Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Pointer/LeDuc/Gaither
Capitalism K
***1NC***
Capitalism K
1NC
Economic engagement with Latin America fuels capitalist
exploitation the plan is used to make imperialist violence
more efficient and invisible
Tumino Assistant Professor of English @ City University of New
York, 02,
(Stephen, author of Cultural Theory After the Contemporary, May/June 02, The Red
Critique, Contesting the Empire-al Imaginary: The Truth of Democracy as Class,
http://redcritique.org/MayJune02/contestingtheempirealimaginary.htm, [Accessed
7/8/13], JB).
freedom and democracy under capitalism is only for the few who can
afford it because they live off the labor of the many. As capitalism
develops on a global scale, the many cannot even meet their basic needs
But
and are compelled to enter into struggle against the bossesas Argentina, after only 10 years of neoliberal
deregulation, and Venezuela, whose workers must arm themselves simply to defend the minor redistributions of
the South crushed by poverty and corruption. The poverty and corruption of course are the result of freedom and
democracythe freedom of the capitalist to exploit human labor power for profit which is what in actuality "chases
the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe" and "compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to []
introduce what it calls civilization into their midst", as The Communist Manifesto says (Marx 477). The "moral" story
about protecting human rights is told to cover up the material truth about democracy being the freedom to exploit
inequality. As Venezuela shows, it is obvious that what stands in the way of a regime directed toward meeting
people's needs, which is what Chavez represents, is not a lack of respect for human rights by immoral and corrupt
people of the South, but the need of big business for a bigger share of the world market. It was the US oil giants
represented by the Bush regime, supported by the trade union bureaucracy in this country, that aided the counterrevolutionary coup in Venezuela (e.g., by fomenting the oil workers strike as the core of a "civil society" movement
that tried to abolish the popular social reforms of the Chavez government). It is for profit not democracy that the US
supported the reactionary coup to overthrow Chavez (not just in words but with financial aid, military weapons and
advisors as the British Guardian has reported); it is for profit and not for democracy that the US supports Israel and
is currently colonizing Afghanistan as preparation for taking Iraq. It is obvious that the Bush regime is guided by
profit and not democracy, which is why global public opinion is everywhere outside the US opposed to US
"unilateralism" and "empire" building. This growing "obviousness" of democracy as hegemony of the rich threatens
the ideology of capitalism by exposing democracy as the bourgeois freedom to exploit the labor and resources of
the world. It is also behind the formation of a transnational populist left, however, that goes along with the system
of wage labor and capital by marking the obvious hoax of democracy but nevertheless channeling the opposition
into a reformist politics to maintain capitalism. By merely contesting its obviously barbaric effects rather than
Capitalism K
engage in a radical critique of capitalism for a social revolution against wage-slavery that is the cause of the effects,
the left supports the ideology of democracy as class rule. It thus goes along with the reactionary backlash to make
social contradictions into problems of "governance" and "policy" of "unruly" subjectsthe powerless are made to
"profit" and consists of unpaid labor that the capitalists appropriate and use to achieve ever-greater profits. These
profits are turned into capital which capitalists use to further exploit the producers of all wealth-the working class.
Capitalists are compelled by competition to seek to maximize profits. The capitalist class as a whole can do that
Under
capitalism, economic development happens only if it is profitable to the individual
capitalists, not for any social need or good. The profit drive is inherent in capitalism,
and underlies or exacerbates all major social ills of our times. With the rapid advance of
only by extracting a greater surplus from the unpaid labor of workers by increasing exploitation.
technology and productivity, new forms of capitalist ownership have developed to maximize profit. The working
people of our country confront serious, chronic problems because of capitalism. These chronic problems become
part of the objective conditions that confront each new generation of working people.
The threat of
nuclear war, which can destroy all humanity, grows with the spread of nuclear
weapons, space-based weaponry, and a military doctrine that justifies their use in preemptive wars and wars
without end. Ever since the end of World War II, the U.S. has been constantly involved in aggressive military actions
big and small. These wars have cost millions of lives and casualties, huge material losses, as well as trillions of U.S.
taxpayer dollars. Threats to the environment continue to spiral, threatening all life on our planet.
Millions of workers are unemployed or insecure in their jobs, even during economic upswings and periods of
make ends meet. Most workers now average four different occupations during their lifetime, being involuntarily
moved from job to job and career to career. Often, retirement-age workers are forced to continue working just to
provide health care for themselves. With capitalist globalization, jobs move as capitalists export factories and even
Capitalism K
disorganizing them. In every aspect of economic and social life, African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian
a nd Pacific Islanders, Arabs and Middle Eastern peoples, and other nationally and racially oppressed people
to suppress and undercount the vote of the African American and other racially oppressed people are part of racism
in the electoral process. Racism permeates the police, judicial and prison systems, perpetuating unequal
sentencing, racial profiling, discriminatory enforcement, and police brutality. The democratic, civil and human
rights of all working people are continually under attack. These attacks range from increasingly difficult procedures
for union recognition and attempts to prevent full union participation in elections, to the absence of the right to
strike for many public workers. They range from undercounting minority communities in the census to making it
difficult for working people to run for office because of the domination of corporate campaign funding and the high
cost of advertising. These attacks also include growing censorship and domination of the media by the ultra-right;
growing restrictions and surveillance of activist social movements and the Left; open denial of basic rights to
immigrants; and, violations of the Geneva Conventions up to and including torture for prisoners. These abuses all
serve to maintain the grip of the capitalists on government power. They use this power to ensure the economic and
constant attacks on social welfare programs severely impact single women, single mothers, nationally and racially
oppressed women, and all working class women. The reproductive rights of all women are continually under attack
ideologically and politically. Violence against women in the home and in society at large remains a shameful fact of
life in the U.S.
even fluid, ambivalent "subject positions" if you likewhen the majority of these
postmodernized creatures are dying of hunger, curable epidemics, diseases and
psychosomatic illnesses brought about precisely by the predatory encroachment of
globalizing transnational corporations, mostly based in the U.S. and Western Europe? But it is not just
academic postmodernists suffering from the virus of pragmatist metaphysics who apologize for profit-making
globalization. Even a latterly repentant World Bank expert, Joseph Stiglitz, could submit in his well-known
Globalization and Its Discontents, the following ideological plea: "Foreign aid, another aspect of the globalized
world, for all its faults still has brought benefits to millions, often in ways that have almost gone unnoticed: guerillas
in the Philippines were provided jobs by a World Bank financed-project as they laid down their arms" (Stiglitz 420).
Any one slightly familiar with the Cold War policies of Washington vis--vis a neocolony like the Philippines knows
that World Bank funds were then used by the U.S. Pentagon to suppress
the Communist Party-led peasant rebellion in the 1950s against the iniquitous
semi-feudal system and corrupt comprador regime (Doty; Constantino). It is globalization utilized to
maintain direct coercive U.S. domination of the Philippines at a crucial conjuncture when the Korean War was
mutating into the Vietnam War, all designed to contain "World Communism" (China, Soviet Union). Up to now,
despite nationalist gains in the last decade, the Philippine government plays host every year to thousands of U.S.
"Special Forces" purportedly training Filipino troops in the war against "terrorism"that is, against anti-imperialist
forces like the Communist Party-led New People's Army and progressive elements of the Moro Islamic National
Capitalism K
Liberation Front and the Moro National Liberation Front (International Peace Mission). One needs to repeat again
that the present world system, as Hugo Radice argues, remains "both global and national", a contingent and
contradictory process (4). Globalization dialectically negates and affirms national entitiespseudo-nations as well
juxtaposition, syncretic amalgamation, and so on, one perceives a counter-current of fragmentation, increasing
Articulating these
historical contradictions without theorizing the concept of crisis in capital
accumulation will only lead to the short-circuiting transculturalism of
Ashcroft and other ideologies waging battle for supremacy/hegemony over
"popular common sense" imposing meaning /order/significance on the whole
globalization process (Rupert). Indeed, academic inquirers of globalization are protagonists in this
dignity and justice in the everyday lives of whole populations with singular life-forms?
unfolding drama of universalization under duress. One may pose the following questions as a heuristic pedagogical
Capitalism K
***Links***
Capitalism K
Link Anthro
The affs attempt to reconnect human and animal ignores the
materialist thoughts that created the binary
Cotter, Assistant Professor of English at William Jewell College,
12
(Jennifer, Winter/Spring 2012, The Red Critique, Bio-politics, Transspecies Love
and/as Class Commons-Sense,
http://redcritique.org/WinterSpring2012/biopoliticstransspeciesismandclasscommon
ssense.htm, accessed 7/3/13, JZ)
This essentially spiritualist understanding of life, moreover, is codified on a new level within a specific variant of
biopolitical theoriestransspeciesist
Capitalism K
terms of "productive labor" but of "biopolitical labor" (which they use as a trope for reproductive labor) which
produces social life itself or "subjectivities." In their recently published book, Commonwealth, Hardt and Negri
displace "exploitation" with "alienation" as the key site of struggle and social transformation when they declare: "we
find ourselves being pulled back from exploitation to alienation, reversing the trajectory of Marxs thought" (139140). According to Hardt and Negri, "alienation" has no material relation to exploitation (the theft of surplus-labor
by owners of the means of production during the working day) and this, they claim, is owing "to the fact that some
characteristics closely tied to exploitation particularly those designating capitals productive role, have faded"
(140). On this basis bio-political theories posit reproductionwhat Hardt and Negri refer to as "biopolitical
employees work in services." Far from actually bringing about a "post-material" economy "the real shift towards
Western
economies "no longer produce enough goods to fund [their] own massive
physical requirements, and, as a result, [they are] running an
unprecedented trade deficit" (Cerni n. pag.). What is at the root of this is the fact that it is labor not
the "immaterial" of culture or ideology that is the source of social wealth. It is precisely because the basis of
profit has been and continues to be the exploitation of productive labor
that the wealth of North Atlantic capitaland its share of the profits of the world marketis
in decline as it has concentrated investment in reproductive labor within
its own respective national borders, has relied more heavily on productive
labor around the world. To conflate the shifts in the way in which North Atlantic capital aims to acquire
[unproductive] service sectors in Western economies" has resulted in a situation in which
a larger share of the social wealth in transnational capitalism, with a fundamental change in basis of how this
wealth is actually produced in transnational capitalism, is a parochial analysis of the global economy that erases the
continued exploitation of surplus labor of workers around the world in China, in India, in Pakistan, Iraq,
Afghanistan... These shifts in production are not a break from the class relations of capitalism and the exploitation
of workers around the world; they are an intensification of its irreconcilable class contradictions. And the
consequences of these class contradictions and their "solutions" have been devastating for workers both in the
global North and the global South, from the spiking of unemployment, to the loss of homes and pensions, to the
gutting of public infrastructure for workers and transferring this social wealth to corporations, to increases in suicide
rates, depression, anxiety, and pharmaceutical dependency, to "jobless and wageless recovery" which, in actuality,
and transspecies
posthumanism, in displacing "class" with "life," "production" with
"reproduction," "labor" with "love," are affective and ultimately spiritualist
understandings of material contradictions that articulate what Marx calls
an "inverted world-consciousness." In "A Contribution to a Critique of Hegels Philosophy of
means an increase in the rate of exploitation of workers. I argue that biopolitics
Right: Introduction," Marx critiques religion for the way in which it articulates an inverted world consciousness
because, on the one hand, it is "an expression of and protest against real suffering" and, on the other hand, it
religion
provides an illusory resolution of the material contradictions of
exploitation in capitalism that cause the "real suffering" to which religion is both an
provides an "illusory happiness" for "real suffering." By "illusory happiness" Marx means that
effect and a response. In this way, rather than providing a material solution to problems of social alienation whose
Capitalism K
Politics, and Ecocriticism" 102). Such arguments are especially effective (and hence popular in the publishing
industry) because, however much he may criticize commodification, he ultimately takes critical pressure off of the
role of capital in impoverishing the world's majority and destroying the environment, and places it (back) onto a
"humanity" beyond classes. The implication of Wolfe's argument is that struggles which prioritize social equality are
not only unethical but futile, since there can be no social change between humans until humans change their (more
Capitalism K
this context that Edmund Burke advocated as "natural" the "hereditary succession [of power] by law" and
denounced the struggles for democracy around the French Revolution as a "perversion" of individuality: "We procure
reverence to our civil institutions on the principle upon which nature teaches us to revere individual men," whereas
"those who attempt to level, never equalise. In all societies, consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some
description must be uppermost. The levelers therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things"
(Reflections on the Revolution in France 30, 43)a sentiment that has grown increasingly popular in the American
10
Capitalism K
Link Containment
The affs containment strategies are fueled by capitalist
motives
Bromund and Phillips, Senior Research Fellows @ the Heritage
Foundation, 11
Soviet Union posed an existential threat that concentrated the minds of many policymakers. Irans nuclear program
and the regimes hostility to the West have not produced an equivalent concentration among policymakers around
the world, even among U.S. policymakers. It is true that Iran is not the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a
formidable military power that made and could deliver advanced weapons, including a devastating nuclear arsenal.
It controlled a vast empire and influenced many other societies. Its economy faltered and ultimately collapsed, but
for decades it could mobilize substantial resources in pursuit of its aims, and it appeared to have no great need to
become part of the free economic order. Above all, it had an ideology thatno matter how bizarre or inhumane
appealed to many around the world who sought to justify their pursuit of power. By comparison, Irans most
significant military achievements apart from its nuclear and ballistic missile programs are its mobilization of suicide
terrorists and its use of IEDs.[24] Its direct influence is regional, its economy is in shambles and relies heavily on oil
exports, and its ideology appeals primarily to Shia who are embroiled in conflicts with non-Shia and have not had
the misfortune to experience Irans misgovernment directly. Yet the differences between Iran and the Soviet Union
cut both ways. The magnitude of the Soviet threat enabled the West to summon the political will to contain it. Iran,
precisely because it is not a superpower, cannot inspire such unified political will, even though it poses a clear
threat. During the Cold War, the policy of containment was far from glorious, but it was necessary. The alternative
to outlasting the Soviet Union was a war that no one would have won. Concluding that the only way to deal with
Iran is to treat it like a new superpower gives Iran far too much credit. The Iranian regime may rhetorically aspire to
become a superpower, but that aspiration is laughable. By treating Iran like a new Soviet Union, the U.S. gives the
Iranian regime a level of respect that its power does not merit. By emphasizing the containment of Iran, the U.S.
would also slight the more positive and creative elements of its Cold War grand strategy, especially President
Reagans policy of placing the Soviet Union under as much economic, diplomatic, and moral pressure as possible.
The U.S. could and should similarly pressure Iran. However, as long as containment remains a mere analogy, devoid
of policies reasonably comparable to those that the U.S. undertook during the Cold War, the U.S. will fail to build a
comprehensive grand strategy to counter and ultimately end the Iranian menace. Containment Requires a
Commitment to Freedom at Home Containment requires one more thing. As Aaron Friedberg has pointed out,
U.S. grand strategy in the Cold War emphasized avoiding the garrison
state.[25] In other words, the U.S. was fighting to keep the world safe for
democracy and capitalism. It was therefore vital to ensure that the U.S.
preserve democracy and capitalism at home, both for moral reasons and
for the practical reason that Americas free society gave it an advantage
against the Soviet Union over the long term. Thus, leading supporters of containment, such
as President Dwight D. Eisenhower, also supported limite
11
Capitalism K
While critical
theory has its origins in Marxism, as Mutimer hints, it has become somewhat
distanced from Marxist and neo-Marxist scholarship, even though that
scholarship continues to flourish. Wyn Joness (1999) attempt to ground critical security studies
of critical security studies, and with critical theory framed as post-Marxist (pp. 62, 63).
in Frankfurt school critical theory involved relying mainly on Ulrich Becks post-Marxism. One chapter in Booths
edited volume Critical Security Studies and World Politics (2005b) has a few brief discussions of Marxism and
The lack of
interest in historical materialism is a major weakness and imbalance
within critical security studies as it has developed thus far . There has been
an overwhelming emphasis on the ideational dimension, discourse
analysis, constructivism, and post-structuralism, and this is a crucial
limitation on its ability to theorise world politics in a systematic and
politically relevant way. Meanwhile, scholars working with historical
materialist perspectives are generating far-reaching and influential
analyses which locate the discursive within the context of hierarchically
structured relations at multiple levels globally (e.g. Harvey 2000, 2005, Jessop 2002,
2003, 2007). Such analyses have been central to the enormously successful
development of critical geography, critical sociology, and critical education studies, all politically
engaged fields intertwined with actually existing current social
movements (e.g. International Critical Geography Group (ICCG) n.d., Antipode n.d.). As Booth (2005a), in
defining it as being within the scope of critical security studies, states: The Marxian tradition offers
a deep mine of ideas that are especially useful for thinking about
ideology, class, and structural power (p. 261). And he adds: class is a muchignored referent, despite massive life-threatening and life-determining
insecurity being the direct result of poverty (Booth 2007, p. 197). Historical
materialism, including its Gramscian and historical sociology variants, is
flourishing within international relations (for a survey, see Hobden and Wyn Jones 2005)
and is a major resource for critical terrorism studies. Those who do
historical materialist analysis generally do not do security studies . This is
capitalism and a slightly more sustained discussion of neoliberalism, but nothing on class.
12
Capitalism K
the Approaches to Security section of the first edition of the Collins Contemporary Security Studies (2007)
textbook effectively sets out security studies as involving choices between a traditional state-centric realist-liberal
framing, a discursive-constructivist critical framing, or one focused thematically on peace studies, gender,
securitisation, or human security. Marxism is discussed briefly in the traditional approaches chapter which is
structured around realism and liberalism.
CTS should
vocabulary,
terrorism strategies against perceived enemies under the pretext of Waron Terror ,
13
Capitalism K
terrorism and individual terrorism of non-state actors that are more likely
to occur in the Third world countries than anywhere else in the future.
there is a growing literature on some of these subjects already; however, much of this research occurs largely
outside of Terrorism Studies and does not always engage directly with the issues and concerns of the broader
argue that there is a need to examine more thoroughly and systematically the discourses and representational
practices of terrorism, and the ontological-discursive foundations the ideological, conceptual, and institutional
underpinnings which make both Terrorism Studies, and the practices of terrorism and counter-terrorism, possible
in the first place. Second, in addition to exposing and deconstructing the fields conditions of possibility, I would
14
Capitalism K
Link Democracy
Their drive to spread democracy to the rest legitimates the
expansion of capitalism by mystifying class relations as an
antagonism between culture.
Wilkie, Assistant Professor of Cultural and Digital Studies @
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, 08,
(Rob, Fall/Winter 2008, The Red Critique, Supply-Chain Democracy and the Circuits
of Imperialism,
http://www.redcritique.org/FallWinter2008/supplychaindemocracyandcircuitsofimperi
alism.htm, [Accessed 7/8/13], JB).
On the right, one also finds economic differences rewritten as cultural
differences, and in many of the same terms, but the sides are reversed. Instead of
the image of encroaching corporate homogenization led by the United States
imposing its cultural will on the local communities in the South, it is precisely U.S.
and European capital that is the guarantee of heterogeneity and difference. As
David Pryce-Jones writes in "Why They Hate Us", "Democracy means Us and Them.
Yet nothing in the history or the culture of Arabs and Muslims allows them to put
this into any form of political practice. From long ago they have inherited a cast-iron
absolute system, in which the ruler does as he pleases, and the rest have no
redress, indeed going to the wall" (Pryce-Jones 8). According to this logic, which
has perhaps been most popularly advanced in Samuel Huntington's The Class of
Civilizations, global conflict is driven today by a cultural divide between the
values of "democracy" and "free enterprise" in the West and authoritarian,
closed, anti-capitalist regimes in the East. Huntington writes, "[i]n the postCold War world, the most important distinctions among peoples are not ideological,
political, or economic. They are cultural" (21). It is in these terms that Huntington
rewrites economic divisions as cultural differences. He argues, "[i]n this new
world the most pervasive, important, and dangerous conflicts will not be
between social classes, rich and poor, or other economically defined
groups, but between peoples belonging to different cultural entities" (28).
Again, sharpening global class divisions are constructed as those between
homogeneity and heterogeneity in which the "West" represents a
civilization of "democracy, free markets, limited government, human rights,
individualism, the rule of law" with the "Rest" who are said to oppose such
values (184). These divisions are then naturalized as the source of
capitalist development and expansionan updated version of Weber's
"protestant ethic" in which "values" and "attitudes" produce reality, rather than
being an effect of it. Although Huntington himself believes it to be "immoral" to
impose Western cultural values on the East (for the "paternalistic" reason that that
the East is not prepared or interested in any form of "democracy" or "human rights")
others on the right, such as "anglobalization" historian Niall Ferguson, take this
thesis and argue that globalization is the means by which to spread
through a new colonial project the culture of democracy, free markets, and
individual liberty to what he describes as the "failed states" of the South
that lack the "cultural values" of the North (Ferguson 25). In the
15
Capitalism K
16
Capitalism K
longer has any explanatory value (Brenner 11; Wallerstein 20; Hardt and Negri,
Multitude 150).
17
Capitalism K
Transnational Corporations Is Dependent Upon Pro-"Free Trade" Governments in Latin America With the election of
more leftist governments in many South American nations since many of the military dictatorships and right-wing
governments supported by the US have fallen, the State Department and Pentagon have become particularly
concerned about using the military and intelligence services to increase US influence over Latin American armies as
infamous School of the Americas (now renamed the euphemistic Western Hemisphere Institute for Security
18
Capitalism K
As Walmart has expanded into the largest retailer in Mexico (in fact in Latin America) and
mention the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)), which is based on Plan
Colombia (the US militarization and economic initiative in that nation). Now ,
includes the formation of paramilitary death squads, the displacement of civilian populations and an increase in
violence.
Chiquita Brands, Drummond (mining) Company and British Petroleum among those likely involved in such activities
in Colombia, for example (Chiquita pled guilty to such a charge in 2007 in a DC court) - not to mention Coca-Cola.
Indeed, according to Strafor Global Intelligence, incoming Mexican President Pea Nieto, has "expressed a desire to
create a new national gendarmerie, or paramilitary police force, to use in place of the Mexican army and Marine
troops currently deployed to combat the heavily armed criminal cartels in Mexico's most violent hot spots.
According to Pea Nieto, the new gendarmerie force would comprise some 40,000 agents."
Government
19
Capitalism K
Mercosur and Leftist Alliance ALBA Cause Increased US Military and Intelligence Agency Concern Over the Southern
Hemisphere On July 31, 2012, according to The New York Times, the South American trading alliance Mercosur
admitted Venezuela after a long contentious delay. Meanwhile, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our
America (ALBA) continues to build a coalition of leftist governments in South America and the Caribbean. In
response to this climate,
deep capitalist anxiety to Washington, DC, and Ottawa is the Bolivian government's decision to nationalize mines
owned by the transnational corporation Glencore: "On June 22, the Bolivian government seized the company's
Colquiri tin and zinc mine, south of the capital city of La Paz. Colquiri was the third Glencore operation to be
nationalized by Bolivia in the last five years." That is an example of why the US was quick to accept the "soft coup"
impeachment (accomplished within 24 hours) of the populist President of Paraguay, Fernando Lugo. According to
journalist Ben Dangl, the new pro-US government is open for business to transnational corporations including the
allegedly environmentally unfriendly and exploitative Montreal-based mining company, Rio Tinto Alcan, and
Monsanto, in a nation heavily dependent on soy and cotton crops that Monsanto will now likely be able to
monopolize. This is music to the ears of the free-trade proponents in the US and Canada, the war on drugs be
damned.
founder of the Vancouver Media Co-op, has a Masters in Journalism from UBC and a
degree in Women's Studies from SFU, 2012 (Drug War Capitalism: Militarization &
Economic Transformation in Colombia & Mexico, Analysis, June/August 2012,
Available Online at http://www.solidarity-us.org/pdfs/Dawn.pdf, accessed on July 4th,
2013)][SP]
Barely two months later, Caldern launched the war on drugs in Mexico . The
following year, the U.S. and Mexican governments announced the Mrida
Initiative, described as a package of U.S. counterdrug and anticrime
assistance for Mexico and Central America.(27) By the time it was signed by George W.
Bush in 2008, Garzas prodding about cracking down on narcos in order to boost business was forgotten. Instead,
the primary justification for lawmakers endorsing the bill was to stem the flow of drugs to the United States.(28)
Both the U.S. government and critics agree that the Mrida Initiative in Mexico and Central America is a refined
iteration of Plan Colombia. We know from the work that the United States has supported in Colombia and now in
Mexico that good leadership, proactive investments, and committed partnerships can turn the tide, Hillary Clinton
lectured delegates to the Central America Security Conference in Guatemala City last summer.(29) Total U.S.
funding for the Mrida Initiative between 2008 and 2010 was $1.3 billion for Mexico, whose government matched
the funds 13 to 1.(30) Mrida/Central America Regional Security Initiative funds flowing to Central America during
the same period stood at $248 million, while the Merida/Caribbean Basin Security Initiative funds of $42 million
went to Haiti and the Dominician Republic.(31)
Capitalism K
Jurez and other border towns along drug-trafficking routes, including Reynosa, Nuevo Laredo, and Tijuana.
Even
more important is another kind of security transnational corporations
need. As the director of the Economic Commission for Latin America and
the Caribbean underscored, What is important for an investor in regards
to security has to do with legal security and country risk. (41) This notion
of security calls up the Colombia model: paramilitarization in the
along these roads, creating relatively safe corridors between the border and the industrial parks.(40)
generations, Indigenous and peasant communities in Colombia had defended their collective title to their lands, yet
paramilitary groups effectively forced them to flee. This phenomenon is concisely described by David Maher and
Andrew Thompson: "paramilitary
21
Capitalism K
March of 2007, representatives of Chiquita Brands pled guilty in a Washington, D.C. court to making payments to
the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC) paramilitaries.(47) Chiquita made over 100 payments to the AUC
amounting to over $1.7 million, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Chiquita Brands paid blood money to
terrorists like Carlos Castao to protect its financial interests, according to the law firm representing the victims.
founder of the Vancouver Media Co-op, has a Masters in Journalism from UBC and a
degree in Women's Studies from SFU, 2012 (Drug War Capitalism: Militarization &
Economic Transformation in Colombia & Mexico, Analysis, June/August 2012,
Available Online at http://www.solidarity-us.org/pdfs/Dawn.pdf, accessed on July 4th,
2013)][SP]
Direct collusion between U.S. and transnational corporations and
paramilitaries is generally difficult to prove and when evidence emerges
it is not likely to be discovered quickly. But already we know that a group
of Texas companies are accused of colluding with the Zetas to illegally
import stolen fuel.(48) (The Zetas were the armed wing of the Gulf Cartel, which is active in northeast
Mexico. The two groups split in 2010, and since then the Zetas have essentially become a narco-paramilitary group,
though they are often referred to in the media as a drug cartel.) The
force, Dr. William Robinson, author of A Theory of Global Capitalism, told me when I interviewed him last
summer: Basically its the creation of paramilitarism alongside formal
militarization, which is a Colombian model. The Zetas are active in various parts of Mexico, particularly
Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon and Veracruz, and they are also blamed for massacres in the state of Jalisco and Petn,
Guatemala. Although they are not the only paramilitary group in Mexico, they are the group that receives by far the
most media attention. We need to keep in mind that Colombian President Santos, like [Guatemalan President
Otto] Prez Molina, wants to expand Plan Colombia, which doesnt just mean strengthening the fight against
narcotrafficking, but actually means converting it into a form of paramilitarism in order to generate a new kind of
counterinsurgency, not against social movements, but against indigenous communities, said Maximo Ba Tiul, a
Mayan Poqomchi analyst and professor based in Guatemala. While there is a hesitation on the part of journalists to
link their coverage of the drug war with struggles around natural resources, there is a growing list of places where
this theme and the lessons from the U.S. war in Colombia can be further explored. Residents of Ciudad Mier,
a small community in Tamaulipas, left en masse because of paramilitary violence. The town sits on top of Mexicos
largest gas field, as does a large portion of the violence-ridden state. In the Jurez Valley, considered the most
dangerous place in Mexico, killings and threats have forced many to leave, just as a new border crossing between
the U.S. and Mexico is being constructed. In Santa Maria Ostula, a small Indigenous Nahuatl community in
coastal Mexico, at least 28 people have been killed (and four others disappeared) by paramilitary and state violence
since 2009. Their territory is in a mineral rich and strategically located area. In the Sierra Madre mountain range
in northern Mexico, Canadian mining companies operate in areas where even government officials fear to enter
because of the presence of armed narcotraffickers. In Petn, Guatemala, government officials militarized the area
and declared a state of emergency because of the presence of Zetas that lasted eight months, ending in early
2012. Recent announcements indicate that a new oil rush is taking place in the same region.
Capitalism K
violence of the war, which will most likely carry on for at least another six years. All the presidential hopefuls
propose to continue or intensify the war against the gangsters, reads a recent piece in The Economist.(52)
Capitalism K
merchandise and trafficking routes. Under the administration of Vincente Fox [2000-2006], the federal government
protected the Sinaloa and Juarez drug cartels and hit at their competition, the Tijuana and Gulf cartels. In general,
the U.S. government and its so-called anti-drug agency, the DEA, were in
agreement with this approach and played a decisive role in the operations, although they
were not always happy with the way the plans were carried out. This is how the governments of
Mexico and the United States tried to impose order on the drug markets
and bring down the level of violence. In the resulting battle, federal police fought municipal
police in what was in reality a competition between the Sinaloa cartel (with the support of federal troops) and the
Gulf cartel (which mobilized the local police under its command) for control of the plaza. Today there is still no
order. The current government of Felipe Calderon has continued supporting the Sinaloa cartel headed by El
Chapo Guzman in an attempt to impose order. Very few of the 53,000 people arrested during 2003-2010 have
belonged to the Sinaloa cartel. But the alliances among the drug gangs have shifted. One of the emerging cartels,
La Linea, is mainly made up of local and federal police and Mexican army members. The authorities claimed that El
Chapo escaped from prison in 2001, but really the federal government decided to let him go, and to ally with him
to unite various drug lords in what was called The Federation, as part of a plan to establish a certain order,
cooperation and mutual benefit sharing.
international big business . Although its illegality gives it certain particular characteristics, in
essence the drug trafficking organizations function like any other
capitalist enterprise. They have to compete with other organizations for
control of various markets and if they dont win in this competition they
will disappear. Although drugs and other illegal activities are the foundation of their fortunes, the main
drug lords also have major legal investments in shopping centres,
hospitals, farms and other enterprises. The illegal capitalists partner with
legal ones and try to legalize part of their capital. And the legal capitalists
in turn try to partner with the drug traffickers. Businessmen approach us
because they want to use our money to make more money. For example, money
laundering is a big business for the Mexican banking system, which is controlled by foreign capital for the most part.
[One big-shot drug lord] happily deposited millions of dollars in cash through his personal banker at Citbank, one
of the worlds most powerful financial institutions and now the owner of Banamex [Mexico's second-largest bank].
In the past, during the 1970s, large-scale drug cartels did not yet exist and [various government agencies and
service branches took charge of the different aspects of the drug trade. It was under control.] In the 1980s the CIA
opened up the U.S. drug market in exchange for the drug lords financing the Contras [organized by the CIA to
increased consumption is not the main factor driving the drug trade, poverty, the tearing of the social fabric,
24
Capitalism K
trafficking is a product of this system , but the ruling classes do not have it under control. The
fracturing of Mexican government institutions and the increasing intervention of the U.S. government and its army
and police agencies are consequences of the basic contradictions of this system and the measures taken by the
U.S. and Mexican government, which instead of solving problems aggravate them or create new ones.
there last month, people had reappeared at night to eat dinner and socialise, out of devil-may-care recklessness
and exhaustion with years of self-imposed curfew. Before, there had been an eerie quiet at night, now there is an
movement against the cartels, or any significant leftwing or union opposition. The grassroots movement against the
postpolitical cartel warriors, the National Movement for Peace, is famously led by the poet Javier Sicilia, who
organised a week-long peace march after the murder of his son in the spring. This very male war is opposed by
25
Capitalism K
police officers. The army plays its own mercurial role. "Cartel war" does not explain the
story my friend, and Juarez journalist, Sandra Rodriguez told me over dinner last month: about two children
who killed their parents "because", they explained to her, "they could". The culture of impunity, she
said, "goes from boys like that right to the top the whole city is a criminal enterprise". Not by
coincidence, Juarez is also a model for the capitalist economy . Recruits
for the drug war come from the vast, sprawling maquiladora bonded assembly plants
where, for rock-bottom wages, workers make the goods that fill America's
supermarket shelves or become America's automobiles, imported dutyfree. Now, the corporations can do it cheaper in Asia, casually shedding
their Mexican workers, and Juarez has become a teeming recruitment pool
for the cartels and killers. It is a city that follows religiously the
philosophy of a free market. "It's a city based on markets and on trash," says
Julin Cardona, a photographer who has chronicled the implosion. "Killing and drug addiction are
activities in the economy, and the economy is based on what happens
when you treat people like trash." Very much, then, a war for the 21st century. Cardona told me
how many times he had been asked for his view on the Javier Sicilia peace march: "I replied: 'How can you march
Trevino lives in the city of Reynosa, which is in the grip of the Gulf cartel. He said of the killers and cartels: "They
are revolting people who do what they do because they cannot be seen to wear the same label T-shirt as they wore
last year, they must wear another brand, and more expensive." It can't be that banal, I objected, but he pleaded
with me not to underestimate these considerations. The thing that really makes Mexico's war a different war, and of
our time, is that it is about, in the end, nothing. It certainly belongs to the cacophony of the era of digital
communication. The killers post their atrocities on YouTube with relish, commanding a vast viewing public; they are
busy across thickets of internet hot-sites and the narco-blogosphere. Journalists find it hard that while even people
as crazy as Osama bin Laden will talk to the media they feel they have a message to get across the narcocartels have no interest in talking at all. They control the message, they are democratic the postmodern way.
People often ask: why the savagery of Mexico's war? It is infamous for such inventive perversions as sewing one
victim's flayed face to a soccer ball or hanging decapitated corpses from bridges by the ankles; and innovative
torture, such as dipping people into vats of acid so that their limbs evaporate while doctors keep the victim
are pioneers of it . They point, in their business logic and modus operandi,
to how the legal economy will arrange itself next. The Mexican cartels
epitomised the North American free trade agreement long before it was
dreamed up, and they thrive upon it. Mexico's carnage is that of the age
of effective global government by multinational banks banks that, according to
Antonio Maria Costa, the former head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, have been for years kept
afloat by laundering drug and criminal profits. Cartel bosses and street
gangbangers cannot go around in trucks full of cash. They have to bank it and
politicians could throttle this river of money, as they have with actions against terrorist
funding. But they choose not to, for obvious reasons: the good burgers of
capitalism and their political quislings depend on this money, while bleating about
the evils of drugs cooked in the ghetto and snorted up the noses of the rich. So Mexico's war is how the
26
Capitalism K
future will look, because it belongs not in the 19th century with wars of empire, or the 20th with wars of ideology,
capitalism gone mad . Twelve years ago Cardona and the writer Charles Bowden curated a book called
Juarez: The Laboratory of Our Future. They could not have known how prescient their title was. In a recent book,
Murder City, Bowden puts it another way: "Juarez is not a breakdown of the social order. Juarez is the new order."
27
Capitalism K
Speth has concluded that all in all, todays environmentalism has not been
succeeding. He calls on environmentalists to step outside the system
and develop a deeper critique of what is going on. Speth argues that aggregate
economic growth is no longer improving the lives of most Americans and
suggests that in some ways it is making individuals worse off
environmentally, socially and psychologically. It is said that growth is goodso good that it is worth all the
planet,
costs, that somehow well be better off, says Speth, We are substituting economic growth and more consumption
for dealing with the real issuesfor doing things that would truly make us better off. The book calls for measures
that provide for universal health care and alleviate the devastating effects of mental illness; guarantee good, wellpaying jobs and increase employee satisfaction, minimize layoffs and job insecurity and provide for adequate
retirement incomes; introduce more family-friendly policies at work, including flextime and easy access to quality
child care; and provide individuals with more leisure time for connecting with their families, communities and
nature. My
hope is that all Americans who care about the environment will
come to embrace these measuresthese hallmarks of a caring community and a
good society as necessary to moving us beyond money to sustainability
and community, he says. Sustaining people, sustaining naturethey are just one cause, inseparable.
Speth writes that Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the dollar value of all goods and services produced by the
economy, is a poor gauge of human well-being or welfare. The book cites studies showing that throughout the
entire period following World War II, as incomes skyrocketed in the United States and other advanced economies,
reported life satisfaction and happiness levels stagnated or even declined slightly. Speth says that these studies
economic activity grows by that amount every decade. At current rates of growth, the world economy will double in
size in less than two decades. Society
Capitalism K
Through
combining the quantification skills of ecological science and economics,
the MEA proposes that breaking nature down into these increasingly
scarce services,20 quantifying their functionality, and assigning a price
to them, will assist conservation by asserting their financial value; at the
same time as fostering economic growth by creating new tradeable assets.21 The second
cycling), and non-material cultural services (recreational, spiritual, religious, etc.).19
is the creation of a multi-billion dollar market in a new commodity carbon intended to mitigate (i.e. minimise)
climate change by providing the possibility of profitably exchanging one of the gases contributing to
anthropogenic global warming. As noted above, this is generating a market-based context for approaching the
the
assumption is that both good environmental governance and the
equitable distribution of environmental services will derive from the
correct pricing of quantified environmental goods and services,
combined with the self-regulating market behaviour that will emerge
from their market exchange. In this case, the financial price attributed to carbon is allocated to,
broader environmental concerns of the MEA. Like Adam Smiths putative economic invisible hand,22
and therefore captured by, heavy industry emitters. It is they who gain tradeable carbon credits (i.e. the currency
representing carbon), for example, under the European Unions Emissions Trading Scheme.23 Some (currently
minimal) scarcity is built into the market by allocating credits at a level below what major installations require to
cover their emitting levels, so as to meet the emissions reducing targets set by the Kyoto Protocol of the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Once these credits enter the international financial system
their future value can be speculated on (as with any other currency or commodity, including derivatives) and
significant profits can ensue. In the wake of this, a veritable ecosystem of economists, stockbrokers and financial
advisors has emerged to service trade in this new commodity, as epitomised by the Europe Climate Exchange in
the City of London. This is the leading marketplace for trading carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions in Europe and
internationally,24 and basically a stock exchange for the 20 Radical Anthropology currency of tradeable carbon
credits. Interestingly, the website of the Europe Climate Exchange provides very little information connecting
this exchange with environmental impacts through the reduction of atmospheric CO2 . Such presentation seems
to emphasise that this is a product with a great deal to do with trade, finance and profit, operating at a rather
large remove from the materiality of global climate and ecosystems.
29
Capitalism K
In rejecting the antigrowth approach of the first wave of environmentalists in the 1970s, pro-growth green
capitalism theorists of the 1980s-90s like Paul Hawken, Lester Brown, and Francis Cairncross argued that
green
technology, green taxes, eco-conscious shopping and the like could align profit-seeking with environmental goals, even invert
many fundamentals of business practice such that restoring the environment and making money become one and the same
For example, the science says that to save the humans, we have to drastically cut fossil fuel consumption, even close down
industries like coal. But no corporate board can sacrifice earnings to save the humans because to do so would be to risk
not the other way around as green capitalism theorists supposed. Secondly, I claim that contrary to green capitalism proponents,
across the spectrum from resource extraction to manufacturing, the practical possibilities for greening and dematerializing
production are severely limited. This means, I contend, that the only way to prevent overshoot and collapse is to enforce a massive
economic contraction in the industrialized economies, retrenching production across a broad range of unnecessary, resourcehogging, wasteful and polluting industries, even virtually shutting down the worst. Yet this option is foreclosed under capitalism
because this is not socialism: no one is promising new jobs to unemployed coal miners, oil-drillers, automakers, airline pilots,
chemists, plastic junk makers, and others whose jobs would be lost because their industries would have to be retrenched -- and
unemployed workers dont pay taxes. So CEOs, workers, and governments find that they all need to maximize growth,
overconsumption, even pollution, to destroy their childrens tomorrows to hang onto their jobs today because, if they dont, the
system falls into crisis, or worse. So were all onboard the TGV of ravenous and ever-growing plunder and pollution. And as our
locomotive races toward the cliff of ecological collapse, the only thoughts on the minds of our CEOS, capitalist economists,
politicians and labor leaders is how to stoke the locomotive to get us there faster. Corporations arent necessarily evil. They just
cant help themselves. Theyre doing what theyre supposed to do for the benefit of their owners. But this means that,
for market,
so
ecological collapse .
no amount of
because the problems we face cannot be solved by individual choices in the marketplace. They require collective democratic
control over the economy to prioritize the needs of society and the environment. And they require national and international
economic planning to re-organize the economy and redeploy labor and resources to these ends. I conclude, therefore, that if
humanity is to save itself, we have no choice but to overthrow capitalism and replace it with a democratically-planned socialist
economy.
Americas leading robber barons in the early 20th century through the creation of not-for-profit corporations, otherwise known as
philanthropic foundations. Thankfully, prominent environmental historian Mark Dowie has traced the insidious influence of such socalled liberal foundations on popular struggles against the powers that be in two excellent books. The first, Losing Ground: American
30
Capitalism K
Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century (MIT Press, 1996), dealt specifically with the environmental movement,
while the second, American Foundations: An Investigative History (MIT Press, 2001), provided an overview of the manipulative
nature of elite philanthropoids. While in recent years a number of other writers have scrutinized the problematic relationship
between liberal foundations and environmentalism, for example Daniel Faber and Robert Brulle, this article draws upon only Dowies
work in an attempt to provide a brief introduction to this vitally important but oft-neglected subject. For over a century foundation
executives have adopted grantmaking practices that ensure they fund research projects that document social pathologies
perhaps even ameliorate them, all the while protecting corporate capitalism. It is therefore unsurprising that, in their multitudinous
forays into managing Americas signature social movements - for womens rights, peace, environment, environmental justice,
students, gay liberation, and particularly labor, one finds that foundations have generally favored middle-class over lower-class
social movements.2 And rather than helping citizens to work through existing democratic channels, it appears that if there is a
central motive behind social-movement philanthropy it is to encourage concerned citizens to struggle outside the
government domain within a general rights-based framework for social change.3 This has the unfortunate effect of deflecting
legitimate concerns away from the one democratic body that could arguably resolve these problems, the government. Concerned
people are encouraged to seek justice (or simply democracy) in an indirect fashion by working through non-profit organizations that
act as a moderating buffer between the citizenry and the government - a problem amplified by the fact that the most powerful and
influential non-profits tend not to be run or organized around democratic principles. Yet even with the focus on activism outside of
government channels, most foundation trustees [still] see environmental groups as too adversarial, too confrontational to rank
alongside family, neighborhood, church, and palliative charities as legitimate institutions of civil society. In this way, thousands of
grassroots environmental groups tend to be ignored by most foundations while a handful of national organizations, which the
corporate media identify as the major players and agenda setters of American environmentalism, receive the noblesse oblige of
the major foundations. As one might expect, most of these national groups, like the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, the
Environmental Defense Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Audubon Society, carefully avoid challenging the power
structures and relationships that have the most profound environmental impacts.4
31
Capitalism K
Link Ethics
Their notion of ethics makes the individual the base unit of
society and all problems inter-personal- fractures attempts for
broader social change.
DeFazio, Ph.D. in English with specialty in Cultural Theory, 03
(Kimberly, Ph.D., English, Spring 2003, The Red Critique, The Imperialism of "Eating
Well", http://redcritique.org/Spring2003/theimperialismofeatingwell.htm, [Accessed
7/8/13], JB).
The cultural imaginary in the West today is dominated by the discourse of
"ethics". Ethics, in its privileging of the subjective over the objective,
turns social structures into modes of personal behavior and thus sees
social change basically as a matter of changing individuals' minds and
ideas. On these terms, hunger is not viewed as a structure of social relations
tied to ownership of property (class)a view based on the understanding that a
transformation in property relation is the necessary precondition of eradicating
hunger. Rather, the primary solutions to hunger are individual and
subjective ones that promote life-style changes and daily negotiations
within existing unequal social structures. For instance: those with food give to
those who do not; food pantries redistribute surpluses; understanding that the
hungry are not in any fundamental way "different" from the fed, etc. These and
other similar reformist practices aimed at addressing only the most intolerable
effects of hunger, not its material roots, are widely seen as the only "reasonable"
solutions. Ethics, in other words, is one of the main manifestations of theoretical
"savvy-ness" today. Ethical theorists regard transforming hunger by
eradicating its roots in private property as highly "unreasonable" and
"crude", if not deeply suspicious, since transformation of class relations is
deemed a "totalitarian" imposition of one subjective will over another.
Social change, to put it differently, is only ethical when it deals with one
hungry person at a time. What is necessary to note about contemporary
ethics is that unlike the "traditional" ("modernist") ethics of John Stuart Mill
or Kant, for whom ethics involves the study of the "good society" (the "polis") and
finding the ideal means of living a "good life", ethics today is post-foundational.
It puts itself forward as a "radical" ethics because it does not essentialize
or monolithize the subject. Ethics, in other words, is now "post-al" and, as
Mas'ud Zavarzadeh explains, begins with the assumption that we have
entered a post-historical, post-class, post-industrial, post-historical
moment of history; a moment in which capitalism has somehow broken
free from its exploitative past (1-2). That is to say, in contemporary
articulations of ethics the social is a series of autonomous, disparate, and
aleatory events operating independently of any over-arching logic (such as
the logic of exploitation), and, therefore, without any common and underlying
principles of judgment. As a result, whereas traditional ethics was at least
formally committed to a notion of "equality", post-al ethics is resigned to
inequality, and views all discussions of "equality" as totalizing fictions
aimed at concealing over the fundamental "difference" that constitutes
32
Capitalism K
the social. As pragmatist Chris Barker succinctly puts it "The modernist goal of
equality is beset with problems, and equality of outcome is neither possible nor
desirable" (20). Post-al ethicists, he declares, have instead learned not to "mistake
our ethical choices for radical public politics" (19). As a result, ethics today is more
concerned with managing the effects of social inequalities. The shift from modern to
postmodern or post-al ethics, it is necessary to emphasize, is not the result of a
more "savvy", "sophisticated" or "radical democratic" understanding of ethicsthe
shift, in other words, did not come about due to the triumph of new or "better"
ideas. This is a claim that Francis Moore Lapp makes in the new introductory
chapter to the 20th Anniversary Edition of Diet For a Small Planet, a book that has
maintained its ongoing popularity by appealing to activist sentiments yet at the
same time effectively disconnecting hunger from any encompassing theory of
hunger as a product of capitalism. She writes that through the sheer "power of
ideas" a new ecological "myth" which recognizes the net of relationships in which
humans are involved is coming to replace an older Cartesian "mechanical" myth
that separated people into "atoms" and denied them agency (xix-xxvii). This, of
course, is the dominant understanding of social change today, which turns the
history of capitalism into the progress of ideas and erases the way in which the
possibilities of social change are the product of human labor in order to obscure the
fundamental exploitation of labor that is central to the organization of capitalist
society. Post-al ethics, in other words, is a response to the new needs of capital in
the era of cybercapitalism in which the material developments in production that
have enabled the possibility of an economically just society are held back by private
ownership and must instead be explained as a problem of "bad ideas" if this
contradiction is to be secured. Ethics, to be more general, is an articulation of
the way in which individuals are trained to deal with the contradictions of
capitalism. In other words, changes in what constitutes "ethical" behavior are an
effect of shifts in the needs of capital. Modern ethics, now deemed too
"mechanical" by both activists like Lapp and "high theorists" like Derrida alike,
responded to the needs of an emerging capitalist system; that is, it was
focused on the aims of "integrating" social classes into the capitalist
system at a time of deep unrest brought about by the conflict between
dying feudal relations and industrialization. The "good society" was
basically an attempt to assure the increasing numbers of dispossessed
that the market could meet the common needs of all. Ethics in what is
called "post-industrialism", on the contrary, is no longer aimed at
"integrating", or including the excluded. With the generalization of capitalist
relations throughout the world, and the resulting deepening divisions between the
haves and the have-nots, ethics has instead become more interested in
"recognizing" "difference" and the underlying alterity that, on post-al terms,
subvert the "good society" (a concept that is, as a result, largely abandoned
today as a modernist fantasy of wholeness that reduced the complexity of the social
to a false unity). Whereas the ethics of the "polis" emphasized collectivity and
politics (albeit often in an idealist fashion), post-al ethics abandons both. It
substitutes "community" for collectivity and emphasizes interpersonal
relations and individual differences, in order to evacuate social
(structural) contradictions from the scene of theory, and replace them
with local ones which can be micro-managed. Ethics today is thus more
concerned with managing the effects of growing divisions resulting from the
concentration of capital in the hands of the few, and ongoing privatization of all
33
Capitalism K
34
Capitalism K
Link Heidegger
Heidegger ignores the struggles of the proletariat in his focus
on their relationship to machinery, dismantling the concepts
needed in a materialist explanation of the world
DeFazio, English Professor at University of Wisconsin Lacrosse,
12
(Kimberly, Winter/Spring 2012, The Red Critique, Machine-Thinking and the
Romance of Posthumanism,
http://redcritique.org/WinterSpring2012/machinethinkingandtheromanceofposthuma
nism.htm, accessed 7/2/13, JZ)
In the most basic terms, of course, both Heidegger and Marx agree that, as Marx puts it, "at the present day general
consciousness is an abstraction from real life and as such antagonistically confronts it" (Economic Manuscripts 105)
use of information services such as the newspaper," Heidegger argues, "every Other is like the next. This Beingwith-one-another dissolves one's own Dasein completely into the kind of Being of 'the Others' in such a way,
indeed, that the Others, as distinguishable and explicit, vanish more and more. In this inconspicuousness and
Elaborating his
machine-thinking, Heidegger here perhaps makes most manifest his
rejection of the working class "mass," within whom (it is assumed) all
individuality is lost and one sinks into "averageness" and "mediocrity ."
unascertainability, the real dictatorship of the 'they' is unfolded' (Being and Time 154).
Deeply aware of the growing international power of the organized working class, not only in the Soviet Union, but
translated as "leveling down" and "averageness" which themselves are then equated with "publicness." The "city"
(the space in which technology is most concentrated) then is rejected because it "controls every way in which the
world and Dasein get interpreted" (165). Nature in turn becomes the romantic space in which "every difference of
level and of genuineness" and the "heart" of matters are experienced outside of social interpretationas the
"ineffable." This of course leads Heidegger, in his later writings, to become more and more concerned with the
consequences of technology's "enframing" logic for nature. As he puts it in "The Question Concerning Technology,"
in a technological age "even the cultivation of the field has comes under the grip of another kind of setting-in-order,
which sets upon nature. It sets upon it in the sense of challenging it. Agriculture is now the mechanized food
industry, air is now set upon to yield nitrogen, the earth to yield ore, ore to yield uranium, for example" (320). For
35
Capitalism K
as a stranger," Marx asks, "were it not that in the very act of production he was estranging himself from himself?
The product is after all but the summary of the activity, of production... In the estrangement of the object of labor is
merely summarized the estrangement, the alienation, in the activity of labor itself" (73-4). For this reason, there can
be no moving beyond the situation in which people are alienated from their productive activity ("hammering")
which renders the relation of subject and object far more "ambiguous" (subjective) and which can be accessed only
through intuition. For Heidegger, the more authentic approach to Being can only take place through the "qualitative
It is, however,
only abstraction that allows one to grasp the abstract material relations
underlying experience. To repeat, the hammer is material not because of the
qualities of its "thingness" (the argument of mechanical materialism and
matterism) but because of the abstract social relations which both
produce it and which determine its applications and its "meanings." In the
guise of putting forward a new notion of the (immaterial) "material,"
Heidegger's argument is a means of dismantling the concepts needed for
materialist explanation of the world. Without concepts which make connections between
experience" constitutive of being-in-the-world as against the "abstract" (concept) or theory.
apparently fundamentally different entities and phenomena, there is no way to understand the labor relations which
position people in structurally similar ways much less the economic laws which compel capital to exploit labor.
Heidegger forgets, in other words, that "pre-reflective" or "primordial" experience is the space of ideology.
Capitalism K
Heidegger's
writing removes from language any material resistance, and dwells in the
sensuousness of the signifier. What starts out as a gesture to the
worldliness of the world, in short, ends up in the worldless subject . This is
because, in the first place, the being of hammering has little to do with
the physical, material aspects of the hammer (its use value, which is in
part related to a products' physical properties) or empirical properties
which could be "tested" scientifically ("characteristics"). Even less so is
the hammer's readiness-to-hand for Heidegger the result of its being a
product of labor, used under specific historical relations of property which
enable it to be "ready-to-hand" for those who sell their labor to survive
(the "in order to" of commodity production). This is not coincidental. For, central to
his treatment of the "hammer" is the double-move of first reducing
materialism (which argues that consciousness is determined by material
relations) to mechanical materialism (the Newtonian thinking which treats
the world as independent, isolated, and unchanging objects), and then,
having done this, rejecting "materialism" as a rigid mode of thinking
incapable of grasping the complexity and changes of social or natural life.
(poetry). Through the meditation on "grammarless" language (outside of social convention),
As Heidegger explains, "When analysis starts with such entities [as Things] and goes on to inquire about Being,
what it meets is Thinghood and Reality. Ontological explication [then] discovers... substantiality, materiality,
extendedness, side-by-side-ness, and so forth" (96). But even on these terms, he argues, "the entities which we
encounter in concern are proximally hidden"(96). This is because, to address things in terms of their materiality or
their "substance" (127), Heidegger argues, is to posit "an idea in which Being is equated with constant presence-at-
Conflating
idealist and materialist theories of substance, and thus representing
materialism as positing an unchanging, eternal theory of the objective
world, Heidegger suggests that the materiality of the object is an
appearance only. Advancing a critique of present-ism that will later become central to textualism and
posthumanism, Heidegger suggests that empiricism, rationalism and historical
materialismall of which, in different ways, assume the existence of an
"object" which can be "known" by a "subject" which is distinct from the
objecthave obscured the true being of entities by focusing only on
appearances of objects (their "presence"). But these presentist appearances conceal deeperhand" (29), an idea based on entities as "That which enduringly remains, really is" (128).
lying dynamics (of becoming, of relations between presences and absence) that exceed attempts to conceptualize
(or "fix") them.
37
Capitalism K
http://redcritique.org/WinterSpring2012/machinethinkingandtheromanceofposthuma
nism.htm, accessed 7/2/13, JZ)
Romantic machine-thinking is a response to capital's relentless conversion
of people into wage-laborersa process which, in times of crisis, hits the "middle" sectors of class
society (i.e, intellectuals, the petit-bourgeois) particularly hard. Facing the deep insecurity of
their class position yet ultimately opposed to the working class struggle to
transform capital, the first line of defense among intellectuals facing
growing economic and social crisis has always been the turn to the
immaterial, and often the irrational. That is to say, romantic idealism is a
discursive relay of the displaced petit-bourgeoisie and, in the face of the rising conflict
between labor and capital, signals a retreat into and call for some "other way of
life" in order not to engage the material conflicts of the present . This is why it
surfaces with such force during moments of intensified crisis. Thus, for instance, the rise of romanticism in late
1700s to the early 1800s is also the time of revolutionary upheavals, the intensified destruction of peasant life, as
well as the consolidation of the early industrial city with its obvious class contradictions with life in the early
factories (before the period of "social reform" from the 1840s on in England)which romanticism sees in terms of
the excesses of Enlightenment rationality and the logic of quantification. Although developed in many idioms,
38
Capitalism K
(Kimberly, Ph.D., English, Spring 2003, The Red Critique, The Imperialism of "Eating
Well", http://redcritique.org/Spring2003/theimperialismofeatingwell.htm, [Accessed
7/8/13], JB).
According to this logic, the ethical subject is one who no longer simply
identifies with the self but respects the other by "identify[ing] with the
other, who is to be assimilated, interiorized," (283). The self is never single
but plural, and indeed the boundary between self and other is continually
blurred. And it is precisely this ethical relation to the other that Derrida
calls "infinite hospitality" (282): the idea that one gives to the other "infinitely"
without beginning or end, without boundaries or determinants. The "excessiveness"
of hospitality in fact becomes even more explicit in Derrida's recent text Of
Hospitality, where he writes: "To be what it 'must' be, hospitality must not pay a
debt, or be governed by a duty [...] For if I practice hospitality 'out of duty' [] this
hospitality of paying up is no longer an absolute hospitality, it is no longer
graciously offered beyond debt and economy" (83). Hospitality, I argue, is like
"ethics" and "eating well", a trope deployed to exceed class binaries. As
Derrida emphasizes, hospitality cannot be the effect of existing relations of
material inequality (i.e., to "repay" a social or economic debt); nor can it be
"legislated". "Repaying" and "legislating" are textualist codes for the social
praxis of changing objective historical structurescodes which are seen as
"monolithic" and thus as stopping the play of differences that inherently undermine
all attempts at conceptualization. Hospitality, instead, "negotiates" on
subjective and local terms the already existing unequal relations among
people. It is an act of ethical willfulness that must be motivated spontaneously,
without condition, obligation, or determination. But it is precisely this textual logic of
"graciousness" and "hospitality" that enables corporations on the one hand to
refuse to pay taxes on their profitstaxes on which working people are forced to
rely for social servicesand on the other to "donate" large (tax-free) sums to
charity (to be used at the discretion of local administrators). Corporations too are
invested in precisely such notions of "hospitality" because they function outside the
"law". Rather than actually opening any space from which to examine the inherent
contradictions of language, Derrida's deconstruction of any connection
between the local and the global operates to legitimate the suspension of
all social structures such as regulation of the market and eliminates any
conception that the state is required to ensure livable wages, support
comprehensive healthcare, or to finance advanced educations for the
working class. Hospitality is in effect a code, not so much for sophisticated
reading, but for economic deregulation. It is the theoretical equivalent of freetrade agreements. That is, it is an ethical ruse for the complete
privatization of social resources under imperialism. Derrida's entire argument
39
Capitalism K
is based on the assumption that, as he puts it, "one must eat". But in fact many
worldwide do not eat, and even more do not "eat well". What appears to be a
"beyond" class argument, in other words, is an alibi for the interests of the
bourgeois subject, for whom food, like other social resources, is always already
available. Not only does the trope of ethical eating naturalize the relation between
the haves and the have-nots, but the very availability of the food "eaten well"
by the subjectthat is, the conditions under which it is producedis taken
for granted. Derridean ethics, which claims to resist essentializing social
relations by appealing to the textual slippage of social codes, is in
actuality a means of defending the interests of the ruling class by
removing the ethical act from determination by material conditions.
40
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
upon the individual by a benevolent or calculating dictatorial power that may cancel
or alter the entitlement any time it suits its purpose. Social rights may be
guaranteed by the strength of tradition, but in a modern setting, they normally
presuppose mass democratic forces, though not necessarily democratic institutions.
In a capitalist economy, social rights represent an inevitable curtailment of
property rights and, by logical extension, of individual freedom. This has always
been the message of classical liberalism. Classical economists since Adam Smith
have argued that, in addition to reducing individual freedom, infringements of
property rights tend to reduce economic effort, initiative, efficiency, willingness to
take risks, and, ultimately, national prosperity. This is the central message of Milton
Friedmans Capitalism and Freedom; and of the other critics of the welfare state.
43
Capitalism K
those conditions for the better, human rights talk is but cruel mockery.
Public property may lead to one distortion in the realization of human
rights, primarily if it leads to bureaucratization and its evils. On the
other hand, huge disparities and inequalities of a social nature in private
property represent a fundamental limitation in the achievement and use
of human rights (not to speak of human dignity). It may even represent
a denial of the existence and use of human rights. Therefore, the idea
of individual and collective human rights is a limited one at best. On
inspection, it proves no better than any other ideological instrument, in
spite of the rich international and domestic legal protection
mechanisms it extends. The existing domestic and international
instruments of legal protection of human rights may have little to offer to
those thrown to the wolves in the arena of market exploitation, where
full employment is becoming ever more rare and welfare protection
measures are being dismantled. It is necessary to draw attention to
double standards in the application and enforcement of human rights and
to the fact that these double standards are not accidental, but part and
parcel of ideological discourse.
Capitalism controls the direction of human rights
Douszinas, Professor of Law and Director of the Birkbeck
Institute, 13
[Costas, 5-23-13, Critical Legal Thinking, seven theses on human
rights: (3) Neoliberal Capitalism and Voluntary Imperialism,
http://criticallegalthinking.com/2013/05/23/seven-theses-on-humanrights-3-neoliberal-capitalism-voluntary-imperialism/, accessed 7-5-13,
CSO]
44
Capitalism K
Similarly, human rights and their dissemination are not simply the result
of the liberal or charitable disposition of the West. The predominantly negative meaning of freedom as the absence of external constraintsa euphemism for
keeping state regulation of the economy at a minimumhas dominated the
Western conception of human rights and turned them into the perfect companion of neoliberalism. Global moral and civic rules are the necessary
companion of the globalization of economic production and consumption,
of the completion of world capitalism that follows neoliberal dogmas. Over the
last 30 years, we have witnessed, without much comment, the creation of global
legal rules regulating the world capitalist economy, including rules on investment,
trade, aid, and intellectual property. Robert Cooper has called it the voluntary imperialism of the global economy. It is operated by an international consortium of financial Institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank These institutions make
demands, which increasingly emphasise good governance. If states wish to benefit, they must open themselves up to the interference of international
organisations and foreign states. Cooper concludes that what is needed then
is a new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values.2 The (implicit) promise to the developing world is that the violent or
voluntary adoption of the market-led, neoliberal model of good governance and
limited rights will inexorably lead to Western economic standards. This is fraudulent. Historically, the Western ability to turn the protection of formal rights into
a limited guarantee of material, economic, and social rights was partly based on
huge transfers from the colonies to the metropolis. While universal morality militates in favour of reverse flows, Western policies on development aid and Third
World debt indicate that this is not politically feasible. Indeed, the successive
crises and re-arrangements of neoliberal capitalism lead to dispossession
and displacement of family farming by agribusiness, to forced migration and
urbanization. These processes expand the number of people without skills,
status, or the basics for existence. They become human debris, the waste-life,
the bottom billions. This neo-colonial attitude has now been extended from the
periphery to the European core. Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Spain have been subjected to the rigours of the neoliberal Washington Consensus of austerity and
destruction of the welfare state, despite its failure in the developing world.
More than half the young people of Spain and Greece are permanently unemployed
and a whole generation is being destroyed. But this gene-cide, to coin a term, has
not generated a human rights campaign.
45
Capitalism K
Link Immigration
Capitalism causes forced migration and exploitation of foreign
workers
Beiter, Socialist Alternative: US, 06
(Greg, Socialist World, Global capitalism fueling poverty and immigration,
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/2255, 1/5/2006, Accessed 7/2/13 EB)
Recent years have seen a massive wave of immigration to the United States from
the Third world, especially Latin America. Politicians and corporate media
personalities like CNNs Lou Dobbs continually attack these undocumented workers
as illegal aliens and criminals. The real criminals, however, are not
immigrant workers, but the corporate chieftains and politicians who, in
their insatiable lust for profits, plunder the natural resources of poor
countries, set up sweatshops, and wage wars for oil and empire. It is their
policies that create the grinding poverty and social breakdown throughout
the neo-colonial world which forces millions to flee their home countries in
search of work here. While U.S. corporations earn record profits, 128 million
people in Latin America live on less than $2 per day (USAID.org). More than 130
million have no access to safe drinking water, and only one in six persons enjoy
adequate sanitation service (NACLA.org). Big business sets up shop in all corners
of the world, searching for the cheapest labor and slackest environmental
regulations. They argue that in a globalised world we need free trade
and capital should be free to pick up and move to any country with the
best market conditions - yet they oppose the rights of workers to move to
countries with more favorable labor markets. The passage of the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, under Democratic President Bill Clinton,
allowed U.S. companies to massively step up their assault on working
people by laying-off unionized workers in the U.S. and setting up
sweatshops across the Mexican border. NAFTA has spelled a complete
disaster for workers in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. U.S. workers have lost around
395,000 jobs, while their new jobs pay on average 23% less. Simultaneously,
poverty has exploded in Mexico, with two-thirds of the population now living on less
than $3 per day. Millions of poor Mexican farmers have been driven into
bankruptcy after being forced to compete with subsidized U.S. agribusiness (which
relies on the cheap labor of Mexican immigrants, who are often paid less than
minimum wage). Most immigrant workers dont want to leave their country
of origin. They would prefer to stay with their families, where they know
the language and culture. The risks they face coming to the U.S. are many: death
in the desert, suffocation and starvation in shipping containers, or kidnapping and
exploitation by smugglers. Immigrants only come to the U.S. out of dire
economic necessity. They come hoping to make a better life for
themselves and their families a goal they share in common with U.S. workers.
However, this goal comes in direct conflict with the logic of capitalism and the
desire of big business to maximize profits. We cant allow borders and nationality
to divide us. In reality, workers of all countries have more in common with each
46
Capitalism K
other than we do with the bosses in our own countries. Although a U.S. worker and
Bill Gates are both U.S. citizens, their lives are worlds apart. A U.S. worker and an
immigrant worker are both likely living paycheck-to-paycheck, struggling to get by,
while Mr. Gates has billions of dollars to live in luxury. Our struggle is international,
a struggle against corporations that seek to increase profits by pitting workers in
different countries against one another in a race to the bottom. If corporations can
push down wages in Mexico and China - or among immigrant workers in the U.S. they are in a stronger position to demand U.S. workers make similar concessions in
order to compete. We see this playing out daily, from the auto industry to
software development. On the other hand, if workers in Mexico or China win higher
wages and benefits, U.S. workers will be in a stronger economic position to demand
better wages and benefits here. Build the Latin American Labor Movement As
long as massive poverty is the norm in the Third world, no matter how many
fences are built and laws are passed, millions of desperate workers will find a way
into the U.S. and other industrialized countries in search of a better life, and
multinational corporations will want to outsource as many jobs as possible to take
advantage of cheap labor in poor countries. The only viable answer to this
situation is building the labor movement in Mexico and throughout Latin America to
fight for decent jobs and living conditions. The U.S. labor movement needs an
internationalist outlook, with a policy of mobilizing its massive resources financial,
human, and political to help build the strongest possible workers movement in
Mexico and Latin America. A fighting workers movement in Latin America will very
quickly come up against the narrow limits of capitalism in the neo-colonial world
and the resistance of U.S. imperialism, as has happened again and again. That is
why the workers movement needs to be armed with a clear programme and
strategy for overthrowing capitalism and replacing it with socialism, where working
people have democratic control of their workplaces and the resources of their
society. Rather than U.S. corporations exploiting their labor and resources to make
mega-profits for their owners, the workers of Latin America could use this wealth to
create jobs, schools, hospitals, public services, and infrastructure. The potential
impact of such policies can be seen now in Venezuela, where the left-wing
government of Hugo Chavez has used Venezuelas oil revenue to benefit ordinary
workers and peasants instead of enriching the elite, as was the tradition. However,
the Venezuelan revolution has unfortunately not yet gone all the way in decisively
toppling capitalism and instituting democratic socialism, which means these reforms
are limited and precarious, as the Venezuelan capitalists and U.S. imperialism
prepare for a counter-revolution. International Socialism is the Solution While
some claim that globalization is rendering the nation-state obsolete, the reality is
that capitalism needs national borders and nation-states. Corporate America uses
the U.S. government to assert its interests - thats why they spend so much money
on lobbying and funding corporate politicians! Big business needs its own nationstate and military to pursue its interests internationally against competitors,
because it is in direct competition for the worlds markets and resources. For
example, U.S. capitalists engaged in a bitter dispute with their competitors in
France, Germany, Russia, and China over the invasion of Iraq. U.S. imperialism outmuscled these countries, and used its military might to topple Saddams regime in
an attempt to grab Iraqs oil and assert its power over the Middle East. Today we
see sharpening trade tensions between the U.S. and China and Europe.
Simultaneously, big business needs a state apparatus police, military, courts, jails,
etc. - to prevent the working class and oppressed at home from rising up. Just look
47
Capitalism K
at the racist war on drugs that has criminalized a generation of black and Latino
youth, or the brutal state repression of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. The
nation-state, which at one point in history played a progressive role in developing
the economy and society, has now become a tremendous obstacle to the further
development of society. With the development of global capitalism, our society and
economy are increasingly globally integrated. Problems such as poverty, war, and
global warming are international and cannot be solved on a narrow national basis.
International coordination and planning is desperately needed. However, with
capitalist nations constantly divided by ruthless competition, genuine global
cooperation is not possible. But there is a social force whose material interests
compel it to organize together on an international plane - the working class. The
working class is economically and socially bound together globally by capitalism. It
is an international class that is united by common interests and faces a common
enemy. In taking power, the working class would be able to free the economy and
society from the artificial confines of the national boundaries capitalism has
established. Instead, a democratic socialist plan would link together the U.S.,
Canada, and Mexico with the rest of Latin America in a voluntary socialist
confederation of the Americas to share our resources, knowledge, and technology.
A socialist confederation of the Americas would lay the foundation for decent living
standards for working people across both continents, while protecting our
environment. People would no longer be forced to leave their homeland for
economic reasons, and free movement across borders would no longer be
something to fear. Only through fighting for a socialist world can we end this brutal
capitalist system that pits workers against each other, seeks to take away our
rights, and drives our living standards into the ground. When the workers of the
world unite, the only thing we have to lose is our chains.
Capitalism K
market liberalization and the structural adjust- ment policies (SAPs) of the World
Bank and International Monetary Fund, are major causes of the gap in income and
employment opportunities, displacing workers from their local livelihoods.
For example, the flood of cheap agricultural products from the U.S.
following the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) displaced 1.7 million small-scale Mexican farmers, and destroyed
the agricultural econ- omy in Mexico.2 Having lost their livelihoods, and
faced with few employment opportunities in rural areas, agricultural
workers migrated to urban areas in Mexico to compete for jobs. This
migration resulted in lower wages in urban centers and displaced workers
who, in turn, migrated to countries such as the United States in search of
work.3 The demand for cheap labor is a crucial pull factor for labor migration.
Often, migrant workers fill positions that workers in the domestic
workforce refuse to do because of low wages or harsh working conditions.
In the United States for example, immigrant workers constitute the
majority of the labor force in the U.S. meat and poultry industry. The
meatpacking industry, from the 1930s through the 1970s, had a unionized
workforce with higher wages than the average manufacturing job and safety
conditions in line with other industries. Now, wages in the meatpacking industry are
well below the average U.S. manufacturing wage (24 percent lower in 2002), and
meatpacking has become the most dangerous factory job in America, with
injury rates more than twice the national average.4 Studies of other
economic sectors, such as construction, in other parts of the world show a similar
pattern of increasing demand for cheap migrant labor accompanied by
declining wages, benefits, and labor and safety standards. When sectors
employ primarily migrant workers, the employ- ers profit potential is
much higher than would be the case if local labor were employed,
particularly in the case of trafficked persons.5 Migrant workers, especially those
in the informal economy, are invariably paid at a lower rate than local
workers and usually do not receive benefits, such as healthcare or
pensions, that would raise the costs to employers. Employers may prefer
migrant work- ers over local workers because of their vulnerability and lack of
choice that results from their foreign status. Employers perceive them as
comparatively flexible and cooperative with respect to longer working hours,
more vulnerable to molding ... and less likely to leave their jobs.6 Globalization &
Exploitation of Migrant Workers Globalization and neo-liberal economic
policies are leading to an increased flexibility of the workforce, and the
degradation of work, where workers are increasingly moving from
formal to informal sectors of the economy, from permanent to temporary
and contract work, and receiving fewer benefits (such as healthcare and
pensions) from their employers. Such a situation puts workers into an
increasingly vulnerable position, as the safety net that used to catch them
when they were laid off, injured, or unable to find work no longer exists. For
example, global trade agreements such as the 2005 phase-out of the Multifiber
Arrangement under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules left thousands of female
textile and garment contract workers in places like Swaziland, Indonesia, and
Bangladesh, without jobs almost overnight. Without adequate severance pay,
unemployment insurance, and employment oppor- tunities, many of these young
female workers were vulnerable to exploitation by labor recruiters trying to take
advantage of the workers precarious situation by offering them jobs
49
Capitalism K
abroad that they had little choice but to accept. Global trade agreements,
which rarely include adequate labor standards and protections, often contribute to
the exploitation of migrant workers. For example, the U.S. African Growth and
Opportunity Act (AGOA) resulted in increased investment in Africa leading to the
growth of textile and garment factories in Export Processing Zones (EPZs) in
countries such as Uganda. To fill the low-wage jobs in these factories, Ugandan
and Kenyan agents recruited young women workers from Kenya. Once in Uganda,
according to Kenyan trade unions, many of these women were exploited and even
trafficked for forced labor and other exploitative labor and sexual practices. Some of
these women work- ers, referred to as AGOA girls, were in a particularly
vulnerable situation in Uganda due to their migrant status and the lack of labor law
protections in Uganda. Similar movements of workers have occurred in Jordan,
where large numbers of Bangladeshi work- ers migrate through recruitment
agencies to work in textile and gar- ment factors in Qualified Industrial Zones that
developed as part of a trade agreement between the U.S. and Jordanian
governments. While the official line is often that there are not enough trained
Jordanians to fill such jobs (despite unofficial unemployment rates get as high as
30%), the recent reports of exploitation and abuse of migrant workers in these
factories indicates other motives.
Capitalism K
percent unemployment rate among high school dropouts in 2009. 3 One welldocumented case of displacement happened in the tomato industry in the 1980s. A
group of unionized legal border crossers picked the tomato crop for many years in
San Diego County and were making $4.00 an hour in 1980. In the 1980s, growers
switched to a crew of illegal aliens and lowered the wage to $3.35. Almost all the
veteran workers who were unwilling to work at the reduced rate disappeared from
the tomato fields.4 Sometimes, recent immigrants themselves are the victims
of displacement. In the raisin grape industry of California, Mestizos (the Spanishspeaking population of Mexico) were laid off and replaced with lower cost Mixtecs
(the indigenous people of Mexico). According to a study of the industry, the Mixtecs
"have driven the Mestizos out of the market."5 Agriculture has many other
instances of employers' switching to immigrant workers (legal and illegal) to
increase their profits. For example, Hispanic migrants have displaced native
black workers in the Georgia peach industry,6 and migrants have replaced natives
and previous immigrants in the cucumber and apple industries in Michigan.7 The
melon industry slashed its mechanized packing houses in favor of manual packing
in the field, eliminating unionized crews of mostly native workers and assigning
their work to lower paid Mexican field crews.8 In the furniture industry, competition
from immigrant-laden plants in Southern California closed all the unionized plants in
the San Francisco area and removed natives from the workforce in favor of
underpaid aliens.9 Unions fall before the weight of imported labor. In the
Mission Foods tortilla factory strike, management lowered wages by 40 percent, and
when the native labor went on strike, the Mexican managers intentionally brought in
newly immigrated strikebreakers to replaced them. Some of the natives returned to
work at the reduced wages but most left.10 In the last 30 years, the meatpacking
industry has completely reorganized around the use of immigrant rather than native
labor. IBP, the nation's leading meatpacking company, now recruits workers from
Mexico and directly along the border. As a result, the proportion of the labor force
protected by union contracts and the share of natives in meat processing has
dropped dramatically.11 After a 2007 raid on the Smithfied plant in Tar Heel, North
Carolina, unskilled natives soon filled vacancies left by illegal immigrants, a shift
that contributed to workers successful unionization the following year. 12 Similar
phenomena have swept over the hotel industry as well, with immigrant workers
displacing native black workers en masse.13 In Los Angeles, unionized black janitors
had been earning $12 an hour, with benefits. But with the advent of subcontractors
who compose roaming crews of Mexican and El Salvadoran laborers, the pay
dropped to the then minimum wage of $3.35 an hour. Within two years, the
unionized crews had all been displaced by the foreign ones, and without any other
skills, most of the native workforce did not find new work.14 Many politicians and
some citizens do not concern themselves with such displacement since it affects
primarily low-skilled Americans, who tend to lack political clout. As a result,
immigration has been responsible for 40 to 50 percent of the wage depression for
workers without a high school degree in recent decades.15 In an article on the
effects of illegal immigration in North Carolina that claimed that it is not proven that
illegal workers hurt job opportunities for American workers, data from the state's
Employment Security Commission were reported that show lagging wage increases
in industries known to hire many illegal workers, i.e., construction, cleaning and
maintenance, and food preparation. "While the average hourly wage increased 97
cents for all triad workers, from $15.69 to $16.66 during the past 30 months, it rose
in high-immigrant occupations as little as 3 cents in food preparation to as much as
51
Capitalism K
83 cents in cleaning and maintenance."16 Some estimates indicate that nearly two
million Americans a year are displaced by immigration.17 Americans deserve
decent jobs at decent wages, not unfair competition from imported foreign workers
who are exploited to th
52
Capitalism K
53
Capitalism K
and to transfer large sums electronically or by check. Banks also cooperate with
families by making secured loans (e.g., mortgages), enabling them to buy homes,
which also pleases real estate and residential construction companies. Consumers
have cash to pay for what they buy because they have cooperated with their
employers by showing up for work on time and performing labor, for which the
employers cooperate by paying them. Consumers also cooperate with supermarkets
by buying the products and paying cash (and sometimes even by returning
shopping carts to the rack). Actually, even if relations between merchants and their
suppliers are not taken into account, there is nothing new about inter-firm
cooperation due to mutual self-interest. About a century ago, fire insurance
companies began to suspect that electrical equipment was causing building fires,
and backed William Henry Merrills idea for an independent testing laboratory for
electrical products. Thus was born Underwriters Laboratories Inc., an independent,
not-for-profit, nongovernmental organization that now conducts over 77,000 product
investigations each year. Manufacturers voluntarily submit products to UL for testing
and safety verification, and use of UL is not required by law. But few electrical
manufacturers would even consider marketing an electrical product without the ULs
coveted seal of approval, which is placed on more than nine billion products
annually and is known and trusted the world over. 3 Here is an organization that
fulfills the function of a government bureau, helping make sure that products
comply with rigid safety standardsall without costing the taxpayers a centand
accomplishes all this because capitalists want to cooperate with it! As this example
illustrates, self-interest does not necessarily lead to competition at the
expense of cooperation. Capitalism also features cooperation in a more
formal sense: what is now known as strategic partnering. Despite this
impressive new description, joint ventures and licensing agreements have taken
place for quite a long time, and newer industries have merely adopted these
standard practices. In the computer industry, for example, it is routine to buy a
hardware device and find it bundled with software made by a different company,
whose software the hardware company had licensed in order to include with their
own product. Many companies have also been making agreements with other firms,
by which marketing, manufacturing, or research will be conducted jointly between
them. IBM, for example, jointly built a $200-million plant with Toshiba, for the
manufacture of screens for laptop computers. IBM also began in 1991 to jointly
develop dynamic RAM chips with the German electronics firm Siemens. In Japan,
Mitsubishi sells IBM mainframes under its own name, which augments IBMs own
sales efforts. 4 No U.S. manufacturer produces its own color television sets, VCRs, or
CD players; all electronics products sold under the Kodak, General Electric, RCA,
Zenith, and Westinghouse brands are made by these firms foreign alliance partners
and imported into the United States. 5] This cooperation between competitors
is a far cry from the collusion that some capitalists have used on occasion
to stifle competition or restrict output. Such conspiracies attracted criticism
from writers and politicians, but the agreements never lasted long. The reason why
Adam Smith observed that capitalists were always colluding to try to control
markets is that markets were always changing, making yesterdays agreement
obsolete and constantly necessitating a new agreement to try to hold together the
previous conditions. Today, different reasons have been inducing capitalists
to cooperate, and with different results. The fragmentation and spiraling
complexity of todays mass markets have made it increasingly difficult for any
single firm to possess everything it needs to succeed. Such agreements as those
[
54
Capitalism K
entered into by IBM were designed not to restrict output or control markets, but to
acquire the skills, resources, or markets that one firm lacked and could obtain only
from anotherwhich, in return, would receive something it lacked. Sometimes, the
parties to such agreements are competitors, but these partnering agreements are
cooperative, not collusive. In the fast-changing world of todays capitalism,
competition and cooperation are becoming indistinguishable.
55
Capitalism K
Link Justice
No fairer redistribution can tackle the fundamental problem of
exploitation because it is fair by capitalist standards- appeals
to justice mystify the question by making it purely one of
reforming excesses.
Wood, PhD, Ruth Norman Halls Professor of Philosophy at
Indiana University, 72,
(Allen W., General editor of Cambridge Edition of Kant's Writings in English
Translation, Ward W. and Priscilla B. Woods Professor emeritus at Stanford
University, Spring 1972, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 3, The Marxian
Critique of Justice, p. 267-272, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265053, [Accessed
7/5/13], JB)
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
59
Capitalism K
Link LA Democracy
Democratizing Latin America serves as cover for interventions
to accommodate big businessat best it merely channels
protests into making the system more efficient.
Tumino Assistant Professor of English @ City University of New
York, 02,
(Stephen, author of Cultural Theory After the Contemporary, May/June 02, The Red
Critique, Contesting the Empire-al Imaginary: The Truth of Democracy as Class,
http://redcritique.org/MayJune02/contestingtheempirealimaginary.htm, [Accessed
7/8/13], JB).
But freedom and democracy under capitalism is only for the few who can
afford it because they live off the labor of the many. As capitalism develops on a
global scale, the many cannot even meet their basic needs and are compelled to
enter into struggle against the bossesas Argentina, after only 10 years of
neoliberal deregulation, and Venezuela, whose workers must arm themselves simply
to defend the minor redistributions of wealth of the Chavez government, once again
show. The emergent revolutionary struggles in Latin America once again prove the
basic truth of Marxism: that the global development of capitalism leads to its own
downfall by producing a revolutionary working class with nothing left to lose and a
world to win by taking power from the owners and running the economy for the
social good. This truth is, however, covered up by a thick layer of mystification by
the corporate media through a variety of relays and mediations. This mystification
serves to naturalize the social inequality at the basis of capitalism and maintain the
status quo. Take the lie that the North, led by the US, has a moral destiny to
bring freedom and democracy to the South crushed by poverty and
corruption. The poverty and corruption of course are the result of freedom
and democracythe freedom of the capitalist to exploit human labor
power for profit which is what in actuality "chases the bourgeoisie over the whole
surface of the globe" and "compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to []
introduce what it calls civilization into their midst", as The Communist Manifesto
says (Marx 477). The "moral" story about protecting human rights is told to
cover up the material truth about democracy being the freedom to exploit
others for profit. The story is needed to alibi the regime of wage-labor and capital
as a fact of nature. In other words, it portrays the normal daily exploitation of
labor under capitalism as the free expression of human nature in
comparison with which its everyday brutality is made to appear "extreme"
and "irrational" rather than a socially necessary consequence of private
property. The representation of capitalism as natural is of course not natural at all
but historical: it is needed now to manufacture consensus that capitalism cannot be
changed at a time when it is obvious that the material conditions already exist to
abolish class inequality. As Venezuela shows, it is obvious that what stands in
the way of a regime directed toward meeting people's needs, which is what
Chavez represents, is not a lack of respect for human rights by immoral and
corrupt people of the South, but the need of big business for a bigger share
of the world market. It was the US oil giants represented by the Bush regime,
60
Capitalism K
supported by the trade union bureaucracy in this country, that aided the
counter-revolutionary coup in Venezuela (e.g., by fomenting the oil workers
strike as the core of a "civil society" movement that tried to abolish the popular
social reforms of the Chavez government). It is for profit not democracy that
the US supported the reactionary coup to overthrow Chavez (not just in
words but with financial aid, military weapons and advisors as the British Guardian
has reported); it is for profit and not for democracy that the US supports
Israel and is currently colonizing Afghanistan as preparation for taking Iraq. It
is obvious that the Bush regime is guided by profit and not democracy, which is why
global public opinion is everywhere outside the US opposed to US "unilateralism"
and "empire" building. This growing "obviousness" of democracy as
hegemony of the rich threatens the ideology of capitalism by exposing
democracy as the bourgeois freedom to exploit the labor and resources of
the world. It is also behind the formation of a transnational populist left, however,
that goes along with the system of wage labor and capital by marking the obvious
hoax of democracy but nevertheless channeling the opposition into a reformist
politics to maintain capitalism. By merely contesting its obviously barbaric
effects rather than engage in a radical critique of capitalism for a social
revolution against wage-slavery that is the cause of the effects, the left supports
the ideology of democracy as class rule. It thus goes along with the
reactionary backlash to make social contradictions into problems of
"governance" and "policy" of "unruly" subjectsthe powerless are made to
bear responsibility for the contradictions of class society. What is
emerging in the wake of the revolutionary explosions in Latin America is
the growing awareness that it is becoming impossible to simply deny the
basic truth of Marxism on democracy as class inequality. As a result, newer
mystifications of capitalism and why it changes are also emerging to stabilize the
status quo. The dominant mode of naturalizing capitalism is to represent the new
social struggles as spontaneous movements of the oppressed, by denying that they
are a product of history as class struggle over the conditions of production. Rather
than produce awareness of the class interests behind the emerging
struggles the populist left portrays them as the outcome of spontaneous
rebellions of the people against power. It is thus on the left most of all that
one finds the alibi of capitalism as democracy that proposes capitalism
may be reformed while the exploitation at its root remains intact. A
reformed capitalism is simply a code for a more efficient regime of
exploitation and imperialist brutalityit is appeasement of the violent
democracy of the owners.
61
Capitalism K
Link Labor
Under the capitalist mindset, humans are only seen as a
potential source of profit
Burawoy, Professor of Sosiology at University of California
Berkley, 82
[Michael, 9-15-13, University of Chicago Press, Manufacturing
Consent: Changes in the Labor Process Under Monopoly Capitalism p.
22-23, CSO]
Under the feudal mode of production, surplus labor is transparent. It is
produced neither automatically nor simultaneously with subsistence
production. Rather, ser-fs can produce the means of existence independently of
working for the lord, and surplus labor therefore has to be extracted through
extraeconomic means. In short, because surplus labor is separated from
necessary labor, the appropriation of surplus is directly intertwined with
the political, legal, and ideological realms. Is this true for capitalism? Do direct
producers spend a certain amount of time working for capitalists and a certain
amount for themselves? Are workers in possession of the means of subsistence as a
product of their own activities? Are workers able to set the instruments of
production into motion themselves, independently of the capitalist? Does
the appropriation of surplus labor depend on the intervention of extra economic
means in the cycle of production? The answer to all these questions is no. Under
capitalism workers cannot by themselves transform nature and
autonomously provide their own livelihood. They are dispossessed of
access to their own means of production--raw materials as well as instruments
of production. In order to survive, direct producers have no alternative but to
sell their capacity to labor-their labor power-to the capitalist in return for
a wage, which they then turn into the means of existence. In working for a
capitalist, they turn their labor power into labor; their wage appears as
compensation for the entire period they are at work. In reality they are paid only the
equivalent, in monetary terms, of the value they produce in part of the working day,
say five out of eight hours. The five hours constitute necessary labor (necessary for
the reproduction of labor power), while the remaining three hours constitute surplus
or unpaid labor. Just as workers are dependent on a market for selling their labor
power for a wage, so capitalists are dependent on a market for selling their
commodities. Surplus labor produces not only useful things but commodities that
can be bought and sold, that is, things with exchange value. In other words. under
capitalism, surplus labor takes the form of surplus value, which is realized
as profit in the market.
62
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
64
Capitalism K
Link Mexico
Economic engagement will be used by Mexico to further their
neoliberal agenda
Muoz-Martnez, Professor of Political Science at University of New Brunswick ,
2009 (Hepzibah, December 15th, 2009. MR Zine Crisis, Populist Neoliberalism,
and the Limits to Democracy in Mexico
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2009/mm151209.html NMS)
Forbes magazine recently placed two Mexicans, Carlos Slim and Joaqun
Guzmn, high on their list of the most powerful people in the world. Carlos Slim is
the world's third-richest man and CEO of a telecommunications company
and Joaqun Guzmn is the leader of the Sinaloa drug cartel. While the
purpose and the methodology of this list is problematic, the inclusion of these
two names in Forbes' list tells us a lot about the long night of neoliberal
rule in Mexico as well as the current administration of Felipe Caldern,
who belongs to the centre-right National Action Party (PAN). The neoliberal policies
that squeeze wages and working conditions downward while promoting private
investment help explain Mexico's combination of incredible wealth on the
one hand and sharply rising poverty on the other. Global banks such as
Citigroup now consider their Mexican subsidiaries as their main source of
profit. While accumulation and impoverishment continue hand in hand, the
increasing violence, insecurity, and impunity caused by the rising power of
drug cartels and the indifference, if not collaboration, of local authorities,
particularly in some Northern states, have put a double burden on the
Mexican population, who not only see their economic security but also
their physical safety continuously threatened. This is the context where
both the PAN and the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) -- the party that
monopolized the three branches of government for almost 70 years -compete with a strategy of populist neoliberalism, each claiming that they
can do a better job at fighting organized crime than the other. This has
great popular appeal as the constantly escalating crime and insecurity affect all
sectors of the population. At the same time, both parties are committed to
the neoliberal model that has allowed Slim and other companies to obtain
and sustain their wealth. The commonalities and differences in the PRI's and
PAN's populist neoliberalism can be seen in the policies undertaken to fight
organized crime and the 2010 Budget negotiations in the Mexican Congress in the
context of the global crisis.
December 17th Mexico in Transition: Neoliberal Globalism, the State and Civil Society
P. 1 NMS)
65
Capitalism K
THE purpose of this book is to address the impacts, challengers and alternatives to
neoliberal globalism in Mexico. Because the main impacts of neoliberal
globalism have negatively affected the peasantry, the working class and
middle classes in rural and urban Mexico, we pay most attention to them.
Given that the ruling classes and the Mexican state have been the main
architects of neoliberal globalism, along with suprastate organizations
such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, we focus our
attention on challengers and alternatives coming from below, particularly from the
subordinate groups, classes and communities that are becoming increasingly
organized in civil society
66
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
built. But with the step-by-step dismantling of the Cardenas reforms, Mexican
finance, industry, and agriculture is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands
again. And Mexico has been thrown open to the capitalists of the world,
especially the United States. At the end of the 20th century, Mexicos
economy became increasingly entwined in the integrated world economy,
and Mexicos small farmers faced the Mexican and North American
oligarchies united against them. In the 1993 North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), Mexican capitalists, operating through the government of
Carlos Salinas, simply abandoned the small farmers. They dropped the tariffs
against imports of cheap U.S. corn, knowing full well that doing so would destroy
traditional agriculture. NAFTA has been primarily the project of the
capitalists of the U.S. They, too, knew that opening Mexico to U.S. corn
would destroy small Mexican farmers. Operating through presidents George G.
H. Bush and Bill Clinton, they were successful in winning NAFTA. And within a few
years, U.S. agribusinessdominated by giant corporations like Cargillwas
exporting four times as much corn into Mexico as before. The U.S. government was
actually subsidizing large-scale corn production in the United States and dumping it
on the Mexican market at less than it cost to produce. Mexican small farmers could
not compete with this. More than two million people were pushed out of agricultural
work and another five million could no longer live on farm income. Millions streamed
north. Whole villages hollowed out, dispossessed of their traditional
livelihood, and, in effect, of their culture and their land. The Mexican
oligarchy, too, was substantially subsidizing its agribusinesses, which
erupted into the world market. Since NAFTA began, Mexican companies like
Grupo Bimbo and Maseca have become dominant players in the global food
industry. But none of this helped the economic refugees fleeing north. Does the
story end here? Only if the global oligarchy continues to have its way
68
Capitalism K
Link Morality
Moral claims legitimates the current social order, even if
theyre seemingly class-neutral--the bourgeoisie get to decide
what counts as right and wrong.
The Red Phoenix 11,
The Red Phoenix: Newspaper of the American Party of Labor 12/25/11, On
Communist Morality, http://theredphoenixapl.org/2011/12/25/on-communistmorality/ [Accessed 7/4/13], JB)
Bourgeois Moralitys Moral Imperative It is this defense of the position and power of
the bourgeoisie that stands as the central axiom of bourgeois morality. It is the
definitive moral imperative of the bourgeoisie to preserve the property
relations that define capitalism and their elevated position within it. Their
morality stands as a justification for their existence and as a means of
expressing their legitimacy. The bourgeoisie exists as a parasitic class who
exploit the labor of workers who are forced to work the means of production that the
bourgeoisie owns for fear of destitution and starvation. The bourgeoisie accrue
wealth and power from this relationship in the form of the surplus value generated
by the workers and their monopoly over the productive property that is required to
sustain life. As such, in order to justify and defend their existence, they rabidly
defend the private ownership of the means of production as being a sacred right. In
order to do this effectively, they must do two things: to obscure what it is
precisely they are defending and to make the defense of this something
that is defined by a power that is absolute. We see the first in the
characterization of the challenge on private property waged by those who would
challenge this. The anti-communist interprets the attack on the private property of
the bourgeoisie as an attack on all property, whether it be a factory or coal mine, or
on an individual home, a television, a car or the shirt off of someones back. There is
no distinction made in the anti-communists straw man characterization of
communism between personal property and industry, the means of production or
the means of personal subsistence. To acknowledge such a distinction would be
counter-productive. Rather, all property must be equally under attack, and this
attack must be condemned no matter who it attacks and for what reason. The
second means of defense exist to obscure the class origin of the defense of private
property. Rather than an individual member of the bourgeoisie arguing why he
thinks that his private property, and his alone, must be defended, instead we have a
sacred right applied to all such property, even if it is chiefly enforced to protect a
certain kind of property. When it comes to the bourgeoisie, they are are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. They may argue that the worker
is, as well, so endowed with these rights, yet at the end of the day the worker can
barely defend the existence of food on his plate, let alone some right he has no
power to defend within the confines of the capitalist system. This is the material
basis of bourgeois morality. Bourgeois moral statements may vary, may
contradict, may exaggerate philosophical differences between groups and
may make proclamations of moral right and wrong that are seemingly
class-neutral. However, when it comes to the role power plays in deciding
69
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
71
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
happens to both the worker and the landWhat is shortened here exists as
power and the life span of this power is shortened as a result of accelerated
expenditure.[4] The unprecedented growth of advanced capitalist nations,
post industrial revolution, and the current growth rate of developing
countries expends vast natural capital, much of it non-renewable.
Coming now to a more detailed explanation of this increasing ecological rift, we might stress that, under
capitalism, an increase in labour productivity is essentially tantamount to
a reduction in the amount of abstract socially necessary labour required
for the production of any particular commodity (including labour power itself), which
is a condition for an increased extraction and appropriation of surplus
value [19]. This, as I have noted, is the dominant goal of capitalism, and hence all
increases in the productivity of labour should serve this goal. Under this context,
an increasing productivity of labour does not imply a process economizing
on labour or any other productive resources. On the contrary, insofar as capital can
proceed with a free appropriation of nature as a gift to capital, there will be a permanent bias
towards developing a labour-saving technology, but this technology is
conducive to a maximum throughput of natural resources and energy,
which further implies a rapidly increasing depletion of natural resources
and an increasing pollution contributing to a systemic environmental
degradation. A labour-saving technology, therefore, and a rising productivity of labour do not necessarily
imply an increasing social and ecological efficiency, but rather an increasing potential for material and energy
throughput, with an enhanced ecologically damaging impact. What is more ,
even a resource-saving
technological innovation cannot have, under capitalism, an environmentally
protective impact insofar as it will, most likely, imply lower commodity prices and
hence an increasing market demand, which will result in an increased (rather than
decreased) extraction of the natural resource concerned. This implication is
clearly related with the so-called Jevons Paradox [10,14,18]. Economic
efficiency, at a societal level, is not simply a technical issue (a matter of input/output relation) and should
not be understood, in general, as market (capitalist) efficiency. In fact it is largely
determined, not only by the dominant goals of production, but also by the prevailing social relations and the scale
of production, as well as relations of distribution and property regimes. Apart from other reasons, it should be noted
that, insofar as negative externalities (cost shifting) are not taken into account and positive externalities are
a
maximum social efficiency goal cannot be achieved under capitalism, and
this has clear and significant ecological implications [14,16,18,23]. This would
also largely apply within a context of market socialism, but on this issue
we will return below. It should further be stressed that the expropriation
and privatization of common property under contemporary capitalism has
increased class tensions, economic inequality and environmental
degradation, while mal-distribution and inequality undermine economic
efficiency and the sustainability of production [16,17,30-32]. On the other hand, a large
number of studies have recently questioned the assumed efficiency of private
property and pointed out a remarkably efficient allocation and utilization
insufficiently utilized due to the fragmented and (individually) antagonistic character of capitalist production,
73
Capitalism K
a second nature or alternative natures and their socioeconomic and ecological implications [29,36-38]. As E.
Swyngedouw points out: While one sort of sustainability seems to be predicated upon feverishly developing new
natures ... forcing nature to act in a way we deem sustainable or socially necessary, the other type is predicated
upon limiting or redressing our intervention in nature, returning it to a presumably more benign condition so that
human and non-human sustainability in the medium and long term can be assured. Despite the apparent
contradictions of these two ways of becoming sustainable (one predicated upon preserving natures status quo,
the other predicated upon producing new natures), they share the same basic vision that technonatural and
sociometabolic interactions are urgently needed if we wish to secure the survival of the planet and much of what it
contains [39]. Although the possibility of producing new nature may extent the potential terrain of capitalist
accumulation, and this may have important implication for an epoch characterized by a tendency towards a
universal subsumption of nature under capital, it must be stressed that it does not imply that capitalism could ever
escape all natural constraints. It is a rather limited and consequential potential [40]. Distinct from this potential of
Marxists, without ignoring natural and biological limits, conceive that social (organizational) or technological factors
may, occasionally, relax or defer such limits. Reflecting on Marxs view, P. Burkett points out that, with
its
exploitative scientific development of productive forces, its in-built tendency
to reproduce itself upon a constantly increasing scale, and the attendant extension of
productions natural limits to the global, biospheric level, capitalism is the
first society capable of a(n) truly planetary environmental catastrophe, one that
could ultimately threaten even capitals own material requirements [23]. As
I have argued, referring to a particular example, The increasing water scarcity, the
declining quality of water, and the inequitable pattern of its use across
countries and in each particular country, along with a green-house warming that increasingly dries
up mother earth, are not of course the result of some natural evolution, nor mainly
the result of overpopulation, but rather an outcome of a few centuries of
capitalist development and a particularly rapid economic growth during the last half of
the twentieth century [14]. In this case, as also in the case of energy, neo-Malthusian approaches are misleading
insofar as they naturalize external limits (emphasizing natural scarcity), while largely ignoring the potentially
important impact of drastic technological and organizational changes on both the supply and the demand side. On
the latter side, quantitative and qualitative developments in social needs may be more the result of changes in
technology and social organization, than the result of any population growth. But more importantly, neo-Malthusian
approaches are misleading because they erroneously divorce the allocation of resources from the scale of
production and, taking at face value the presumable allocative efficiency of the market mechanism, end up
stressing a fixed scale of production and hence a steady-state model as a necessary condition for the sustainability
of capitalism [41]. As R. Smith has plausibly argued, however, economic growth (and growthmania) is an inherent
tendency of the market system and capitalism, and therefore
a sustainability of capitalism
74
Capitalism K
take into
account the fundamental role of the law of the tendency of the rate of
profit to fall [28], lying behind the overaccumulation crisis of the early 1970s which continues, with some
fluctuations, until the currently aggravated worldwide recession. This crisis, through a variety of processes
and mechanisms, has fuelled the exacerbation of ecological crisis in various
forms. Among these processes, we might consider the intensification of capitalist
competition, the increasing externalities (cost-shifting), and the overexhaustive exploitation of both labour power and natural resources. At the
undermine the conditions of economic and social sustainability of capitalism, we should briefly
same time, there is an equally important dialectical feedback of the exacerbated ecological crisis on the further
aggravation of economic and social crisis. At this point it may be pertinent to briefly address the dematerialization
hypothesis as it might possibly have significant implications for both ecological crisis (reduction of materials and
energy use) and the economic crisis caused by a rising organic composition of capital, namely the relation between
constant to variable capital (C/V), and falling profits rates (as noted above). According to this hypothesis, the
increasing information and knowledge content of production in modern capitalism, along with a relative expansion
of the sector of services and a more energy-efficient technology imply a significant reduction in the material
requirements of production. There are good reasons however, to argue that this dematerialization has not any
significant real dimensions [45,46]. More importantly, I would further argue that this presumable
dematerialization trend cannot have a significant impact on the material requirements of production, negating the
tendency towards a rising composition of capital. The capitalist imperatives behind this rising organic composition
be significantly changed by any dematerialization trend, and hence it cannot have any significant ameliorating
impact of economic and ecological crisis. Capital, of course, deploys all sorts of strategies and methods to stave off
or ameliorate crisis, and popular pressure may also have some effect in limiting the implications of economic and
ecological crisis. Despite this pressure and all attempts or policies aiming at an ecological adjustment, however, it is
rather impossible to adequately tackle the ecological problem within the context of the currently prevailing
capitalist relations of production [10,14,18,21].
Capitalism K
while disposing of perfectly good products that are no longer in style. We produce
more food, housing, and other goods than we need, yet we continue to feel pressure
to work hard to keep our jobs, all in the name of profitability. We have turned into a
disposable nation, where it is cheaper to buy a new printer or monitor, than it is to
have it repaired. One only needs to watch the recent documentary, Super Size Me,
to recognize that we have become an over-indulgent nation. We continue to
consume vast quantities of our natural resources, with literal regard for
environmental concerns. Here is but a small sample of the issues we face:
Ozone Layer Depletion, Greenhouse Effect, Deforestation, Over-harvesting
of fish, Overflowing landfill sites, Toxic waste dumping, nuclear waste
sites, Over-consumption of non-renewable resources. In the capitalist
system, there are no checks in place to ensure that corporations function
in an environmentally responsible manner. Each individual and company is
motivated to keep up with the mechanisms of the giant profit-driven
corporate machine. The United States is currently waging war, all in the name
of keeping prices of gas and oil as low as possible (Even as they refuse to
publicly say so) The fact is, the Bush campaign has lied through their teeth, and
have failed to come up with a single plausible explanation for the war. One
multinational company, Halliburton, is going to profit more from the Iraqi war than
any other. This company, formerly headed by vice president Dick Cheney, was
awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in no-bid contracts by the United States
government. In 1999-2000, Halliburton gave $709,320 in political contributions, of
which 95% went to the Republicans. At the same time, Halliburtons Subsidiary,
kellog Brown and Root (KBR), is under now under scrutiny for illegally operating in
Iran, and wasting tremendous amounts of money. Corporate America is in bed
with the United States government, and for these reasons, the government
cannot be relied upon to hold these companies accountable.
76
Capitalism K
77
Capitalism K
this majority, except in the indirect sense that the ruling class seeks to coopt the demands of the majority in order to maintain the capitalist
system. A second reason why capitalism creates environmental problems is that
although the world's resources are controlled by a relative handful of
people, planning is not centralized under capitalism. Instead, production is
anarchic; it is centered around making profits, not around meeting basic
human needs in the short or long runs. Much of what is produced by the capitalist
system is unnecessary and wasteful, and the system is not fundamentally capable
of incorporating long-term human survival as a need. Finally, the capitalist
system does not distribute resources equitably. Under capitalism, many
people do not have adequate resources for survival. Many environmental
problems stem from this root problem. Furthermore, capitalism is not static.
It has changed since Marx's day. Today, it has developed to its highest
stage: imperialism.(1) Under imperialism, the capitalists carve and recarve
the world. The unequal distribution of resources takes on a distinctly
national flavor, with a division of the world into imperialist countries on the
one hand and colonies and neocolonies on the other hand. Imperialism exploits
both the natural and the human resources of its colonies and neocolonies.
78
Capitalism K
(Kimberly, Ph.D., English, Spring 2003, The Red Critique, The Imperialism of "Eating
Well", http://redcritique.org/Spring2003/theimperialismofeatingwell.htm, [Accessed
7/8/13], JB).
The suspension of judgment, law, determination, etc., while masquerading as
the height of freedom, is really a means of justifying deeply contradictory
practices. When for instance Chris Barker extends Derrida's and Edkins'
theoretical framework to a discussion of the possibility of any social change,
arguing that "ethics do not require to be grounded in anything outside our
beliefs and desires" (13), what he is really saying is that the ethical
subject, not determined by any laws or objectives, can be ethical in one place,
and not in another. Post-al ethics is a "politics without guarantees". But what
are "guarantees" on this logic except the ability to connect one's actions to the
larger social forces of which one is a part, and what does the suspension of
"guarantees" do except eliminate the means of understanding the world
outside of experience and immediacy? On the terms of the ethical, there
is no basis on which to critique the U.S. imperialist practices of on the one
hand dropping food for the hungry in its "humanitarian" missions, and, on the other,
using food and nutrition as a weapon against people in the economic blockade
against Iraq. The ethical subject can simply say that because our knowledge
is always limited, it is impossible to determine the effects of all of our
practices, let alone their causes. To once again return to Barkerwhose
"introductory" writings on the analysis of culture for beginning students serve as an
index of the institutionalization of the deeply conservative trend in cultural studies
todaywe engage in so many contradictory practices in such a "complex"
world, "the justification of ethics becomes an increasingly complex matter
that depends at its best on dialogue and at its worst on a descent into
violence" (13-14). Indeed, for post-al ethics, there is only "indeterminacy" and
contradiction, and violence is thus inevitable. By reducing the subject to the
effects of textual oscillations, there is no principle upon which one acts. Far from
serving as an intervention into the domination of the West, post-al ethics
becomes an alibi for U.S. imperialist practices of dropping food for the
hungry, while simultaneously using food and nutrition as a weapon against
people in order to secure U.S. economic interests in oil, labor and other
resources. Post-al ethics is a pretext for opportunism. That the seemingly
radical notion of ethics is but a cover for imperialist practices is evident,
for instance, in the fact that just over a year after the "humanitarian
intervention" "Infinite Justice", the Afghan people are in many instances
facing worse conditions than they were before the mission. In fact, so
desperate has the situation in post-intervention Afghanistan become, that after the
79
Capitalism K
endless boasting of the "liberation" of Afghan people by the U.S., the U.S. appointed
"president" of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai recently called on the U.S. to remind it "not
to forget" his country as the U.S commits tremendous military and economic
resources to the invasion of Iraq ("Don't forget us, Karzai warns"). But Karzai's trip is
not the only "official" index of the actual conditions of Afghanistan. As even a recent
report on Afghanistan commissioned by the U.S. administration's own Agency for
International Development indicates, "the level of 'diet' security," a measurement of
vulnerability to famine, has plummeted from nearly 60 percent in 2000 [before the
bombing began in Afghanistan] to just 9 percent now (reported in Smucker).
Meanwhile it is expected that 1.5 million refugees displaced during the U.S. war will
return to the country in 2003, placing even more of a burden on already scarce
resourcesand so scarce are basic resources that a UN report indicated as many as
88 percent of people living in urban areas lack access to safe drinking water (Colson
47). Under the same guise of "helping" the people of Iraq see the value of
democracy, the sanctions imposed by the U.S. on Iraq have had brutally
undemocratic effects for over a decade. As Rania Masri writes, since the U.S.
war with Iraq began in 1991, which killed more than 300,000 Iraqis over a 43 day
period, "more than 1 million peoplemainly young childrenhave died as a direct
result of the US-led blockade", and 4 million people, one fifth of the population, are
currently starving to death in Iraq, based on a UN FOA report. Every month in Iraq,
according to the 1996 UNICEF report, more than 4,500 children under the age of
five died from hunger. The current war promises only further devastation. Already,
there are reports of famine in Iraq, due to the choking and destruction of
virtually all production and distribution of goods throughout the country
as a result of the invasion (which has begun, critically, during the planting
season).[2] Far from helping the poor in Afghanistan and Iraq to feed
themselves, imperialist ethics have rendered them further dependent
upon and exploited by the imperialist nations. The status of the "infinite"
in the ethical, whether it is the infinite of "infinite hospitality" or "infinite
justice", is in short a ruse for rendering justice impossible, through infinite
deferrals which extend forever into the future the unequal conditions that
currently exist.
80
Capitalism K
Link Poverty
The root cause of poverty is Capitalism
Duhalde, activist and journalist with Boston
Capitalism K
rising poverty as the other side of rising profits. When poverty and its
miseries "remain always with us," workers tend to accept what employers dish out
to avoid losing jobs and falling into poverty. Another major corporate goal is to
control politics. Wherever all citizens can vote, workers' interests might prevail over
those of directors and shareholders in elections. To prevent that, corporations
devote portions of their revenues to finance politicians, parties, mass media, and
"think tanks." Their goal is to "shape public opinion" and control what government
does. They do not want Washington's crisis-driven budget deficits and national
debts to be overcome by big tax increases on corporations and the rich. Instead
public discussion and politicians' actions are kept focused chiefly on cutting social
programs for the majority.Corporate goals include providing high and rising salaries,
stock options, and bonuses to top executives and rising dividends and share prices
to shareholders. The less paid to the workers who actually produce what
corporations sell, the more corporate revenue goes to satisfy directors, top
managers, and major shareholders. Corporations also raise profits regularly
by increasing prices and/or cutting production costs (often by
compromising output quality). Higher priced and poorer-quality goods are
sold mostly to working people. This too pushes them toward poverty just
like lower wages and benefits and government service cuts.
Capitalism K
elite, its inevitable that a substantial number of people are going to wind up on the
short end and living in poverty or with the fear of it much of the time. Its like the
game of musical chairs: since the game is set up with fewer chairs than there are
people, someone has to wind up without a place to sit when the music stops. In
part, then, poverty exists because the economic system is organized in
ways that encourage the accumulation of wealth at one end and creates
conditions of scarcity that make poverty inevitable at the other. But the
capitalist system generates poverty in other ways as well. In the drive for
profit, for example, capitalism places a high value on competition and
efficiency. This motivates companies and their managers to control costs
by keeping wages as low as possible and replacing people with machines
or replacing full-time workers with part-time workers. It makes it a rational
choice to move jobs to regions or countries where labor is cheaper and
workers are less likely to complain about poor working conditions, or
where laws protecting the natural environment from industrial pollution or
workers from injuries on the job are weak or unenforced. Capitalism also
encourages owners to shut down factories and invest money elsewhere in
enterprises that offer a higher rate of return. These kinds of decisions are a
normal consequence of how capitalism operates as a system, paths of least
resistance that managers and investors are rewarded for following. But the
decisions also have terrible effects on tens of millions of people and their
families and communities. Even having a full-time job is no guarantee of a
decent living, which is why so many families depend on the earnings of
two or more adults just to make ends meet. All of this is made possible by the
simple fact that in a capitalist system most people neither own nor control any
means of producing a living without working for someone else. To these social
factors we can add others. A high divorce rate, for example, results in large
numbers of single-parent families who have a hard time depending on a single adult
for both childcare and a living income. The centuries-old legacy of racism in the
United States continues to hobble millions of people through poor education,
isolation in urban ghettos, prejudice, discrimination, and the disappearance of
industrial jobs that, while requiring relatively little formal education, nonetheless
once paid a decent wage. These were the jobs that enabled many generations of
white European immigrants to climb out of poverty, but which are now unavailable
to the masses of urban poor. Clearly, patterns of widespread poverty are
inevitable in an economic system that sets the terms for how wealth is
produced and distributed. If were interested in doing something about
poverty itself if we want a society largely free of impoverished citizens then
well have to do something about both the system people participate in
and how they participate in it. But public debate about poverty and policies to
deal with it focus almost entirely on the latter with almost nothing to say about the
former. What generally passes for liberal and conservative approaches to poverty
are, in fact, two variations on the same narrow theme of individualism. A classic
example of the conservative approach is Charles Murrays book Losing Ground.
Murray sees the world as a merry-go-round. The goal is to make sure that everyone
has a reasonably equal chance at the brass ring or at least a reasonably equal
chance to get on the merry-go-round. He reviews thirty years of federal antipoverty
programs and notes that theyve generally failed. He concludes from this that since
government programs havent worked, poverty must not be caused by social
factors.
83
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
In some of his early works, Marx suggests that the poverty of the workers
goes hand in hand with capitalist production. For example, in "Alienated
Labor" he claims that in capitalist society, "labor produces marvels for the
wealthy but it produces deprivation for the worker" (61). Indeed, "so much
85
Capitalism K
does the realization of labor appear as diminution [of the worker] that the
worker is diminished to the point of starvation" (61). This view, that as a
necessary result of the capitalist mode of production the average worker
is deprived of many of the necessaries of life, is one that Marx had abandoned
by the time he wrote Capital. In Capital, Marx suggests that it is not part of
the "inner essence" of capitalist exploitation that the worker be deprived
of the necessaries of life. To the contrary, the reproduction of the capitalist mode
of production requires the reproduction of the class of workers, which in turn
requires providing the workers with the necessaries of life.
86
Capitalism K
Link Terrorism
The war on terror is mechanism used by the US to expand its
capitalist and hegemonic influence
Delizo 11-blogger for the Global Periscope (Rasti, ESCALATING AMERICAS
GLOBAL WAR OF TERROR: US Imperialisms Legacy to the World a Decade After
9/11, Thr Global Periscope 2011,
http://rastiglobalperiscope.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/escalating-americas-globalwar-of-terror-us-imperialisms-legacy-to-the-world-a-decade-after-911/,MB)
Since the past decade, this White House-labeled GWOT has only revealed itself to
be but a bare-naked policy of globalized militarist aggression by America . It swiftly
became a primary foreign policy thrust of US imperialism to advance its own
strategic agenda for world hegemony in the 21st Century. Washingtons principal global
aim since 1945 has always been to maintain and strengthen its overall control
and domination of the international system in all its aspectseconomic,
political, military, social-cultural, and scientific-technological. As the worlds leading imperialist
power, the US constantly seeks to ensure that its domestic economic
infrastructure is always able to sustain its productive capacities, provide for its citizens and
of course, to secure super-profits for its capitalist ruling-class. It does this through its
economic-political influence inside a wide range of international institutions (i.e. the United Nations system, the
World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, etc.).
Specifically, US imperialisms main pillars worldwide are a host of regionally placed puppet-states (e.g. the
Philippine capitalist state) that incessantly and unquestioningly carry out whatever Washington orders them to do.
As such, these agent-states persistently provide America with natural resources, open markets and military access.
Washington frequently
supports these pro-imperialist agent-governments with political-military backing for the
latters exploitative, oppressive and repressive state policies against their own peoples. State-terrorism
works both ways. But on the other hand, however, if any state, organization and/or individual around the
world dare to chart an independent path from the American hegemonic project, then US imperialism is
always ready and willing to steady the killing of any such terrorist enemy
of democracy. This is a major fundamental focus of the GWOT.
And in return, America never forgets to reciprocate with its own favors. Thus,
rests partly on their massive economic weight, but it also depends on the enforcing role of US-dominated agencies
power is designed to facilitate the worldwide access of big business to cheap labour, raw materials and markets,
and to maximise corporate profits. These relationships constitute a system of imperialism, dominated by the US
87
Capitalism K
The
assault on Afghanistan which may later be extended to other states is a defence of
imperialist interests. It will not eliminate the threat of terrorism or guarantee
with Britain, Germany, France, Japan, and other advanced capitalist countries as junior partners-in-crime.
the future safety and security of citizens in the US, Britain, or elsewhere. The horrific anthrax attacks, the work of as
yet unidentified perpetrators, is a warning of the insidious form of terrorist attack that may be used by fanatical or
unbalanced individuals or groups with a variety of grievances. Will they be deterred by the carpet-bombing of
Taliban forces, or by even the elimination of the al-Qaida network? On the contrary, military action by imperialism
will vastly multiply the unstable elements in the international chain-reaction of social crisis, political upheaval and
armed conflict. The more dispossessed, alienated people there are, the greater the accumulation of grievances, the
more individuals there will be who, from despair, will be driven to find a way out through desperate acts of suicidal
Military repression further punishment of the impoverished
masses of the neo-colonial countries through imperialist intervention will
not overcome the threat of terrorism. It will not end violent conflicts, like those in Israel-
terrorism.
Palestine or Kashmir, which are part of the equation. The resolution of such conflicts and the creation of social
harmony require a just social order, the eradication of the economic and social roots of violence. It requires
economic security for everyone, with housing, education, health care, and all the things that contribute to a
civilised existence. It means the democratic running of society by the overwhelming majority, not autocratic rule by
the representatives of capitalists, landlords, tribal leaders, or warlords. Class rule by a minority of exploiters is
most are those who create that hopelessness in the first place--the oil monarchies, for example. For of all capitalist
enterprises, the extractive industries are probably the most deserving of the abuse heaped on them over the years.
The possessors of the earth's treasures believe, apparently, that the luck, wealth, or political corruption that allowed
them to own land containing such riches is a sign of divine favor, while the poverty of those around them indicates
Terrorists are people who have lost hope--hope for the possibility
of peacefully creating a better world. They may be middle-class and educated,
as many terrorist leaders are, but their despair is one of empathy for the
plight of their people as a whole. The root causes of terrorism are
celestial disgust.
pathological inequalities in wealth-- not just in Saudi Arabia but all over the Third World. Even
in our own country Republican policies have in recent decades created inequalities so extreme that while a few
A society
that impoverishes most of its population in order to enrich a few
neurotically greedy individuals is a sick society . As Jared Diamond has shown, societies in
which a few plunder the environment at the expense of the many are headed for collapse. Terrorism will
never end until caps are placed on inequality. At this point Republicans usually start
screaming about communism and destroying 'freedom'. But no one's talking about ending
capitalism. Capitalism is here to stay, but like any system it will self-destruct without limits. Pure greed
is not a sufficient basis for a viable social system, and a pure free market
system will self-destruct as surely as pure communism. As Lewis Mumford pointed out years ago, no
have literally more money than they can possibly use, the vast majority are struggling to get by.
system can survive without contradictions, because humans are much more complex than their ideologies.
88
Capitalism K
Freedom in our Revolutionary father's Democracy has always had two sides to its worldly presence. We can be free
TO DO as we want (e.g., freedom of religion) and we can be free FROM unnecessary restraint (e.g., freedom from
which itself has more to do with religious law than with freedom (although it apparently does include the freedom
provided by SUVs and cell phones). Clearly there are semantic problems with our various concepts of "freedom" in
the world, all of which stem from the global human failure to comprehend what the fathers of American Democracy
meant by the term. An honest and ethical freedom has nothing to do with political license. Bush and bin Laden
practice a notion of "freedom" unrestricted by honesty, decency and human knowledge, unrestricted by the values
of democracy. Democracy and the millennial human struggle for freedom is, in the final analysis, the struggle TO
DO what is honest and right in the interests of the people and the land, and to do so unrestricted by the wants of a
handful of desperate extremists with too much money and too much power extorted from the people.
refugees after the Israeli declaration of independence in 1948 as the motive for acts of terrorism against civilians in
Israel and elsewhere, including New York and Washington.
Similarly, opponents
of the war in Iraq told us that military action to remove Saddam Hussein would further aggravate Arab and Muslim
frustrations, spawning more suicide terror. However, certain persistent facts undermine these claims. To begin
with, no Palestinians participated in the attacks of September 11. Apart from the ideological godfather of Osama bin
Abdullah Azzamm, who was killed in Pakistan in 1989, few people from Palestine or Jordan have
turned to Islamist extremism in disgust with the
Marxist, class-driven ideology of Yasir Arafat, al- Fatah, and the Palestine
Liberation Organization Islamist extremism exists because of the desire of
corrupt and oppressive rulers to maintain themselves in power. Thus, we should
Laden,
support the democratization of the Arab and Islamic countries. Democratization need not involve the West imposing
its political model on these societies. Rather, the Western role should be to sweep aside the obstacles to
modernization and democratization from within. Above all, the liberation of these societies will be a liberation of
Islam from Saudi-style corruption and oppression. An Islam liberated from the grip of Saudi Arabia could correct
itself and defeat extremism on its own terms.
89
Capitalism K
90
Capitalism K
Turns case
Terrorism is a product of class tensions
Ogunrotifa, Research Assistant at Edinburgh University, 12
(Bayo Ogunrotifa, Research Assistant at Edinburgh University, April 2012 ,PUTTING
HISTORICAL MATERIALISM INTO TERRORISM STUDIES , International Journal of
Current Research, Vol. 4, P.231-232, JF)
Terrorism is an inevitable consequence that will feature more prominently
in the capitalist mode of production because the social contradiction
(economic crisis) that arises out of the conflicts between the social relations
and productive forces will usher a continuous struggle within classes as Karl
Marx
classes, and further divides the society into have (rich and
capitalism
Therefore,
economic reforms, purposely to save capitalism from imminent collapse and negation. The rich and other
members of the ruling class are less likely to be affected by these cut in social spending than the working and
the lumpen classes. Therefore, the gap between the ruling class and the working/lumpen class become wider,
and this will inevitably affects the prevailing social relations within capitalism. Reformist measures such as less
pay (wages) but longer working time, mass sacking of employees, poor working conditions, cut in social spending
and harsh austerity measures will be implemented Thus triggers social conflicts and
class struggle among the classes. In this situation, there is potential that class struggle that will lead to
strikes, protest and industrial disharmony between the working class and the ruling class. As Alan Wood (2002)
noted that most obvious and painful manifestations of the crisis of capitalism are not only economic but those
phenomena that affect their personal lives at the most sensitive and emotional points: the breakdown of the
family, the epidemic of crime and violence, the collapse of the old values and morality with nothing to put in
their place, the constant outbreak of wars - all of this gives rise to a sense of instability, a lack of faith in the
present or the future11 These contradictions caused by the capitalist mode of production and the inability of the
state (domination of ruling class) to provide for Lumpen class is recipe for anarchy. This stems from that
unemployed and others who cannot understand the series of frustration will be forced to response to the crisis
one way or the other. Frustrated sections of the lumpen class are more likely form criminal gangs, radical Islamic
91
Capitalism K
92
Capitalism K
Link AT Pomo
93
Capitalism K
Destroys coalitions
Only unifying around material, objective exploitation can
create broad coalitions-Even if they win class essentialism
claims, its comparatively better than the perm that devolves
back into relativistic ID politics.
moufawad-paul PhD in Philosophy,13,
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
marxist with an excuse to remain inactive. One must not engage with the
masses if they say the wrong words; one must not engage with concrete
reality if it cannot be transformed so easily into a safe space. 9) We need to
ask why the [lack of revolutionary] praxis mobilized by identity politics matters only
to radicals at the centres of global capitalism. Why is this set politics seen as pettybourgeois by revolutionary movements at the global peripheriesmovements that
are tired of those intellectuals who, in the moment of theorizing about the
subaltern's ability to speak for itself, attempt to decide the manner in which this
subaltern can speak in order to be understood as subaltern? When we ask these
questions we may be forced to recognize that identity politics is connected to a
radical petty-bourgeois strain of what might be called the labour aristocracyor at
the very least a group of privileged migrant ex-patriatesand that its theorization
of privilege is also an attempt to obscure its own especial privilege. 10) The fact
that identity politics, and its theoretical basis in post-modern theory, is
predominant only at the centres of capitalism is no accident. This is not to
say that the insights produced by this ultimately petty-bourgeois practice have not
been useful and significant (indeed some crude marxisms it sought to correct were
also petty-bourgeois) only that these insights are limited precisely by their
petty-bourgeois idealism and inability to examine the material basis of
realitythat is, social class. Social class is precisely that which can be
obscured at the privileged centres of imperialism.
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
98
Capitalism K
***Impact***
99
Capitalism K
Impact Ethics
Capitalism is dehumanizing People become nothing more
than material conditions of production.
Meszaros, University of Sussex professor, 95
(Istvan, 1995, Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition, pg. 527, JZ)
the
capitalist concept of 'property' can play a vital part in legitimating the
established - apriori prejudged and materially fixed, as well as
legally/politically safeguarded - relations of production and the dominant
mode of appropriation (and expropriation) corresponding to it, in sharp
contrast to its original meaning. For: Property originally means no more than a human being's
The raison d'ttre of such changes is not too difficult to identify. For through its radically perverted meaning,
relation to his natural conditions of production as belonging to him, as his, as presupposed along with hir own being;
relations to them as natural presuppositions of his self, which only form, so to speak, his extended body. He actually
does not relate to his conditions of production, but rather has a double existence, both subjectively as he himself,
and objectively in these natural non-organic conditions of his existence. . . . Property originally means - in its Asiatic,
Slavonic, ancient classical, Germanic form - the relation of the working (producing or self-reproducing) subject to
the conditions of his production or reproduction as his own. It will therefore have different forms depending on the
conditions of this reproduction. Production itself aims at the reproduction of the producer within and together with
these, his objective conditions of existence.
Capitalism K
People
eventually begin to think that things are out of whack, that their priorities
are mixed up, that their moral center is being lost so . . . they spend more
to cover up the fear. To exacerbate this fear, technology has left people
isolated with no sense of belonging. It has cocooned them to the extent that they are blinded to
because the religion of the market (a system of beliefs) co-opts aspects of humanity and spirituality.
their destructive ways. Wisalo (1999) suggests that such destructive consumerism occurs because of humans
insecurity in their hearts and minds. Ironically, people allegedly consume to gain this security. He says that
people feel they can become a new person by purchasing those products
that support their self-image of whom they are, want to be, and where
they want to go. Unfortunately, this approach to becoming a new person,
to developing a sense of self, is unsustainable. People "under the
influence of consumerism" never feel completely satisfied because owning
something cannot help meet the security of heart and mind, the deeper
needs of humanity. Constantly spending and accumulating only gives
short-term fulfilment and relief from the need to have peace and security
in life.
101
Capitalism K
Impact Environment
Its reverse causal we must destroy capitalism before we can
fight environmental exploitation and degradation
Altvater Former Prof. of Political Science at University of Berlin 2007 (Elmar,
The Social and Natural Environment of Fossil Capitalism,
http://www.globallabour.info/en/Altvater-Fossilism-SR-2007%20(rev.).doc, NMS)
The reason for capitalisms high economic impact on the environment is to
be found in its double character. It has a value dimension (the monetary value
of the gross national product, of world trade, of FDI, of financial flows, etc.) but is
also a system of material and energy flows in production and consumption,
transportation and distribution. Economic decisions concerning production first
consider values and prices, profit margins and monetary returns, on capital
invested. In this sphere the ruling principle is only the economic rationality of
profit-maximizing decision-makers. But the decisions they take have
important impacts on nature, due to the material and energy dimension of
economic processes. Under capitalist conditions the environment is more
and more transformed into a contested object of human greed. The
exploitation of natural resources, and their degradation by a growing
quantity of pollutants, results in a man-made scarcity, leading to conflicts
over access to them. Access to nature (to resources and sinks) is uneven and
unequal and the societal relation of man to nature therefore is conflict-prone. The
ecological footprints of people in different countries and regions of the world are
of very different sizes , reflecting severe inequalities of incomes and wealth.
Ecological injustices therefore can only usefully be discussed if social class
contradictions and the production of inequality in the course of capital
accumulation are taken into account.
Monthly Review A Failed System: The World Crisis of Capitalism and its Impact on
China
http://monthlyreview.org/2009/03/01/a-failed-system-the-world-crisis-of-capitalistglobalization-and-its-impact-on-china NMS)
As the foregoing indicates, the world is currently facing the threat of a new
world deflation-depression, worse than anything seen since the 1930s.
The ecological problem has reached a level that the entire planet as we
know it is now threatened. Neoliberal capitalism appears to be at an end, along
with what some have called neoliberalism with Chinese characteristics.54
Declining U.S. hegemony, coupled with current U.S. attempts militarily to restore its
global hegemony through the so-called War on Terror, threaten wider wars and
nuclear holocausts. The one common denominator accounting for all of these crises
is the current phase of global monopoly-finance capital. The fault lines are most
obvious in terms of the peril to the planet. As Evo Morales, president of Bolivia,
has recently stated: Under capitalism we are not human beings but
102
Capitalism K
consumers. Under capitalism mother earth does not exist, instead there
are raw materials. In reality, the earth is much more important than
[the] stock exchanges of Wall Street and the world. [Yet,] while the United
States and the European Union allocate 4,100 billion dollars to save the
bankers from a financial crisis that they themselves have caused,
programs on climate change get 313 times less, that is to say, only 13
billion dollars.
103
Capitalism K
104
Capitalism K
105
Capitalism K
Impact Genocide
The economic exploitation and expansion spurred by
Capitalism leads to genocide
Sethness 13- author of Imperiled Life: Revolution against Climate Catastrophe
(Javier, The Structural Genocide That Is Capitalism, Truthout 2013, http://truthout.org/opinion/item/16887-the-structural-genocide-that-is-capitalism, MB)
In this book, Leech guides his readers through theoretical examinations of the concept of genocide ,
showing why the term should in fact be applied to the capitalist mode of production . He
then illustrates capitalism's genocidal proclivities by exploring four case studies: the ongoing legacy of the 1994 North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in Mexico; the relationship between trade
liberalization and genetically-modified seeds on the one hand and mass-suicide on
the part of Indian agriculturalists on the other; material deprivation and generalized premature death throughout
much of the African continent and the global South, as results from hunger, starvation, and preventable disease; and the ever-worsening climatic and
environmental crises. Leech then closes by considering the relevance of Antonio Gramsci's conceptions of cultural hegemony in attempting to explain the
puzzling consent granted to this system by large swathes of the world's relatively privileged people - specifically, those residing in the imperial core of
Europe and the United States - and then recommending the socialist alternative as a concrete means of abolishing genocide, while looking to the Cuban
and Venezuelan regimes as imperfect, but inspirational experiments in these terms In sum, while I take issue with some of his analysis and aspects of his
conceptualization of anticapitalist alternatives, his work should certainly be well-received, read and discussed by large multitudes. Following this opening
abandon agriculture and migrate to Mexican and US cities in search of employment in the manufacturing sector, in accordance with neoclassical theories
of "comparative advantage" - and very much mirroring the means by which capitalism emerged historically through the destruction of the commons in
attendant mass death in the Sonoran desert), as well as the horrid drug war launched in 2006 by then-president Felipe Caldern. Leech sees similar
processes in Colombia, which hosts the second-largest number of internally displaced persons in the world (4 million), with many of these people having
been removed from their lands due to military and paramilitary operations undertaken to make way for megaprojects directed by foreign corporations.
in India, Leech reports that more than 216,000 farmers committed suicide between
1997 and 2009, largely out of desperation over crushing debts they
accumulated following the introduction of genetically-modified seed crops,
Alarmingly,
as demanded by the transnational Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS, 1994) and the general shift from subsistence to exportoriented agriculture. In many cases, the genetically engineered seed varieties failed to expand yields to the levels promised by Monsanto, Cargill, and co.,
leading farmers then to take on further debt merely to cover the shortfalls as well as to pay for the next iteration of crops - which by conscious design
were modified at the molecular level so as not to be able to reproduce naturally, thus ensuring biotech firms sustained profitability (a "captured market,"
as it were). That such a dynamic should end in a downward spiral of death and destruction should be unsurprising, for all its horror. Leech further
Merely consider the millions who succumb to AIDS on the continent each year or the other millions who perish in the region annually due to lack of
medical treatment for complications within pregnancy or conditions such as diarrhea and malaria, themselves catalyzed by pre-existing background
malnutrition. All this deprivation is exacerbated, argues Leech, by food-aid regimes overseen by wealthier societies - which in the US case demands that
food be purchased from and shipped by US companies, thus effectively removing a full half of the total resources intended for the hungry - and the
infamous land-grabs being perpetrated on the continent in recent years by investors from such countries as Saudi Arabia and South Korea. Fundamentally,
106
Capitalism K
excludes the aforesaid examples of imperial mass violence despite their prevalence, does this suggest that the
concept itself needs re-evaluation? Of course, how scholars answer such questions depends ultimately on their
preferred definitions of genocide.[iv] These range from minimalist exclusivist conceptualizations restricting its
theoretical scope to a highly specified type of mass killing,[v] to maximalist inclusivist conceptualizations
encompassing a wide variety of forms of group violence.[vi] These prevalent approaches are also in tension with
the original sociological conceptualization of genocide elaborated by Polish Jewish jurist Raphael Lemkin (19001959), for whom genocidal perpetrators could be states as well as decentralized and dispersed groups such as
This paper thus excavates Lemkins sociological definition of genocide to develop a working theoretical framework
by which to understand the social causes of contemporary mass violence. It explores the implications of this
framework by briefly exploring the examples of Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Indonesia, and how a Lemkininian
approach might require if not a re-interpretation, a re-contextualisation of these genocidal episodes in a global
context. The paper thus demonstrates that a Lemkininian model, arming us with a better understanding of the
socio-political and transnational relations of ideological radicalization, could lead to more robust early warning
systems, as well as a more refined understanding of how to respond preventively by transforming the specific
process that can lead to the radicalised construction of exclusionary group identities that can culminate in
genocide.
107
Capitalism K
Exupery, journalist from Figaro and author of the book Linavouable: la France au Rwanda; see Le Monde
Diplomatique March 2004). It was indeed France which, for a number of years, had been training and arming the
local gendarmerie, the Hutu militia, and the Rwandan Armed Forces. It was France which had fully supported the
300,000 orphans were wandering the country. Cholera and famine were on the rise and rapidly carried off more
than 40,000 Hutu refugees, while combat helicopters, Mirages and Jaguars belonging to the French army waited for
was used to cover the barbaric policy of France ten years ago. It was used again in 1999 to justify the bombing of
Serbia and the military occupation of Kosovo. Today in Kosovo there is a renewal of ethnic conflict, and the French
army, as it did in Rwanda, is using the opportunity to increase its presence on the ground. Meanwhile, Tony Blair
points to the lack of humanitarian intervention in Rwanda to argue in favour of the Iraq war, telling us that the only
hope for countries subjected to ethnic slaughter or mass murder by undemocratic states is the benign intervention
of the civilised powers. Rwanda, like the Balkans, like Iraq, provides us with proof that there can be nothing benign
in the intervention of an imperialist state. On the country, its only result can be to take the local barbarism onto a
higher level .
Capitalism K
genocide
is often used to
describe diverse forms of direct or indirect killing, which has resulted in
its frequency of use and recklessness of application over the past several decades
(103). In The Politics of Genocide, Herman and Peterson argue that while members of the Western
establishment and news media have rushed to denounce bloodbaths in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rwanda,
Kosovo, and Darfur, they have largely remained silent over war crimes and mass
atrocities committed by allied regimes in Southeast Asia, Central America, the Middle East,
definition is highly controversial
Chomsky suggests in the foreword to the book, since the end of the Cold
War,
while Herman
and Peterson, like Chomsky, do perceive imperialism fundamentally in race
and class terms, their use of terms such as elite and Western
establishment rather than class or ruling class tends to obscure the real
material links between genocide, capitalism and Western imperialism. For
Herman and Peterson, a remarkable degree of continuity stretches across the
many decades of bribes and threats, economic sanctions, subversion,
terrorism, aggression, and occupation ordered-up by the policymaking
elite of the United States (13). After the US emerged from the Second World
War in a dominant economic, political and military position, it had to
confront numerous nationalist upheavals in former colonial areas by peoples
seeking independence, self-determination and better lives (14). To counter these increasingly popular
demands for improvement in living standards, the US supported a series of dictatorships in
countries like Indonesia, South Vietnam and Chile. Although these national security
states were torture-prone and deeply undemocratic, they helped
improve the overall climate of capitalist investment by keeping their
majorities fearful and atomized (14). When local dictators failed, direct US military intervention
genocide is simply classified through four
often followed, as illustrated in the cases of Vietnam, and more recently, in Iraq and Afghanistan. The authors
draw on the framework for analyzing mass killings provided by Chomsky, and Herman himself in their CounterRevolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact and Propaganda (CRV), first published in 1973. In this work, Herman
109
Capitalism K
recent bloodbaths under the four categories, which they argue are eerily applicable to the present, and apply
now with the same political bias and rigor (17-19). Using empirical measures such as the coverage of key
events in the media, what the authors offer the reader is more or less a classificatory schema or conceptual model
for understanding bloodbaths rather than a specific interjection into theoretical debates surrounding critical
and international law. Todays leading experts on
genocide and mass atrocities, including many journalists, academics, legal scholars and policymakers, are
often careful to exclude from consideration the Vietnam War, the 1965-1966
Indonesian massacres, and the invasion and occupation of East Timor by Indonesia in 1975,
the latter of which resulted in the deaths of somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000
civilians (although this is a hugely debatable claim) (18). The Vietnam War, and the massive
sanctions of mass destruction directed at Iraq during the 1990s, are
examples of Constructive atrocities, where the victims of war crimes are deemed unworthy
of our attention. However, when the perpetrators of genocide are considered
enemies of the West, the atrocities are Nefarious and their victims are seen to be
worthy of our focus and sympathy. Examples of Nefarious atrocities include: Cambodia under the
Khmer Rouge, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Halabja, Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo and
Darfur. When systematic violence is carried out by US clientssuch as
Indonesia in East Timor from 1975-1999, Israel in the Gaza Strip and West
Bank from 1967 to the present, or Rwanda and Uganda in Congothey are viewed
by the US political establishment as Benign and not worthy of condemnation. The
final category, Mythical, results from the inflation of numbers or invention of incidents by the
US government, media sources and NGOs to implement pre-planned interventions such as sanctions,
embargoes and the funding of various color revolutions. The Politics of
Genocide has done much to emphasize the biases and contradictions of US
foreign policy, but it should be read in conjunction to themes related to genocide,
imperialism and international law. First, while Herman and Peterson with other theoretical
contributions recognize that the history of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity demonstrates
the centrality of racism to the imperial project (22), there is little discussion of why
advanced capitalist powers and oppressed nations are, in the first place,
not equal partners in shaping the world. Due in part to their use of terms such as elite and
Western establishment rather than class, their analysis should be complimented by recent
work that is more explicit in highlighting the centrality of racism to issues of
class, capitalism and imperialism in the international system. While not directly
touching on the topic of genocide, Marxist theorists writing on current modes of imperialism such
as Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin (Global Capitalism and American Empire, 2004) and David
critical of the selective investigation and selective impunity of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in
prosecuting alleged perpetrators of genocide, especially, in the contemporary age of responsibility to protect, the
110
Capitalism K
exclusion from its jurisdiction of the international crime of aggression, judged at Nuremburg to be the supreme
international crime (21).
the more traditional sectors of the elite (the "patriarchs" or feudal landowners) and with populist caudillos in their
efforts to preserve folk culture. With few exceptions, however-some of which are highlighted in the book-the
alliance of traditional patriarchs, populist caudillos, and lower class "folk" did not succeed in taking over the state
Quite the contrary. Throughout Latin America
it was statesmen from the Europeanized elite who, by the turn of the century, had
consolidated political power and placed their new nations firmly in the
orbit of Western Europe and the United States. Rather than bringing their countries development,
however, these leaders instituted a limited amount of economic growth that
generated increasing dependency on the world market and on foreign
capital, conspicuous consumption for the few, and increasing misery for
the majority. The "folk" were forced to abandon a communally oriented
culture that provided everyone with the basic necessities of life, getting
in return an ever more commoditized existence in which no aspect of
subsistence was guaranteed. More than anything else, Burns concludes, it was
this triumph of "progress" over "folk" that set the conditions for enduring
poverty and conflict in twentieth-century Latin America.
The affs elevation of the law of value is the basis upon which
racism and genocide become possiblethe Other becomes the
atomized thing toward which capitalist, hegemonic hatred is
directed
Internationalist Perspective, Marxist political organization, 2k
[Spring 2000, Capitalism and Genocide, Internationalist Perspective, Volume: 36,
YGS]
One way in which this ideological hegemony of capital is established over
broad strata of the population, including sectors of the working class, is by channeling
the dissatisfaction [sic] and discontent of the mass of the population with the
monstrous impact of capitalism upon their lives (subjection to the
111
Capitalism K
hierarchically organized and based on inequality), for the certainties and "truths" of the past, which are idealized
the more frustrating, unsatisfying, and insecure, the world of capital becomes. Such longings are most powerfully
felt within what Ernst Bloch has termed non-synchronous strata and classes. These are stata and classes whose
material or mental conditions of life are linked to a past mode of production, who exist economically or culturally in
non-synchronicity needs to be extended to segments of the working class, in particular those strata of the bluecollar proletariat which are no longer materially synchronous with the high-tech production process upon which late
capitalism rests, and the mass of workers ejected from the production process by the rising organic composition of
capital and its comcomitant down-sizing. In addition, the even greater mass of peasants streaming into the shanty
towns around the great commercial and industrial metropolitan centers of the world, are also characterized by their
non-synchronicity, their inability to be incorporated into the hyper-modern cycle of capital accumulation. Moreover,
all of these strata too are subject to a growing nostalgia for the past , a
longing for community, including the blue-collar communities and their institutional networks which were one of the
features of the social landscape of capitalism earlier in the twentieth century. However, no matter how powerful
this nostalgia for past community becomes, it cannot be satisfied. The organic communities of the past cannot be
recreated; their destruction by capital is irreversible. At the same time, the path to a future
Gemeinwesen, to which the cultural material and longings embodied in the non-synchronous classes and strata can
make a signal contribution, according to Bloch, remains obstructed by the power of capital.
So long as this is the case, the genuine longing for community of masses of people, and especially the nostalgia for
past communities especially felt by the non-synchronous strata and classes, including the newly non-synchronous
elements which I have just argued must be added to them, leaves them exposed to the lure of a "pure community"
in such an
ideologically constructed pure community, a racial, ethnic, or religious
identification is merely superimposed on the existing condition of
atomization in which the mass of the population finds itself. In addition to
ideologically constructed by capital itself. In place of real organic and communal bonds,
providing some gratification for the longing for community animating broad strata of the population, such a pure
community can also provide an ideological bond which ties the bulk of the population to the capitalist state on the
basis of a race, ethnicity, or religion which it shares with the ruling class. This latter is extremely important to
capital, because the atomization which it has brought about not only leaves the mass of humanity bereft, but also
leaves the ruling class itself vulnerable because it lacks any basis upon which it can mobilize the population,
The basis upon which such a pure community is
constituted, race, nationality, religion, even a categorization by "class" in the Stalinist
world, necessarily means the exclusion of those categories of the population
physically or ideologically.
112
Capitalism K
which do not conform to the criteria for inclusion, the embodiments of alterity, even
while they inhabit the same geographical space as the members of the pure community. Those excluded,
the "races" on the other side of the biological continuum, to use Foucauldian terminology, the Other,
become alien elements within an otherwise homogeneous world of the
pure community. As a threat to its very existence, the role of this Other is
to become the scapegoat for the inability of the pure community to
provide authentic communal bonds between people, for its abject failure to overcome
the alienation that is a hallmark of a reified world. The Jew in Nazi Germany, the Kulak in
Stalinist Russia, the Tutsi in Rwanda, Muslims in Bosnia, blacks in the US,
the Albanian or the Serb in Kosovo, the Arab in France, the Turk in contemporary Germany, the Bahai in Iran, for
become the embodiment of alterity, and the target against which the hatred of
the members of the pure community is directed. The more crisis ridden a
society becomes, the greater the need to find an appropriate scapegoat;
the more urgent the need for mass mobilization behind the integral state,
the more imperious the need to focus rage against the Other. In an extreme
situation of social crisis and political turmoil, the demonization and victimization of the
Other can lead to his (mass) murder. In the absence of a working class
conscious of its historic task and possibilities, this hatred of alterity which
permits capital to mobilize the population in defense of the pure
community, can become its own impetus to genocide. The immanent
tendencies of the capitalist mode of production which propel it towards a
catastrophic economic crisis, also drive it towards mass murder and
genocide. In that sense, the death-world, and the prospect of an Endzeit cannot be
separated from the continued existence of humanity's subordination to
the law of value. Reification, the overmanned world, bio-politics, state
racism, the constitution of a pure community directed against alterity,
each of them features of the economic and ideological topography of the
real domination of capital, create the possibility and the need for
genocide. We should have no doubt that the survival of capitalism into this new millenium will
entail more and more frequent recourse to mass murder.
example,
113
Capitalism K
Impact Hunger
Capitalism leads to hunger GMOs
Ikerd, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural & Applied Economics
University of Missouri Columbia, 2006
(John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural & Applied Economics University of
Missouri Columbia, 2006, University of Missouri, The Economics of Hunger:
Challenges and Opportunities for Future Food Systems ,
http://web.missouri.edu/ikerdj/papers/Eastern%20Oregon-%20Econ%20Hunger.htm,
accessed 7-9-13, JF)
Biotechnology, on the other hand, is simply the latest tool for agricultural industrialization. The magnitude of risks
that genetically engineered foods pose to human health and the natural environment may not be fully known for
decades. But at the very least, genetic modification represents the greatest experiment to which humanity has ever
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
the 1990s burst at the turn of the century. Todays robust economy is propped up by record-large federal budget
116
Capitalism K
benefits and who pays the costs how the bounties of industrial production are shared. An
economy cannot be sustained if it extracts wealth from nature and society
but fails to distribute that wealth equitably , both within and among generations.
Persistent hunger, in the U.S. and around the world, is a direct
consequence of an unsustainable global economy. If we are serious about alleviating
hunger, we must be willing to work for sustainability.
117
Capitalism K
exceeding the previous record, held by the nineteenth century, which began most notably with the Napoleonic wars .
During these two centuries, the capitalist world was marked by the rise of
competing imperialisms, at first in Europe but soon joined by the USA and Japan. Between 1876 and
1914 European powers annexed approximately eleven million square miles of territory, mainly in Asia and Africa. By
the twentieth century, inter-imperialist
hundred and sixty additional wars since the end of World War Two. The competition between capitals inherent
within the capitalist system forced it to continually revolutionise and expand the means of production, which
eventually led to a scramble across the world for colonies, markets and empires , like the British Empire, or its main
colonies, was now transformed from a progressive to a reactionary imperialist force in the world. As Ernest Mandel
writes in his book on the Second World War: The imperialist conquest of the world is not only, or even mainly, a
drive to occupy huge territories . . . The
Capitalism K
But the term that fits it best is imperialist. That's not because it is the most incendiary term,
but because it is the most historically accurate. Bush's foreign policy was framed as an alternative to the liberal
internationalist policies that Woodrow Wilson espoused and that presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Bill Clinton
administrator -- a viceroy or proconsul -- who ran the country directly; and indirect, where the colonial power used
its financial and military power to prop up a native administration that did its bidding and to prevent the rise of
governments that did not. The latter kind of imperial rule was developed by the United States in Cuba in 1901 after
The
rivalry between top dog England and challenger Germany, and between Germany and Austria, on the one hand,
and France and Russia, on the other, contributed to the outbreak of World War I. The Second World War also
represented, among other things, an attempt by the Axis powers, a subordinate group of capitalist nations, to
redivide the world at the expense of the U.S., Great Britain, France, and the USSR. And the Cold War stemmed from
the attempt by the Soviet Union, one of the most vocal critics of Western imperialism, to fulfill the imperial dreams
of Czarist Russia by expanding westward and to the south
119
Capitalism K
Impact - Racism
Racism was born out of capitalism to justify the suppression,
exploitation of the working class and oppression of slaves
Taylor, doctoral candidate in the department of African American Studies at
Northwestern University, 2011 (Keeanga-Yamahtta. January 4th 2011. The Socialist
120
Capitalism K
one of the main tools of capitalist bosses to divide the working class along
racial lines while driving down wages, by eliminating necessary public services
such as health care and education that affect all workers, for example. While the
capitalist bosses enjoy the full benefits of their workers' labor and live a life without
fear of not being able to afford basic necessities, 22% of African-American workers
and 34% of Latino workers do not have access to health care and 27% of both
African-American and Latino workers live below the poverty line. At the same time,
the U.S. capitalist class is trying to extend the policing tactics it has used
against the African-American members of the working classfor instance,
while African-Americans constitute roughly 13% of the population in the
United States, they represent almost half (48%) of all prison inmates and
half of all death-row convictions in what has become a form of "legal
lynching"by criminalizing all people of color as part of their "war on terror". INS
lock-ups, draconian immigration laws that are going to require all working
people to carry ID cards, and Ashcroft's on-going policy of detainment
without trial are all aimed at dividing the working class and ensuring that
a segment of the population forever remains available as a "cheaper"
source of labor (and a "scapegoat" when crisis emerges). While Lott's
comments have made all of this (momentarily) "visible" in the mainstream press,
the unfolding cultural commentary has trivialized the issue by focusing on the
personalities and speculating about whether the American people are ready to
accept a racist message from their leaders. In other words, the corporate media
does what it always does and turns what should be an occasion for investigating the
social effects created by the powers that be, which should be the role of the press in
a democracy, into a cultural debate about people's "values" that silently normalizes
the rule of the powerful whose material interests in fact dictate what counts as
public opinion because in actuality they own and control the culture industry and
government. The political economy of race, in short, is systematically
suppressed by the ruling ideology. The common sense of "race" trivializes it
as a cultural "stigma" that blocks the free play of market forces and produces
unfair "discrimination" in the job market that, if left to itself, gives all an "equal
opportunity". By turning racism from an economic to a cultural matter, the
common-sense view of race diffuses the issue into a private matter of
individualsthat is, there is racial discrimination because there are racist
people; a circular logic that fails to explain what it claims to. This privatized
view of race as discriminatory ideas, however, reflects the rule of a society
that enshrines private property as the motor of economic life and normalizes
the exploitation of the majority who are therefore forced to produce profit for
the few just in order to survive. In other words, the common-sense of race in
capitalism silently accepts and normalizes the unequal class relations that
systematically contradict the ideal of "equal opportunity" and produce racism
today: in an economy based on private control of the social means of production,
competition is the rule and racism is a tool for increasing profits because it justifies
unequal wages and undermines the unity of workers in the face of their exploiters.
This class-consciousness of race is suppressed under the false consciousness
that if left to itself the market frees the people from discriminatory ideas
and gives everyone a chance to benefit equally: i.e., that the market is
"colorblind". The common-sense that race is a matter of ideas that contradict the
principles of the free market is a not so subtle ruse to deflect attention
from the socio-economic causes of racism in capitalism onto its cultural
121
Capitalism K
effects and serves the interests of the few who alone actually benefit from racism in
the world of wage-labor and capital. The cultural debate over the racism of the
Republicans, the speculation of whether such and such politician is or is not racist,
makes racism a matter of the ideas and beliefs of individuals so as to instill faith in
the underlying class relations that systematically breed racism today
Capitalism K
. Any
action that does not lead to a search for basic causes will not result in
even temporary solutions . Mass actions must lead to inquiry that in turn
can lead to even more meaningful mass struggles. Such is the path to
victory. What line of inquiry do the corporate powers want to obstruct? The one that asks: What makes
ghettos? Why should tens of millions of Americans be forced to live in rat
infested, dilapidated, rundown tenements without elementary
conveniences or facilities? Why is this the lot of Black Americans in the
first place? If the answer is poverty, what then is the cause of poverty? Why is there such poverty in the
midst of plenty? If the answer is unemployment, low wages, high prices, rents and taxes, what then is the reason
its accessories. For Marxists this is not a new discovery. But for the millions it is a necessary line of inquiry and an
important and necessary discovery. This line of inquiry will lead from actions on the spontaneous level to a
conscious line of struggle focused on the basic cause of the oppression. At the end of such a line of inquiry the
people will find the culprit:
123
Capitalism K
poor poorer. Exploitation is the economic basis of capitalism . The basic function of
capitalist ideology is to justify and to facilitate exploitation of the workers by the capitalists. The basic politics of
capitalism is the politics of exploitation. It is a politics that preserves and perpetuates this exploitative system. In
short, the whole capitalist establishment is an instrument of exploitation. But why repeat such elementary truths?
Only to point out the special responsibility of Communists, of Marxists. These truths are not known by the millions
who are in struggle. This side of capitalism remains hidden to them. It is very carefully camouflaged. All
"establishment" inquiries stop at this border. It is a safe bet that the presidential commission appointed to
investigate the summer rebellions in the ghettos will not enter this arena of inquiry. T his crisis forces all Americans
to re-examine their responsibilities. That white Americans have a special responsibility there can be no doubt. How
this responsibility is placed is a very important question. Our purpose in placing it is to win white Americans to the
goal of putting an end to the system of discrimination against their Black fellow Americans and thereby create a
united people's force for overall progress. By and large, Afro-Americans are, to one degree or another, in this
struggle. The challenge at this point is to win a larger section of white America. Black-white unity is one of the keys
to victory over discrimination and segregation.
This
crisis of capital and the ensuing rupture in its ideological narrative
provides the historical condition for articulating resistance along the axes
of race, class, gender, ecology, etc. Even though resistance may take place
in very specific domains, such as race, gender, ecological, or sexuality, among others, this does
not mean that the crisis is local. It simply indexes how capitalist
exploitation brings every social sphere under its totalizing logic. However,
rather then point up the systematicity of the crisis, the theorists of the
new social movements turn to the local, as if it is unrelated to questions of
globality. With Gilroy and the new social movements, we are returned, once again, to the local and the experiential sets the
autonomous subject. Its newness is a sign of the contemporary crisis-ridden conjuncture in capitalist social relations.
limits of understanding. Gilroy asserts that people "unable to control the social relations in which they find themselveshave shrunk
the world to the size of their communities and begun to act politically on that basis" (245). If this is true, then Gilroy, at the level of
theory, mirrors this as he "shrinks" his theory to the dictates of crude empiricism. Rather than opening the possibility of collective
control over social relations, which points in an emancipatory direction, Gilroy brackets the question of "social relation" and
consequently, he limits politics to the cultural (re)negotiations of identity. If Gilroy deploys the post-colonial racialized agent for
displacing class, then Homi Bhabha's postcolonial theory detaches race from political economy by reinscribing race within the
problematics of signification. In The Location of Culture, Bhabha's last chapter, "Race', time and the revision of modernity", situates
the question of race within the "ambivalent temporality of modernity" (239). In this way, Bhabha foregrounds the "time-lag"
between "event" and "enunciation" and, for Bhabha, this produces space for postcolonial agency. Political agency revolves around
deconstructing signs from totalities and thereby delaying the connection between signifier and signified and resistance is the effect
of this ambivalence. Hence, for Bhabha, "the intervention of postcolonial or black critique is aimed at transforming the conditions of
enunciation at the level of the sign" (247). This idealist reading of the social reduces politics to a struggle over the sign rather than
the relations of production. Indeed, Bhabha re-understands the political not as an ideological practice aimed at social transformation
the project of transformative race theory. Instead, he theorizes "politics as a performativity" (15). But what is the social effect of
this understanding of politics? Toward what end might this notion point us? It seems as if the political now calls for (cosmopolitan)
witnesses to the always already permanent slippage of signification and this (formal) process of repetition and reinscription outlines
a space for "other forms of enunciation" (254). But will these "other forms of enunciation" naturally articulate resistance to the
dominant political and ideological interests? For Bhabha, of course, we "need to think beyond narratives of originary and initial
subjectivities and to focus on those moments or processes that are produced in the articulation of cultural differences" (1). However,
cultural differences, in themselves, do not necessarily mean opposition. Indeed, at the moment, cultural difference represents one of
the latest zones for commodification and, in this regard, it ideologically legitimates capitalism. Bhabha homogenizes (cultural)
difference and, consequently, he covers over ideological struggles within the space of cultural difference. In short, this other
historical site is not the site for pure difference, which naturally resists the hegemonic; for it, too, is the site for political contestation.
Bhabha's formalism makes it seem as if ambivalence essentially inheres in discourse. Ambivalence results from opposed political
interests that inflect discourses and so the ambivalence registers social conflict. In Marxism and the Philosophy and Language,
Voloinov offers this materialist understanding of the sign: Class does not coincide with the sign community, i.e. with the
community which is the totality of users of the same set of signs for ideological communication. Thus various different classes will
use one and the same language. As a result, differently oriented accents intersect in every ideological sign. Sign becomes an arena
of class struggle. (22) The very conceptideologythat could delineate the political character and therefore class interests
involved in structuring the content of discourses, Bhabha excludes from his discourse. In the end, Bhabha's discourse advocates
what amounts to discursive freedom and he substitutes this for material freedom. Like Gilroy, Bhabha's discursive freedom takes
place within the existing system. In contrast to Bhabha, Marx theorizes the material presupposition of freedom. In the German
Ideology, Marx argues that "people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in
adequate quality and quantity" (61). Thus for Marx "[l]iberation" is an historical and not a mental act" (61). In suppressing the issue
124
Capitalism K
of need, Bhabha's text reveals his own class interests. The studied preoccupation with "ambivalence" reflects a class privilege, and it
speaks to the crisis for (postcolonial) subjects torn between national affiliation and their privileged (and objective) class position
within the international division of labor. The ambivalence is a symptom of social antagonism, but in Bhabha's hands, it becomes a
transhistorical code for erasing the trace of class. Here, then, is one of the primary effects of the postmodern knowledge practices:
class is deconstructed as a metaphysical dinosaur. In this regard, postmodernists collude with the humanists in legitimating the
sanctity of the local. Both participate in narrowing cultural intelligibility to questions of (racial) discourse or the (black) subject and,
in doing so, they provide ideological immunity for capitalism. It is now very difficult to even raise the issue of class, particularly if
you raise the issue outside of the logic of supplementaritytoday's ruling intellectual logic which provides a theoretical analog to
contemporary neo-liberal political structures. In one of the few recent texts to explore the centrality of class, bell hooks' Where We
Stand, we are, once again, still left with a reaffirmation of capitalism. For instance, hooks argues for changes within capitalism: "I
identify with democratic socialism, with a vision of participatory economics within capitalism that aims to challenge and change
class hierarchy" (156). Capitalism produces class hierarchy and, therefore, as long as capitalism remains, class hierarchy and
always" (129). Under this view, politics becomes a matter of "bearing witness" to the crimes of capitalism, but rather than struggle
for its replacement, hooks call for strategies of "self-actualization" and redistributing resources to the poor. She calls for the very
same thingcollectivitythat capitalism cannot provide because social resources are privatized under capitalism. Consequently,
Hooks' program for "self-esteem" is an attempt to put a human face on capitalism. Whether one considers the recent work by
African-American humanists, or discourse theorists, or even left-liberal intellectuals, these various groupsdespite their intellectual
differencesform a ruling coalition and one thing is clear: capitalism set the limit for political change, as there is no alternative to
the rule of capital. In contrast to much of contemporary race theory, a transformative theory of race highlights the political economy
of race in the interests of an emancipatory political project. Wahneema Lubiano once wrote that " the
am afraid that, at this point, many contemporary race theorists, in their systematic erasure of materialism, have become close
A transformative
race theory pulls back into focus the struggle against exploitation and
sets a new social priority "in which the free development of each is the
condition for the free development of all" (Marx 31).
(ideological) allies with the economic and political elites, who deny even the existence of classes.
dismisses Marxism because it is Eurocentric; but are the core concepts of Marxism, such as class and mode of
production, relevant only for European social formations? Are African and African American social histories/relations
unshaped by class structures? Asante assumes that class hierarchies do not structure African or the African
American social experiences, and this reveals the class politics of Afrocentricity: It makes class invisible.
think that the levels of alienation experienced by Black people are rooted primarily in economic relations
(Interview 90). For McGary, black alienation exceeds the logic of Marxist theory
and thus McGarys idealist assertion that the sense of alienation experienced by Black people in the U.S. is also
rooted in the whole idea of what it means to be a human being and how that has to be understood (Interview 90).
Capitalism K
its explanation and such and explanation emerges from the transpersonal space of concepts. In theorizing the
specificity of black alienation, McGary reveals his contradictory ideological coordinates. First, he argues that black
alienation results from cultural beliefs. Then, he suggests that these cultural norms and practices develop
from slavery and Jim Crow, which are fundamentally economic relations for the historically specific exploitation of
black people. If these cultural norms endogenously emerge from the economic systems of slavery and Jim Crow, as
McGary correctly suggests, then and contrary to McGarys expressed position,
capitalismremains
McGary
the
unsaid in
capitalism the exploitative infrastructure that produces and maintains alienation for blacks as well as for all
working people.
is a
Professor of Political Economy at U. C. Berkeley. (The Economics of Racism1974 http://tomweston.net/ReichRacism.pdf)
COMPETING EXPLANATIONS OF RACISM How is the historical persistence of racism in the United States to be explained? The most
prominent analysis of discrimination among economists was formulated in 1957 by Gary Becker in his book, The Economics of -3Discrimination. 6 Racism, according to Becker, is fundamentally a problem of tastes and attitudes. Whites are defined to have a
"taste for discrimination" if they are willing to forfeit income in order to be associated with other whites instead of blacks. Since
white employers and employees prefer not to associate with blacks, they require a monetary compensation for the psychic cost of
such association. In Becker's principal model, white employers have a taste for discrimination; marginal productivity analysis is
invoked to show that white employers lose while white workers gain (in monetary terms) from discrimination against blacks.
Becker does not try to explain the source of white tastes for discrimination. For him, these attitudes are determined outside of
the economic system. (Racism could presumably be ended simply by changing these attitudes, perhaps by appeal to whites on
moral grounds.) According to Becker's analysis, employers would find the ending of racism to be in their economic self-interest, but
white workers would not. The persistence of racism is thus implicitly laid at the door of white workers. Becker suggests that longrun market forces will lead to the end of discrimination anyway: less discriminatory employers, with no "psychic costs" to enter in
their accounts, will be able to operate at lower costs by hiring equivalent black workers at lower wages, thus bidding up the black
wage rate and/or driving the more discriminatory employers out of business. The approach to racism argued here is entirely
refusing to dis-criminate and hiring more blacks, thus raising the black wage rate, it is not true that the capitalist class as a whole
would benefit if racism were eliminated and labor were more efficiently allocated without regard to skin color. We will show below
that
bargaining
of racism are
126
Capitalism K
not only lower incomes for blacks but also higher incomes for the
capitalist class and lower incomes for white workers. Although capitalists may not have
conspired consciously to create racism, and although capitalists may not be its principal perpetuators, never-the-less racism
docs support the continued viability of the American capitalist system. We have,
then, two alternative approaches to the analysis of racism. The first suggests that capitalists lose and white workers gain from
racism. The second predicts the oppositecapitalists gain while workers lose. The first says that racist "tastes for discrimination"
are formed independently of the economic system; the second argues that racism interacts symbiotically with capitalistic economic
institutions. The very persistence of racism in the United States lends support to the second approach. So do repeated instances of
employers using blacks as strikebreakers, as in the massive steel strike of 1919, and employerinstigated exacerbation of racial
antagonisms during that strike and many others.7 However, the particular virulence of racism among many blue- and whitecollar workers and their families seems to refute our approach and support Becker.
capitalism uses racism to divide workers. Based on Marxs analysis that production is a
an individual employer can make more
profit from a racially divided working class than from a united one. In these
models, the level of wages and the average production per worker depend on workers
bargaining power as well as on the technology. More worker bargaining power means higher wages and
lower profits, and less bargaining power means lower wages and higher profits.
that
This provides a microeconomic foundation, consistent with profit maximizing behavior, of disparate on the job
treatment of equally skilled black and white workers. It also explains why black workers will not replace white
workers, even if the latter can be paid lower wages. These ideas are developed most thoroughly in Michael Reichs,
the workforce was racially homogeneous. The resulting disunity from racial division lowers average wages and
increases profits. At a certain point, however, firms do not hire more lower paid black workers to replace white
workers because this would lead to more black worker militancy possibly raising the overall level of wages.
Alternatively, though with similar results, the disunity of workers caused by different wages paid to blacks and
whites leads to increased profits. The reason in the latter case is the employers are able to get workers to work
harder and faster and produce more than they would have otherwise. Doing careful econometric analysis, Michael
Reich shows that the data on racial inequality is consistent with and provides support for this theory. Using data
primarily from the 1970 census, he compares urban areas. He demonstrates that
greater racial
He uses the ratio of black to white earnings as a measure of racial inequality and racism. In
cities in the U.S. South, where the gaps between the wages of blacks and whites are greatest, wages of whites are
lowest, and profit highest. Reich demonstrates empirically that
If the wages of
blacks equaled whites, not only would the wages of blacks be higher but so would the wages of whites. When
synthesized with the historical analysis of racism, these models provide insight into the reasons for the reproduction
of black-white earnings inequality. They demonstrate that capitalists divide the working class,
and that the correct strategy for the increase of racial and overall equality (between employees and employers) is
an alliance of black and other workers of color with white workers against their common exploiter, capital. There
are a number of problems however. This model downplays the role and importance of black people and black
organizations in challenging racial inequality and exploitation. Also missing is a convincing explanation of why
white workers often accept or support racial inequality and a racist ideology. Since in this framework, the incomes
of white as well as black workers are lowered, claiming white workers have false-consciousness is not a sufficient
127
Capitalism K
explanation of their racism. Although this class-based approach to racism provides insight into the reproduction of
racial and overall inequality, it leads to class reductionism and excessive economic determinism. Class reductionism
considers central only movements and issues directly related to class struggle between the working and capitalist
class. Economic determinism means the economy determines the politics, culture, consciousness and struggles of a
society; it minimizes the autonomous role of culture and race. In the class-based approaches to racism (and in the
internal colonialism framework examined in the next chapter), there is little analysis of the role and situation of
black and white women and how it has differed from that of black and white men. Gender is almost completely
disregarded and there is little investigation of the relation between gender, race and class oppression. Recent
developments in Marxist theory have led to a fuller analysis of racism. These include theorizing the importance of
non-class-based groupings such as gender and ethnicity. Culture, ideology, consciousness and the State are
examined as more than reflections of the economic base. They are important aspects of society that influence and
are influenced by the entire social formation.
and Harvard University respectively. Michael was also a professor of economics at UC Berkeley, David M. founded the Institute for Labor Education and
Research in 1975 and later the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis in New York City, and Richard C. is a partner in Casner & Edwards Nonprofit
Organizations Law Practice and received a J.D. from Harvard Law School. (Dual Labor Markets: A Theory of Labor Market
Segmentation5/1/1973 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=econfacpub&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F
%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar_url%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle
%253D1002%2526context%253Deconfacpub%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm0gKF9qk3cSsk5OOTx7EewP6YvaUg%26oi%3Dscholarr#search=%22http
%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1002%26context%3Deconfacpub%22)
At the same time that firms were segmenting their internal labor markets, similar efforts were under way with
respect to the firm's external relations.
128
Capitalism K
to share with under developed world the fruit of advancement of modern technology. They would rather keep these
precious resources for themselves. The logic behind the course of their actions is irrefutable if we admit that selfserving is an intrinsic human nature. The real issue is that, even if western powers are completely successful in
carrying out their self-serving policy towards under developed world, they are only delaying the explosion of a
time bomb that is intrinsically built into the system. The base of economic and social activities of the modern world
has to be shifted from irreproducible onto reproducible energy source, though we do not know yet how and even
from the pressure of a disastrous hostile competition caused by restraint of nature resources.
Capitalism K
In the light
of the prominence of resource dependence as a characteristic of conflictridden countries, both greed and grievances need to be acknowledged; as
does the influence of resource dependence on the vulnerability of
institutional arrangements and the conflictuality of power politics.
poor economic growth, high inequalities, and political authoritarianism-all factors of grievances.
Le Billon, 2000a). Similarly, a fall in terms of international trade in primary commodities and structural adjustments
have led to a readjustment of the strategies of accumulation of many Southern ruling elites towardsshadowstate
politics controlling informal economies and privatised companies (Reno, 1998). Although domestic and foreign state
budgets continue to support armed conflict expenditures, other major sources of funding include criminal proceeds
from kidnappings or protection rackets, diversion of relief aid, Diaspora remittances, and revenues from trading in
Berdal & Malone, 2000). This demise of ideology and politics informs, for example, the assumption of the UN
Security Council that the control and exploitation of natural resources motivates and finances parties responsible for
the continuation of conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo.3
130
Capitalism K
Add to this the astonishing fact that citizens of Selfish Capitalist, English-speaking nations (which tend to be one and the same) are
twice as likely to suffer mental illness as those from mainland western Europe, which is largely Unselfish Capitalist in its political
economy. An average 23% of Americans, Britons, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians suffered in the last 12 months, but
only 11.5% of Germans, Italians, French, Belgians, Spaniards and Dutch. The message could not be clearer. Selfish
Capitalism, much more than genes, is extremely bad for your mental health. But why is it so
toxic? Readers of this newspaper will need little reminding that Selfish Capitalism has massively
increased the wealth of the wealthy, robbing the average earner to give to
the rich. There was no "trickle-down effect" after all. The real wage of the
average English-speaking person has remained the same - or, in the case of the US,
decreased - since the 1970s. By more than halving the taxes of the richest and transferring the burden to the
general population, Margaret Thatcher reinstated the rich's capital wealth after three postwar decades in which they had steadily
become poorer. Although I risk you glazing over at these statistics, it's worth remembering that the top 1% of British earners have
doubled their share of the national income since 1982, from 6.5% to 13%, FTSE 100 chief executives now earning 133 times more
than the average wage (against 20 times in 1980); and under Brown's chancellorship the richest 0.3% nobbled over half of all liquid
assets (cash, instantly accessible income), increasing their share by 79% during the last five years. In itself, this economic inequality
does not cause mental illness. WHO studies show that some very inequitable developing nations, like Nigeria and China, also have
the lowest prevalence of mental illness. Furthermore, inequity may be much greater in the English-speaking world today, but it is far
less than it was at the end of the 19th century. While we have no way of knowing for sure, it is very possible that mental illness was
overstimulated aspirations and expectations, the entrepreneurial fantasy society fosters the delusion that anyone can be Alan Sugar
or Bill Gates, never mind that the actual likelihood of this occurring has diminished since the 1970s. A Briton turning 20 in 1978 was
more likely than one doing so in 1990 to achieve upward mobility through education. Nonetheless, in the Big Brother/ It Could Be
This is
most damaging of all - the ideology that material affluence is the key to
fulfilment and open to anyone willing to work hard enough. If you don't succeed, there is only one person to blame - never
mind that it couldn't be clearer that it's the system's fault, not yours . Depressed or anxious,
you work ever harder. Or maybe you collapse and join the sickness benefit queue, leaving it to people shipped in to
You society, great swaths of the population believe they can become rich and famous, and that it is highly desirable.
do the low-paid jobs that society has taught you are too demeaning - let alone the unpaid ones, like looking after children or elderly
parents, which are beneath contempt in the Nouveau Labour liturgy. There is much tearing of hair across the media and advocacy of
131
Capitalism K
there is an alternative. We
desperately need - and before long, I predict we will get - a passionate, charismatic, probably female leader who
advocates the Unselfish Capitalism of our neighbours. The pitch is simple. Not only would reduced consumerism
and greater equality make us more ecologically sustainable, it would halve
the prevalence of mental illness within a generation.
By objectifying the labor of the worker, commodities create objectbondage and alienate workers from the natural world in and with which
they should constitute themselves by creative interaction. Ultimately, laboring to
produce commodities turns the worker from a human being into a commodity, "indeed the most wretched
of commodities." Marx continued: The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity
the more commodities he creates. With the increasing value of the world
of things proceeds in direct proportion the devaluation of the world of
men. Labour produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the
worker as a commodity -- and does so in the proportion in which it produces commodities
generally. Commodification brings about an inferior form of human life. As a
result of this debasement, Marx concluded that people themselves, not just their
institutions, must change in order to live without the market. To reach the
post-capitalist stage, "the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary." The fetishism of
commodities represents a different kind of human subjection to commodities (or a different way of looking
at human subjection to commodities). By fetishism Marx meant a kind of projection of power and action
onto commodities. This projection reflects -- but disguises -- human social
Capitalism K
social action takes the form of the action of objects, which rule the
producers instead of being ruled by them." In an analysis that has profoundly influenced
many contemporary anticommodifiers, Georg Lukacs, developing Marx's concept of commodity fetishism,
found commodification to be "the central, structural problem of capitalist society in all its aspects."
The capitalist system commodifies the working class as just means for
profit
Leys and Harriss-White, AP, 13
(Colin and Barbra, OpenDemocracy, Commodification: The
essence of our time, 4/2/13,
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/colin-leys-barbaraharriss-white/commodification-essence-of-our-time, 7/3/13, CF)
Under advanced capitalism, commodification expands into all corners of
social and political life, with devastating consequences. Finding a limit to
133
Capitalism K
this process is more urgent than ever. The dominant process underlying
the transformation of life in all societies, since at least the mid-nineteenth
century, is the conversion of things and activities into commodities, or
commodification. In advanced capitalist countries this process is now
outstripping our political and social capacity to adjust to it. Any useful
to the land, a peasant cannot choose what to grow or which land to grow it on, nor is he free to choose a profession.
To the extent that peasants cultivate the plot of land they are provided, they are able to obtain food, clothing and
lodging. But the fruit of their labor on the lord's fields entirely belong to this master. There is thus a clear, temporal
division between the labor the peasants perform for themselves and that performed for the feudal lord. This makes
it difficult to conceal the fact that labor is exploited. And when, as subsequently occurs, some of the products from
the land the peasants themselves cultivate must be paid as a tribute to this lord, in addition to their labor to
cultivate the lord's fields, this also clearly presents itself as exploitation because it takes an in-kind form. Even
though the yearly rice tribute was referred to in Japanese as goko-gomin (50 percent for master, 50 percent for
Under
capitalism, however, things are different. Labor-power is commodified and
thus sold according to its value. The means of production are also
purchased and owned by the capitalist class. Capitalists come into
peasant), this did not change the fact that the master's share was also the product of the peasant's labor.
134
Capitalism K
135
Capitalism K
***Alternative***
136
Capitalism K
Alt General
The alt solves: the rejection of surplus value prevents class
formation but it requires total fidelity to the revolutionary
project
Shimp 9 (Kaleb, Department of Economics, University of Northern Iowa The Validity of Karl Marx's Theory of
Historical Materialism http://business.uni.edu/economics/Themes/shimp.pdf p. 54-55) APB
It cannot be denied that Marx wrote very little about Oriental societies. This may be due cither to a lack of
information or a lack of caring. The quote from Grundisse, however, can be used to illustrate why the Oriental
production subsists. Giddens recognizes this by saying that the stagnation of productive forces due to
circumstances within specific societies is consistent with Marxs work in Grundisse (1995,84). Still, Giddens and
many others feel that the productive forces do not "underlie the major episodic transitions" throughout history
(1995, 84-5).
137
Capitalism K
that World Bank funds were then used by the U.S. Pentagon to suppress
the Communist Party-led peasant rebellion in the 1950s against the iniquitous
semi-feudal system and corrupt comprador regime (Doty; Constantino). It is globalization utilized to
maintain direct coercive U.S. domination of the Philippines at a crucial conjuncture when the Korean War was
mutating into the Vietnam War, all designed to contain "World Communism" (China, Soviet Union). Up to now,
despite nationalist gains in the last decade, the Philippine government plays host every year to thousands of U.S.
"Special Forces" purportedly training Filipino troops in the war against "terrorism"that is, against anti-imperialist
forces like the Communist Party-led New People's Army and progressive elements of the Moro Islamic National
Liberation Front and the Moro National Liberation Front (International Peace Mission). One needs to repeat again
that the present world system, as Hugo Radice argues, remains "both global and national", a contingent and
contradictory process (4). Globalization dialectically negates and affirms national entitiespseudo-nations as well
juxtaposition, syncretic amalgamation, and so on, one perceives a counter-current of fragmentation, increasing
asymmetry, unbridgeable inequalities, and particularistic challenges to neoliberal
integrationincluding fundamentalist political Islam, eco-terrorism, drugs, migration, and other movements of
"barbarians at the gates" (Schaeffer). Is it a question of mere human rights in representation and life-style, or actual
Articulating these
historical contradictions without theorizing the concept of crisis in capital
accumulation will only lead to the short-circuiting transculturalism of
Ashcroft and other ideologies waging battle for supremacy/hegemony over
"popular common sense" imposing meaning /order/significance on the whole
globalization process (Rupert). Indeed, academic inquirers of globalization are protagonists in this
dignity and justice in the everyday lives of whole populations with singular life-forms?
unfolding drama of universalization under duress. One may pose the following questions as a heuristic pedagogical
138
Capitalism K
and all the excluded and
What makes Empire different and more sinister than earlier forms of
capitalism and imperialism, according to Hardt and Negri, is the extent of
its rule. Empire encompasses the entire world, presents itself as the culmination of
history, and produces the very bodies that it governs. Empire, cinemagraphically, is The Matrix: a global
parasite that extracts the energy and labor of a subjugated humanity. In
Empire, Hardt and Negri elaborate several features of the multitude that may combat this new
global order. The multitude is the postmodern proletariat. It includes
everyone exploited by capitalism, including the poor who vitalize society but are
dismissed by orthodox Marxism. The multitude produces ideas, songs, books,
and software, in addition to cars, tanks, and factories. It is nomadic, circulating the globe in
ever-accelerating flows, and miscegenated, hybridizing identities and
cultures. The multitude, performing cognitive, symbolic, and affective labor, is not the
industrial working class, and its internal diversity and intelligence distinguish it from the people, the
masses, and the mob. The multitude is a political subjectivity generating, and
generated by, our time. Most importantly, for Hardt and Negri, the multitude desires
freedom. The multitude seeks to possess citizenship anywhere in the
world, to earn a social wage, and to control collectively the means of
production. Many readers of Empire, including several in Paul Passavant and Jodi Dean's edited volume,
Empire's New Clothes, pressed Hardt and Negri for more details about the multitude.1 Consider Kam Shapiro's
thesis in "The Myth of the Multitude."2 Shapiro begins by drawing attention to the Christian images permeating
Empire, including pre-modern Christians debilitating the Roman Empire and St. Francis's exiting early modern
capitalism. Then, Shapiro identifies parallels between Hardt and Negri's commitment to spontaneous collective
action and George Sorel's General Strike and Rosa Luxembourg's model of revolutionary subjectivity. Finally,
Shapiro notes Hardt and Negri's wariness to define the multitude too
precisely or to identify any ongoing social movement as an embodiment of
the multitude. Shapiro, observing the historical consequences of chiliastic Christianity and Communism,
asks, reasonably enough, whether we ought to yearn for any global entity, immanent or transcendent, to deliver us
from Empire. "Are we not at present caught between perfectionist utopias and catastrophic myths, both of which
are linked to terrible violence?"3 In interviews, Hardt and Negri acknowledged that they needed to elucidate the
political subject capable of destroying Empire and building a better future.4 The aim of Multitude: War and
Democracy in the Age of Empire is to accomplish this conceptually and empirically. One side of Multitude, then,
updates Marx's historical materialism to show how the new world order spawns the conditions of possibility for the
emergence of the multitude. In diverse ways, Hardt and Negri argue, the global state of war and the postmodern
economy undermine Empire and prepare the multitude for absolute democracy. Take the global state of war.
139
Capitalism K
when young people use work computers to organize raves and demonstrations. The other side of Multitude, and
one that will interest many readers of Empire, provides examples of the nascent political subjectivity in action. The
multitude, Hardt and Negri claim, has begun to act for homosexual rights (ACT-UP and Queer Nation), socialmovement unionism (the piqueteros in Argentina and Justice for Janitors in the United States), and the cause of
global peace (the international antiwar protests of February 15, 2003). The greatest manifestation of the multitude
up to now, however, occurred in Seattle in 1999. The globalization activists who disrupted the Third Ministerial
Conference of the WTO exemplify one definition of the multitude: singularities that act in common. In Seattle,
diverse constituencies environmentalists and unionists, anarchists and church groups converged to protest the
current form of global capitalism and to discuss alternative futures. The protestors in Seattle are not a perfect
embodiment of the multitude because they are predominantly North Americans and because their positive vision is
The
relevant question for Hardt and Negri, therefore, is not, "What is the
multitude?" but: "What can the multitude become?" Hardt and Negri
create the concept of the multitude to revive the Left. Hardt and Negri
witness a world in which Empire pulls the levers of power and permeates
our hearts and minds. There are objections and protests, of course, but these are isolated and
incoherent a march here, a riot there, an editorial elsewhere. For Hardt and Negri, the Left needs a
political project to confront and replace Empire. The clay of the multitude
already exists, but it needs to be shaped into a powerful body. The multitude needs to
not yet fully articulated. The multitude today is more a virtual political force than an actual political entity.
become conscious of its own strength. At the beginning of Multitude, the authors describe the figure of the Golem in
Jewish mysticism.5 According to the Kabbalah, the Golem is unformed matter that is brought to life by a rabbi
pronouncing the name of God over it. The Golem then arises as a monster that can destroy the persecutors of its
creator or, perhaps, find redemption through love. Hardt and Negri carry this project into postmodernity. "Today we
need new giants and new monsters to put together nature and history, labor and politics, art and invention in order
to demonstrate the new power that is being born in the multitude."6
140
Capitalism K
As with the Republicans, the heart of the Democratic Party, along with its
money and power, belongs to wealthy capitalists. Capitalism by its nature
must try to divide and conquer the working class, in order to maximize profits at the
workers expense. Under the conditions of deep economic crisis of the past few years, the drives of
the system to scapegoat immigrants, people of color, youth and greedy union workers for the
problems of unemployment, inadequate health care and education, and poverty caused by the profit-
strategy, based on the power of the working class to fight for its own interests. The working class can
unite to beat back specific capitalist attacks. People of color, especially youth, will be key to
developing a rising fight back. And revolutionary socialists will fight in every struggle to build as
replace the current system based on production for private profit with a new society based on
production to satisfy human needs.
social relations alongside capitalist relations and then we continually build and strengthen our new
pattern while doing every thing we can to weaken capitalist relations. In this way our new democratic,
non-hierarchical, non-commodified relations can eventually overwhelm the capitalist relations and
force them out of existence. This is how it has to be done. This is a plausible, realistic strategy.
To
141
Capitalism K
Capitalism
must be explicitly refused and replaced by something else. This
constitutes War, but it is not a war in the traditional sense of armies and
tanks, but a war fought on a daily basis, on the level of everyday life, by millions of
simply stop participating in (but even here there are ways we can chip away at it).
people. It is a war nevertheless because the accumulators of capital will use coercion, brutality, and
murder, as they have always done in the past, to try to block any rejection of the system. They have
always had to force compliance; they will not hesitate to continue doing so. Nevertheless, there are
many concrete ways that individuals, groups, and neighborhoods can gut capitalism, which I will
enumerate shortly.
142
Capitalism K
Historical materialism asserts that economic forces are the primary forces
that propel man through history as social classes interact. Economic
interactions are how man relates to the material world. Man changes the
material world, not with thought and conceptualization, but with picks,
shovels, ploughs, diggers, looms and lathes (Wolff 2003,28). Man has to labor in
order to survive. Labor physically changes the world, causing the
economic forces to develop as man is able to gain more and more control
over his environment. For example, farmers at one point used animal-driven plows to plant crops in
order to make a living. Eventually, tractors that performed the same task as animals, but much more efficiently,
were developed and gave farmers greater control of their environment. The tractor was simply a development in
against each other until one eventually wins and becomes the new ruling class. From this new ruling class, another
lower class will develop, continuing the process. Marx and Engels clearly declare the importance of classes in
history with the first sentence of the Communist Manifesto, "The
productive forces, productive relations, and superstructure is in the preface to A Contribution to the Critique of
Political Economy: In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and
independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their
material forces of production. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of
society the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite
into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire
immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. (Marx and Engcls 1983, 159-60) As the productive
forces continue to improve, the relations of production (as Marx says, these are for the most part property rights)
become a burden (in Marx's words a "fetter") on the improving productive forces, not allowing the productive forces
to continue on their path of improvement. The superstructure is the legal, philosophical, religious, and political
environment in which the productive forces and productive relations interact. The superstructure exists in order to
do not have a dialectical contradiction. The contradiction is only present between the ruling and lower classes.
Between the productive forces and relations of production exists only a conflict and the presence of conflict does
not mean the presence of contradiction by the dialectical definition (Heilbroner 1981,39-40). The conflict between
the productive forces and the relations of production only provide the basis by which classes develop. The
productive forces are always changing and improving. As man labors in the world, the division of labor grows and
man finds new and better ways to master his environment. This improvement will benefit the lower class because
with greater control of the environment comes a greater capability of obtaining beneficial resources. The ruling
143
Capitalism K
The current
relations of production and superstructure of the society exist to serve the
will of the ruling class. The ruling class determines the distribution of
goods within the society and they have no desire to change the relations
of production. The lower class, on the other hand, is not content with the current
situation and would like to take advantage of the ever-improving
productive forces. The ruling class prevents this from happening. This
class, however, is in an advantageous position and would like the status quo to remain.
contradiction of classes culminates in social revolution. The lower class overthrows the ruling class and forms new
relations of production that arc better suited to work with the productive forces. The superstructure changes with
the relations of production and the new relations of production and superstructure serve the interests of the new
ruling class. The new thesis will stay in existence until the productive relations and productive forces are again no
longer compatible. The incompatibility will cause another lower class to form in contradiction to the upper class,
beginning the antagonism all over again. Within every mode of production lies its own downfall.
Capitalism K
dialectical materialism is
seen to offer the only approach to reality which can give action a
direction. The self-knowledge, both subjective and objective, of the proletariat at a
given point in its evolution is at the same time knowledge of the stage
of development achieved by the whole society . The facts no longer
appear strange when they are comprehended in their coherent reality, in the relation of all partial
aspects to their inherent, but hitherto unelucidated roots in the whole: we then perceive the
tendencies which strive towards the centre of reality, to what we are
wont to call the ultimate goal. This ultimate goal is not an abstract ideal
opposed to the process, but an aspect of truth and reality . It is the
concrete meaning of each stage reached and an integral part of the
concrete moment. Because of this, to comprehend it is to recognise the
direction taken (unconsciously) by events and tendencies towards the
totality. It is to know the direction that determines concretely the
correct course of action at any given momentin terms of the interest of the total
process, viz. the emancipation of the proletariat. However, the evolution of society
constantly heightens the tension between the partial aspects and the
whole. Just because the inherent meaning of reality shines forth with an ever more resplendent light, the
uncomprehended facts acting automatically 'according to laws'. Thus
meaning of the process is embedded ever more deeply in day-to-day events, and totality permeates the spatio-
145
Capitalism K
of motives for action [italics omitted] (136). This can easily be described using the familiar terms of freedom
to control ones own production, freedom from oppressive economic dictates, freedom to ones own cultural
He views this
reconstruction of historical materialism as making necessary revisions
in a theory whose potential for stimulation has still not been exhausted (95). His revision is
still materialist in that it concerns the Marxian categories of production
and reproduction, and historical in that it seeks to identify causes of
social change and potentially new and more complex forms of social
organization toward securing a normatively prescribed societal identity, a culturally interpreted good
identity and from cultural violence being visited upon the former, etc.
or tolerable life (142). Habermas (1979) posits historical materialism not simply as a heuristic, but, as
aforementioned, a theory of social evolution (130) that can be used to solve many of the problems
146
Capitalism K
learn their intricacies: a developmental logic [that may explain] the range of variations within
which cultural values, moral representation - can be changed and can find different historical expression (98).
through which theory ceases to be a gray activism of tropes, desire and affect, and becomes, instead,
a red, revolutionary guide to praxis for a new society freed from exploitation and injustice. Marx's
original scientific discovery was his labor theory of value .
Capitalism K
exploitation. Only Orthodox Marxism explains how what the workers sell
to the capitalist is not labor, a commodity like any other whose price is
determined by fluctuations in supply and demand, but their labor-power
their ability to labor in a system which has systematically "freed" them
from the means of production so they are forced to work or starvewhose
value is determined by the amount of time socially necessary to reproduce
it daily. The value of labor-power is equivalent to the value of wages workers consume daily in the
form of commodities that keep them alive to be exploited tomorrow. Given the technical composition
of production today this amount of time is a slight fraction of the workday the majority of which
The surplus-value is
what is pocketed by the capitalists in the form of profit when the
commodities are sold. Class is the antagonistic division thus established
between the exploited and their exploiters. Without Marx's labor theory of
value one could only contest the after effects of this outright theft of
social labor-power rather than its cause lying in the private ownership of
production. The flexodox rejection of the labor theory of value as the
"dogmatic" core of a totalitarian Marxism therefore is a not so subtle
rejection of the principled defense of the (scientific) knowledge workers
need for their emancipation from exploitation because only the labor
theory of value exposes the opportunism of knowledges (ideology) that
occult this exploitation. Without the labor theory of value socialism would
only be a moral dogma that appeals to the sentiments of "fairness" and
"equality" for a "just" distribution of the social wealth that does the work
of capital by naturalizing the exploitation of labor under capitalism giving
it an acceptable "human face."
workers spend producing surplus-value over and above their needs.
148
Capitalism K
it to the material conditions and struggles of society, rather than the realm of ideas. It is Engels (1959) concept of
dialectics that is best suited to our purpose, however. Dialectics for Engels was about acknowledging the
interactions, especially between humans and nature, in which, because of their intimate relationship, a change in
observ- ing the universe, people in societies have transformed themselves. In Cosmos and Psyche, Tarnas makes
explore the dialectic between cosmos and the self more specifically in the next two chapters (see also Dickens and
nature, human beings start changing themselves. Put in more sociological and material terms, as societies observe
and modify external nature they start modifying their own, internal, nature. And this is a dialectical process. The
kind of internal nature made in the process of environmental study and transformation has important effects on
the
domination of external nature was associated with the domination of
internal nature, with the perversion of humanitys needs and capacities.
how external nature is in turn considered and therefore treated. In particular, for critical theorists,
If the question were really to be formulated in terms of such a crude antithesis it would deserve at best a
pitying smile. But in fact it is not (and never has been) quite so straightforward. Let us assume for the sake of
argument that recent research had disproved once and for all every one of Marx's individual theses. Even if this
were to be proved, every serious 'orthodox' Marxist would still be able to accept all such modern findings
without reservation and hence dismiss all of Marx's theses in totowithout having to renounce his orthodoxy
moreover, that all attempts to surpass or 'improve' it have led and must lead to over-simplification, triviality
149
Capitalism K
clearly defined the conditions in which a relation between theory and practice becomes possible. "It is not
enough that thought should seek to realise itself; reality must also strive towards thought." Or, as he expresses
it in an earlier work:3 "It will then be realised that the world has long since possessed something in the form of
Only when
consciousness stands in such a relation to reality can theory and
practice be united. But for this to happen the emergence of
consciousness must become the decisive step which the historical
process must take towards its proper end (an end constituted by the wills of men, but neither
a dream which it need only take possession of consciously, in order to possess it in reality."
dependent on human whim, nor the product of human invention). The historical function of theory is to make
this step a practical possibility. Only when a historical situation has arisen in which a class must understand
society if it is to assert itself; only when the fact that a class understands itself means that it understands
society as a whole and when, in consequence, the class becomes both the subject and the object of knowledge;
only when these conditions are all satisfied will the unity of
theory and practice, the precondition of the revolutionary function of
the theory, become possible. Such a situation has in fact arisen with the entry of the proletariat
in short,
into history. "When the proletariat proclaims the dissolution of the existing social order, Marx declares, "it does
* The
links between the theory that affirms this and the revolution are not
just arbitrary, nor are they particularly tortuous or open to
misunderstanding. On the contrary, the theory is essentially the
intellectual expression of the revolutionary process itself. In it every
stage of the process becomes fixed so that it may be generalised,
communicated, utilised and developed. Because the theory does nothing
but arrest and make conscious each necessary step, it becomes at the
same time the necessary premise of the following one. <1-3>
no more than disclose the secret of its own existence, for it is the effective dissolution of that order."
reevaluation of historical materialism: Notions of progress and vehicles for social justice Journal for
Critical Education Policy Studies 8(2) p. 5-7) APB
150
Capitalism K
distinction that gives terrain for the critique to followthe nature of the relationship between foundation, or base,
and superstructure. Williams (1977), has noted that this definition may be insufficient to define the whole of
cultural activity (76), since Marx makes a distinction between material conditions and culture, writ large. In a
slightly lesser known and earlier passage, Marx (1963) displays a slightly different conception of the materialist
relationship, one that renders the former more subjective and interpretative but within a knowable framework. He
states, Upon the different forms of property, upon the social conditions of existence, rises an entire superstructure
of distinct and peculiarly formed sentiments, illusions, modes of thought and views of life .
(1927), that the interplay among the historically created material conditions, the individual consciousness, and that
cannot be fulfilled except when different groups interact flexibly and fully in connection with other groups. (147)
in
151
Capitalism K
152
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
govern the whole of life. The falseness, the illusion implicit in this
situation is in no sense arbitrary; it is simply the intellectual reflex of the
objective economic structure. Thus, for example, the value or price of
labour-power takes on the appearance of the price or value of labour itself
... and the illusion is created that the totality is paid labour.... In
contrast to that, under slavery even that portion of labour which is paid
for appears unpaid for. [14] Now it requires the most painstaking historical
analysis to use the category of objective possibility so as to isolate the conditions in
which this illusion can be exposed and a real connection with the totality
established. For if from the vantage point of a particular class the totality of existing
society is not visible; if a class thinks the thoughts imputable to it and which bear
upon its interests right through to their logical conclusion and yet fails to strike at
the heart of that totality, then such a class is doomed to play only a subordinate
role. It can never influence the course of history in either a conservative or
progressive direction. Such classes are normally condemned to passivity, to an
unstable oscillation between the ruling and the revolutionary classes, and if
perchance they do erupt then such explosions are purely elemental and aimless.
They may win a few battles but they are doomed to ultimate defeat.
155
Capitalism K
Alt Neolib
Our understanding of the possibilities of revolution conditions
the material actions we can take- we must interrogate the
foundations and limits of neoliberalism as precondition for the
success of existing anti-neoliberal movements.
Robinson, University of California at Santa Barbara, 99
(William I., Sept. 1 1999, International Studies Review, Vol. 1 Issue 3 Latin America
in the Age of Inequality: Confronting the new Utopia. p.63-67. Ebscohost
[Accessed 7/9/13], JB).
Neoliberalism had in the mid-1990s achieved a certain hegemony in global
society. The much-touted Washington consensus in the Western
Hemisphere, for instance, reflects agreement over the project of the transnational elite among an increasingly cohesive hemispheric elite. This
consensus is clustered in governments, the private sector, and international
financial and political agencies active in the hemisphere, such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank,
United Nations (UN), and Organization of American States. It was indeed a
consensus because it represented a congruence of interests among the
hemispheres dominant groups, and these interests were being advanced through
institutions that command power (the hemispheres states and the international
financial institutions). The consensus also achieved ideologi- cal hegemony by
setting the parameters for, and the limits to, debate among subordinate
groups on options and alternative projects for the hemisphere. 65 In this
sense, the Washington consensus reflected the emergence of a new hegemonic bloc
in the hemisphereand in global societyunder the leadership of the transnational
elite. Developing a viable, alternative socioeconomic program is not
enough. Social forces operating through nationally based social movements clearly
need to transpose their mobilization and their capacity to transnational space to
place demands on the system, because it is at the transnational level that the
causes are to be found of the conditions that these movements seek to address.
Moreover, these two are linked. The specifics of an alternative are not yet clear, but
it would need to be a new type of redistributionist project. It also would need to
be one that was transposed from the earlier national to the new transnational
space, one that challenges the logic of capitalist hegemony, and one that develops an ideology along the lines that Chase-Dunn proposed for a new
egalitarian universalism. What is the real negotiating power of popular
majorities within a trans- national setting? To ask this is to ask what are the
prospects that key social movements such as those of women, labor, democracy
and human rights, and development and social justice will develop the mechanisms
that allow for trans- position of local and national organizing strength to a
transnational space. Latin American social movements had, in fact, begun to
transnationalize in the 1990s, moving to create alliances, networks, and
organizations that transcend national and even regional borders. One strategy put
forward for a more egalitarian outcome under globalization is the tempering of
neoliberalism by the infusion of global Keynesian perspec- tives,
156
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
158
Capitalism K
how forces such as nationalism, ethnicity, religion, or sect can be the primary dynamic shaping resort or non-resort
to terrorism. A guard must also be maintained against a tendency often associated with historical materialist
perspectives of undervaluing liberal democracy and other often progressive aspects of liberalism.
159
Capitalism K
major strand which puts the discursive and ideological into the context of US-led capitalist globalisation and
associated class relations.
But in developing countries, these forms of benefit are nonexistent. This therefore makes social antagonism and
among classes to be sharper especially in the period of capitalist crisis. The sharper this
antagonism between classes, the more the lumpen class becomes
frustrated and aggrieved. The frustrated and de-classed members of the lumpen class who
are angry with the state of affair become the willing tools in the hand of groups/organisations
susceptible to the use of individual terrorism against the state. The ontological
position of HMs approach to Terrorism can be illustrated to a large
extent, as the description of the object of enquiry from within: driving the
object (terrorism)s own processes and arguments to the logical conclusions
and thus require assessing the object internally (within the society and economy)
instead of externallyas orthodox approaches would want us to believe.
This ontological position can be regarded as materialism . This is because the study
of a particular historical material constellation such as terrorism must be located on the
basis of how a particular society or system reproduces itself materially
vis--vis its particular mode of production, and how social contradiction
in that mode of production produces terrorism. Therefore, such contradictions that
produce terrorism are located within a particular society, state or system, and not outside. In the era of
the dominance of capitalist mode of production, terrorism must be
located within the context of hierarchically structured relations,
orchestrated by the prevailing capitalist society or system. However, the
epistemological position of Historical materialist approach to Terrorism
can be conceptualised as critical historicism. This stems from its ability to place the study
divides
of history on a scientific basis by uncovering the law that govern historical changes: how the development of the
productive forces brings into existence different production relations and different forms of class society, and
produces terrorism. Due to the epistemologies it uses, HM
approach to terrorism aim to utilise historical method to produce more
coherent and conclusive explanations. Therefore, a large number of
contemporary historical studies will be important to providing a thorough
methodological base for terrorism studies. Therefore, HMs aim is to
explain the discourse of terrorism by making reference to the empirical
essence of its historical evidences.
Terrorism cant be resolved absent of understanding the socioeconomic conditions that give rise to it
Ogunrotifa, Research Assistant at Edinburgh University, 12
(Bayo Ogunrotifa, Research Assistant at Edinburgh University, April 2012 ,PUTTING
HISTORICAL MATERIALISM INTO TERRORISM STUDIES , International Journal of
Current Research, Vol. 4, P. 234-235, JF)
Todays terrorism is not fundamentally and remarkably different from that of the cold-war era
given the ideological underpinning of state and non-state actors terrorism and
160
Capitalism K
how this reflect the dynamics of unending class struggle implicit in the
hidden structures of oppression and structured contradictions in the
material world which global system of capitalism represents. The
discursive frame of terrorism cannot be analysed in isolation of its class
nature and the socio-economic conditions that gave rise to it. This is the
point that orthodox and critical theorists ignored. It is therefore
important that Karl Marxs Historical Materialism exposes the class
nature of terrorism in the current mode of production (capitalism) and how
non-state actors (groups/organisation linked to Individual terrorism) emerged out of the
existing social relation of production among classes in the society . HomerDixon (2001) observes that grievances exploited by non-state actors terrorists are compounded by an
international political and economic system thats more concerned about Realpolitik, oil supply, and the interests
of global finance than about the well-being of the regions human beings. The social contradictions and crises of
capitalism which Dussel Enrique (1983) problematized: The [neo-capitalist] globalization is that of a formal,
performative system (the value that valorizes itself, the money that produces money, D-D; fetishes of capital)
which raises itself up as the criterion of truth, validity, and feasibility and destroys human life, trampling on the
dignity of millions of human beings and not recognizing their equality or much less affirming itself as coresponsible for the alterity of the excluded and accepting only the peripheral nations, even if the debtor people
perishes, fiat justitiam, pereat mundus. It is a massive assassination; it is the beginning of a collective
suicide15 And others such mass poverty; inequality in educational, political and employment opportunities;
ignorance due to limited educational opportunities; and growing unemployment. In this situation, the lumpen
class are the worst hit especially in the developing countries. Socially alienated members of the lumpen class
who are unable to afford the basic necessities of life, drop out of society and join an organised groups/
This member of
the lumpen class thus became die-hard patriots of the sect,
groups/organisations and engages in the use of individual terrorism to
lash out at societys injustices. The responses of the state to the orgy of
violence and culture of fear and threats which individual terrorism
created, will be repelled with the brute force of the state instrument of
terror (state terrorism), then the vicious circle of terrorism will commence. In this
organisations (non-state actors) whose
terrorism is therefore a
reflection of social relations among social classes within modern
capitalist mode of production. Finally, it is important to state that the
appropriate social and public policy formulation is needed to salvage the
cyclical social dislocations orchestrated the global capitalist crisis , and to
to yank out
discourage the youth who are mostly member of the lumpen class from joining organised groups/organisations
tainted with individual terrorism. This can be achieved through equitable distribution of wealth and by taken all
grievances seriously rather than police and military measures to address this problem. For Western capitalist
states it is much easier to fight individual terrorism with military force, than introducing complex economic
redistributive mechanism in the global market. Putting Historical
Materialism into terrorism studies and discourses will help to provide
conceptual and theoretical frame for understanding and explaining
terrorism beyond the lens of Orthodox/Mainstream and CTS approaches.
There is no doubt that the social and economic condition plaguing the Third
World especially in Africa and Middle-East, are the springboard on which Individual
terrorism festers. The current global war on terror is unwinnable as long
as poverty, inequality and economic oppression continue in the Third
world societies. The bird that pinches on a rope will not be at rest as long
as the rope itself is never at rest.
Capitalism K
Richard Jackson, Deputy Director at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict
Studies, 12-14-2009, Paper prepared for the BISA Annual Conference @ the
University of Leicester, UK, Critical Terrorism Studies: An Explanation, a Defence
and a Way Forward, p 17-18, accessed 7/2/13, Fontana
Second, in addition to exposing and deconstructing the fields conditions of possibility, I would suggest that
162
Capitalism K
We are inherently
ethical and moral beings. The fundamental problem with todays
capitalistic economy is its domination by publicly held corporations, which
have no sense of ethical or social responsibility. They are not living
beings; they have no family, no community, no heart, and no soul. Living things
plants, animals, families, communities, societies are clearly capable of
permanence as well as productivity. We must find ways to restore life to our economy, to restore
its capacity to be both productive and regenerative, to restore its heart and soul. We must create an
economy for life a sustainable, living economy within a sustainable,
moral, and just society.
nature and charity within society, even when no economic incentives exist to do so.
163
Capitalism K
http://web.missouri.edu/ikerdj/papers/Eastern%20Oregon-%20Econ%20Hunger.htm,
accessed 7-9-13, JF)
The hope for the hungry in todays global economy can be seen most
clearly in the emergence of a new sustainable approach to farming and
food production in sustainable agriculture. The modern sustainable
agriculture movement emerged in the U.S. in the 1980s, in response to growing concerns
about ecological, economic, and social consequences of agriculture industrialization. Large industrial
farming operations were displacing family farmers, degrading the land,
and destroying rural communities. They were extracting and exploiting,
just like their manufacturing and mining counterparts, and people were beginning to
realize that such farms are not sustainable. The initial emphasis of sustainable
agriculture was on ecologically and socially responsible farming methods. Organic
farming received a lot of attention because organic farmers were early leaders in
the movement. Low-input, chemical-free, biodynamic, holistic, ecological,
innovative, and practical farming also became identified with the sustainable
agriculture movement. In livestock and poultry, free-range, pastured, grass-fed, or
hormone and antibiotic free served to distinguish sustainable farming from conventional agricultural
production. Sustainable agriculture included all farmers who were trying to
farm in ways that would sustain the productivity of the land and the
quality of life in their communities, while making an acceptable economic
living. Sustainability inherently depends on ecological, social, and
economic integrity.
164
Capitalism K
http://web.missouri.edu/ikerdj/papers/Eastern%20Oregon-%20Econ%20Hunger.htm,
accessed 7-9-13, JF)
A sustainable agriculture could feed a hungry world. Even today, nearly
everyone in America could afford high quality, sustainably produced, local
foods.[8] On average, more than 80% of food costs in the U.S. are paid for
processing, packaging, transportation, advertising, and other things that
make food more convenient or attractive. While not everyone might be able to
afford the convenience and cosmetics, even those with the lowest incomes
could afford the food, particularly with our existing food assistance
programs. They would simply have to buy raw or minimally processed foods in
season and prepare those foods for themselves. However, people with low-incomes do not
have the freedom to choose good food because they dont have access to good, locally produced food, nor do most
Many low-income
people could actually save money by buying high quality, fresh foods from local
farmers and preparing more meals from scratch. Those who dont feel they have
enough time to prepare their own food need to understand that more time spent
with family members preparing, processing, storing, and eating good local food can
reduce costs of family health care and unnecessary recreational distractions and
can add to the overall quality of family life. To eliminate hunger, we must care
enough about poor people to help them learn to choose healthier
lifestyles, rather than just provide them with cheap food.
have the knowledge or ability needed to process, prepare, and store their own foods.
165
Capitalism K
Epistemology
Ignore all their offense its just corporate propaganda in
order to crush sustainability
Ikerd, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural & Applied Economics
University of Missouri Columbia, 2006
erosion, deplete soil productivity, and require clearing and cultivation of vast forests and rangelands, which are now
home for many of the worlds poor and hungry. Genetically engineered, high-input, high-yielding crops and livestock
However, nothing in this propaganda
actually challenges the true principles of either sustainable agriculture or
industrial agriculture. Research around the world has shown that organic and lowinput sustainable agriculture can be just as high yielding as high-input
industrial agriculture.[4],[5] Sustainable agriculture simply requires more
thinking people who understand how to work with nature, rather than try to
conquer nature, and who care about their land and their neighbors. Research has
also shown that sustainable agriculture actually reduces erosion, because
of the use of crop rotations, cover crops, and other sustainable practices . In
addition, sustainable agriculture enhances soil qual ity, because it relies on the natural
productivity of the soil rather than commercial fertilizers. Also, sustainable agriculture is site and
location specific, adapting farming systems to natural bioregions, rather
than clearing land and leveling land to facilitate mechanization and thus
preserves natural habitats of both people and wildlife . Sustainable
agriculture respects nature, including natural connections between people
and places.
166
Capitalism K
***AFF***
167
Capitalism K
168
Capitalism K
Capitalism Inevitable
Capitalism is inevitable
Eadie, University of Nottingham critical security professor,
2005
[Pauline, Poverty And The Critical Security Agenda, p. 142, RN]
Following Realist notions of state security, it could be argued that human
security operates as a zero-sum game. In order for some sectors of
society, both national and international, to enjoy a level of affluence or to
safeguard their security, others become insecure. This is aided by a neoliberal formulation of the problem, which premises the freedom of the
market and defends private property rights. Current World Bank (WB) and
International Monetary Fund (IMF) (or Bretton Woods) approaches to poverty,
are based on this strategy, they seek solutions through growth rather than
redistribution. However, the free market and the capitalist ideology under
which it operates, is founded on a considerable degree or permanent
insecurity for all the units within it (individuals, firms, states) (Buzan, 1991,
p.235). This is because capitalism, by its very nature, is competitive, which
implies losers as well as winners. Therien states, when discussing the United
Nations attitude to poverty, that It [the UN] condemns the overriding values
represented by the cult of competition and the drive for profit because they
engender various forms of social Darwinism and marginalisation (1999 p. 735)
Common or absolute human security is the ideal, where all sectors of society
enjoy a condition of existence in which human dignity, including meaningful
participation in the life of the community, can be realized. Such security is
indivisible; it cannot be pursued by or for one group at the expense of
another (Thomas, 2001, p. 161). However it becomes difficult to devise an
objective ethical formulation to the problem of how far justice and equality
should be applied as people are generally bad judges where their own
interests are involved (Aristotle, 1992[1962], p.195). In other words
meaningful solutions to poverty are always going to be inhibited because
the rich or powerful will only advocate change to the extent that does not
challenge their own position or interests.
169
Capitalism K
Permutation
170
Capitalism K
Nevertheless, the
world is structured and stratified around multiple inequalities and critical
terrorism studies needs to be attentive to what they are and how they
relate to the use and non-use of terrorism. A particularly important
inequality which critical terrorism studies ought to challenge is the
operation of the categories of worthy and unworthy victims.
and intimidatory dispossession, opposition to it, or part of a bid to take part in it.
171
Capitalism K
Cap Good
172
Capitalism K
technologically determined and dependent upon innovation, which leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy as changes
made to institutional structures to encourage bioscience innovation benefit all firms and not just national ones. In
this way the external threat presented in the competitiveness discourse becomes concrete as external firms can
enter newly (institutionally) deregulated markets more easily than firms based in those markets because the latter
have to adapt to new institutions whilst the former do not because they have not been embedded in the previous
institutional environment.
Capitalism K
said. "We are convinced of the benefits it offers to developing countries and small
farmers," he told a U.S.-led briefing on the sidelines of the June 3-5 summit seeking
ways to combat high food prices when climate change may aggravate shortages.
Some green groups say genetically-engineered crops threaten biodiversity while
many European consumers are wary of eating products dubbed by critics as
"Frankenfoods". Schafer said biotechnology, including genetically-modified
organisms (GMOs), could help produce more food by raising yields and
producing crops in developing nations that are resistant to disease and
pests. "Genetic engineering offers long-term solutions to some of our
major crop production problems," said Philippine Agriculture Minister Arthur
Yap. But he said that it was not a panacea for all of his country's agricultural
problems. Progress being made in the Philippines included research into rice and
coconuts resistant to disease, he said. "We're also working on virus-resistant
papaya, papaya hybrids with a longer shelf life that should be ready for market in
2009," he said. Climate change could aggravate production around the world with
more droughts, floods, disruptions to monsoons and rising sea levels, says the U.N.
Climate Panel. In Africa alone, 250 million people could face extra stress on water
supplies by 2020. COTTON Burkina Faso Agriculture Minister Laurent Sedogo said
the African country had worked with U.S. agriculture group Monsanto to battle pests
that blighted the cotton crop. "We are about to plant 15,000 hectares" of a new crop
that was resistant to pests, he said. That would also cut down on the use of
pesticides that could damage the health of farmers. The World Bank and aid
agencies estimate that soaring food prices could push as many as 100 million more
people into hunger. About 850 million are already hungry. Bangladesh said that it
was going ahead with efforts to make crops able to survive floods and more salinity
in the soil. A cyclone last year "is a wake-up call for all of us", said C.S. Karim, an
adviser to Bangladesh's agriculture ministry. "It shows the vulnerability of
Bangladesh."
Capitalism K
access to food for all. Since launching HungerFREE last year, more than 25,000
people from at least twenty countries have signed plates demanding an end to
hunger. ActionAid is demanding that hunger is placed at the top of the agenda for
the upcoming meeting of Heads of State on the Millennium Development Goals and
the 2008 UN General Assembly.
Generic Tech
Capitalism promotes technological advances and vice versa;
industrial revolution proves
Scherer, Harvard Economist, 10 Frederic Michael is an American
economist. His research specialties include industrial economics and the economics
of technological change, on which he has many much-cited works. Since 2006 he
has been Emeritus Professor of Public Policy and Corporate Management in the
Aetna Chair, in the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
(The Dynamics of Capitalism--2010
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/centersprograms/centers/mrcbg/publications/fwp/mrcbg_fwp_201001_Scherer_dynamics.pdf)
In this chapter, capitalism is viewed as the set of economic relationships
that emerged with the rise of the industrial or factory system during the
18th Century. To be sure, there were earlier precedents -- e.g., the commercial
ventures, local and international, of Venetian and Florentine businessmen during
the Renaissance. But here we focus on production in privately owned, often capitalintensive, facilities embodying ever more advanced technologies during and
following the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution set in motion
dynamic forces that will be our primary concern here. Most important among
them are technological advances that propelled accelerated economic
growth, changes in the structure of enterprise ownership and in the
distribution of income among workers and owners, and a tendency
toward more or less cyclical fluctuations in economic activity. These will
be the "dynamics" on which this essay focuses.
economist. His research specialties include industrial economics and the economics
of technological change, on which he has many much-cited works. Since 2006 he
has been Emeritus Professor of Public Policy and Corporate Management in the
Aetna Chair, in the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
(The Dynamics of Capitalism--2010
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/centersprograms/centers/mrcbg/publications/fwp/mrcbg_fwp_201001_Scherer_dynamics.pdf)
The most striking feature of industrial capitalism, seen either in its early
periods or in historical hindsight, is its enormous success in
implementing technological changes that expanded the supply of goods and services available
for consumption. No one said it better than Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their Communist
Manifesto of 1848:2 [The bourgeoisie] [Marx's term for the capitalist class] has been the first to show
175
Capitalism K
what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian
pyramids, Roman aqueducts and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former
Subjection of Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steamnavigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization of rivers, whole
populations conjured out of the ground -- what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive
forces slumbered in the lap of social labor? A Quantitative Overview What happened through the capitalistic
industrial revolution and its successors is compactly shown using estimates of real gross domestic product per
capita over several centuries. Angus Maddison (2006, Appendix tables) has estimated GDP per capita covering
numerous nations for three years preceding the onset of the Industrial Revolution -- 1500, 1600, and 1700 -- plus
more continuous series beginning (with some exceptions) in the year 1820. The data have been adjusted to hold
underlying price levels constant at dollar value purchasing power parities prevailing in 1990. The statistics are
almost surely less reliable, the earlier the time interval to which they pertain, and there is reason to suspect that
the consequences of the first stages of the Industrial Revolution - - i.e., from about 1750 to 1820 -- are
underestimated. Throwing caution to the wind, we begin with the nation commonly viewed as the font of the
Industrial Revolution: the United Kingdom. Figure 6.1 summarizes the Maddison time series. A logarithmic scale
implies constant exponential growth as a straight line trajectory, the growth rate being higher, the steeper the
line. For the early years, growth is palpably modest, from a value of roughly $714 per capita in 1500 to $1706 in
1820, implying a growth rate averaging 0.27 percent per annum. From 1820 on, the growth rate increases
dramatically and perhaps even accelerates slightly in the latter half of the 20th century.
we live in a mixed economy in which government frequently assumes tasks that were once left to private
individuals and corporations. Whether the government should invest in green energy suggests two questions. Are
major green energy investments worthwhile in the first place? And should the Obama administration be spending
$80 billion in grants and loans to make these investments on our collective behalf? Although proponents of green
energy note that the sheer enormousness of the federal subsidy effort is helping to expand green energy
generating capacity, stock prices for green energy firms are in free fall, even in China, because investors
understand that this industry would disappear if the lavish federal and state subsidies were to end. The green
jobs argument most commonly marshaled is thus looking thinner by the day. Data recently released by the U.S.
Department of Energy reveal that the $38.6 billion of federally guaranteed loans to green energy projects have thus
far produced only 3,545 new, permanent jobs ($5 million per job), far short of the 65,000 jobs promised by the
administration. If green energy is commercially promising, then profit-hungry capitalists will make those
investments. The DOEs Energy Information Administration reports that new renewable energy power plants will
continue to be far less economically competitive than new gas-fired generation plants over the foreseeable future,
even after federal subsidies are taken into account. Things look even worse in the transportation sector. The Obama
administration has spent $5 billion to promote the manufacture of electric vehicles so as to put 1 million EVs on
American roads by 2015. But layoffs and bankruptcies have plagued those receiving EV handouts because the
technology is still problematic and the final product so expensive that consumers wont buy it, even with $7,500
rebates. Consequently, only two tenths of 1 percent of the cars sold this year were EVs, and the vast majority of
those were in development long before President Obama took office. EV sales would have to be almost nine times
greater per year to meet the administrations objective. The only good argument for federal handouts to green
energy projects is the contention that there are environmental costs associated with fossil fuel consumption that
are not internalized in fossil fuel prices, distorting the market and leading to more brown energy consumption
than is economically efficient. But the most credible estimates about climate externalities put the cost at no more
than $12 per ton of CO2. Internalizing that cost into fossil fuel prices would increase gasoline prices by no more
than 12 cents per gallon, not enough to make EVs economically efficient or commercially competitive. If all the
nations electricity were coal-fired, a $12-a-ton CO2 tax would increase the price of electricity by about 1.3 cents
176
Capitalism K
per kWh, just over 10 percent above the average retail price of 12 cents per kWh. Given that a little over half of the
nations electricity is coal-fired, the actual increase would be even less .
If green energy is
commercially promising, then profit-hungry capitalists will make those
investments. If it isnt, no amount of government subsidy will turn those
economic sows ears into wealth-creating silk purses.
economist. His research specialties include industrial economics and the economics
of technological change, on which he has many much-cited works. Since 2006 he
has been Emeritus Professor of Public Policy and Corporate Management in the
Aetna Chair, in the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
(The Dynamics of Capitalism--2010
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/centersprograms/centers/mrcbg/publications/fwp/mrcbg_fwp_201001_Scherer_dynamics.pdf)
"Capitalism," a witticism prevalent in the Soviet Union during the 1960s observed,
"is the exploitation of man by man. Communism is the opposite." Indeed,
capitalism is not without problems -- at times low wages, which might be
viewed as exploitation, or even worse, a tendency toward occasionally violent
fluctuations and involuntary unemployment. But it is hard to conceive of a
practical economic system exhibiting superior dynamic performance,
notably, in the opportunity and incentive free markets provide to
capitalistic entrepreneurs for technological innovation -- more efficient
production processes, new products conferring superior consumer utility, and
better methods of business organization -- which in turn has raised living
standards by astonishing amounts. The problem for public policy is to secure
the dynamic benefits of capitalism while minimizing its negative side effects.
are working with the courts to slice up the company, supposedly to create competition but actually to reward
Microsoft' s competitors. Is there anyone who truly believes that the software industry will be more innovative and
responsive after such intervention? Even Microsoft' s enemies are getting squeamish about the prospect. And yet
nothing illustrates the absurd results of government intervention in technology like the great toilet tank fiasco. In a
little-noticed law passed in 1992 the Energy Policy and Conservation Act Congress mandated that all future toilets
177
Capitalism K
installed in homes had to qualify as Ultra-Low Flush (ULF). Older toilet tanks, invented by greedy capitalists who
care nothing about wasting water, held from 3.5 to 7 gallons of water. The much-heralded ULF tank holds 1.6
gallons. Congress cheered and made it official. But there is a hitch. It turns out that the ULF doesn' t work well. It
sometimes takes two and three flushes to do the work of one old one, so it does not necessarily save water. And so
what if it does? It clogs and overflows easily, which frequently leads to floor and ceiling damage (not to mention
unsanitary conditions). It also proves very difficult to keep clean. You must use chemicals in the tank, which in turn
break down the mechanical parts inside the tank, which then must be replaced regularly. No longer can a toilet be
flushed with confidence. The whole process must be monitored with great attention to detail. In a free market,
some entrepreneur might have dreamed up a ULF. But it wouldn' t have lasted. Given the low price of water, the
need to - conserve - it reflects not economic reality but a leftist civic piety. Indeed, as much as the left has long
hated the indoor toilet, consumers hate the ULF just as intensely. A survey from the National Association of Home
Builders reported nearly 80 percent dissatisfaction. So attached are consumers to the old models that local and
state governments have taken to paying contractors to install new ones, just to meet code. In a market setting,
then, the ULF wouldn' t have met the market test, except among those consumers who value a few bucks a month
more than clean toilets that work well. It turns out that there was wisdom in the old large tanks. They weren' t just
evidence of a conspiracy to waste water. They were designed to be efficient, fast, foolproof, and clean - all opposite
traits from the tanks blessed by government. Under the restricted market conditions imposed by Congress, the
result has been a thriving gray market in Canadian toilet tanks. Consumers can buy them legally, but they are
expensive, especially if you include shipping. But if a contractor or retailer buys one in Canada to install or sell in
the US, he faces fines of $2,500. Meanwhile, Canadian retailers are making a mint. American tank retailers have
responded to the regulations with undying devotion to the consumer: they have completely reinvented the toilet,
putting electric pumps inside designed to shove the water through the pipes. These are also very expensive (a highend version can cost $800) and they use electricity, a resource that Congress apparently thinks is less valuable
than water. The ULF propagandists say that the old tanks allowed 22,000 gallons of drinking water to be flushed
down the toilet every year. But just who is to decide that it is crucial to save water to drink rather than to make
sanitary living possible? The indoor toilet is a luxury that most of the developed world has universally enjoyed only
in the past 50 years. Leave it to government backed by leftist ideologues who hate consumer convenience to take
us a step back by force of law. If the bureaucrats had their way, the outhouse would again become the norm.
Another option promoted by the back-to-nature types: an indoor composting toilet that uses no water. No thanks.
doing the same to software, the results will be the same: driving
innovation underground or forcing contortions just so that entrepreneurs
and consumers can keep their heads above water.
Capitalism K
179
Capitalism K
180
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
183
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
governance and the stamina to build institutions. They include a free and
responsible press; uncorrupt and efficient public services; an independent
judiciary that resolves cases and makes decisions; a disciplined police and
military; a strong election commission; a banking authority; and
education, health, transport and other authorities all of which must be
held to account.
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
Total bilateral U.S. development assistance from the U.S. Agency for International
Development (US- AID) and the State Department to sub-Saharan Africa nearly
quadrupled from roughly $1.94 billion in FY2002 to an estimated $7.08 billion in
FY2012.1 The rapid uptick in U.S. development assistance to the region was
largely driven by global health spending, specifically the Presidents
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which concentrates HIV/AIDS resources
primarily to 14 countries, 12 of which are in sub-Saharan Africa.2 Currently, USAID
operates 27 bilateral and regional missions in sub-Saharan Africa, which in FY2012
provided bilateral assistance to 47 sub-Saharan African countries. The Africa
regions top five recipients of U.S. assistance in FY2012 were Kenya, Nigeria,
Ethiopia, Tanzania and South Africa.3 Beyond global health, the U.S. is the leading
donor of humanitarian aid to sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in the area of
emergency food aid.4 The Obama administration has also made assistance to
agriculture sector development a key priority in recent years through its Feed the
Future program, a global hunger and food security initiative. In June 2012, President
Obama signaled his development priorities toward the region with the release of the
White Houses U.S. Strategy toward Sub-Saharan Africa. Economic growth, food
security, public health, women and youth, humanitarian response and
climate change are explicitly listed in the Obama Strategy as U.S. priority
areas to further accelerate development progress in the region. why is it
important For The U.S.? U.S. development assistance funds programs on the
ground in ways that bring government agencies and American
organizations and businesses into collaborative activities with Africans
who are trying to lift their countries onto a higher plane of social, political
and economic development. The region warrants sustained U.S. engagement for
188
Capitalism K
189
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
191
Capitalism K
of intellectual expression. They have freedom of religion. Similarly, they possess economic freedom, including the
right to own propertytheir own home or farmto start their own businesses, and to seek profit. These countries
the noncapitalist
nations of the world, past and present, lack both freedom and prosperity. For
example, in feudal Europe, before the capitalist revolution of the late eighteenth century, serfdom
and its legacy dominated. Peasants were often legally tied to the land and possessed few rights.
hold free elections, and their governments are subject to the rule of law. By contrast,
Commoners, more broadly, were subordinated to the king, aristocrats, and Church, and free thought was punished.
Voltaire, for example, was imprisoned for his revolutionary ideas, as was Diderot. Galileo was threatened with
torture and Giordano Bruno burned at the stake for supporting scientific theories that clashed with the teachings of
population during the fourteenth century, and recurred incessantly into the eighteenth. Famine killed sizable
portions of the population in Scotland, Finland, and Irelandand caused misery and death even in such relatively
prosperous countries as England and France. According to one economist, economic growth was nonexistent during
the centuries 5001500and per capita income rose by merely 0.1 percent per year in the years 15001700. In
currently tens of thousands of black slaves in Sudan. In Rwanda in 1994, Hutu tribesmen slaughtered 800,000
nighttime satellite photographs reveal utter darkness because the country lacks electricity, conditions are just as
grim. Despite massive aid from the capitalist West, tens of thousands of human beings starved to death there in
McCormick, an Alexander Graham Bell, or a Thomas Edison exists under an oppressive regime, whether feudal,
communist, fascist or theocratic, his intelligence and revolutionary thinking make him a threat and he is
suppressed. But when such a genius lives under capitalism, he is free to create a perfected steam engine, a
treatment for smallpox, a reaper, a telephone, and an electric lighting system, respectively. Liberation from
roughly 1820 to the present, the free countries of western Europe and North America saw their total economic
output increase 60 times, and per capita income grow to be 13 times what it had been previously.4 Even minimal
capitalist elements have already produced salutary results in communist Vietnam. The annual minimum wage there
is $134; but Nike, which owns Vietnamese factoriesmisleadingly dubbed sweatshops by anti-capitalist
ideologuespays an average salary of $670, which is double the countrys per capita GDP.5 Western companies in
the poorest countries pay their workers, on average, twice what the corresponding native firms pay. Most important,
workers voluntarily seek such employment, and unlike the repressive governments, these private companies have
centuries of capitalism, 80 years of socialism, and a millennium of feudalism, the contest is over and the scores are
192
Capitalism K
on the board. The alternatives open to human beings are stark: freedom and prosperity or statism and misery. We
have only to make our choice.
Capitalism K
194
Capitalism K
(John D, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Evelyne Huber Stephens. April 15, 1992. Capitalist
Development and Democracy. University Of Chicago Press. Chapter 23, P. 248.
http://faculty.washington.edu/acs22/SinklerSite/PolS
%20204/Rueschemeyer_Stephens_Stephens.pdf , [Accessed 7/8/13], JB).
This position has methodological consequences. The concepts of democracy
used in our research as well as in virtually all other empirical studies aim to
identify the really existing democracies of our world and to distinguish
them from other forms of rule. Our operating concepts are therefore not
based on the most farreaching ideals of democratic thought-of a
government thoroughly and equally responsive to the preferences of all
its citizens (Dahl 1971) or of a polity in which human beings fulfill themselves
through equal and active participation in collective self-rule (Macpherson 1973).
Rather, they orient themselves to the more modest forms of popular
participation in government through representative parliaments that
appear as realistic possibilities in the complex societies of today. Our
definitions of democracy focus on the state's re sponsibility to parliament (possibly
complemented by direct election of the head of the executive), on regular free and
fair elections, on the freedom of expression and association, and on the extent of
the suffrage. Robert Dahl, whose careful conceptuali zations probably had the
greatest influence on em pirical democracy research, reserved the term "polyarch
y" for this more modest and inevitably somewhat formal version of democracy (Dahl
1956, 1971). Why do we care about formal democracy if it con siderably
falls short of the actual rule of the many? This question assumes particular
saliency in the light of two of our findings, namely that democracy was a result of
the contradictions of capitalist de velopment and that it could be consolidated only
if the interests of the capitalist classes were not di rectly threatened by it. The full
answer to this ques tion will become clear as we proceed with our analy sis. But it is
possible to anticipate our conclusion briefly already We care about formal
democracy because it tends to be more than merely for mal. It tends to be
real to some extent. Giving the many a real voice in the formal collective
decision making of a country is the most promising basis for further
progress in the distribution of power and other forms of substantive
equality. The same fac tors which support the installation and consolida tion of
formal democracy, namely growth in the strength of civil society in general
and of the lower classes in particular, also support progress towards greater
equality in political participation and to wards greater social and
economic equality. Ulti mately, we see in democracy-even in its modes: and
195
Capitalism K
largely formal contemporary realizations-the -::..; beginning of the selftransformation of capitalism ....
196
Capitalism K
May 1990, Morality and Ideology, In Marxism, Morality, and social Justice p. 266-7
Princeton University Press.
197
Capitalism K
198
Capitalism K
(Johan Norberg, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, 1-1-05, In Defence of Global
Capitalism, P. 42-45, JF)
Longer lives and belter health are connected with the reduction of one of
the cruelest manifestations of underdevelopmenthunger. Calorie intake
in the Third World has risen by 30 per cent per capita since the 1960s.
According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, 960 million people in the developing
countries were undernourished in 1970. In 1991 the figure was 830
million, falling by 1996 to 790 million. In proportion to population, this is
an immensely rapid improvement. Thirty years ago nearly 37 per cent of
the population of the developing countries were afflicted with hunger.
Today's figure is less than 18 per cent. Many? Yes. Too many? Of course.
But the number is rapidly declining. It took the first two decades of the 20th century for
Sweden to be declared free from chronic malnutrition. In only 30 years the proportion of
hungry in the world has been reduced by half, and it is expected to decline further, to 12
per cent by 2010. There have never been so many of us on earth, and we have
never had such a good supply of food. During the 1990s, the ranks of the hungry diminished
by an average of six million ever)' year, at the same time as the world's population grew by about 800 million.
Things have moved fastest in East and Southeast Asia, where the proportion of hungry has fallen from 43 to 13 per
cent since 1970. In Latin America, it has fallen from 19 to 11 per cent, in North Africa and the Middle East from 25
to 9 per cent, in South Asia from 38 to 23 per cent. The worst development has occurred in Africa south of the
Sahara, where the number of hungry has actually increased, from 89 to 180 million people. But even there the
Global
food production has doubled during the past half century, and in the
developing countries it has tripled. Global food supply increased by 24 per
cent, from 2,257 to 2.808 calorics per person daily, between 1961 and 1999. The fastest increase
occurred in the developing countries, where consumption rose by 39 per
cent, from 1,932 to 2,684 calorics daily. Very little of this development is due to new land having been
converted to agricultural use. Instead, the old land is being farmed more efficiently. The
proportion of the population living in hunger has declined, albeit marginally, from 34 to 33 per cent.
yield per acre of arable land has virtually doubled. Wheat, maize, and rice prices have fallen by more than 60 per
production in the developing countries, and farmers there are estimated to have earned nearly $5 billion as a
result of the change. In southern India, the green revolution is estimated to have boosted farmers' real earnings by
90 per cent and those of landless peasants by 125 per cent over 20 years. Its impact has been least in Africa, but
even there the green revolution has raised maize production per acre by between 10 and 40 per cent. Without
this revolution, it is estimated that world prices of wheat and rice would be nearly 40 per cent higher than they are
today and that roughly another 2 per cent of the world's childrenchildren who are now getting enough to eat
would have suffered from chronic malnourishment.
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/05/27/rx-for-global-poverty.html,
accessed 7-9-13,JF)
There are roughly 6 billion people on the planet; in 2004, perhaps 2.5 billion survived on $2 a day or less, says the World Bank. By
have not adopted the obvious remedies. Just recently, the 21-member Commission on Growth and Development -- including two
Nobel-prize winning economists, former prime ministers of South Korea and Peru, and a former president of Mexico -- examined the
puzzle. Since 1950, the panel found, 13 economies have grown at an average annual rate of 7 percent for at least 25 years. These
were: Botswana, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Malta, Oman, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand.
Some gains are astonishing. From 1960 to 2005, per capita income in South Korea rose from $1,100 to $13,200. Other societies
started from such low levels that even rapid economic growth, combined with larger populations, left sizable poverty. In 2005,
Some countries succeeded with high inflation rates of 15 to 30 percent. Led by Japan, Asian countries pursued export-led growth
with undervalued exchange rates that favored some industries over others. Good government is relative; some fast-growing
telegraph took 90 years to spread to four-fifths of developing countries; for the cellphone, the comparable diffusion was 16 years
trade is about
beating poverty and expanding economic opportunity." With free trade,
entrepreneurship will increase in developing countries, which will allow for
stronger capitalistic forces in their own markets to grow -- they will
201
Capitalism K
develop and create their own industries under free trade with developed
countries such as the U.S. Besides, we are currently experiencing high unemployment and increased
free trade will make more jobs -- about 9.2 million American jobs currently revolve around exports and therefore
(Robert J. Samuelson, staff writer, 5-27-8, Rx for Global Poverty: Why globalization
can enrich everyone. , The Daily Beast,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/05/27/rx-for-global-poverty.html,
accessed 7-9-13,JF)
Globalization has moral as well as economic and political dimensions . The
United States and other wealthy countries are experiencing an anti-globalization
backlash. Americans and others are entitled to defend themselves from economic harm, but many of the
allegations against globalization are wildly exaggerated . Today, for example, the
biggest drag on the U.S. economy--the housing crisis--is mainly a domestic problem. By making
globalization an all-purpose scapegoat for economic complaints, many
"progressives" are actually undermining the most powerful force for
eradicating global poverty.
202
Capitalism K
that wartime conditions facilitated genocide, making it easier to conceal. Midlarsky (2005) analysing twentieth
century genocides argues that genocide is more likely during war . Levene (2005) suggests that genocides are
more likely during systemic crises faced by new states. The view that crises and changes in the political system
provide the conditions for genocide is consistent with the strand in the civil war literature, noted earlier, arguing
that civil war is more likely during political transition and crisis. Statistical investigations have found that the
level of upheaval ((Wayman and Tago 2010)Harff 1997;2003) is significantly related to the incidence of genocide.
Harff finds that all but one of 37 genocides and politicides that
began between 1955 and 1998 occurred during or immediately after
political upheavals (Harff 2003: 62) making such upheaval a necessary but not
sufficient condition for genocide to occur. This is a much stronger condition than the
Indeed,
findings in relation to civil war. Easterly et al. 2006 find that ongoing civil war is a significant correlate of genocide
in all their specifications , after allowing for the impact of GDP per capita and the extent of democracy. This is also
a finding of Krain 1997. Krain also finds that the combined effect of the simultaneous presence of both internal
and external wars is much greater than either alone. Akinds (forthcoming) and Wayman and Tago (2010) also
find that the presence of civil war is significantly and positively related to the incidence of both democide and
and so (independently) are coups. Concentration of power is argued to be a
precondition of genocide, with authoritarian governments most likely to
commit genocide and democracies least likely: The more power a
government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims
and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and
murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power
of governments, the less it will aggress on others. (Rummel 1994: 1-2). The
best way to account for and to predict democide is by the degree to
which a regime is totalitarian along a democratic-totalitarian scale. (Rummel
1995: 25). Statistical investigations show that regime type is, indeed,
generally associated with genocide: Fein 1993, 2000 finds that totalitarian states are most
politicide10,
203
Capitalism K
204
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
206
Capitalism K
per capita income initially rises from subsistence levels, air and water pollution increases correspondingly. But once
per capita income hits between $3,500 and $15,000 (dependent upon the pollutant), the ambient concentration of
indeed counterintuitive. But the data don't lie. How do we explain this? The obvious answer -- that wealthier
societies are willing to trade-off the economic costs of government regulation for environmental improvements and
that poorer societies are not -- is only partially correct. In the United States, pollution declines generally predated
the passage of laws mandating pollution controls. In fact, for most pollutants, declines were greater before the
federal government passed its panoply of environmental regulations than after the EPA came upon the scene. Much
of this had to do with individual demands for environmental quality. People who could afford cleaner-burning
furnaces, for instance, bought them. People who wanted recreational services spent their money accordingly,
creating profit opportunities for the provision of untrammeled nature. Property values rose in cleaner areas and
declined in more polluted areas, shifting capital from Brown to Green investments. Market agents will supply
whatever it is that people are willing to spend money on. And when people are willing to spend money on
through smokestacks and water pipes. As we learned to do more and more with a given unit of resources, the waste
involved (which manifests itself in the form of pollution) shrank. This trend was magnified by the shift away from
manufacturing to service industries, which characterizes wealthy, growing economies. The latter are far less
pollution-intensive than the former. But the former are necessary prerequisites for the latter. Property rights -- a
necessary prerequisite for free market economies -- also provide strong incentives to invest in resource health.
Without them, no one cares about future returns because no one can be sure they'll be around to reap the gains.
Property rights are also important means by which private desires for resource conservation and preservation can
be realized. When the government, on the other hand, holds a monopoly on such decisions, minority preferences in
developing societies are overruled (see the old Soviet block for details). Furthermore, only wealthy societies can
afford the investments necessary to secure basic environmental improvements, such as sewage treatment and
electrification. Unsanitary water and the indoor air pollution (caused primarily by burning organic fuels in the home
for heating and cooking needs) are directly responsible for about 10 million deaths a year in the Third World,
207
Capitalism K
Cap Good-VTL
Capitalism solves quality of life
Norberg, Fellow at Timbro and CATO, MA with a focus in
economics and philosophy, 2003 (Johan, July 31 , In Defense of Global
Capitalism,http://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=VpnmwhBneTcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=In+Defense+of+Global+Capi
talism&ots=xW0wpNx5QG&sig=Pbj8YC655sJ_-nMBjFnv3d_Xlec)
It is not a problem for the Third World that more and more diseases have been
made curable in the Western world. On the contrary, that is something that has
proved to be a benefit, and not just because a wealthier world can devote more
resources to helping the poor. In many fields, the Third World can inexpensively
share in the research financed by wealthy Western customers, sometimes
paying nothing for it. The Merck Corporation gave free medicine to a
project to combat onchocerciasis (river blindness) in 11 African states. As a
result those states have now rid themselves almost completely of a
parasite that formerly affected something like a million people, blinding
thousands every year. 22 The Monsanto Corporation allows researchers
and companies free use of their technique for developing golden rice, a
strain of rice enriched with iron and beta carotene (pro-vitamin A), which
could save a million people annually in the Third World who are dying of
vitamin A deficiency diseases. A number of pharmaceutical companies are
lowering the prices of inhibitors for HIV/AIDS in poor countries by up to 95
percent, on condition that the patents are preserved so that they can
maintain full prices in wealthier countries.
208
Capitalism K
and ideological fervor can overwhelm cold economic calculations. But deep trade and investment ties among nations make war less
attractive. Trade wars in the 1930s deepened the economic depression, exacerbated global tensions, and helped to usher in a world
war. Out of the ashes of that experience, the United States urged Germany, France, and other Western European nations to form a
common market that has become the European Union. In large part because of their intertwined economies, a general war in Europe
is now unthinkable.
In East Asia, the extensive and growing economic ties among Mainland
China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan is helping to keep the peace.
Chinas Communist rulers may yet decide to go to war over its renegade
province, but the economic cost to their economy would be staggering
and could provoke a backlash among Chinese citizens. In contrast, poor
and isolated North Korea is all the more dangerous because it has nothing
to lose economically should it provoke a war. In Central America, countries
that were racked by guerrilla wars and death squads two decades ago
have turned not only to democracy but to expanding trade, culminating in
the Central American Free Trade Agreement with the United States. As the
209
Capitalism K
Stockholm institute reports in its 2005 Yearbook, Since the 1980s, the introduction
of a more open economic model in most states of the Latin American and
Caribbean region has been accompanied by the growth of new regional
structures, the dying out of interstate conflicts and a reduction in intrastate conflicts. Much of the political violence that remains in the world today
is concentrated in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa the two regions
of the world that are the least integrated into the global economy. Efforts
to bring peace to those regions must include lowering their high barriers
to trade, foreign investment, and domestic entrepreneurship.
Capitalism K
actors' utility for the costs of the conflict, the effect of costs is a crucial component
in the "information" explanation. Although an increase in the costs of conflict for
either actor will decrease the probability of conflict, my claim is that economic
interdependence does not just result in increased costs. Rather, the effect
of interdependence is most profound with respect to variation in the
distribution of information about the costs of conflict and other crucial
parameters in the actors' value functions. That is, trade affects the costs
of conflict in two independent ways. First, the costs of conflict for trading
states may be higher than for comparable nontrading states. Second,
trading states have more precise information about their opponent's costs
than do nontrading states. Although theoretically, these are different processes
relating trade to conflict, the empirical implications of these independent effects are
observationally equivalent. Trade should decrease the probability of conflict. I
construct a simple bargaining model to illustrate formally my argument. I evaluate
the credibility of the formal model with a Bayesian heteroskedastic probit estimator.
My results suggest that economic interdependence mitigates the effect of
uncertainty, and this leads to an enhanced probability of settlement short of
militarized conflict. I also show that trade is related to heterogeneity in conflict data.
This heterogeneity is a possible explanation for the null findings in some of the
published papers that examine the trade and conflict puzzle
Capitalism K
Capitalism K
are faced with some simple realities. The first is that we now live in a world
that is increasingly economically multi-polar. One billion new workers have
entered the global labor force in the space of just two decades in the world. In
those 20-odd years, China has risen from a country with which the EU traded almost
literally nothing to becoming our biggest trading partner for manufacturers. In some
ways, an older balance of economic power is reasserting itself in the world. In
1830, India and China were the two biggest economies in the world in
1830. By 2050, they will again be amongst the very largest economies in
the world. Of course, this is not the only way of weighing power in the modern
world, far from it. But it is fundamental. And thats in the nature of the
fundamental revolution in economic terms, and also political terms,
therefore, that the world is undergoing. Now, the machinery of what you might
call the Atlantic consensus the World Bank, the IMF, GATT, G7 or G8 was
conceived and rooted in the assumption that the global economic and political order
could and would indeed be governed largely by the Atlantic world. That assumption
now no longer holds. There has been a reorientation from the Atlantic to the Pacific
and beyond. Now, the multilateral institutions that survive, therefore, will be those
ones that are able to adapt to this new 21st century landscape. The second
simple reality that I would identify for you is that economic globalization
means interdependence. This is not simply a question of global supply chains
and production lines. Our open markets are a ladder out of poverty for the
developing world. Their growing markets are a source of growth for us. That is the
fundamental interdependence that links and joins us and our interests together in
the global economy. A world of growing prosperity and economic integration
is a more stable world, even if it doesnt always feel that way Now, for that
reason, multilateral institutions in the multilateral trading system will matter more
than ever in the new global age of the 21st century. There is no going it alone in this
century, in this global age. Interdependence doesnt allow going it alone in the way
that we have tried to practice or imagine it was possible in the past. Our ability to
get things done multilaterally will define the extent to which we can shape
globalization in a way that makes it equitable and sustainable and binds in the big
new players who are emerging in that global economy. It will certainly define the
extent to which we can confront huge pressing problems such as global warming,
migration, nuclear proliferation, and energy security.
213