural, while
build
ing
the infrastructure that helped integrate the disparate
regions of the country into a national market.

From

the beginning, then, New Dealers built a state that was both far more
powerful and substantially less liberal than historians have realized: more powerful, in the scale and scope of the federal g
overnment's
commitment to economic development, and less lib
eral, in the sense that the New Deal state was focused on state
-
sponsored economic
development, and not, in contrast, centrally occupied with tasks like implementing its social security program (which began m
aking payments
only in 1942), or with more radic
al goals, such as the direct redistribution of wealth through tax policy. By reinterpreting the New Deal in this
way through a political economic lens, we gain a new history of just how the New Deal's public works programs contributed to
American
economic
development. Public works also had important ramifications for state building and political party building at the federal, st
ate, and
local levels. Harry Hopkins, the head of the WPA, once claimed that the New Deal was a political project that could "tax a
nd tax, spend and
spend, and elect and elect." We now know this phrase's descendant, the derisive expression "tax and spend liberalism," but at

the time Hopkins
made his statement it was pure genius

he succinctly identified the qualities that made New Deal

liberalism so powerful and controversial: The
taxing and spending functions of government could

and
[End Page 525]

did

remake the physical landscape of the nation. Even more striking,
though, was that through using the taxing and spending powers of the st
ate, New Dealers were able to remake a society's politics.
11

These
accomplishments raise a central question: how do we evaluate New Deal

liberalism when we attend to its political economy and place its public
works programs at its core? The New Deal's public works programs reflect a number of achievements and shortcomings. These
programs
built the infrastructure that made a national market

more efficient, spurred dramatic advances in
economic productivity, created a network of roads and airports, planned for national highways,

improved military bases, foreshadowed the rise of the Sunbelt,
and gave the New Dealers a policy tool that could be

used to shape overseas development
,

from the ColdWar through the Vietnam War. Faced with the Great Depression,
the
New Deal and its public works projects helped save capitalism
, an achievement subsequently consolidated by
enormous public spending during W
orld War II and the ensuing postwar economic boom.
12

Bound up with these

triumphs, however,
were many limitations
. Most notable, of cour
se, was
the failure of the public works programs to bring an end
to mass unemployment during the Great Depression
. Those that the New Deal did manage to employ were white men, for
the most part. This was hardly surprising, given their disproportionate pres
ence in the building trades and construction industry, generally.
Surely, the New Deal had a remarkable chance to address the crisis of unemployment among African
-
Americans and women. Yet, in basing so
much of their public policy on the building of public
works projects, New Dealers largely reinforced the gender and racial boundaries already
evident in the labor market, bypassing the maternalist legacies of Progressive Era social policy.
13

When we turn to the environment, the New
Deal's shortcomings are likewise apparent. While architectural historians have generally
[End Page 526]

praised the New Deal for creating a
more democratic landscape, environmental historians have strongly disagreed. From their perspective, the New Deal spent far t
oo much
money on roads and not enough on developing alternative mass transportation technologi
es. They charge that
the New Deal's

large
hydroelectric
projects promoted an imperialist view of resources, leaving nature to be exploited by a
coercive, undemocratic power elite composed of technically minded engineers and narrow
-
minded
bureaucrats.

Devel
opments such as the TVA displaced thousands of people, while the affordable electrical power generated by dams led
only to increased pollution. The main achievement of the New Deal, in this view, is its role in creating an "asphalt nation."

To be sure, the

environmental damage caused by the New Deal's public works projects was real, if difficult to measure. But to blame New Deale
rs such as Harry
Hopkins for not being mindful of the environment is to fail to recognize the historical impact of the New Deal's
public works projects.
14



Link


China

The China threat is a manifestation of a structural issue with capital


the fear that
non
-
tradi
tional capitalism will surpass traditional western market systems produces a
violent backlash

Zizek 1999

Slavoj Zizek, researcher in sociology at the university of Ljubljana, The Ticklish Subject: The absent centre of political on
tology,
1999, pg. 359


Af
ter the demise of Socialism, the ultimate fear of Western capitalism is that another nation or ethnic group will beat the Wes
t on its own
capitalist terms, combining the productivity of capitalism with a form of social mores foreign to us in the West: in t
he l970s, the object of fear
and fascination was Japan; while now, after a short interlude of fascination with South
East Asia,
attention is focusing more and
more on China as the next superpower, combining capitalism with the Communist political structure
.
Such fears ultimately give rise to purely phantasmic formations, like the image of China surpassing the
West in productivity while retaining its authoritarian sociopolitical structure


one is tempted to
designate this phantasmic combination the ‘Asiatic

mode of capitalist production’. Against these
fears, one should emphasize that China will
, sooner or later,
pay the price for the unbridled development
of capitalism in new forms of social unrest and instability
:
the ‘winning formula’ of combining
capital
ism with the Asiatic ‘closed’ ethical community life
-
world is doomed to explode
. Now, more than
ever, one should reassert Marx’s old formula that the limit of capitalism is Capital itself:
the danger to Western capitalism
comes not from outside, from the C
hinese or some other monster beating us at our own game while
depriving us of Western liberal individualism, but from the inherent limit of its own process of
colonizing ever new

(not only geographic but also cultural, psychic, etc.)
domains, of eroding th
e last resistant
spheres of non
-
reflected substantial being, which has to end in some kind of implosion, when Capital
will no longer have any substantial content outside itself to feed on.
39
One should take Marx’s
metaphor of Capital as a vampire
-
like enti
ty literally: it needs some kind of pre
-
reflexive ‘natural
productivity’

(talents in different domains of art, inventors in science, etc.)
in order to feed on its own blood,

and
thus to
reproduce itself


when the circle closes itself, when reflexivity bec
omes thoroughly universal, the whole system is threatened. Another
sign which points in this direction is how, in the sphere of what Adorno and Horkheimer called Kulturindustrie, the desubstan
tializa
tion and/or
reflexivity of the production process has re
ached a level that threatens the whole system with global implosion. Even in high art, the recent
fashion for exhibitions in which ‘everything is permitted’ and can pass as an art object, up to mutilated animal bodies, betr
ays this desperate
need of cultur
al Capital to colonize and include in its circuit even the most extreme and pathological strata of human subjectivity. Parado
xically


and not without irony


the first musical trend which was in a way ‘fabricated’, exploited for a short time and very soon

forgotten, since it
lacked the musical substance to survive and attain the status of ‘classics’ like the early rock of the Beatles and Rolling St
ones, was none other
than punk, which simultaneously marked the strongest intrusion of violent working
-
class p
rotest into mainstream pop culture


in a kind of
mocking version of the Hegelian infinite judgement, in which opposites directly coincide, the raw energy of social protest co
incided with the
new level of commercial prefabrication which, as it were, create
s the object it sells out of itself, with no need for some ‘natural talent’ to
emerge and be subsequently exploited, like Baron Munchhausen saving himself from the swamp by pulling himself up by his own h
airs. Do we
not encounter the same logic in politics
, where the point is less and less to follow a coherent global programme but, rather, to try to guess, by
means of opinion polls, ‘what the people want’, and offer them that? Even in theory, doesn’t the same hold for cultural studi
es in the Anglo
-
Saxon dom
ain, or for the very theory of the risk society?40 Theorists are less and less involved in substantial theoretical work, rest
raining
themselves to writing short ‘interventions’ which mostly display their anxiety to follow the latest theoretical trends (in
feminism, for example,
perspicacious theorists soon realized that radical social constructionism

gender as pefformatively enacted, and so on


is out; that people
are getting tired of it; so they start to rediscover psychoanalysis, the Uncon
scious; in po
stcolonial studies, the latest trend is to oppose
multicultural
ism as a false solution .. .). The point is thus not simply that cultural studies or risk society theory is insufficient on a
ccount of its
content:
an inherent commodification is discernible i
n the very form of the social mode of functioning of
what are supposed to be the latest forms of the American

or European
academic Left. This

reflexivity, which is
also a crucial part of the ‘second modernity,’
is what the theorists of the reflexive risk s
ociety tend to leave out of
consideration
.41



Link


Competitiveness

Structures based on competitiveness carries the rhetorical force of productivity and
capitalism


the endless drive for expansion makes warfare and environmental
collapse inevitable

Bri
stow

2009


(Gillian, School of City & Regional Planning, Cardiff University, "Resilient regions: re
-
‘place’ing regional competitiveness,"
Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 2010, 3, 153

167) MattG


In recent years,
regional

development
strategies have been subjugated to the hegemonic discourse of
competitiveness
,
such that the ultimate objective for all regional development policy
-
makers and
practitioners has become the creation of economic advantage through superior productivity
perform
ance
, or the attraction of new firms and labour (Bristow, 2005). A major consequence is the developing ‘ubiquitification’ of
regional development strategies (Bristow, 2005; Maskell and Malmberg, 1999).
This reflects the status of competitiveness as
a key d
iscursive construct

(Jessop, 2008)
that has acquired hugely significant rhetorical power for certain
interests intent on reinforcing capitalist relations

(Bristow, 2005; Fougner, 2006). Indeed, the
competitiveness
hegemony is such that many policies

previously considered only indirectly relevant to unfettered economic growth
tend to
be hijacked in support of competitiveness agendas

(for example Raco, 2008; also Dannestam, 2008).
This

paper
will
argue
, however, that
a

particularly narrow
discourse of
‘competitiveness’

has been constructed that
has

a number of
negative connotations for the ‘resilience’ of regions
.
Resilience is defined as the region’s ability to
experience positive economic success that is socially inclusive, works within environmental
limits and
which can ride global economic punches

(Ashby et al., 2009). As such, resilience clearly resonates with literatures on
sustainability, localisation and diversification, and the developing understanding of regions as intrinsically diverse entiti
e
s with evolutionary and
context
-
specific development trajectories (Hayter, 2004). In contrast, the dominant discourse of competitiveness is ‘placeless’ and i
ncreasingly
associated with globalised, growth
-
first and environmentally malign agendas (Hudson, 20
05). However, this paper will argue that the
relationships between competitiveness and resilience are more complex than might at first appear. Using insights from the Cul
tural Political
Economy (CPE) approach, which focuses on understanding the constructio
n, development and spread of hegemonic policy discourses, the
paper will argue that the dominant discourse of competitiveness used in regional development policy is narrowly constructed a
nd is thus
insensitive to contingencies of place and the more nuanced

role of competition within economies. This leads to problems of resilience that can
be partly overcome with the development of a more contextualised approach to competitiveness. The paper is now structured as
follows. It
begins by examining the developing

understanding of resilience in the theorising and policy discourse around regional development. It then
describes the CPE approach and utilises its framework to explain both how a narrow conception of competitiveness has come to
dominate
regional developm
ent policy and how resilience inter
-
plays in subtle and complex ways with competitiveness and its emerging critique. The
paper then proceeds to illustrate what resilience means for regional development firstly, with reference to the Transition To
wns concep
t, and
then by developing a typology of regional strategies to show the different characteristics of policy approaches based on comp
etitiveness and
resilience.
Regional resilience
Resilience is rapidly emerging as an idea whose time has come in policy disc
ourses around localities and regions,
where it is developing widespread appeal owing to the peculiarly powerful combination of transformative pressures from below,

and various
catalytic, crisis
-
induced imperatives for change from above. It features strongl
y in policy discourses around environmental management and
sustainable development (see Hudson, 2008a), but has also more recently emerged in relation to emergency and disaster plannin
g with, for
example ‘Regional Resilience Teams’ established in the Engli
sh regions to support and co
-
ordinate civil protection activities around various
emergency situations such as the threat of a swine flu pandemic. The discourse of resilience is also taking hold in discussio
ns around desirable
local and regional development

activities and strategies.
The recent global ‘credit crunch’ and the accompanying
increase in livelihood insecurity

has highlighted the advantages of those local and regional economies
that have greater ‘resilience’ by virtue of being less dependent upon
globally footloose activities,
having greater economic diversity, and/or having a determination to prioritise and effect more
significant structural change

(Ashby et al, 2009; Larkin and Cooper, 2009). Indeed, resilience features particular strongly in the

‘grey’
literature spawned by thinktanks, consultancies and environmental interest groups around the consequences of the global reces
sion,
catastrophic climate change and the arrival of the era of peak oil for localities and regions with all its implicatio
ns for the longevity of carbon
-
fuelled economies, cheap, long
-
distance transport and global trade.
This popularly labelled ‘triple crunch’

(New Economics
Foundation, 2008)
has powerfully illuminated the potentially disastrous material consequences of the
v
oracious growth imperative at the heart of neoliberalism and competitiveness, both in the form of
resource constraints

(especially food security)
and in the inability of the current system to manage global
financial and ecological sustainability
. In so doi
ng, it appears to be galvinising previously disparate, fractured debates about the
merits of the current system, and challenging public and political opinion to develop a new, global concern with frugality, e
galitarianism and
localism (see, for example Jac
kson, 2009; New Economics Foundation, 2008).


Link


Hegemony

US hegemony is sustained by imperial domination of the globe


this situates the US
as the global economic superpower


the impact is nuclear omnicide and ecological
collapse

Foster 2005


(John
,

Professor of Sociology, University of Oregon; Editor, Monthly Review,
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0905jbf.htm
)


The unprecedented dangers

of this new global disorder are revealed in the twin catac
lysms to which the world is heading at present
:
nuclear proliferation and hence increased chances of the outbreak of
nuclear war, and planetary ecological destruction
.
These are symbolized by the Bush administration’s refusal to sign the Comprehensive Test

Ban Treaty to limit nuclear weapons development
and by its failure to sign the Kyoto Protocol as a first step in controlling global warming. As former U.S. Secretary of Defe
nse (in the Kennedy
and Johnson administrations) Robert McNamara stated in an arti
cle entitled “Apocalypse Soon” in the May

June 2005 issue of Foreign Policy:
“The United States has never endorsed the policy of ‘no first use,’ not during my seven years as secretary or since. We have
been and remain
prepared to initiate the use of nuclea
r weapons

by the decision of one person, the president

against either a nuclear or nonnuclear enemy
whenever we believe it is in our interest to do so.”
The nation with the greatest conventional military force and the
willingness to use it unilaterally to
enlarge its global power is also the nation with the greatest nuclear
force and the readiness to use it whenever it sees fit

setting the whole world on edge.
The nation that
contributes more to carbon dioxide emissions leading to global warming than any ot
her

(representing
approximately a quarter of the world’s total)
has become the greatest obstacle to addressing global warming and
the world’s growing environmental problems

raising the possibility of the collapse of civilization itself if present trends
co
ntinue
.
The United States is seeking to exercise sovereign authority over the planet during a time of
widening global crisis: economic stagnation, increasing polarization between the global rich and the
global poor, weakening U.S. economic hegemony, growin
g nuclear threats, and deepening ecological
decline.

The result is a heightening of international instability. Other potential forces are emerging in the world, such as the Europ
ean
Community and China, that could eventually challenge U.S. power, regionall
y and even globally. Third world revolutions, far from ceasing, are
beginning to gain momentum again, symbolized by Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution under Hugo Chávez. U.S. attempts to tighten

its imperial
grip on the Middle East and its oil have had to c
ope with a fierce, seemingly unstoppable, Iraqi resistance, generating conditions of imperial
overstretch. With the United States brandishing its nuclear arsenal and refusing to support international agreements on the c
ontrol of such
weapons, nuclear proli
feration is continuing. New nations, such as North Korea, are entering or can be expected soon to enter the “nuclear
club.”
Terrorist blowback from imperialist wars

in the third world is now a well
-
recognized reality,

generating rising
fear of further terr
orist attacks

in New York, London, and elsewhere.
Such vast and overlapping historical
contradictions, rooted in the combined and uneven development of the global capitalist economy
along with the U.S. drive for planetary domination, foreshadow what is pot
entially the most
dangerous period in the history of imperialism
.
The course on which U.S and world capitalism is now headed points to global
barbarism

or worse. Yet

it is important to remember that
nothing in

the development of human
history is inevitable
. There still remains an
alternative path

the

global
struggle for

a humane, egalitarian, democratic, and
sustainable society
.


Link


Highways

Highway infrastructure enables the economic integration of all aspects of the US


this
ensured the atrophy of r
ural societies and shaped the economic ideologies of
American capitalism

Hamilton 6

(Shane, assistant professor of history at the University of Georgia, "Trucking Country: Food
Politics and the Transformation of Rural Life in Postwar America," Trucking Co
untry: Food Politics and
the Transformation of Rural Life in Postwar America, Muse)

By showing how trucking reconfigured the technological, political, and cultural relationships between
rural producers and urban consumers
from the 1930s to the 1970s,
my di
ssertation reveals the rural roots of a
radical transformation of American capitalism
in the midtwentieth century.
Highway transportation provided
the infrastructure for a transition from the New Deal

era political economy

based on centralized
political au
thority, a highly regulated economy, and collective social values

to a post

New Deal
capitalist culture marked by widespread antistatism, minimal market regulation, and fierce
individualism
. From the 1930s to the late 1970s, consumer demand for low
-
priced
food, coupled with farmers' demands for high
commodity prices, prompted the federal government to encourage agribusinesses to use long
-
haul trucks, piloted by fiercely independent
"truck drivin' men," to privatize the politics of food.
Western meatpackers
and

other
agribusinesses

were determined
to shred government regulations and labor unions in the name of "free enterprise," low wages, and
irresistibly low consumer prices

for goods such as well
-
marbled steaks, jugs of milk, and frozen orange juice.
The po
st

World
War II highway
-
based food economy began unraveling the social fabric of rural America for the sake
of lowconsumer prices

long before Wal
-
Mart became infamous for said strategy.
1

Trucks
, I contend,
were political
technologies, used to define the contours of public policy regarding foods and farmers
; at the same time,
trucks

as technologies
shaped the economic and social
structures underlying those political debates.

In doing
so,
long
-
haul trucking

in the rural countryside
set the pace for

the low
-
price, low
-
wage, "free
-
market"
economic
ideologies of

late twentieth
-
century
American capitalism.


Link


Railroads

Railroad i
nfrastructure hollows out the national economy for the domestic work force


this sets into motion a cannibalism of labor that turns case

Fraser 12

(Steve,writer and historian @ Columbia "More than Greed," Dissent Vol 59 Num 1 2012,
Muse,

Why? Maybe that
decision stems from Madrick’s
aversion to thinking of the crisis as systemic

and to a
related faith in
the

Democratic Party as the repository of
the New Deal version of capitalism
, a version many progressives would like to restore.
But
the New Deal

not onl
y civilized a broken
-
down economic system, it also
sought successfully to extend the reach of
the capitalist marketplace and credit networks

not abolish them.
It created the political and institutional
foundations of mass consumption capitalism
. Those foun
dations eventually crumbled as domestic opportunities for
profitable enough capital accumulation grew scarce, a process that in turn exerted a relentless downward pressure on labor co
sts and the social
wage. That is to say,
in a
n increasingly fierce
strugg
le to compete

with lower cost foreign producers,
American business
began to undermine the foundations of “effective demand” among ordinary working people

that had kept
the system upright for so long.
It set in motion a perverse dynamic of disaccumulation

o
r

what might be called the
auto
-
cannibalism of an economy eating itself alive
.
The most developed economy in the world began a
process of underdevelopment. Its infrastructure

road, bridges, tunnels,
railroads
, waterworks, dams, airports, electrical
grids

w
ere allowed to decay
.
The

industrial
core

of the economy was hollowed out by

precisely those “
financial
engineers
” Madrick writes
[End Page 103]

about. Deindustrialization signaled that the old system had broken down. This became a long,
secular crisis. Gradually and then at an accelerated rate, it elicited one overriding response; namely, to leverage everythin
g in sight. Everything
in this case i
ncluded capital assets
that produced debt
-
based asset bubbles in stocks or housing or other
securities

and commodities that provided a kind of “privatized Keynesian” stimulus package for elite financial institutions. Meanwhile,
below,
a working population
found itself drowning in a sea of usurious credit.


Impact


Commodification

Capitalism commodifies all values and integrates them into economic society, it takes
away sentimental value to life and replaces it with monetary gain

Offe and Ronge,

19
75,
New

German Critique (Claus, Volker,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/487658
, A.N.)

4.
The key problem,

however,
lies in the fact that the dynamics of capitalist¶ development seem to

exhibit a constant tendency to
paralyze the commodity¶ form of value
.
Values cease to exist in the
commodity form as soon as they¶ cease seeking exchange for money or other values
. To be sure
, in an
economic¶ world consisting of commodities one can never
be certain that one particular¶ item
offered on the market for sale will actually find a buyer
. But in this

simple case the failure of a value
offered for exchange is supposed to be

self
-
corrective: the owner of the exchange
-
seeking value will
either be
forced

to lower the price or to offer an alternative good the use value of which does

have
higher chances of being bought. At least in the world of Jean Baptiste

Say, an economy consisting of
commodities is self
-
perpetuating: the failure of¶ a good as a

commodity leads to other goods less
likely to fail.

Similarly,
parts¶ of labor and parts of capital which are, as it were, temporarily thrown
out of¶ the commodity form in the course of an economic depression, create, through¶ the very fact
of their idlen
ess, the preconditions for a new boom

(at least if

there is downward flexibility of prices).
The functioning of this "healthy"¶ self
-
corrective mechanism, however, does not seem to be the
regular case,¶ particularly in advanced capitalist societies. Marxi
st economic theory has¶ developed
various, though controversial, theorems which could explain such¶ failure of self
-
corrective
mechanisms. For example, it is assumed that¶ monopolization of the economy leads to downward
inflexibility of prices on¶ the one
side, and, to a constant flow of what Baran and Sweezy have called¶
"surplus profit" on the other
, i.e., monopolistic profits unsuccessfully in search

of investment outlets.
Another explanation is based on the increasingly social

character of production
in capitalism. This
means increasing division of labor

within and among capitalist enterprises, hence increased
specialization of

every single unit of capital and labor, and hence diminished flexibility and

adaptivity to
alternative uses. Thirdly it has

been argued
that the periodic¶ destruction of large parts of value
through unfettered economic crises is by¶ itself a healthy economic mechanism which will improve
chances for the¶ remaining values to "perform" as commodities, but that the conflict¶ assoc
iated
with such "cleansing off" of superfluous values tend to become¶ explosive to the extent that they
have to be prevented by state intervention¶ and Keynesian policies
.

Whatever may be the correct and
complete explanation, there is plenty of

142 NEW
GERMAN CRITIQUE

everyday evidence to the effect
that both labor and capital are thrown out of¶ the commodity form, and that there is little basis for
any confidence that they¶ will be reintegrated into exchange relationships automatically


Impact


Dehuma
nization

Capitalism results in the dissolution of mankind and strips us of our morals


the result is
dehumanization

Horsley 10

(May 2006. Mark Horsley: Degree in Criminology from Northumbria University. Internet Journal of Criminology. “Capitalism
and
Crime: The Criminogenic Potential of the Free Market.”
http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Hors
ley_Capitalism_and_Crime_Oct_2010.pdf
)


We need

not look far to notice stark differences in recorded crime between societies expressing
different forms of capitalism. If we start by looking at relatively reliable, comparable indicators such
as homicide rates (crimes of this sort tend to get noticed and

reported as well as being fairly similar
across cultures) the differences should become apparent. The average homicide rate in the EU was
1.59 per 100,000 between 1999 and 2001 with countries like Germany, Sweden and Austria falling
below this level, this

provides stark contrast to levels 5.56 per 100,000 in the USA (Hall, Forthcoming).
Incidentally, Japan had a homicide rate of 1.08 offences per 100,000 in 1995 (Finch, 2001: 220), so
despite being a post
-
industrial nation that was occupied by the American
s for a number of years
Japanese murder rates resemble European levels. Thus we see pronounced differences between the
areas under examination and between ideologies. What is striking, however, is the heightened
criminality of the neo
-
liberal nations. The
idea that certain types of capitalism might influence people
into deviant behaviour is not new, several theorists from the 19th and early 20th centuries (the era of
classical liberalism) noticed many similar problems to those we are beginning to recognise
today.
Young (cited in Lea et al, 1996) provides a useful summary of Engels views on the crime problem in
capitalist societies. He puts forward a four
-
fold distinction of individual adaptation to encroaching
capitalism. Firstly, the individual can “become
so brutalised so as to be, in effect, a determined
creature” (Ibid), secondly, he or she can accept and engage with capitalism wholeheartedly, thirdly he
or she can turn to crime or, finally, struggle for socialism. Although a little simplistic in its anal
ysis,
particularly in its assumption that the poor will ‘steal the property of the rich’ when today we have
noticed that much crime is intra rather than inter
-
class, it remains useful. Brutalisation
, it appears,

occurs
simply because of the demoralising ef
fects of the treatment of the working class by the bourgeoisie,
being treated as something subhuman
may

lead inexorably to criminality, at least according to Engels.
Those who accept capitalism will find themselves living a life where they are separated fr
om their
fellow man in a “dissolution of mankind into monads” (Ibid, 2). Engels argued that this dissolution
would breed individuals who care for nothing but personal interest and advancement. As a
consequence many of these people were no longer capable of

settling interpersonal differences
amicably and would resort to violence and the law courts. Thus even those who accept capitalism are
in Engels’ view not beyond turning to crime. He even argues that rising crime under capitalism is an
essential factor in

stimulating a coming revolution. As the class
-
consciousness of the proletariat grows
they leave behind many forms of crime and yet maintain the motivation, their hatred of the bourgeois
hegemony. According to Engels, rising crime rates are a healthy sign,

a sign that he and Karl Marx
were right to predict a revolution. If we move back to the present day, we know this revolution never
came about most likely because Engels underestimated the power of Victorian social reform and the
levels of subscription to
the bourgeois ideal and did not foresee state subscription to Keynesian
economics.


Capitalism isolates and demoralizes individuals


Horsley 10

(May 2006. Mark Horsley: Degree in Criminology from Northumbria University. Internet Journal of Criminology.

“Capitalism
and Crime: The Criminogenic Potential of the Free Market.”
http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Hors
ley_Capitalism_and_Crime_Oct_2010.pdf
)


Willem Bonger (2003 [1916]) also wrote on this topic during the early 20th century. He proposed that
a ‘favourable environment’ could prevent egoistic acts but an economic system based upon exchange
instead of utilit
y “cannot fail to have an egoistic character” (ibid. 58). Bonger thought that a society
based on exchange would isolate individuals from each other by “weakening the bonds that unite
them” (Ibid.). The primary bond between individuals in early capitalist s
ociety was a sense of shared
interest and common fate, but (neoliberal) capitalism might actually dismantle this bond by forcing
people to compete with each other for work, income and social position. It seems quite obvious that
this all sounds very normal

in the present day and is no more than a statement of reality but we must
remember that this economic type was still relatively new at the beginning of the 20th century.
Bonger’s explanations for the rise of social inequality and for the demoralising effe
ct that capitalism
can have on individuals arose from the necessity of labour to capitalist production and in particular
the need of the producer to purchase labour (and from the labourer’s need to sell). Bonger argues
that people are forced to sell their
labour to avoid starvation, which, in most cases, does not enter the
equation now because of the remnants of our welfare state. However, it is still the case that we need
to work to provide for ourselves, thus Bonger’s idea that this situation gives rise t
o exploitation may
still be relevant. “Little by little one class of men has become accustomed to think that the others are
destined to amass wealth for them” (Ibid. 60), this, thought Bonger, demoralises both the producer
and the labourer. In the producer

it creates greed and a disregard for those under his or her charge
who are seen solely as profit making machines. In the labouring classes it creates feelings of insecurity
and demoralisation because there is always a surplus of labour with which we can b
e threatened if we
fail to live up to expectations.


Impact


Environment


The function of capitalism requires a consistent environmental cycle of abuse, repair,
and expand that necessitate ecological collapse.


Strong ’11

(Edward Strong, Writer on Social
istic Ideals, May 10
th
, 2011, Environmental Destruction is
in Capitalism’s DNA,
http://ed
-
strong.com/environmental
-
destruction
-
is
-
in
-
capitalisms
-
dna
)


Capitalism as a sys
tem of rifts and shifts
.
Rifts, because its reliance on short
-
term profit and endless
growth means it must drive an ever
-
deepening wedge between human society and the natural

conditions needed to sustain all life. Shifts, because when it’s confronted with
environmental
degradation the system tends to simply move it elsewhere
.

These shifts are often geographical


toxic, polluting industries are moved out of urban areas or from the rich nations to the global South.

Another example is how
the depletion of na
tural resources in one region merely drives capital to
expand its reach somewhere else in the globe
.

The oil industry, which has expanded offshore drilling
operations in the past few decades (think the Gulf of Mexico) and now wants to drill for oil in the

relatively untouched Arctic Ocean, is a classic example of this kind of geographical shifting characteristic
of capitalism.

But the shifts are also technological.
Capitalism has typically responded to
environmental problems and resource depletion with te
chnical changes in the methods of production:
wood
-
burning substituted for coal
-
burning, natural fertiliser for synthetic fertiliser, paper for plastic,
conventional oil for biofuels, and fossil fuel power plants for nuclear power plants.¶

These changes
ha
ve opened up new profitable markets but have also created new, and more pressing, ecological rifts.

One way to look at this is to see capitalism as a bubble economy, which uses up environmental
resources and the absorptive capacity of the environment whil
e displacing the costs back on Earth itself,
this incurring an enormous ecological debt.

As long as the system is relatively small and can keep
expanding outwardly, this ecological debt is displaced, often without any recognition of the costs that
have be
en incurred
.¶ Once the economic system begins to approach not just its regional boundaries
but planetary boundaries, the mounting ecological debt will become ever more precarious,
threatening an ecological crash.¶

Yet the nearness of this crash won’t promp
t the system’s rulers to
change course.
Environmental destruction is part of capitalism’s DNA
.

Capitalism is incapable of
regulating its social metabolism with nature in an environmentally sustainable manner
. Its very
operations violate the laws of
restitution and metabolic restoration.

The constant drive to renew the
capital accumulation process intensifies its destructive social metabolism
, imposing the needs of
capital on nature, regardless of the consequences to natural systems.

Capitalism cont
inues to play out
the same failed strategy again and again. The solution to each environmental problem generates new
environmental problems (and often does not curtail the old ones).¶ One crisis follows another in an
endless succession of failure, stemming

from the internal contradictions of the system. If we are to
solve our environmental crises, we need to go to the root of the problem: the social relations of
capital itsel
f.

Mainstream environmental commentators and groups resist this conclusion. Althou
gh
they may be harshly critical of the environmental destruction, they limit their proposals to what is
feasible within the framework of the capitalist system.

Sometimes this is justified on pragmatic grounds
that the ecological crisis is so advanced that

we don’t have time to change the system, and so we need
to work within the flawed system we’ve got.

Others have been convinced by the neoliberal argument
that capitalism can be made green and serve ecologically sensible outcomes


the idea that once
envi
ronmental goods are adequately priced, preserving ecosystems can be made profitable and the
market could become the saviour, rather than the destroyer, of the planet
.¶ Yet others still may
acknowledge capitalism’s anti
-
ecological features, but are either p
essimistic about the potential to
change society or think that any other social system would be even worse.


Capitalism is the root cause of Global Warming and the destruction of the
environment

Chris ’08

(N. Chris Writer of Socialist and Capitalistic ideals, December 21
st
, 2008, Capitalism and
Environmental Destruction,
http://www.angelfire.com/co2/socialism/theenvironment.html
)


P
eople often wonder about the environmental movement and its inability to effect a discernable change
upon the devestation done to the environment due to the corporate pursuit of profit. Advocates of high
ecology argue that we must return to a more austere
way of living, that the benefits of modern
technology must be given up and we must all take voluntary vows of poverty to accomadate the needs
of nature. Centuries of Christian ideology and
the capitalist mindset have convinced us that humankind
is above na
ture, and that nature's needs must accede to the needs of the dominant lifeform on Earth
.
Now, we are collectively paying for this,
as the environment continues to decline, the ozone layer is
depleted more every day and cancer
-
causing chemicals invade our
water and poisonous pesticides are
introduced into our food. Not to mention the nuclear waste that piles up as industry refuses to find
safer sources of energy due to the nature of financial expense and the harmful genetic engineering
that thrNeatens to cr
eate new organisms that are not an accepted part of nature. Many high ecology
advocates would exclaim that human civilazation itself is the cause of this destruction,

and that the
Industrial Revolution and the enormous amounts of waste it produces are to b
lame.
In actuality,
however, it is merely the capitalist mode of production that deserves the finger pointing, not the
human race and its accompanying technology
. One must understand the true nature of our economic
laws to fully understand why the existenc
e of the human race appears to be in opposition to the rest of
nature. As socialists will correctly point out, it's not humanity that is the problem, but rather the way our
current system of production for profit works. To do this, a brief recap of why pro
duction under
capitalism occurs is in order.

Even worse,
the working class is blackmailed into choosing between jobs or the environment
, i.e., they
are told that in order to bear the costs of implementing expensive safety measures for the safe disposal
of

waste, downsizing on jobs must occur.
Faced with this Catch
-
22 situation, and being dependent
upon the capitalist class for their wages, the working class usually decides to keep their jobs and pray
that the resulting environmental damage won't destroy hu
man life on the planet during their lifetime,
or cause horrific outbreaks of cancer and other diseases on the next generation
. We can only hope
that things do not get too bad in the next few decades, and that the planet Earth will continue to be able
to su
stain us and to continue to protect us from the harmful radiation that the ozone layer normally
keeps from hitting the Earth. Never is capitalism blamed for the problem. Instead, we are told that the
causes are unknown, that they are an unavoidable fact of

living in an industrialized world, or that
humankind is naturally "evil" and that our dominance of the Earth is to be expected and even
encouraged for metaphysical reasons.



Capitalism causes ecological imperialism which allows us to destroy the environm
ent
in the constant quest for more material gain

Clark and Foster

20
03
, Ecological Imperialism: The Curse of Capitalism( John Bellamy, Brett,
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5iQCF3I1jmIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR65&dq=against+capitalism
&ots=GoKOisz0Fk&sig=nCg8NlDGrG6Zrp
-
AHFoQs6riq2E#v=onepage&q=against%20capita
lism&f=false
,
A.N.)

In the spring of 2003 the United States, backed by Britain, invaded Iraq, a¶ country with the second
largest oil reserves in the world. The United States¶ is now working to expand Iraqi oil production,
while securing for itself

an¶
increasingly dominant position

in the control of this crucial resource as
part of

its larger economic and geopolitical strategy. Earlier, the same US administration¶ that
invaded Iraq had pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, designed to limit the¶ growth in
the emissions of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases responsible¶ for global warming



a phenomenon
threatening all life as we know it.
It¶ is no wonder, then, that the last few years have seen a growth of
concern about¶ ecological imperialism
, which

in many eyes has become
as significant as

the more

familiar
political, economic and cultural forms of imperialism to which it is¶ related
.

In 1986 Alfred
Crosby published a work entitled Ecological Imperialism: The

Biological Expansion of Europe, 900
-
1
900,
that described
the destruction wrought¶ on indigenous environments


most often inadvertently



by
the European colonization

of much of the rest of the world.1
Old World flora and fauna¶ introduced
into New World environments experienced demographic
explosions¶ with adverse effects on native
species.

As the subtitle of Crosby’s book suggested,

his historical analysis dealt mainly with ‘biological
expansion’ and thus had no

direct concern with
imperialism as a political
-
economic phenomenon.
It
did no
t

consider how
ecology might relate to the domination of the periphery of the¶ capitalist world
economy by the centre, or to rivalry between different capitalist¶ powers. Like the infectious diseases
that killed tens of millions of indigenous¶ peoples fol
lowing Columbus’ landing in the Americas,
ecological imperialism in¶ this view worked as a purely biological force, following ‘encounters’
between¶ regions of the earth that had previously been separated geographically.

Social

relations of
production were

largely absent from this historical account.

The ecological problem under capitalism is
a complex one. An analysis at the¶ level of the entire globe is required.

Ecological degradation at this
universal level

is related to the divisions within the world

capitalist system, arising from the fact

that
a
single world economy is nonetheless divided into numerous nation
-
states,

competing with each other
both directly and via their corporations.

It is also

divided hierarchically into centre and periphery,
wi
th nations occupying fundamentally¶ different positions in the international division of labour, and
in a¶ world
-
system of dominance and dependency
.

All of this makes
the analysis of ecological
imperialism complicated enough,¶ but understanding has also b
een impeded by the
underdevelopment of an ecological¶ materialist analysis of capitalism within Marxist theory as a
whole
.2

Nevertheless, it has long been apparent


and was stipulated in Marx’s own work



that
transfers in economic values are accompanie
d in complex ways by real¶ ‘material
-
ecological’ flows
that transform relations between city and country, and¶ between global metropolis and periphery
.3
Control of such flows is a vital part

of competition between rival industrial and financial centres.
E
cological imperialism¶ thus presents itself most obviously in the following ways: the pillage of¶ the
resources of some countries by others and the transformation of whole¶ ecosystems upon which
states and nations depend; massive movements of population¶ a
nd labour that are interconnected
with the extraction and transfer of¶ resources; the exploitation of ecological vulnerabilities of
societies to promote¶ imperialist control; the dumping of ecological wastes in ways that widen the¶
chasm between centre and

periphery; and overall, the creation of a global ‘metabolic¶ rift’ that
characterizes the relation of capitalism to the environment, and at¶ the same time limits capitalist
development.

THE ‘METABOLIC



Capitalism devalues and guarantees the destruction
of the environment

Foster ‘9

(John Bellamy Foster, Professor of Sociology at the University of Oregon, November 2009,

The Paradox of Wealth: Capitalism and Ecological Destruction,
http://monthlyreview.org/2009/11/01/the
-
paradox
-
of
-
wealth
-
capitalism
-
and
-
ec
ological
-
destruction)

Here, it is important to understand that certain conceptual categories that
Marx uses in his critique of
political economy, such as nature as a “free gift” and the labor theory of value itself, were

inventions

of classical
-
liberal pol
itical economy

that were integrated into Marx’s critique of classical political
economy


insofar as they exhibited the real tendencies and contradictions of the system. Marx
employed these concepts in an argument aimed at transcending bourgeois society an
d its limited social
categories.
The idea that nature was a “free gift” for exploitation was explicitly advanced by the
physiocrats
, and by Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill


well before
Marx.18 Moreover, it has been perpetua
ted in mainstream economics long after Marx. Although
accepting it as a reality of bourgeois political economy, Marx was nevertheless well aware of the social
and ecological contradictions imbedded in such a view. Thus, in his Economic Manuscripts of 1861
-
63,he
repeatedly attacked Malthus for falling back on this “physiocratic notion” of the environment as “a gift
of nature to man
,” while failing to recognize that the concrete appropriation of nature for production


and the entire value framework built upo
n this in capitalist society


was, in fact, associated with
historically specific social relations
.19 For Marx, with his emphasis on the need to protect the earth for
future generations, the capitalist expropriation of the environment as a free object sim
ply pointed to
the contradiction between natural wealth and a system of accumulation of capital that systematically
“robbed” it.Nevertheless, since
the treatment of nature as a “free gift” was intrinsic to the workings of
the

capitalist economy, it
continued to be included as a basic proposition underlying neoclassical

economics.

It was repeated as an axiom in the work of the great late
-
nineteenth
-
century neoclassical
economist Alfred Marshall, and has continued to be advanced in orthodox economic te