Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Historical Materialism is the most common alt against K affs. The Tumino card is pretty popular, and I think it's good

http://www.redcritique.org/spring2001/whatisorthodoxmarxism.htm

 

 

For policy affs, there isn't one right answer. The style of your cap argument matters a lot. Alts are different whether you're reading it as pre-fiat or post-fiat, reformist or non-reformist, state based or anti-state, etc... And it's always good when it's specific to the topic or link. There were good "Globalization from below" alts last year.

 

Herod is a super generic alt, but it's pretty common and it isn't too bad. It's easy to understand and works with most explanations of the K/link

 

Vote negative to refuse to participate in activities which support capitalism.  We must hollow out capitalist structures by refusing to invest our energy in reforms and rescue operations

Herod, Columbia University Graduate and Political Activist, 2004

(James, Getting Free, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/06.htm, JC)

It is time to try to describe, at first abstractly and later concretely, a strategy for destroying capitalism. This strategy, at its most basic, calls for pulling time, energy, and resources out of capitalist civilization and putting them into building a new civilization. The image then is one of emptying out capitalist structures, hollowing them out, by draining wealth, power, and meaning out of them until there is nothing left but shells. This is definitely an aggressive strategy. It requires great militancy, and constitutes an attack on the existing order. The strategy clearly recognizes that capitalism is the enemy and must be destroyed, but it is not a frontal attack aimed at overthrowing the system, but an inside attack aimed at gutting it, while simultaneously replacing it with something better, something we want. Thus capitalist structures (corporations, governments, banks, schools, etc.) are not seized so much as simply abandoned. Capitalist relations are not fought so much as they are simply rejected. We stop participating in activities that support (finance, condone) the capitalist world and start participating in activities that build a new world while simultaneously undermining the old. We create a new pattern of 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 think that we could create a whole new world of decent social arrangements overnight, in the midst of a crisis, during a so-called revolution, or during the collapse of capitalism, is foolhardy. Our new social world must grow within the old, and in opposition to it, until it is strong enough to dismantle and abolish capitalist relations. Such a revolution will never happen automatically, blindly, determinably, because of the inexorable, materialist laws of history. It will happen, and only happen, because we want it to, and because we know what we’re doing and know how we want to live, and know what obstacles have to be overcome before we can live that way, and know how to distinguish between our social patterns and theirs. But we must not think that the capitalist world can simply be ignored, in a live and let live attitude, while we try to build new lives elsewhere. (There is no elsewhere.) There is at least one thing, wage-slavery, that we can’t simply stop participating in (but even here there are ways we can chip away at it). 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 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. We must always keep in mind how we became slaves; then we can see more clearly how we can cease being slaves. We were forced into wage-slavery because the ruling class slowly, systematically, and brutally destroyed our ability to live autonomously. By driving us off the land, changing the property laws, destroying community rights, destroying our tools, imposing taxes, destroying our local markets, and so forth, we were forced onto the labor market in order to survive, our only remaining option being to sell, for a wage, our ability to work. It’s quite clear then how we can overthrow slavery. We must reverse this process. We must begin to reacquire the ability to live without working for a wage or buying the products made by wage-slaves (that is, we must get free from the labor market and the way of living based on it), and embed ourselves instead in cooperative labor and cooperatively produced goods. Another clarification is needed. This strategy does not call for reforming capitalism, for changing capitalism into something else. It calls for replacing capitalism, totally, with a new civilization. This is an important distinction, because capitalism has proved impervious to reforms, as a system. We can sometimes in some places win certain concessions from it (usually only temporary ones) and win some (usually short-lived) improvements in our lives as its victims, but we cannot reform it piecemeal, as a system. Thus our strategy of gutting and eventually destroying capitalism requires at a minimum a totalizing image, an awareness that we are attacking an entire way of life and replacing it with another, and not merely reforming one way of life into something else. Many people may not be accustomed to thinking about entire systems and social orders, but everyone knows what a lifestyle is, or a way of life, and that is the way we should approach it. The thing is this: in order for capitalism to be destroyed millions and millions of people must be dissatisfied with their way of life. They must want something else and see certain existing things as obstacles to getting what they want. It is not useful to think of this as a new ideology. It is not merely a belief-system that is needed, like a religion, or like Marxism, or Anarchism. Rather it is a new prevailing vision, a dominant desire, an overriding need. What must exist is a pressing desire to live a certain way, and not to live another way. If this pressing desire were a desire to live free, to be autonomous, to live in democratically controlled communities, to participate in the self-regulating activities of a mature people, then capitalism could be destroyed. Otherwise we are doomed to perpetual slavery and possibly even to extinction. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, but what if the policy aff has magnitude impacts of say, economic decline to extinction or environmental collapse to extinction. How would you argue that simply voting negative to "hollow" out capitalism solves for these when the timeframe is much shorter than waiting for an anti capitalist movement after abandoning capitalist structures 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, but what if the policy aff has magnitude impacts of say, economic decline to extinction or environmental collapse to extinction. How would you argue that simply voting negative to "hollow" out capitalism solves for these when the timeframe is much shorter than waiting for an anti capitalist movement after abandoning capitalist structures 

Win that their impact isn't existential and that structural violence outweighs, win that alt solvency is fast, win that cap is unsustainable and turns their impacts, or win a framework that doesn't let them access their impacts.  Pretty much every cap alt runs into the problem of being unlikely to solve, and certainly unlikely to solve any time soon, so you need to make that a less relevant part of the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Herod alternative is possibly the worst alternative you can read for cap. I believe this line of questioning renders the alternative useless:

Is debate a capitalist structure?

If Yes, How can you hollow it out, take everything away from it, if the 1NC just participated in these same structures?

Besides that, Herod is incredibly unqualified compared to someone like Marsh, Foster, Meszaros, etc.

Edited by BobbyS
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best all around alternative is the do nothing Zizek 08 (Violence) with Zizek and Daly 04 as the impact card because ethics is super responsive to both k affs and policy affs. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best all around alternative is the do nothing Zizek 08 (Violence) with Zizek and Daly 04 as the impact card because ethics is super responsive to both k affs and policy affs. 

I'm pretty sure any reasonable team running a K Aff would explain why their criticism necessarily precedes capitalism and/or the thing they critique is the root cause of capitalism.

 

For example, saying that rejecting Cap is the only ethical option would be problematic for an Anti-Blackness AFF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best all around alternative is the do nothing Zizek 08 (Violence) with Zizek and Daly 04 as the impact card because ethics is super responsive to both k affs and policy affs.

 

Do nothing is far from the best alternative. You can access ethics arguments with any kind of ethical rejection/epistemology argument and avoid the epitome of hand waving for K alts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do nothing is far from the best alternative. You can access ethics arguments with any kind of ethical rejection/epistemology argument and avoid the epitome of hand waving for K alts.

Please explain hand waving

Edited by Payton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just seeing those gnomes upon opening up the website gave Bryant huge new-found respect from me lol

 

HE EVEN LINKED THE VIDEO LOL I'M DYING OF LAUGHTER LOL

 

"Oh I get it" - Cartman

 

"No you don't fat-ass" - Stan 

 

LOL - sorry I'm still a teenager after-all

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Zizek and Daly 04 evidence is overrated tbh - I see it in EVERY anti-cap K Aff (bad ones, that is) and in every (bad) Cap K shell

 

There are way better arguments you can make regarding capitalism and ethics

I actually really like it. The argument also works pretty solidly at the "ethics first" level because it claims capitalism is the constitutive antagonism of violent social relations - which, if conceded, means the alt comes first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually really like it. The argument also works pretty solidly at the "ethics first" level because it claims capitalism is the constitutive antagonism of violent social relations - which, if conceded, means the alt comes first.

Giroux writes a lot of good stuff on capitalism and ethics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giroux writes a lot of good stuff on capitalism and ethics

eh, from my reading, his ethics are more attached to teaching and pedagogy than cap, all his stuff is more kickass framework cards than cap and ethics impacts (although i suppose "politics of disposability" would apply).

 

I will say that Freire's got a couple dece ethics cards against cap/neolib, i read one as my ethics impact for neolib last year.

Edited by SubcomandanteMarcos
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Friere ethics cards?

Oh, definitely. This is the only one I cut cuz it was all i needed, but i'm sure there's more, and probably better, cards later in the book.

the judge as a teacher has an ethical responsibility to reject neoliberalism- it’s the only ethical ballot in the round

Freire ’98 (Paulo Freire, Brazilian educator and philosopher, leader in critical pedagogy, he literally wrote the book on pedagogy; “Pedagogy of Freedom”; Pgs. 4-5; 1998; Published by Rowman & Littlefield)JFIII

 

I would like to underline what I consider to be for teachers our ethical responsibility in the exercise of our¶ profession. And this ap-plies also to those who are, at present, in the course of preparingthemselves to be teachers. This small book is permeated by and cut across with the total sense of the nature of ethics that is inherent in all forms of educational practice, especially as this practice pertainsto the preparation of teachers. Teacher preparation should never bereduced to a form of training. Rather, teacher preparation should go beyond the technical preparation of teachers and be rooted in the ethical formation both of selves and of history. But it is important to be clear that I am speaking not about a restricted kind of ethics that shows obedience only to the law of profit. Namely, the ethics of the market. It seems that there is now a global tendency to accept the crucial implications of the New World Order¶ as natural and inevi-table. One of the speakers at a recent international meeting of non- governmental organizations (NGOs) reports of hearing an opinion,frequently bandied about in the first world, that third world chil-dren suffering from acute diarrhea ought not be saved because we would only prolong lives destined for misery and suffering. Obvi-ously, I am not speaking of that kind of ethics. On the contrary, I am speaking of a universal human ethic, an ethic that is not afraid to condemn the kind of ideological discourse I have just cited. Not afraid to condemn the exploitation of labor and the manipulation that makes a rumor into truth and truth into a mere rumor. To con- demn the fabrication of illusions, in which the unprepared become hopelessly trapped and the weak and the defenseless are destroyed. To condemn making promises when one has no intention of keepingone's word, which causes lying to become an almost necessary way of life. To condemn the calumny of character assassination simply for the joy of it and the fragmentation of the utopia of human solidarity. The ethic of which I speak is that which feels itself betrayed and neglected by the hypocritical perversion of an elitist purity, an ethic affronted by racial, sexual, and class discrimination. For the sake of this ethic, which is inseparable from educative practice, we should struggle, whether our work is with children, youth, or adults. The best way to struggle for this ethic is to live it in our educative practice, in our relations with our students, in the way we deal with the contents of what we teach, and in the way we quote from au thors-both those we agree with and those we do not. We cannot criticize an author unless we actually know his or her work. To base acriticism merely on ideas about the author gleaned from the book cover is an insult.I may not agree with a given pedagogical theory of this or that author, and, of course, I ought to make my students aware of thedisagreement. But what I cannot do in my criticism is lie to them. The education of the teacher should be so ethically grounded that any gap between professional and ethical formation is to be deplored. We should devote ourselves humbly but perseveringly to our profession in all its aspects: scientific formation, ethical rectitude, respect for others, coherence, a capacity to live with and learn from what is different, and an ability to relate to others without letting our ill- humor or our antipathy get in the way of our balanced judgment of the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually really like it. The argument also works pretty solidly at the "ethics first" level because it claims capitalism is the constitutive antagonism of violent social relations - which, if conceded, means the alt comes first.

But that's not tied into the Zizek alt of doing nothing, since I fail to see how trying to start the revolution or whatever wouldn't also be encapsulated under the ethics of refusal. The thing is that the Zizek alt is basically like Lukacs, (the revolution will only come when “...[people] attempt to comprehend the process or to rebel against its disastrous effects and liberate themselves from servitude to the ‘second nature’ so created.”). The problem is that this provides no actual mechanism for carrying out this rebellion. Sure, you can make an 'a-priori' claim, but this still seems really vacuous and ignores (perhaps a pessimistic outlook) on the reality of social construction as it stands today. Sure, there might be some exploitation of workers by the bourgeoisie, but it's highly unlikely that we're actually going to see a proletariat uprising and just sitting around wishing upon your lucky star that something is going to happen just seems like political apathy at best. At this point there's two options really, reform or revolution. Revolution is historically unsuccessful, and as that Bryant article points out, unlikely to have answers to the issues that face the globe today. When we look at countries that attempted to move away from capitalism in the industrialized world, we see that they either revert to capitalism (Russia, China, Cuba is moving that way) or have broad societal and economic structural problems (Venezuela). This suggests that reform is the most pragmatic solution, especially with the historical precedent when looking at the shift after the gilded age. All of this can be cross applied to the debate sphere through the perm, of course, but really there just needs to be some more concrete alternatives proposed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×