Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello, Cross-X. I am wanting to try some minor K debate so that I can have a better understanding of what I will be facing at Nat Quals. I was directed at either learning Anthro or Cap, so I choose Cap 'cause Anthro is really generic and not very strong in round. Simply put, my partner would waste his breath in the 1NC and the K wouldn't make it past the 2NC. However, I am pretty new to CX, and don't completely understand how a K functions in round. So, my question is how do you correctly run a K and where do I need to go to get more understanding on Cap Bad. Any additional info would be helpful. Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, Cross-X. I am wanting to try some minor K debate so that I can have a better understanding of what I will be facing at Nat Quals. I was directed at either learning Anthro or Cap, so I choose Cap 'cause Anthro is really generic and not very strong in round. Simply put, my partner would waste his breath in the 1NC and the K wouldn't make it past the 2NC. However, I am pretty new to CX, and don't completely understand how a K functions in round. So, my question is how do you correctly run a K and where do I need to go to get more understanding on Cap Bad. Any additional info would be helpful. Thanks in advance.

1. cap is far more generic than anthro

2. Any K is only ever as strong as you make it in round - if you don't want to run anthro thats totally fine, but if these are your only qualms with it then they aren't very strong because a cap k can just as easily be overlooked as anthro in a round if its run poorly - it all comes down to how you run it

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tell spurlock anthro is a waste of breathe 

did spurlock go for anthro against Harraway? Props to anyone who wins anthro against a critical ecofem aff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is only true if you do zero research. Cap has far more specific links than anthro.

I meant generic in terms of its applicability to all arguments. Any aff that isn't a 100% anti-capitalism aff, links to the cap k. However, an aff doesn't need to be a critique of anthropocentrism to not link - there is a greater range of arguments that an anthro k would not apply to. (or would have its offense heavily and strategically mitigated against ie. warming affs)

 

-that said, i don't really see how cap has more specific links than anthro regardless. For a generic ocean exploration aff (nopp for example), i dont see how cap would have any more 'specific' of a link than anthro. I'm not so much trying to defend the position that anthro has more specific links, as much as asking for an example of how cap is more specific

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken. Where do I need to go to read up on Anthro literature? And how do I run Anthro?

The real point here is that a kritik is about as persuasive as you make it. Both capitalism and anthropocentrism are fairly generic kritik arguments, but that doesn't necessarily make either bad arguments. It really depends upon how you handle it in round.

 

First, here's a note on debating "generic" arguments. http://the3nr.com/2012/10/08/common-mistakes/ The second point from there is, succinctly, that the more generic the argument, the more prepared you have to be if you are going to win it. You need to understand that people are going to be fairly well prepared to debate the generic K because they hear it a lot. You need to be better.

 

 

Since it sounds as though you're new to K's in general, I'll give a brief overview of their structure. For the 1NC, they're usually composed of a link, an impact, and then an alternative (in that order). There are people who object to this comparison, but it's useful to think of it as a combination of a disad (minus uniqueness) and a counterplan. The alternative (the part that corresponds to the counterplan) is an "action" that "generates uniqueness".

 

I'm definitely not going to say that I'm an expert on either capitalism, but I think that I can give a decent overview (that's not too long for a forum post). I'll either let someone else take anthro or do it in a later post.

 

Cap:

 

Thesis - cap is bad, and we need to move away from it. Notice that I didn't say we should move to something else. The main point is getting rid of cap. In an actual debate round, this will take the form of a "reject the aff because it's capitalist" alternative. There are a number of reasons as to why this is, but people usually run these kinds of alternatives because it makes it easier for them to answer perms. Most of the time, the aff action isn't absolutely, intrinsically tied to capitalism, so, theoretically, the aff plan could be done in conjunction with a move towards an alternative system (such as socialism or something else).

 

That really gives you two broad options when you run the cap K. Either have a specific alt and run the risk of a difficult to beat perm or have a reject alt that runs the risk of arguments like "something worse will fill in after capitalism" or "pure rejection gets co-opted". Depending on the alt that you use, you may have awesome answers to the perm. Or you may have awesome answers to the arguments against rejection. It's really up to you which side you want to invest in, but I will say that the more common alt nowadays is rejection.

 

The impacts come in two broad varieties. First, cap causes extinction. Most of the time, this is about resource depletion and environmental destruction. Another way cap may cause extinction is that the ultra-competitive nature of capitalism pits powerful entities (nuclear countries) against one another in the pursuit of wealth. Second, cap destroys value to life. This is discussed further down below.

 

Epistemology - the study of knowledge. Nowadays, people don't think of capitalism as just an economic system. It's also a way of thinking about the world, a way of life. As with any other way of thinking, the capitalistic mindset may be wrong. For instance, a life insurance company probably doesn't care all that much about its policy holders. It mainly thinks of them as "customers" or a source of income. That way of thinking probably also influences how the insurance company acts, how it conducts itself. Is that good? Is that right (in both the ethical and truth sense)? If everything that you do is seen through the lens filter of the profit motive (what people would identify as a capitalistic mindset), then a lot of other things, things that we would usually consider important, will, literally, be filtered out.

 

In the debate, you can indict the aff for using this capitalistic mindset, for having a tainted mind. This really depends upon the round, but I'll give a generic example. The aff wants to increase ocean exploration because it'll acquire resources that will be used to build military equipment, thus maintaining heg. The aff may think that they're being objective, that they're representing the truth. However, the neg can say that they've given into the propaganda of the military-industrial complex. Maybe military companies have been telling the public that we need these resources when, in reality, we don't. Maybe they just want to profit off of the resources. What does this mean for the round? It means that the judge can't trust the aff's claims. It means that the advantages that the aff is trying to weigh against the cap K are suspect, may not be true. In a softer version of the argument, it means the aff's arguments aren't true. In the stronger version, it means that they actually make things worse because they allow for capitalist companies to profit off of these lies and then do the bad things that capitalists do.

 

Further, this could be applied to impact weighing as well, the meta analysis. Why does, say, extinction outweigh quality (value) of life? Maybe it's a capitalist idea that being alive is the most important thing ever because we want to be able to make more money, make more profit in the future. If there's no meaning to money (as the cap k may argue), then why does it matter if we're alive or dead? The capitalist system puts its values into money. The cap K says this is bad because there is no value to money. Thus, if we subscribe to the capitalist vision, then there is no value to life itself.

 

There's a lot more to the cap K, but I feel like I'm getting too long in this post as it is. Most contemporary writers on capitalism speak of it as a system that pervades the mind, and as such, most works on the subject talk about epistemology.

 

It's a really, really, really broad area of discussion (both for debate as well as in the real world), so if you wanted to ask any specific questions, that would be great.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! Thanks Phantom707! I just learned a whole lot. The only major question I have is what does epistemology have to do with the debate round. Furthermore, where is a starter file for Cap K that I can begin working on improving and begin using? Probz gonna be in Open Evidence, but I don't completely understand the format of that database.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! Thanks Phantom707! I just learned a whole lot. The only major question I have is what does epistemology have to do with the debate round. Furthermore, where is a starter file for Cap K that I can begin working on improving and begin using? Probz gonna be in Open Evidence, but I don't completely understand the format of that database.

Go to here, http://openevidence.debatecoaches.org/bin/2014/WebHome, and use the filter to search for "cap". There are a lot of files there that can get you started.

 

You asked what epistemology has to do with the debate round. It all relates to the aff's advantages. If the aff's advantages are epistemically suspect [because they're steeped in capitalism], then the judge shouldn't vote for them. This allows the negative to get a lot of ground because there are, basically, no more aff advantages. If there are no more aff advantages, it's usually an easy win for the neg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to here, http://openevidence.debatecoaches.org/bin/2014/WebHome, and use the filter to search for "cap". There are a lot of files there that can get you started.

 

You asked what epistemology has to do with the debate round. It all relates to the aff's advantages. If the aff's advantages are epistemically suspect [because they're steeped in capitalism], then the judge shouldn't vote for them. This allows the negative to get a lot of ground because there are, basically, no more aff advantages. If there are no more aff advantages, it's usually an easy win for the neg.

I sometimes use Epistemology as a disad to the affirmatives framework arguments - if you're mindset is capitalist, then you're form of pedagogy always already reduces the world around us to use-value and capital to be extracted (so like turn their Education Impact), Giroux talks a lot about how the university space, or pedagogical spaces to be specific, have been co-opted by capitalist rationality and says how its crucial for us to reinvigorate pedagogical spaces as sites of civic democracy (against the capitalist mode of production); anything else leads to cynical politics and the sorts (Insert Deleuze and Parnet in '77 -  "Melancholy negates the will to act")

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side note that's totally pointless: Elysiumeagle, it's either kritik or critique, there is no in between. No permutation because a total withdrawal from cap is key, that's Johnston 4.

Critique and resistance serve only to strengthen the capitalist machine – Vote negative to laugh in the face of exploitation and to conform to the systems imperatives if only to implode it

Leonardo ’03 (Zeus Leonardo has PH.D. in Education, and a B.A. in English, both from UCLA; he is a professor at UC Berkeley. Resisting Capital: Simulationist and Socialist Strategies. Pages )

 

Jean Baudrillard’s (1988a, 1988b, 1981, 1975) early work foreshadowed what would eventually become his official break from Marxism. The System of Objects, Consumer Society, For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign, and The Mirror of Production, all dealt from an arm’s length with Marxist interpretations of society. In these early texts, Baudrillard privileged consumption over production in attempts to understand the social meanings behind production. By prioritizing consumption over production, Baudrillard emphasizes the superstructure over the base in Marxist theory. Baudrillard was part of an intellectual movement – along with Foucault, Derrida, and Lyotard (and later their followers) – searching for new ways to theorize the current conditions of social life characterized by fast capitalism and an even faster technology and communication system. In effect, Baudrillard and many other French theorists coming out of the 1960’s tried to put Marx back onto his superstructural feet. For example, in For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign, Baudrillard tried to institute a revolution through semiotic Marxism by linking exchange and use value with sign value, or the way social meaning conspires with the structural logic of the economic system. Despite his growing disenchantment with classical Marxist categories, Baudrillard was still haunted by Marx’s ghosts and he spent a considerable amount of text deconstructing concepts like labor, value, and history. Considered part of the “discursive turn” in social theory, Baudrillard advanced his assault on Marxist theory by downplaying class struggle and later denigrating economic revolution. Through engagement with discourses on cultural (as opposed to historical) materialism, Baudrillard’s love/hate relationship with Marxism is now purely one of animosity. Simply put, the economic sphere cannot assume its privileged position of alterity because the priority of political economy is jettisoned. Thus, resistance to capitalism seems ironically bourgeois and passé. The economic base is not “the last instance” so it does not require an organic stance from a self-proclaimed theoretical terrorist like Baudrillard. Whereas Antonio Gramsci (1971) encouraged people to become “organic” intellectuals, Baudrillard, following Georges Bataille, adopts the “orgiastic” intellectual, one who functions under the sign of excess and waste, rather than economic production. The proliferation of meaning in the current social formation postmodernizes the economy as a discursive concept that has no inherent privilege over other signifiers, like desire, eroticism, and seduction. And if the capitalist economy is no longer “real” in the theater of semiurgy, then resistance to it is likewise a spurious strategy. For over a century, socialists have resisted capitalist accumulation with the idea of communist production. To Baudrillard, much time has been wasted resisting a system that seems to strengthen as a result of resistance. It is as if capitalism grows as it feeds on minor subversions, like union strikes. On the other hand, the ironic strategy of conforming to the system’s imperatives (what Baudrillard calls “code”) saturates it to the point of collapse, much like a person who overeats only to vomit. So rather than resist, people should assist the consumption of commodities (i.e., the object system) until, like a potlatch, there is no more to consume (Bataille 1997, 1991, 1988, 1985; see also, Richardson 1994; McLaren, Leonardo, and Allen 2000, 1999). However, this does not suggest that social critique is no longer valid. To Baudrillard, critique becomes a form of seduction, not reduction (a common critique of Marxism). Critique is a form of gift that seduces those it engages to respond with greater intensity, not synthesis. Therefore, dialectical materialism is out, excremental materialism is in. The point of critique is not to arrive at deep embedded structures of exploitation on the road to truth and emancipation, but rather, as Bataille might suggest, to laugh excessively and cynically in the face of it all. Critique becomes an exercise of waste rather than production. To Baudrillard, following Bataille, exploitation is not a tragedy but a comedy. And Marxism, as the harbinger of it all, is the biggest show in town. It led people to think that a deep narrative existed as and in the form of history through labor and class struggle, a story to be sure but one that assumed a true world. Taking from Ecclesiastes, Baudrillard (1983a) follows the dictum: “The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth – it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true” (p. 1). And then again: “Whereas representation tries to absorb simulation by interpreting it as false representation, simulation envelops the whole edifice of representation as itself a simulacrum” (p. 11). Following Nietzsche, Baudrillard dismantles any notion of a true, or transcendental world. So what choice is there but to laugh at the suggestion of an uncynical, true world? Contrary to Marxist analysis of workers in the textile industry, one should critique workers as texts. To Baudrillard, critique is much less about emancipation (since this assumes an essence to be liberated) and more about semiotic play and “visions of excess,” of betting even when one has little to wager. At least with betting, one surrenders to the concept of chance, an enchantment lost in rationalist, modernist discourses. Throwing the reality principle off balance with an upper cut, Baudrillard throws a left hook at productivist theories. His knock out punch comes to us in the form of simulation theory. In Baudrillard’s (1994, 1990, 1983b, 1983a, 1979) more recent works, like Simulacra and Simulation, Fatal Strategies, In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities, Simulations, and Seduction, Baudrillard develops a theory of simulation that ushers his concept of hyperreality. As Baudrillard (1983a) puts it, the condition of hyperreality is a fantastic telescoping, a collapsing of the two traditional poles into one another: an IMPLOSION – an absorption of the radiating model of causality, of the differential mode of determination, with its positive and negative electricity – an implosion of meaning. This is where simulation begins::: the possibility of an explosion towards the center. (Pp. 57 and 74; italics in original) The two poles of Marxist dialectics (the proletariat and bourgeoisie) become simulated entities, that is, understood as signs that implode into one another and lose their privileged status. As such, political economy is neither the first cause nor the cause celebre. In simulation theory, the real is no longer a valid concept because the current economy functions through the production (understood as a sign) of copies without an original. That is, postmodern economy loses the notion of identity so dear to modernist understandings of production. The object and all of its daily vicissitudes (e.g., knowledge) are produced for the very reason that they are reproducible. We live in a social formation marked by relations of reproduction, not production. What is lost is a previous era’s sense of aura. Postmodern condition is like a joke with neither punchline nor target. At least with modern jokes, one has appeal to the irony’s other, or the normal case. In Baudrillard’s postmodern sensibilities, all sense of reference collapses. To Fredric Jameson (1988b), postmodern “pastiche” is like parody, the imitation of a peculiar or unique style, the wearing of a stylistic mask, speech in a dead language: but it is a neutral practice of such mimicry, without parody’s ulterior motive, without the satirical impulse, without laughter, without that still latent feeling that there exists something normal compared to which what is being imitated is rather comic. Pastiche is blank parody, parody that has lost its sense of humor. (P. 16; italics in original) To put it another way, Baudrillardean postmodernism is the laughter left in the wake of the disappearance of truth and essence. Humor is lost for the precise reason that it is everywhere; social life is humorous. Postmodern hyperproduction becomes a form of general reproduction of social life so that even ideas are only copies of other ideas that precede them. In popular culture, one only has to count the number of songs that are remakes of previous hits. The singer, Mariah Carey, has little incentive to produce an “original” song if she can make as much, if not more, money by remaking old standby’s, like Michael Jackson’s “I’ll be there.” Since radio stations rarely premise these songs as remakes of an old hit, much of the public (especially the youth) assumes that the current singer is the originator of them. So much the better for Mariah Carey; the same goes for reproduction. In all, a sense of originality is lost and consequently a disenchantment with radicalism as the search for true consciousness and knowledge of reality. By definition, consciousness is false because it is supplemented by its other, the unconscious, another one of those annoying discourses of “depth” (Baudrillard 1979). Rather than discourses of depth, Baudrillard (1994, 1993, 1983a, 1975) advocates discourses of death: e.g., of labor, value, social, history, etc. By pronouncing the death of Marxist categories, Baudrillard testifies to their status as signs that have no privilege over other signs. By evicting Marxist dialectics, Baudrillard also gives the social a new lease toward a world of the not yet. It should be noted that Baudrillard’s hyperconformist strategy is not an original idea. By advocating assistance rather than resistance – that is, to harness capitalist energy and implode it – Baudrillard articulates a theory that is traceable to versions of eastern philosophy. Also known as “taking the path to least resistance,” assistance is a strategy of directing energy rather than opposing it. We see this clearly in the martial art of Judo where the neophyte is taught to use the attacker’s energy against itself and to avoid meeting force with force. The Judo student learns to use the attacker’s momentum against itself by stepping aside or shifting his weight at the critical moment. In other spheres of life, complementarity is the preferred sign, the yin and yang of life’s energies. This establishes the point that Baudrillard’s theory of “least resistance” is shocking only when considered within a narrow logic of western thought. What differentiates it from eastern philosophy is its application. Baudrillard generalizes assistance (hyperconformity) to include consumptive and discursive practices. In Baudrillard’s descriptions, the real has been realized and so has utopia. In other words, we live in a post-utopian world. Those who continue to construct discourses characterized by utopian themes, like truth, emancipation, and revolution simply missed the boat. There is nothing remaining but to play with the leftover pieces, a combinatorial transgression of laws and determinisms. Ours is a world characterized by a reversal, a sociality that proceeds from the model, or Baudrillard’s construction of information society as a pre-packaged, DNA-like determined, code. Facts no longer follow real events. Real events are first modeled and then they transpire in the real so that they can be reproduced by simulation apparatuses, like the media. If maps, as models, represent the real, then this is a modernist idea. Reversing this relationship, Baudrillard (1983a) argues, Abstraction today is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor survives it. Henceforth, it is the map that precedes the territory – precession of simulacra. (P. 2; emphasis in original) There are some clear implications resulting from Baudrillard’s reversal. With respect to the media, journalists no longer report the news but actually create it. In the age of simulation, the media does not represent the site of news production but new reproductions. The news has already been modeled before it happens in the real: a bit like the movie, “Wag the Dog.” Even people’s actions (which news is apparently about) follow the same genetic laws. Reporting news is only an exercise in pretending that something akin to a fact just occurred. Baudrillard’s (1994) cynical power takes this form, “The media and the official news service are only there to maintain the illusion of an actuality, of the reality of the stakes, of the objectivity of facts” (p. 38; italics in original). Thus, like “Wag the Dog” Baudrillard exposes the media’s phony attempt to report the news. Instead, news reporting signals the relations of simulation. Reporters pretend to report the news and the mass pretends to believe it. Our era is characterized by simulative (as opposed to productive) relations. To Baudrillard, social control is more accurately secured by seizing the means of simulation, the media being one of its central nodes of power. In the era of simulation, controlling images supercedes domination of productive forces. The seducing image class is able to propagate and project its “gift” for the masses. Rather than the bourgeoisie exploiting labor, the dominant image class secures its power by seducing the mass into its messages and thereby instituting its power through the act of giving. It is then the obligation of the mass to consume the images and demand more, that is, to raise the stakes, and thereby instituting power in its favor: and the seduction continues. The current mode of simulation we function under is characterized by the revenge of the object, or those human strategies patterned after the object world, not unlike “primitive” societies, which endowed objects with magical powers. It is this object world which Baudrillard generalizes in the postmodern condition and which finds its expression in the media as a simulative apparatus. Reproduction is near perfect replication as the model determines the outcomes before they happen in the real, understood now to be a copy: hyperreal. That is how Baudrillard (1995) was able to shock the world with the pronouncement that “the Gulf War did not take place.” By this, he meant that the war was modeled through the media before it was represented for and consumed by the public, not that it did not occur. In hyperreality, the copy is more real than the real. Miniaturized copies of cities portrayed in Disneyland are alibis for the real. They are testimony to the fact that U.S. cities are as much models as those in Disneyland. But perhaps Baudrillard’s (1994) own description drives home the point when he says, Disneyland exists in order to hide that it is the “real” country, all of “real” America that is Disneyland (a bit like prisons are there to hide that it is the social in its entirety, in its banal omnipresence, that is carceral). Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, whereas all of Los Angeles and the America that surrounds it are no longer real, but belong to the hyperreal order and to the order of simulation: : : This world [Disneyland] wants to be childish in order to make us believe that the adults are elsewhere, in the ‘real’ world, and to conceal the fact that true childishness is everywhere – that it is that of the adults themselves who come here to act the child in order to foster illusions as to their real childishness. (Pp. 12-13; italics in original) This is classic Baudrillard at his most brazen. This is cynical power at its height and more Nietzsche than Nietzsche: hyperNietzsche. For those who have been to Disneyland, one cannot help to drive the screw a quarter turn more. Disneyland’s “charm” works through its politics of nostalgia (Giroux 1999, 1994). It harks back to the frontier days of old, when America was a ‘heroic’ land, white men could act racist in public and be proud of it, and Africans were slaves. Ride the jungle ride at Disneyland and you get the sense that the offensive depiction of Africans as either buffoons or headhunters is only play, only fictive, and not to be taken seriously. Then you realize that this is America in miniature, a racist land where African Americans are treated as subhuman by the white imagination. Think some more and you realize that Disney is probably well aware of this but does not care. In fact, it may be what many of the park’s visitors (domestics and tourists) expect and want to see. After eating your ice cream bar, you advance to Fantasyland and enjoy the ride, “It’s a Small World.” Here you are taken on a tour across the cultures, into the costume-world that is America. You see Mexican, Chinese, and African miniatures: dancing, smiling, and blinking their eyes at you. In fact, this is not very different from the kinds of images children receive about ‘foreigners’ in uncritical forms of multiculturalism: food, folks, and fun. As Baudrillard points out, Disneyland represents a general alibi for the hypocrisies and transparent politics in social life. At least you don’t have to pay to get into real life! Baudrillard’s simulation theory encourages people to forget about originary sources and revel in cynical indeterminacy. This is the challenge he poses to his readers.

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a video of Mike Shakelford on Vimeo explaining the cap K that should help in addition to the advice above.  Its from CNDI (aka Berkeley's debate camp)

 

Ok.....I'm feeling generous, so here is the video:

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to everyone for your help. I have begun working on a file for the Cap K. Btw I will make sure to correct my spelling. Kritik or Critique. Got it! However, the file I picked up from open evidence has a poor alt to be using in my position. It appears to be a partial rejection of cap instead of full, which probz makes it easier to perm. Got any ideas for better alts? I don't mind doing the research for it, I just want to have something that is debatable and not a give away in the respect that a perm would end the K debate. Thanks in advance, and thanks for all of the great advice. Apologies to Spurlock for me being naive on the quality of being generic when it comes to Anthro and Cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McLaren 05 if you want a specific, detailed, and warranted historical materialism alt. Make sure to cut it yourself though, all the cuttings I've seen in the 'public domain' are way too clipped and miss a lot of the warrants and planning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to everyone for your help. I have begun working on a file for the Cap K. Btw I will make sure to correct my spelling. Kritik or Critique. Got it! However, the file I picked up from open evidence has a poor alt to be using in my position. It appears to be a partial rejection of cap instead of full, which probz makes it easier to perm. Got any ideas for better alts? I don't mind doing the research for it, I just want to have something that is debatable and not a give away in the respect that a perm would end the K debate. Thanks in advance, and thanks for all of the great advice. Apologies to Spurlock for me being naive on the quality of being generic when it comes to Anthro and Cap.

Revolution is not a tea party—it requires violent struggle, our alternative is to embrance the violent exuberance of revolution, only repeating the Maoist-Leninist gesture of violently opposing capitalism makes new modes of social production possible

Mao 27 (MAO ZEDONG, OFFICIAL BADASS AND LOCAL LEGEND, REPORT ON AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PEASANT MOVEMENT IN HUNAN to CCP headquarters in Shanghai, 1927)

The main targets of attack by the peasants are the local tyrants, the evil gentry and the lawless landlords, but in passing they also hit out against patriarchal ideas and institutions, against the corrupt officials in the cities and against bad practices and customs in the rural areas. In force and momentum the attack is tempestuous; those who bow before it survive and those who resist perish. As a result, the privileges which the feudal landlords enjoyed for thousands of years are being shattered to pieces. Every bit of the dignity and prestige built up by the landlords is being swept into the dust. With the collapse of the power of the landlords, the peasant associations have now become the sole organs of authority and the popular slogan "All power to the peasant associations" has become a reality. Even trifles such as a quarrel between husband and wife are brought to the peasant association. Nothing can be settled unless someone from the peasant association is present. The association actually dictates all rural affairs, and, quite literally, "whatever it says, goes". Those who are outside the associations can only speak well of them and cannot say anything against them. The local tyrants, evil gentry and lawless landlords have been deprived of all right to speak, and none of them dares even mutter dissent. In the face of the peasant associations' power and pressure, the top local tyrants and evil gentry have fled to Shanghai, those of the second rank to Hankow, those of the third to Changsha and those of the fourth to the county towns, while the fifth rank and the still lesser fry surrender to the peasant associations in the villages. "Here's ten yuan. Please let me join the peasant association," one of the smaller of the evil gentry will say.  "Ugh! Who wants your filthy money?" the peasants reply. Many middle and small landlords and rich peasants and even some middle peasants, who were all formerly opposed to the peasant associations, are now vainly seeking admission. Visiting various places, I often came across such people who pleaded with me, "Mr. Committeeman from the provincial capital, please be my sponsor!" In the Ching Dynasty, the household census compiled by the local authorities consisted of a regular register and "the other" register, the former for honest people and the latter for burglars, bandits and similar undesirables. In some places the peasants now use this method to scare those who formerly opposed the associations. They say, "Put their names down in the other register!" Afraid of being entered in the other register, such people try various devices to gain admission into the peasant associations, on which their minds are so set that they do not feel safe until their names are entered. But more often than not they are turned down flat, and so they are always on tenterhooks; with the doors of the association barred to them, they are like tramps without a home or, in rural parlance, "mere trash". In short, what was looked down upon four months ago as a "gang of peasants" has now become a most honourable institution. Those who formerly prostrated themselves before the power of the gentry now bow before the power of the peasants. No matter what their identity, all admit that the world since last October is a different one. The peasants' revolt disturbed the gentry's sweet dreams. When the news from the countryside reached the cities, it caused immediate uproar among the gentry. Soon after my arrival in Changsha, I met all sorts of people and picked up a good deal of gossip. From the middle social strata upwards to the Kuomintang right-wingers, there was not a single person who did not sum up the whole business in the phrase, "It's terrible!" Under the impact of the views of the "It's terrible!" school then flooding the city, even quite revolutionary minded people became down-hearted as they pictured the events in the countryside in their mind's eye; and they were unable to deny the word "terrible". Even quite progressive people said, "Though terrible, it is inevitable in a revolution." In short, nobody could altogether deny the word "terrible". But, as already mentioned, the fact is that the great peasant masses have risen to fulfil their historic mission and that the forces of rural democracy have risen to overthrow the forces of rural feudalism. The patriarchal-feudal class of local tyrants, evil gentry and lawless landlords has formed the basis of autocratic government for thousands of years and is the cornerstone of imperialism, warlordism and corrupt officialdom. To over-throw these feudal forces is the real objective of the national revolution. In a few months the peasants have accomplished what Dr. Sun Yat-sen wanted, but failed, to accomplish in the forty years he devoted to the national revolution. This is a marvellous feat never before achieved, not just in forty, but in thousands of years. It's fine. It is not "terrible" at all. It is anything but "terrible". "It's terrible!" is obviously a theory for combating the rise of the peasants in the interests of the landlords; it is obviously a theory of the landlord class for preserving the old order of feudalism and obstructing the establishment of the new order of democracy, it is obviously a counter-revolutionary theory. No revolutionary comrade should echo this nonsense. If your revolutionary viewpoint is firmly established and if you have been to the villages and looked around, you will undoubtedly feel thrilled as never before. Countless thousands of the enslaved -- the peasants -- are striking down the enemies who battened on their flesh. What the peasants are doing is absolutely right; what they are doing is fine! "It's fine!" is the theory of the peasants and of all other revolutionaries. Every revolutionary comrade should know that the national revolution requires a great change in the countryside. The Revolution of 1911[3] did not bring about this change, hence its failure. This change is now taking place, and it is an important factor for the completion of the revolution. Every revolutionary comrade must support it, or he will be taking the stand of counter-revolution. Then there is another section of people who say, "Yes, peasant associations are necessary, but they are going rather too far." This is the opinion of the middle-of-the-roaders. But what is the actual situation? True, the peasants are in a sense "unruly" in the country-side. Supreme in authority, the peasant association allows the landlord no say and sweeps away his prestige. This amounts to striking the landlord down to the dust and keeping him there. The peasants threaten, "We will put you in the other register!" They fine the local tyrants and evil gentry, they demand contributions from them, and they smash their sedan-chairs. People swarm into the houses of local tyrants and evil gentry who are against the peasant association, slaughter their pigs and consume their grain. They even loll for a minute or two on the ivory-inlaid beds belonging to the young ladies in the households of the local tyrants and evil gentry. At the slightest provocation they make arrests, crown the arrested with tall paper hats, and parade them through the villages, saying, "You dirty landlords, now you know who we are!" Doing whatever they like and turning everything upside down, they have created a kind of terror in the countryside. This is what some people call "going too far", or "exceeding the proper limits in righting a wrong", or "really too much". Such talk may seem plausible, but in fact it is wrong. First, the local tyrants, evil gentry and lawless landlords have themselves driven the peasants to this. For ages they have used their power to tyrannize over the peasants and trample them underfoot; that is why the peasants have reacted so strongly. The most violent revolts and the most serious disorders have invariably occurred in places where the local tyrants, evil gentry and lawless landlords perpetrated the worst outrages. The peasants are clear-sighted. Who is bad and who is not, who is the worst and who is not quite so vicious, who deserves severe punishment and who deserves to be let off lightly -- the peasants keep clear accounts, and very seldom has the punishment exceeded the crime. Secondly, a revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous.[4] A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another. A rural revolution is a revolution by which the peasantry overthrows the power of the feudal landlord class. Without using the greatest force, the peasants cannot possibly overthrow the deep-rooted authority of the landlords which has lasted for thousands of years. The rural areas need a mighty revolutionary upsurge, for it alone can rouse the people in their millions to become a powerful force. All the actions mentioned here which have been labelled as "going too far" flow from the power of the peasants, which has been called forth by the mighty revolutionary upsurge in the countryside. It was highly necessary for such things to be done in the second period of the peasant movement, the period of revolutionary action. In this period it was necessary to establish the absolute authority of the peasants. It was necessary to forbid malicious criticism of the peasant associations. It was necessary to overthrow the whole authority of the gentry, to strike them to the ground and keep them there. There is revolutionary significance in all the actions which were labelled as "going too far" in this period. To put it bluntly, it is necessary to create terror for a while in every rural area, or otherwise it would be impossible to suppress the activities of the counter-revolutionaries in the countryside or overthrow the authority of the gentry. Proper limits have to be exceeded in order to right a wrong, or else the wrong cannot be righted.[5] Those who talk about the peasants "going too far" seem at first sight to be different from those who say "It's terrible!" as mentioned earlier, but in essence they proceed from the same standpoint and likewise voice a landlord theory that upholds the interests of the privileged classes. Since this theory impedes the rise of the peasant movement and so disrupts the revolution, we must firmly oppose it. 

 

LONG LIVE THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN MAO!!!

Edited by MartyP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Revolution is not a tea party—it requires violent struggle, our alternative is to embrance the violent exuberance of revolution, only repeating the Maoist-Leninist gesture of violently opposing capitalism makes new modes of social production possible

Mao 27 (MAO ZEDONG, OFFICIAL BADASS AND LOCAL LEGEND, REPORT ON AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PEASANT MOVEMENT IN HUNAN to CCP headquarters in Shanghai, 1927)

 

I would consider the Mao K an acceptable response to this.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McLaren 05 if you want a specific, detailed, and warranted historical materialism alt. Make sure to cut it yourself though, all the cuttings I've seen in the 'public domain' are way too clipped and miss a lot of the warrants and planning.

 

dis mah alt - iz diz gud? 

 

 

lol tag me

Tumino ’12 Stephen Tumino, more marxist than Marx himself, “Is Occupy Wall Street Communist,” Red Critique 14, Winter/Spring 2012, http://www.redcritique.org/WinterSpring2012/isoccupywallstreetcommunist.htm

 

Leaving aside that the purpose of Wolff's speech was to popularize a messianic vision of a more just society based on workplace democracy, he is right about one thing: Marx's original contribution to the idea of communism is that it is an historical and material movement produced by the failure of capitalism not a moral crusade to reform it. Today we are confronted with the fact that capitalism has failed in exactly the way that Marx explained was inevitable.[4] It has "simplified the class antagonism" (The Communist Manifesto); by concentrating wealth and centralizing power in the hands of a few it has succeeded in dispossessing the masses of people of everything except their labor power. As a result it has revealed that the ruling class "is unfit to rule," as The Communist Manifesto concludes, "because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him." And the slaves are thus compelled to fight back. Capitalism makes communism necessary because it has brought into being an international working class whose common conditions of life give them not only the need but also the economic power to establish a society in which the rule is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme). Until and unless we confront the fact that capitalism has once again brought the world to the point of taking sides for or against the system as a whole, communism will continue to be just a bogey-man or a nursery-tale to frighten and soothe the conscience of the owners rather than what it is—the materialist theory that is an absolute requirement for our emancipation from exploitation and a new society freed from necessity! As Lenin said, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement" (What Is To Be Done?). We are confronted with an historic crisis of global proportions that demands of us that we take Marxism seriously as something that needs to be studied to find solutions to the problems of today. Perhaps then we can even begin to understand communism in the way that The Communist Manifesto presents it as "the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority" to end inequality forever.

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That just defends the idea of communism, the card I had in mind detailed specifically how such a post capitalist society could be achieved, in the sense that it could stand up to that Bryant 12 evidence. The card above doesn't outline a method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That just defends the idea of communism, the card I had in mind detailed specifically how such a post capitalist society could be achieved, in the sense that it could stand up to that Bryant 12 evidence. The card above doesn't outline a method.

Ehh yeah, that's what I give novices to read to get them started into the Cap K (I haven't had the time to look for much more suitable alts)

 

I stick to Ortho Marx for Cap K alts (I only run the Cap K when I have a lay judge and the other team is reading a K aff and I don't wanna read DnG to make the entire thing more confusing) - Tumino writes some good stuff on Ortho Marx 

 

Side Question - Would Derrida's The New International serve as a sort of alternative to capitalism in the neoliberal era? 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm really having a tough time understanding the links in cap. I mean, I pretty much get what capitalism is, but how is aquaculture capitalist and what leads it to cause the impact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm really having a tough time understanding the links in cap. I mean, I pretty much get what capitalism is, but how is aquaculture capitalist and what leads it to cause the impact?

They gave a Neolib (Cap) K to our JV debaters in my league; lets deconstruct one of link cards to aquaculture to help you understand better:

 

The aquaculture aff that is run on our league has Overfishing and Seafloor Environment as advantages 

 

 

 

Aquaculture is a superficial solution to a complex problem – it involves subjecting nature to further exploitation and will exclusively benefit large corporations while environmental destruction and global hunger get worse.

Clark & Clausen, professors of sociology at North Carolina State & Fort Lewis College, 2008

(Brett and Rebecca, “The Oceanic Crisis: Capitalism and the Degradation of Marine Ecosystem,” Monthly Review, 60:3, July, Online: http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-oceanic-crisis-capitalism-and-the-degradation-of-marine-ecosystem/)

 

The immense problems associated with the overharvest of industrial capture fisheries has led some optimistically to offer aquaculture as an ecological solution. However, capitalist aquaculture fails to reverse the process of ecological degradation. Rather, it continues to sever the social and ecological relations between humans and the ocean. Aquaculture: The Blue Revolution? The massive decline in fish stocks has led capitalist development to turn to a new way of increasing profits—intensified production of fishes. Capitalist aquaculture represents not only a quantitative change in the intensification and concentration of production; it also places organisms’ life cycles under the complete control of private for-profit ownership.31 This new industry, it is claimed, is “the fastest-growing form of agriculture in the world.” It boasts of having ownership from “egg to plate” and substantially alters the ecological and human dimensions of a fishery.32 Aquaculture (sometimes also referred to as aquabusiness) involves subjecting nature to the logic of capital. Capital attempts to overcome natural and social barriers through its constant innovations. In this, enterprises attempt to commodify, invest in, and develop new elements of nature that previously existed outside the political-economic competitive sphere: As Edward Carr wrote in the Economist, the sea “is a resource that must be preserved and harvested….To enhance its uses, the water must become ever more like the land, with owners, laws and limits. Fishermen must behave more like ranchers than hunters.”33 As worldwide commercial fish stocks decline due to overharvest and other anthropogenic causes, aquaculture is witnessing a rapid expansion in the global economy. Aquaculture’s contribution to global supplies of fish increased from 3.9 percent of total worldwide production by weight in 1970 to 27.3 percent in 2000. In 2004, aquaculture and capture fisheries produced 106 million tons of fish and “aquaculture accounted for 43 percent.”34 According to Food and Agriculture Organization statistics, aquaculture is growing more rapidly than all other animal food producing sectors. Hailed as the “Blue Revolution,” aquaculture is frequently compared to agriculture’s Green Revolution as a way to achieve food security and economic growth among the poor and in the third world. The cultivation of farmed salmon as a high-value, carnivorous species destined for market in core nations has emerged as one of the more lucrative (and controversial) endeavors in aquaculture production.35 Much like the Green Revolution, the Blue Revolution may produce temporary increases in yields, but it does not usher in a solution to food security (or environmental problems). Food security is tied to issues of distribution. Given that the Blue Revolution is driven by the pursuit of profit, the desire for monetary gain trumps the distribution of food to those in need.36 Industrial aquaculture intensifies fish production by transforming the natural life histories of wild fish stocks into a combined animal feedlot. Like monoculture agriculture, aquaculture furthers the capitalistic division of nature, only its realm of operation is the marine world. In order to maximize return on investment, aquaculture must raise thousands of fish in a confined net-pen. Fish are separated from the natural environment and the various relations of exchange found in a food web and ecosystem. The fish’s reproductive life cycle is altered so that it can be propagated and raised until the optimum time for mechanical harvest. 

 

1st - In light of the problems of industrial fishing, aquaculture has come to be perceived as being a solution to overfishing. However, aquaculture only contributes to the problem of overfishing since it furthers the divide in "...social and ecological relations between humans and oceans."

 

2nd - This happens because under the capitalist mindset, people are profit-driven, meaning that they only care about the money that they're going to be making; although there are ways in which aquaculture, or fishing in general, can be sustainable and not destroy the environment, status quo forms of engagement are always already driven by profit-motives, meaning that they'll do the most quick, environment-damaging, process in order to collect the most amount of fish in a short amount of time and then sell them quickly and REPEAT THE PROCESS. 

 

3rd - The card explains how this capitalist mindset also seeks for new innovations within the technological industry, if only to find new ways to exploit the Ocean; for example, lets say there was a part in the Ocean that we couldn't reach because of the lack of suitable technology, the drive to acquire those resources means that we'll upgrade our technology to acquire those resources for profit - same thing for aquaculture, we'll find new ways to engineer aquaculture facilities, but the capitalist mindset will never be focused on attempts of sustainability, but rather profit

 

4th - This following line is really powerful: "....To enhance its uses, the water must become ever more like the land, with owners, laws and limits. Fishermen must behave more like ranchers than hunters." Because it explains how the capitalist mindset leads to a drawing of limits and zones (the squo is already like that, with the EEZ and the sorts) but it's because of the capitalist mindset of accumulation of capital that drives this motive of trying to group and separate the Ocean into different zones for every nation

 

5th - Aquaculture is NOT an answer to food security; the evidence explains that although aquaculture yields A LOT of fish, the plan isn't challenging the REAL reason why food insecurity exists; put simply, it's not a question of availability but rather distribution - meaning that WE HAVE THE FOOD, it's just that the capitalist mindset won't give it away for free and/or will charge HIGH prices for the food; or they'll prioritize nations with developed economies before even contemplating giving food to other nations. 

 

 

So a link is an impact on a Cap K (USUALLY) - The card explains how aquaculture is capitalist, which is what you're criticizing (capitalism), and then LISTS impacts to the capitalist mindset (which is why I say that a link is usually an independent impact on a K) This is also why saying "If we win a link, then we win an impact" makes sense on a K flow 

 

Also - Idk why, the card is actually underlined, but it didn't transfer onto here - sorry!

 

Also - Judges LOVE link walls, especially in the 2NR, be sure to have as many links as possible in the 2NR (Maybe 3-4 would be okay) 

 

Might have missed a few things - sorry if I did; but this should explain how links work 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

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...