Jump to content
Henry

"State prevents capitalist expanse" card

Recommended Posts

Hey,

I'm having trouble getting some cards talking about how the state's regulations prevent capitalist expansion. I need help finding authors. Any cards or authors would help. Thanks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they don't. 

 

Well, not usually. Hardcore "communist" nations like Cuba or North Korea act as examples that fairly well "prove" that. 

 

I'd look at Chomsky's work off the top of my head for an exact author, but I'm not super well versed in his work. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look to chomsky then you will probably find a lot of evidence that indicts our current system. I know that's counter to what you're looking for, but I really do enjoy chomsky. The prosperous few and the restless many is a fantastic example of how the state actually spreads capitalism and exacerbates the impacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to get Link defense or regulations good specific to your aff or aff area on the oceans topic because saying regulations good in the abstract would get taken out by a specific link, and the argument could be a good DA to the Alt 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey,

I'm having trouble getting some cards talking about how the state's regulations prevent capitalist expansion. I need help finding authors. Any cards or authors would help. Thanks :)

Look for specific policy link turns rather than generic link turns. "The state's action here prevents capitalist expansion - no link and turn - proves their generic link is untrue because the state can act outside of capitalist interests" <card about the aff>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look to chomsky then you will probably find a lot of evidence that indicts our current system. I know that's counter to what you're looking for, but I really do enjoy chomsky. The prosperous few and the restless many is a fantastic example of how the state actually spreads capitalism and exacerbates the impacts.

Well Chomsky certainly indicts current USFG policies for maliciously spreading capitalism, he has also noted the power of the state to curb the excesses of private power.  Therefore, Chomsky would supports many regulatory actions by the state (like the CFPB, the FDA, OSHA, etc.) because they can protect society from private power.

 

That being said, many if not most affs on this topic support capitalism in a way that most leftist authors find negative, and Snarf is correct that you should look for specific link turns cause you'll get fucked on generic shit

 

Here are some free cards

 

 

5. The state is good – state-phobia is the status quo and its enabling neo-liberal takeover – reduction of the state causes market fascism

Jodi Dean, professor of political theory at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, citing Michel Foucault, 1-8-2009, “The Birth of Biopolitics (4.1): State-phobia redux,” I Cite, http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2009/01/the-birth-of-biopolitics-4-statephobia-and-us-neoliberalism.html

c.   The third inflationary mechanism is 'the elision of actuality.' What is striking in Foucault's discussion here is both his psychoanalytic language and the hints that he might have in mind a direct critique of Deleuze (and Guattari, I think from 1000 Plateaus? It was originally published the following year, 1980, so presumably the arguments were in the air). The third factor, the third inflationary mechanism, which seems to me to be characteristic of this type of analysis, is that it enables one to avoid paying the price of reality and actuality inasmuch as, in the name of this dynamism of the state, something like a kinship or danger, something like the great fantasy of the paranoiac and devouring state can always be found. To this extent, ultimately it hardly matters what one's grasp of reality is or what profile of actuality reality presents. It is enough, through suspicion and, as Francois Ewald would say, 'denunciation,' to find something like the fantastical profile of the state and there is no longer and need to analyze actuality. [a few pages later] what I think we should not do is imagine we are describing a real, actual process concerning ourselves when we denounce the growth of state control, or the state becoming fascist, or the establishment of state violence, and so on. All those who share in the great state phobia should know that they are following the direction of the wind and that in fact, for years and years, an effective reduction of the state has been on the way . . .I am saying that we should not delude ourselves by attributing to the state itself a process of becoming fascist which is actually exogenous and due much more to the state's reduction and dislocation. Differently put, Foucault is accusing the state-phobics of indulging in paranoid delusions. A fantasy of the state as a devouring (mother) Thing stands in for an actual analysis of the mechanisms, flows, movements, and effects that are the state. The state is not expanding--other governmentalities are expanding, spreading, intensifying. d. State-phobics avoid considering the 'real source of this kind of anti-state suspicion.' It's not new in the 60s and 70s. It was already in play in . The 'real source' is neoliberalism-ordoliberalism and its internal debates and efforts to establish itself: You find this critique of the polymorphous, omnipresent, and all-powerful state in these years when, liberalism or neoliberalism, or even more precisely, ordoliberalism was engaged in distinguishing itself from the Keynesian critique and at the same time undertaking the critique of the New Deal and Popular Front policies of state control and intervention...or, in a word, of socialism generally. 4. In contrast to the inflationary critique of the state, Foucault presents the following theses: a. The welfare state has neither the same form or root or origin of the Nazi, fascist, or Stalinist state. b. The characteristic feature of the 'totalitarian' state is a limitation or subordination of the autonomy of the state in relation to the party. This means, then, that the characteristic feature of the totalitarian state is a non-state governmentality, again, the governmentality of the party. c. The state is not expanding; it is being reducing. The other form of reduction (in addition to the party) is in the attempt to find a liberal governmentality (such as the attempt of the ordoliberals).

 

 

The state might get a bad rap from the aff but it isn’t nearly as bad as they make it out to be. Discourses of the law’s violent underside obscures its potential to be used for good   

Jacques Derrida, Directeur d’Etudes at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris, and Professor of Philosophy, French and Comparative Literature at the University of California, Irvine, 2004, For What Tomorrow? A Dialogue With Elisabeth Roudinesco, p. 91-92

J.D.: A moment ago you spoke of regicide as the necessity of an ex­ception, in sum. Well, yes, one can refer provisionally to Carl Schmitt (whatever one may think of him, his arguments are always useful for prob­lematizing the “political” or the “juridical”; I examined this question in Pol­itics of Friendship). He says in effect that a sovereign is defined by his capacity to decide the exception. Sovereign is he who effectively decides the exception. The revolutionaries decided that at that moment that it was nec­essary to suspend justice and—in order to establish the law [droit] and to give the Revolution its rights—to suspend the rule of law [l’Etat de droit]. Schmitt also gives this definition of sovereignty: to have the right to sus­pend the law, or the rule of law, the constitutional state. Without this cate­gory of exception, we cannot understand the concept of sovereignty. Today, the great question is indeed, everywhere, that of sovereignty. Omnipresent in our discourses and in our axioms, under its own name or another, liter­ally or figuratively, this concept has a theological origin: the true sovereign is God. The concept of this authority or of this power was transferred to the monarch, said to have a “divine right.” Sovereignty was then delegated to the people, in the form of democracy, or to the nation, with the same the­ological attributes as those attributed to the king and to God. Today, wher­ever the word “sovereignty” is spoken, this heritage remains undeniable, whatever internal differentiation one may recognize in it. How do we deal with this? Here we return to the question of heritage with which we began. It is necessary to deconstruct the concept of sover­eignty, never to forget its theological filiation and to be ready to call this fil­iation into question wherever we discern its effects. This supposes an in­flexible critique of the logic of the state and of the nation-state. And yet—hence the enormous responsibility of the citizen and of the heir in general, in certain situations—the state, in its actual form, can resist cer­tain forces that I consider the most threatening. What I here call “responsibility” is what dictates the decision to be sometimes for the sovereign state and sometimes against it, for its deconstruction (“theoretical and practical,” as one used to say) according to the singularity of the contexts and the stakes. There is no relativism in this, no renunciation of the injunction to “think” and to deconstruct the heritage. This aporia is in truth the very condition of decision and responsibility—if there is any. I am thinking for example of the incoherent but organized coalition of international capitalist forces that, in the name of neoliberalism or the market,31 are taking hold of the world in conditions such as the “state” form; this is what can still resist the most. For the moment. But it is neces­sary to reinvent the conditions of resistance. Once again, I would say that according to the situations, I am an antisovereignist or a sovereignistand I vindicate the right to be antisovereignist at certain times and a sovereignist at others. No one can make me respond to this question as though it were a matter of pressing a button on some old-fashioned machine. There are cases in which I would support a logic of the state, but I ask to examine each situation before making any statement. It is also necessary to recognize that by requiring someone to be not unconditionally sovereignist but rather soyvereignist only under certain conditions, one is already calling into question the principle of sovereignty. Deconstruction begins there. It demands a dif­ficult dissociation, almost impossible but indispensable, between uncondi­tionality (justice without power) and sovereignty (right, power, or potency). Deconstruction is on the side of unconditionaliry, even when it seems im­possible, and not sovereignty, even when it seems possible.

Edited by feldsy
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Derrida card is really, really good. 

 

Here's a cap specific no link + offense. It was tagged back when I was a sophomore in college, so forgive the wordy tagline.

 

Perm Do The Plan As A Recognition of Affirmative Alterity While Rejecting Capitalism. Capitalism is not monolithic as their K implies. Instead, we should affirm everyday experiences of alterity and smaller actions like the plan as a way to create ethical connections and cultivate subjectivities not already-interpolated by capital – supercharging our link turns. Their K links back to itself – discourse of capitalism as penetrating every aspect of life makes it sustainable.

Hui, 2004 (Po-Keung, Assistant Professor Department of Cultural Studies at Lingnan University, “Remaking Citizenship in Hong Kong: Community, p217-223)

They have worked as a group since 1997 consisting of “members who hoped to become desiring economic subjects of a ‘socialist’ sort” (CEC 2001: 94). They do not see the economy and capitalism as a monotonous entity; for them to call the economy capitalist is to engage in “categorical violence.” As a result, it is desirable to develop new languages “to represent noncapitalist forms of economy (including ones we might value and desire) as existing and emerging, and as possible to create” (ibid.: 95). Their cultivation of alternative economic subjectivities is realized essentially through creating a new economic language and by rearticulating it with existing economic processes. For them, many of the diverse everyday activities of ordinary people, such as community and ecological services, household management, voluntary and religious works, can be seen as diverse “economic practices” but they are disqualified as “non-economic” by mainstream economic language and are thus marginalized as secondary or insignificant. In order to reclaim their centrality in the economy, Gibson-Graham develops a typology that regards these practices as economic (but not capitalist) activities.3 In other words, what Gibson-Graham advocates is to broaden and to open up the meaning of the economy, instead of reducing everything into a narrowly defined economistic domain. To cultivate a “desiring economic subject” of a “socialist sort” requires integrating two apparently contradictory ethical principles. The first is conventionally associated with the economic domain: being an autonomous self that is independent, free and assertive. The second is considered to fall into the communal domain: being a communal subject who is caring, willing to share and is concerned with collective welfare. To reconcile these seemingly contradictory principles, the meanings of “economic” and “community” have to be reconsidered. On the one hand, the homogenizing and exclusive tendencies that limit or even suppress community members’ freedom and autonomy have to be avoided, and the meaning of “community” could just as well be understood in terms of difference. On the other hand, to balance the selfish, indifferent, and atomizing tendencies of individualism, the economic subject can be re¬conceptualized as mutually respecting and supportive subjects who are able to maintain feelings of common interest and sympathy but at the same time to keep a critical distance from communal cohesion and domina¬tion. In Hong Kong, as elsewhere, unlike other keywords with contested meanings (perhaps the most notable one is “globalization”), the term community” is rarely used unfavorably. Rebuilding community is an acceptable political agenda for almost all social forces differentially located along political spectrums, from conservatives to liberals to the rad¬icals. This is particularly true in this current recession period in which the community is increasingly accepted as an alternative to the malfunction¬ing market economy and the retreating state. Yet in light of the not-always-positive experiences of various kinds of community projects in the past, it is still worthwhile to swim against the current in order to rethink the meaning of community before endorsing its liberation potential. What is a “community”? The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines a community as:  I. A body of individuals: 1. The commons as opposed to peers etc.; the common people. 2. An organized political, municipal, or social body; a body of people living in the same locality; a body of people having religion, profession, etc., in common; a body of nations unified by common interests. 3. A monastic, socialistic, etc. body of people living together and holding goods in common. II. A quality or state: 4. The state of being shared or held in common; joint ownership or liability. 5. A common character, an agreement, an identity. 6. Social inter¬course; communion; fellowship, sense of common identity. 7. Com¬monness, ordinary occurrence. 8. Life in association with others; society; the social state. In other words, in addition to its connotation of its detachment from the state and its difference from “peers” or those of rank, “community” often connotes “commonness,~~ “sameness~~ or even “oneness.” From the nine¬teenth century onwards, “community” has become a term that implies “experiments in an alternative kind of group-living,” whose constituency is always disadvantaged populations. The term has increasingly detached from national politics and official social welfare provision, and come closer to denote “working directly with people” (Williams 1976: 75—76). To many social activists, the ideal “communal subject” is one who actively shapes his/her own future by engaging in various communal relationships, promoting shared interests and constructing common identities. Yet in light of past negative experiences of various kinds of community projects, such as the exclusive tendencies of the community and its restric¬tion of individual autonomy and freedom, the term “community” has increasingly been rethought in recent socio-cultural studies. When community is understood as a geographically bounded locality with the following characteristics: intimacy, immediacy, reciprocity, transparency, assimilation, shared interests, shared identities and local autonomy, it is often used as a (utopian) political model that could serve as an alternative to both the atomizing individualism and a panoptical surveillant state. Yet in a cosmopolitan setting such as contemporary Hong Kong, communities are inevitably border-crossing. Shared or common interests with a particu¬lar group/community are always partial. Even in a given geographical locality, it is not easy to put different groups of persons together by assign¬ing them a common identity, as the interests of different ethnic, gender, income and age-groups are very diverse. Elaborating Iris Young’s critical notion of community, Jeannie Martin (Martin and O’Loughlin 2002) nicely argues that the model of a small neighborhood that celebrates face-to-face relations is inadequate to mediate among strangers and their unas¬similated differences. Moreover, this model of community that privileges commonness and sameness is blind to adverse political consequences such as exclusiveness and intolerance of difference. Hence, as Martin argues, broader networks such as administrative, political, economic, cultural ones are crucial to communal projects in complex societies, for without these networks the democratic and inclusive encountering of strangers will be impossible. That is why Martin believes that community develop¬ment should be understood largely as cultural work or cultural mediation that aims at constructively handling “constellations of meanings, practices, identifications.” What Young and Martin proposed could be framed as the “community of difference.” As Cameron and Gibson (2001: 17) suggest, “communities of difference” are nothing but “fluid process [es] of moving between moments of sameness and difference, between being fixed and ‘in place’ and becoming something new and ‘out of place.”’ This opens up a possibility, though not easy to realize, of reconciling the apparent contradiction between communal relationships and independence/freedom of the individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this too

Harman, 2k6

Chris, International Socialism, “The state and capitalism today”, http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=234 accessed Aug 6

 

Poulantzas argued that this was to see a merely contingent relationship between the state and capitalism, to see the state’s character as depending simply on who manned its top structures. He argued what has been called the ‘functional’ view: the state has to fulfil the needs of the society of which it is part; since this is a capitalist society it is necessarily a capitalist state. The state is, as Poulantzas puts it, ‘a condensate of class forces’, and the forces it ‘condenses’ are capitalist forces.4 Despite their apparent opposition to each other, both Miliband’s and Poulantzas’ views can lead to the conclusion that the capitalist state can be used to reform capitalist society. If it is the character of its personnel that guarantees the capitalist nature of the state, then changing the personnel could change the character of the state, allowing it to be used for socialist purposes. If the state is a function of the society of which it is part, then if that society is racked by deep class struggles, these would find their expression through the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The permutation solves best - neoliberal institutions and market mechanisms can be used against themselves - the alt’s refusal of state and market engagement makes reductions in structural violence impossible

Ferguson, Professor of Anthropology at Stanford, 11

(James, The Uses of Neoliberalism, Antipode, Vol. 41, No. S1, pp 166–184)

 

If we are seeking, as this special issue of Antipode aspires to do, to link our critical analyses to the world of grounded political struggle—not only to interpret the world in various ways, but also to change it—then there is much to be said for focusing, as I have here, on mundane, real- world debates around policy and politics, even if doing so inevitably puts us on the compromised and reformist terrain of the possible, rather than the seductive high ground of revolutionary ideals and utopian desires. But I would also insist that there is more at stake in the examples I have discussed here than simply a slightly better way to ameliorate the miseries of the chronically poor, or a technically superior method for relieving the suffering of famine victims.¶ My point in discussing the South African BIG campaign, for instance, is not really to argue for its implementation. There is much in the campaign that is appealing, to be sure. But one can just as easily identify a series of worries that would bring the whole proposal into doubt. Does not, for instance, the decoupling of the question of assistance from the issue of labor, and the associated valorization of the “informal”, help provide a kind of alibi for the failures of the South African regime to pursue policies that would do more to create jobs? Would not the creation of a basic income benefit tied to national citizenship simply exacerbate the vicious xenophobia that already divides the South African poor,¶ in a context where many of the poorest are not citizens, and would thus not be eligible for the BIG? Perhaps even more fundamentally, is the idea of basic income really capable of commanding the mass support that alone could make it a central pillar of a new approach to distribution? The record to date gives powerful reasons to doubt it. So far, the technocrats’ dreams of relieving poverty through efficient cash transfers have attracted little support from actual poor people, who seem to find that vision a bit pale and washed out, compared with the vivid (if vague) populist promises of jobs and personalistic social inclusion long offered by the ANC patronage machine, and lately personified by Jacob Zuma (Ferguson forthcoming).¶ My real interest in the policy proposals discussed here, in fact, has little to do with the narrow policy questions to which they seek to provide answers. For what is most significant, for my purposes, is not whether or not these are good policies, but the way that they illustrate a process through which specific governmental devices and modes of reasoning that we have become used to associating with a very particular (and conservative) political agenda (“neoliberalism”) may be in the process of being peeled away from that agenda, and put to very different uses. Any progressive who takes seriously the challenge I pointed to at the start of this essay, the challenge of developing new progressive arts of government, ought to find this turn of events of considerable interest.¶ As Steven Collier (2005) has recently pointed out, it is important to question the assumption that there is, or must be, a neat or automatic fit between a hegemonic “neoliberal” political-economic project (however that might be characterized), on the one hand, and specific “neoliberal” techniques, on the other. Close attention to particular techniques (such as the use of quantitative calculation, free choice, and price driven by supply and demand) in particular settings (in Collier’s case, fiscal and budgetary reform in post-Soviet Russia) shows that the relationship between the technical and the political-economic “is much more polymorphous and unstable than is assumed in much critical geographical work”, and that neoliberal technical mechanisms are in fact “deployed in relation to diverse political projects and social norms” (2005:2).¶ As I suggested in referencing the role of statistics and techniques for pooling risk in the creation of social democratic welfare states, social technologies need not have any essential or eternal loyalty to the political formations within which they were first developed. Insurance rationality at the end of the nineteenth century had no essential vocation to provide security and solidarity to the working class; it was turned to that purpose (in some substantial measure) because it was available, in the right place at the right time, to be appropriated for that use. Specific ways of solving or posing governmental problems, specific institutional and intellectual mechanisms, can be combined in an almost infinite variety of ways, to accomplish different social ends. With social, as with any other sort of technology, it is not the machines or the mechanisms that decide what they will be used to do.¶ Foucault (2008:94) concluded his discussion of socialist government- ality by insisting that the answers to the Left’s governmental problems require not yet another search through our sacred texts, but a process of conceptual and institutional innovation. “f there is a really socialist governmentality, then it is not hidden within socialism and its texts. It cannot be deduced from them. It must be invented”. But invention in the domain of governmental technique is rarely something worked up out of whole cloth. More often, it involves a kind of bricolage (Le ́vi- Strauss 1966), a piecing together of something new out of scavenged parts originally intended for some other purpose. As we pursue such a process of improvisatory invention, we might begin by making an inventory of the parts available for such tinkering, keeping all the while an open mind about how different mechanisms might be put to work, and what kinds of purposes they might serve. If we can go beyond seeing in “neoliberalism” an evil essence or an automatic unity, and instead learn to see a field of specific governmental techniques, we may be surprised to find that some of them can be repurposed, and put to work in the service of political projects very different from those usually associated with that word. If so, we may find that the cabinet of governmental arts available to us is a bit less bare than first appeared, and that some rather useful little mechanisms may be nearer to hand than we thought.

  • Upvote 1

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...