Jump to content
Affhole

Cap- No link arg

Recommended Posts

I need a card that says the realm we live in is not capitalistic, but rather neoliberal. So, if a team ran cap against me i wanna make the arg that my plan doesn't link to cap because we live in the era of neoliberal and neg is focusing on the early 1900's cap.

Anybody have a card that fits the description? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neoliberalism is a form of capitalism, this isn't something you'd really look to invest it-- if you read a policy aff impact turn it and go for Link D against their A level offense and the alt fails/system is sustainable. If you read K aff, its probably something you link turn, read alt and link defense and go for case outweighs 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God damn neoliberal communists! Oh damn they destroyed capitalism but the damn usage of capital to exploit people continues!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need a card that says the realm we live in is not capitalistic, but rather neoliberal. So, if a team ran cap against me i wanna make the arg that my plan doesn't link to cap because we live in the era of neoliberal and neg is focusing on the early 1900's cap.

Anybody have a card that fits the description?

 

Then that just means you link to Neolib; pretty sures there's alot of impacts to that

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like dudeeeeeee their is probably killer / their is killer offense against this if you are neolib : 

 If your aff is alittle more towards the left ( something like : Cede the Political+We solve enviromental destruction+ Link/Alt level defense )

  If you are towards the right( Impact turn : Heg +Free Trade+Space Col with some Neolib Sustainable +Inevitable + some link d 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you're making the right argument. Rather than going in on no link (I'm assuming you're running a neolib aff and you're hoping for answers to a cap k.), I'd go for aff solves, all in on the alt sux/perm, maybe dismantling globalization as a prerequisite to dismantling capitalism. Look up Third Worldism; there are a lot of authors who focus on arguments like that last one.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I would ask them how would they define neoliberalism. You would be surpriced by the amound of different responds people have with the word, from no state intervention with the idea that neoliberalism = laissez faire. Neoliberalism has always been understood as being oversighted, subsidized, intervened in helping expand markets ("gloves off economics)

 

 

 I'm not going to argue that it's wrong, but there is many criticisms of that term which many people have been used. For example, those would know reading economic history that Hayek is different to Keynes in economic theories, but just because they are pro-capitalist doesn't mean they can be neoliberal (Keynes is neoliberal, but Hayek isn't {despite people calling him Neoliberal}).

62517486.jpg

You either have no idea what Keynes/Hayek say or no idea what neoliberalism is, or both.

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

62517486.jpg

You either have no idea what Keynes/Hayek say or no idea what neoliberalism is, or both.

 

Since we are in a novice part of the forums, may you explain why I said that Hayek and Keynes are different people is wrong?

 

What was wrong with me saying neoliberalism is a vague term? When you group it with everyone under capitalism, the term becomes meaningless. Obviously if anyone looks at Hayek and Keynes, they are have many different philosophical view on a bunch of levels. Just because they happen to be pro-market doesn't mean that people should associate them with them. It's as idiotic (trigger term) as referring to all economists of the monetary school as "Chicago boys". Debate should be in depth, not breath. Or else we will truely never learn. 

 

It's like saying that Meo and Trotsky are essentially the same since they have leftist views.

Edited by JuanIgarzabal
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we are in a novice part of the forums, may you explain why I said that Hayek and Keynes are different people is wrong?

 

What was wrong with me saying neoliberalism is a vague term? When you group it with everyone under capitalism, the term becomes meaningless. Obviously if anyone looks at Hayek and Keynes, they are have many different philosophical view on a bunch of levels. Just because they happen to be pro-market doesn't mean that people should associate them with them. It's as idiotic (trigger term) as referring to all economists of the monetary school as "Chicago boys". Debate should be in depth, not breath. Or else we will truely never learn. 

 

It's like saying that Meo and Trotsky are essentially the same since they have leftist views.

Never did I say that Hayek and Keynes aren't different people - of course they are. Even just a cursory reading of something like Wikipedia shows you that Hayek is a Neoliberal, Keynes is not, and Neoliberalism is decentralization.

 

 

Since the 1980s, the term has been used primarily by scholars and critics in reference to the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, whose advocates support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Neoliberalism is famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[3] In the United States, the political philosophy is more commonly called conservatism. The transition of consensus towards neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 one of the ultimate results.[12][13][14][15][16]

Neoliberalism was originally an economic philosophy that emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s in an attempt to trace a so-called ‘Third’ or ‘Middle Way’ between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and collectivist central planning.[17] The impetus for this development arose from a desire to avoid repeating the economic failures of the early 1930s, which were mostly blamed on the economic policy of classical liberalism. In the decades that followed, the use of the term neoliberal tended to refer to theories at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism, and promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy.

In the 1960s, usage of the term "neoliberal" heavily declined. When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet’s economic reforms in Chile, the usage of the term had shifted. It had not only become a term with negative connotations employed principally by critics of market reform, but it also had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to a more radical and laissez-faire capitalist set of ideas. Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[2] Once the new meaning of neoliberalism was established as a common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused directly into the English-language study of political economy.[2] Scholarship on the phenomenon of neoliberalism has been growing.[18] The impact of the global 2008-09 crisis has also given rise to new scholarship that critiques neoliberalism and seeks developmental alternatives.[19] From the other part the financial crisis made posible the reemergence of the 'Middle way' neoliberalism (and balanced fiscal policies) together with austerity policies.[20][not in citation given]

So you're right, if you're an early 1900's economist the term is contested. Modern day economics argues differently though.

Keynes is a large proponent of macro-economic fiscal policy, things like surplus spending. That is the opposite of neoliberalism though.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hayek was not a literal neoliberal, but the majority of neoliberalism's philosophy is derived from his work. He serves as the basis for the theory, if you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue isn't that Hayek and Keynes are the same, it's that Keynes isn't a neoliberal; he's the founder of classical liberalism.  He was writing in the 30s, and his ideas were adopted in the 60s, but neoliberalism, as it's generally conceived of, wasn't really a thing to any meaningful extent until the 80s.

 

Guh?  Hayek was a classical liberal, Keynes wasn't, and classical liberalism predates both of them by centuries, originating in the writings of Locke and Adam Smith.  Keynes was the founder of modern social liberalism; he's of the center-left.  Classical liberalism is more or less identical to what is now called libertarianism.  

 

Squirreloid's posted a lot on this subject; neoliberalism was defined by Foucault to refer to a form of state capitalism, not the theoretical free market of Hayekian classical liberals.  He defined neoliberalism as basically government of, by, and for businesses.  This is not a free market!  Big businesses love regulation that crowds out small competitors and defend such regulation as more efficient; free market capitalists would oppose such regulation.

 

In practice, there is no such thing as "neoliberal" philosophy; it's a term defined by enemies.  Foucault's definition has generally been overtaken in the literature by "neoliberalism" as a dysphemism for "things the author doesn't like about the modern economy."  Present day neo-classicist and neo-Austrian economists (Boettke, McCloskey, the Ostroms, Kirzner) would never use the term "neoliberalism."

 

There are so many things wrong in this thread...

 

 

I need a card that says the realm we live in is not capitalistic, but rather neoliberal. So, if a team ran cap against me i wanna make the arg that my plan doesn't link to cap because we live in the era of neoliberal and neg is focusing on the early 1900's cap.

Anybody have a card that fits the description? 

 

From the OP: This is poorly phrased, and not a great way to respond to a cap K.  Depending on the Aff, you either want to argue:

1. (if the Aff is state regulation/spending) The Aff isn't capitalism because the Aff is state intervention in the economy.

2. (if the Aff is state deregulation/cutting spending) The impacts the Neg argues are a result of capitalism are actually the result of state capitalism, our Aff is free market capitalism.

 

Here's a card I had at the top of our Ocean Privatization frontline for Cap Ks:

 

 

 

1.     Perm – Do plan and reject what the Neg calls “capitalism.”  Their complaints about capitalism are complaints about mixed economies, not the free markets the Aff defends

Johnson ’11 [Charles Johnson, senior fellow at the Center for a Stateless Society, “Libertarian Anticapitalism,” at Bleeding Heart Libertarians, August 18, 2011, available at http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/08/libertarian-anticapitalism/]

The pro-capitalist Right likes the outcome, and the state socialist does not, so the one uses it as a reason to endorse “capitalism” and the other as a reason to reject it. (Conventional liberals typically split the difference by calling for a mix of pro-business regulation and anti-business regulation, in order to get a properly managed form of capitalism, with political forces in place to countervail against its worse tendencies.) But what of those who reject the causal claim asserted by (CCH)? For an individualist like Tucker, “capitalism” in the sense of wage-labor and commercialism has been largely upheld, and sustained by “pro-business” government intervention, not by free market processes — in particular, by the economic structure created by Tucker’s Big Four monopolies and their modern descendents, by the funnelling of resources into the military-industrial complex, by trillion-dollar bail-outs and pervasive, intense hyperregulation of the economic prospects of the poor and marginalized. Thus, the argument goes, the natural tendency of the free market is actually anti-capitalistic, in the sense of knocking out the political privileges that hold up the economic status quo, of dissipating large-scale economic inequalities, undermining rather than entrenching monopolies, cartels, and accumulated fortunes, and freeing up workers to make independent livings through a rich set of non-corporate, grassroots alternatives to the corporate-capitalist economy (e.g. co-ops, worker-owned shops, independent contracting and homesteading, mutual aid associations, etc. etc. etc.). It is only in virtue of “capitalism” in the second sense, state capitalism or business privilege, that actually-existing capitalism, in the latter two senses, flourishes and grows.

 

Now, whether Tucker’s position (or mine) is the right one or the wrong one is of course a matter for considerable debate, and it will depend on laying out some conceptual issues and a lot of empirical evidence that I haven’t even begun to touch on in this post. But my first interest is that the position should be made intelligible, so that we can begin to discuss what would support the claim, or cut against it. Before you can debate whether or not a claim like (CCH) is true, you first have to establish that there really are two distinct terms on either side of the conditional operator, and that someone might either assert or deny that they are connected just like that. To be able to do that, it will help a lot to make it as clear as possible, in our terminology or at least in the process of our conversations, that “a free market” is not just the same thing as businessmen being left alone to do whatever they please; that it means ownership and economic freedom for everyone, and may well encompass forms that may look nothing like conventional corporate enterprises or business-as-usual today; that it is quite possible that many critics of “capitalism” may be pointing to very real social evils, while misdiagnosing the causes; and that many of the evils most commonly ascribed to “capitalism,” and thus blamed on the free market, really are not the results of market activities, but the results of “capitalism” in quite a different sense — in the sense of government-backed commerce and politically-enforced corporate privilege.

 

This of course isn't a substitute for burying the Neg in "cap good" cards.

 

 

 

Hayek was not a literal neoliberal, but the majority of neoliberalism's philosophy is derived from his work. He serves as the basis for the theory, if you will.

 

What "neoliberalism philosophy??"  Hayek is the originator of the Austrian school  and much of modern libertarian economic theory.  He is definitely a capitalist.  He is only a "neoliberal" if you use the modern abuse of the term as synonymous with "capitalism."  Which is why every Aff's first CX question against a Cap or Neolib K should be "define Cap/Neolib."

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

The issue isn't that Hayek and Keynes are the same, it's that Keynes isn't a neoliberal; he's the founder of classical liberalism.  He was writing in the 30s, and his ideas were adopted in the 60s, but neoliberalism, as it's generally conceived of, wasn't really a thing to any meaningful extent until the 80s.

 

 

Keynes is neither a classic liberal, nor has any claim to being the founder.  Classic liberalism goes back to John Locke at least.  Classic liberalism is about laissez-faire, both politically and economically.  The Whig party in US politics was (primarily) classic liberal, as was some elements of the Republican party until ~1940.  Classic liberalism was dying (as a mainstream movement) by the time Keynes wrote anything.

 

 

Keynes is pro-government intervention in markets.  If he wasn't a neoliberal, he was certainly an Ur-neoliberal, as his thought motivated much of their policy ideas.  (Neoliberalism starts in the 30s btw, although Keynes is not a founder afaik.  See the Walter-Lippman Colloquium iirc).

 

Edit: amusingly, the author being interviewed in Snarf's link *also* has it wrong.  The early neoliberals actually called themselves that.  They weren't free market advocates.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keynes is neither a classic liberal, nor has any claim to being the founder.  Classic liberalism goes back to John Locke at least.  Classic liberalism is about laissez-faire, both politically and economically.  The Whig party in US politics was (primarily) classic liberal, as was some elements of the Republican party until ~1940.  Classic liberalism was dying (as a mainstream movement) by the time Keynes wrote anything.

this is definitely true. i don't know about the strength of Squirrelroid's discussion of Dr. Brown's claims but this background is correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how when something is said that people on this forum don't agree with, they instantly downvote... Get outta here.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 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...