Jump to content
burninghotcheese

Do Nothing?

Recommended Posts

I've hit teams where the alt to their cap k was 'do nothing'. How does this solve capitalism? They also claimed that they are not advocating socialism, but doing nothing, which confused the hell out of me. Can someone explain this alt to me, and how to beat it?

 

I'm also looking for good answers to the cap k in general. Of course, perm, fw, all that jazz. But what other arguments should I especially be including?

 

And also does anyone have any cards saying that a complete rejection doesn't solve, fails, leads to war, etc?

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol @ http://www.cross-x.com/topic/54933-do-nothing/

Got cut off?

 

Edit for da helpful stuff.. Firstly, some of your best offense can be your case (case is a da to alt and all that jazz, you just have to win a. cap is not root cause/root cause claims bad, b. the perm (with case as a nb), c. better to solve for short term impacts)

 

I run an analytic that I call a "timeframe da" saying that it is better to solve for short timeframe impacts, because overthrowing cap takes too long. 

Remember POSTAL - Perm, Offense (cap good), Solvency, Theory, Alt (offense), Link (hard to win)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you elaborate on the short term impacts, timeframe da stuff?

 

Miro is saying even if the Neg proves that their alt deconstructs capitalism and in doing so solves the root cause of your case, if you have a short-term impact then the fact that the alt simply takes so long (it's trying to get rid of thousands of years' worth of socioeconomic change) that's a reason to prefer your plan/perm simply as a better (faster) mechanism to solve the case harms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do nothing is a very bad alt so hit hard on why doing nothing doesn't solve anything, cap or the case

dude, it's actually really good. That zizek in 04 card is wonders... He says since capitalism engenders its own resistance, we shouldn't succumb to the will to act. That said, lots of teams don't understand it well. 

 

 

 
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do nothing is a very bad alt so hit hard on why doing nothing doesn't solve anything, cap or the case

 

actually, lots of teams have been successful reading that alternative. lots of the criticism of the act of "doing nothing" comes from an overly-literal interpretation of what doing nothing means, and takes the advocacy of the alt out of the context of Zizek's argument in Violence. 

 

Doing nothing is the decision to willfully refuse pragmatic action in the face of the disaster scenarios of the 1AC which, he argues, opens space for criticism of capitalism. A lot of typical 1AC impacts (Hegemonic power struggles, environmental destruction, structural exploitation, etc) can usually be traced back to a system that prioritizes profit. When Zizek says we should "do nothing" he doesn't mean sit around and watch grass grow. Here is a portion of the popular Zizek '8 alt card that people like to read that i think characterizes what the alternative is:

 

"A critical analysis of the present global constellation—one which offers no clear solution, no “practical†advice on what to do, and provides no light at the end of the tunnel, since one is well aware that this light might belong to a train crashing towards us—usually meets with reproach: “Do you mean we should do nothing? Just sit and wait?†One should gather the courage to answer: “YES, precisely that!†There are situations when the only truly “practical†thing to do is to resist the temptation to engage immediately and to “wait and see†by means of a patient, critical analysis. "

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the do nothing alt is extremely stupid. The argument, as I understand it, is that capitalism is inherently unstable, so if we just do nothing, it will allow capitalism to destroy itself.

 

If I face this again, I'd like to ask why we need to destroy capitalism. They'll either say because it's an ethical issue or because it'll prevent terminal extinction. In the latter case, you can spin the following argument: the plan is capitalistic, so we engage in the system. The system is inherently unstable, so that means that we help to destroy capitalism even faster by engaging in it.

 

You could do likewise for the ethics impact, but that's a weirder issue. Their ethics argument will either be that the actions of capitalism are unethical or that the results of capitalism is unethical (deontology versus consequentialism). As such, the neg may spin the argument that any instance of engaging in the system is unethical, even if that instance leads to the ultimate destruction of the system even faster.

 

As for the other part of the question, you should be reading cards about why capitalism is good and why it's inevitable. You may read cards about why capitalism's drive for profit causes people to help each other out (for profit) and why it leads to new technologies that solve environmental problems. There are also specific cards about why doing nothing won't solve anything.

 

It's a bit tough if you run both "cap good" arguments and the preceding argument about why engaging in the system actually helps to destroy capitalism. It may seem like a link turn and an impact turn, so you may want to choose which you want to use for the 2AC beforehand. However, I would make the argument that the alternative is more of a link turn than your arguments. The alternative attempts to give up all of capitalism, including the plan. The plan, on the other hand, tries to use capitalism towards capitalism's destruction, so there's still a net benefit of more capitalism. You can also make the argument, should you need to, that this is a non-unique link turn, so it wouldn't matter.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zizek's latest book has a chapter on the show The Wire that contains an explanation of what it means to "do nothing." I've not seen the other cards, but that one is a good one. He warrants it pretty well there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zizek's latest book

 

I've learned this is a really bad way of referring to any Zizek book you are talking about.

 

Anyway the 'do nothing' alt can refer to many different things. There's like the Herod stuff about withdrawing from cap, Zizek args, etc. Mostly I think they focus on the idea of the coming insurrection, that eventually the people will rise and the specter of communism will reveal itself. Or it could be more about how withdrawing from the social order is key and action only replicates it. It really depends, if you know the specific evidence that would help.

 

And look into the Gibson-Graham card for reasons why total rejection fail.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, lots of teams have been successful reading that alternative. lots of the criticism of the act of "doing nothing" comes from an overly-literal interpretation of what doing nothing means, and takes the advocacy of the alt out of the context of Zizek's argument in Violence. 

 

Doing nothing is the decision to willfully refuse pragmatic action in the face of the disaster scenarios of the 1AC which, he argues, opens space for criticism of capitalism. A lot of typical 1AC impacts (Hegemonic power struggles, environmental destruction, structural exploitation, etc) can usually be traced back to a system that prioritizes profit. When Zizek says we should "do nothing" he doesn't mean sit around and watch grass grow. Here is a portion of the popular Zizek '8 alt card that people like to read that i think characterizes what the alternative is:

 

"A critical analysis of the present global constellation—one which offers no clear solution, no “practical†advice on what to do, and provides no light at the end of the tunnel, since one is well aware that this light might belong to a train crashing towards us—usually meets with reproach: “Do you mean we should do nothing? Just sit and wait?†One should gather the courage to answer: “YES, precisely that!†There are situations when the only truly “practical†thing to do is to resist the temptation to engage immediately and to “wait and see†by means of a patient, critical analysis. "

/thread.

Not only is this the only explanation in this thread that comes close to Zizek's argument, it's also correct.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/thread.

Not only is this the only explanation in this thread that comes close to Zizek's argument, it's also correct.

Oh, first neg rep that I've gotten in a while.

 

First, the original poster made no mention of Zizek. Assuming that all cap Ks [with a "do nothing" alt] have to have Zizek as the author is your fault. This isn't to say that the original poster wasn't referring to Zizek, but you definitely made that assumption absent definitive proof (even moderate evidence).

 

Secondly, I stated that that was my interpretation of it. I have seen the argument as I described, so my interpretation is just as legitimate as yours. The argument that I described was the explanation that was given to me by another team when they ran the cap K against me.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A critical analysis of the present global constellation—one which offers no clear solution, no “practical†advice on what to do, and provides no light at the end of the tunnel, since one is well aware that this light might belong to a train crashing towards us—usually meets with reproach: “Do you mean we should do nothing? Just sit and wait?†One should gather the courage to answer: “YES, precisely that!†There are situations when the only truly “practical†thing to do is to resist the temptation to engage immediately and to “wait and see†by means of a patient, critical analysis. "

 

Aren't the last 250 years a sufficient empirical DA to wait and see?  (ie the same impacts as the K functionally across a number of issues).

 

Lets fix Glass-Stegall now?  Nope...lets wait and see.

 

Lets make sure corporations can't topple politics?  Nope....lets wait and see.

 

Lets stop eating high fructose?  Nope....lets wait and see.

 

Lets stop using corporate products?  Nope.....lets wait and see.

 

Lets stop using gas and use the electric car?  Nope...lets wait and see.

 

Lets stop factory farms?  Nope....lets wait and see.

 

Lets support local?  Nope....lets wait and see.

 

Ad infinitum.

 

Specifics of the aff combined with NO IDEA.......not even close what waiting and seeing in a specific instance will yield.

 

And refusal or inaction is just lip stick on the pig of the status quo.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've learned this is a really bad way of referring to any Zizek book you are talking about.

Probably true. I'm referring to The Year of Dreaming Dangerously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Aren't the last 250 years a sufficient empirical DA to wait and see?  (ie the same impacts as the K functionally across a number of issues).

 

Lets fix Glass-Stegall now?  Nope...lets wait and see.

 

Lets make sure corporations can't topple politics?  Nope....lets wait and see.

 

Lets stop eating high fructose?  Nope....lets wait and see.

 

Lets stop using corporate products?  Nope.....lets wait and see.

 

Lets stop using gas and use the electric car?  Nope...lets wait and see.

 

Lets stop factory farms?  Nope....lets wait and see.

 

Lets support local?  Nope....lets wait and see.

 

Ad infinitum.

 

Specifics of the aff combined with NO IDEA.......not even close what waiting and seeing in a specific instance will yield.

 

And refusal or inaction is just lip stick on the pig of the status quo.

 

Zizek would probably respond with the fact that your "empirical examples" are still stuck in the epistemology of capitalism.  The idea that there are things that "we HAVE to do" or "SHOULD do" in response to these events are what both traps us in the ideology of capital and precludes our ability to fight capitalism.  Whenever we do nothing, it allows us to take a step back and see all our options and how those options interact with capitalism, socialism, communism, etc.

 

Oh, first neg rep that I've gotten in a while.

 

First, the original poster made no mention of Zizek. Assuming that all cap Ks [with a "do nothing" alt] have to have Zizek as the author is your fault. This isn't to say that the original poster wasn't referring to Zizek, but you definitely made that assumption absent definitive proof (even moderate evidence).

 

Secondly, I stated that that was my interpretation of it. I have seen the argument as I described, so my interpretation is just as legitimate as yours. The argument that I described was the explanation that was given to me by another team when they ran the cap K against me.

There is no other "do nothing" alternative that isn't Zizek (or quoting Zizek).  Even if there is another, it is not as prevalent as the Zizek ones.  The assumption was made because it is both more likely for him/her to have heard that alternative and to give him/her the most accurate example of what the argument is.

 

When someone is asking a question to explain an argument, you shouldn't respond if the knowledge you have about the argument is "the explanation that was given to me by another team."  That isn't sufficient knowledge to clarify or explain an argument to someone.  

 

Also, your "interpretation" is both terribly wrong and is definitely not as legitimate as mine (primarily because mine isn't an interpretation, but a factual statement about the argument).  I read these arguments consistently and have immersed myself in this literature.  Don't try to pick a fight just because I neg repped you.  I did to promote the more informative posts, don't take offense to it.  Take it as a message to go read a book or two before you give advice over something you clearly don't have very good knowledge in.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I just want to say that my comment about the neg rep was just an observation. It had very little, if any, bearing on my response to you. My response was meant to justify my position on my interpretation, not to get "revenge" for neg repping me. If that were the case, I would have just neg repped your original comment. Yes, I did neg rep this new comment, #16, but that's because of the language and massively presumptive attitude that you take in your response.

 

Second, yes, there is another "do nothing" alternative that isn't Zizek (I'll get to that in a bit). "Even if there is another, it is not as prevalent as the Zizek ones." So? That's a justification for the assumption, but that's not a reason why the assumption is necessarily correct. My argument is that you could have clarified your initial statement by saying that you were talking only about the Zizek alternative. It's fine to talk about the most popular one, but your assumption actually does shut out other literature unless you clarify it. You may make the argument that "it is both more likely for him/her to have heard that alternative and to give him/her the most accurate example of what the argument is" but the second part is not reliant upon the first. Yes, the point of this thread is to give the best analysis to the original poster, but it depends on what that analysis is of. You automatically assume it's about Zizek.

 

The statement of another team explaining it as such to me isn't my only argument. Yes, I did read the cards that they had, and they did have the argument that I had read. I no longer have the cites of those cards (I'll try to look for them at another time), but from the pieces of evidence that they provided me, it did seem to make that argument.

 

My "interpretation" is not as legitimate as yours? It's one thing to say that my interpretation is wrong, but to say that an interpretation is not as legitimate is to say that my reading is not my own reading. So what if you're well versed in this literature? Does that mean you know of every single piece of information on this topic? Sure, we should definitely defer to you about what you've read. But that does not mean that you've read everything.

 

On to the wrong part. Yes, my interpretation would be very, very wrong if I were talking about the same exact literature as you. My point is that we're not talking about the same thing. The assumption that you initially made, that it's all about Zizek, is the thing that I'm saying is bad. Yes, you're most likely right that it is the most prevalent. That doesn't actually mean anything so long as there are other pieces of literature about "do nothing". Take this as a message that yes, you're right in your area, but there are other areas that exist.

 

I was browsing through some archives on this forum, and this comment speaks to me regarding your position. http://www.cross-x.com/topic/47396-future-of-the-capitalism-kritik/page-2?do=findComment&comment=798824

 

This is my last post on this subject because I feel that we've detracted from the main topic of the original poster. I may very well be acting petty in this, and I'll accept that, but it was in response to your immensely assumptive attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...