Jump to content

BlocksfromBlock

Member
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About BlocksfromBlock

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 11/09/1990

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I remember something being said about trolling not being the way to go about things...
  2. disclosing? wouldnt that lead to lotsa public indecency?
  3. well as for the fayetteville tournament, if you have me in the back please read faster i wanna let hollis know about how awesome of a round i got to watch where there were 2 teams talking faster than conversational pace. Then again, go Hollis, control your tournament. Allow everyone to know how absurd your calls for blatant intervention are. If judges dont "have" to count down speaker points for sock puppets/performance/project affs, then why do judges have to count down speaker points for teams that speak quickly. 1. Run sock puppets 2. Debate to the best of your ability 3. Lol @ dinos
  4. Debate is the critical site of resistance. The way we frame and decide our educational debates over capitalism will determine the strength of capitalism’s hold over all of this. Louis Althusser, Marxist philosopher; Professor of Philosophy, Ecole Normale Superieure, 1970, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm, web paging That is why I believe that I am justified in advancing the following Thesis, however precarious it is. I believe that the ideological State apparatus which has been installed in the dominant position in mature capitalist social formations as a result of a violent political and ideological class struggle against the old dominant ideological State apparatus, is the educational ideological apparatus. This thesis may seem paradoxical, given that for everyone, i.e. in the ideological representation that the bourgeoisie has tried to give itself and the classes it exploits, it really seems that the dominant ideological State apparatus in capitalist social formations is not the Schools, but the political ideological State apparatus, i.e. the regime of parliamentary democracy combining universal suffrage and party struggle. However, history, even recent history, shows that the bourgeoisie has been and still is able to accommodate itself to political ideological State apparatuses other than parliamentary democracy: the First and Second Empires, Constitutional Monarchy (Louis XVIII and Charles X), Parliamentary Monarchy (Louis-Philippe), Presidential Democracy (de Gaulle), to mention only France. In England this is even clearer. The Revolution was particularly 'successful' there from the bourgeois point of view, since unlike France, where the bourgeoisie, partly because of the stupidity of the petty aristocracy, had to agree to being carried to power by peasant and plebeian journèes revolutionnaires', something for which it had to pay a high price, the English bourgeoisie was able to 'compromise' with the aristocracy and 'share' State power and the use of the State apparatus with it for a long time (peace among all men of good will in the ruling classes!). In Germany it is even more striking, since it was behind a political ideological State apparatus in which the imperial Junkers (epitomized by Bismarck), their army and their police provided it with a shield and leading personnel, that the imperialist bourgeoisie made its shattering entry into history, before 'traversing' the Weimar Republic and entrusting itself to Nazism. Hence I believe I have good reasons for thinking that behind the scenes of its political Ideological State Apparatus, which occupies the front of the stage, what the bourgeoisie has installed as its number-one, i.e. as its dominant ide-ological State apparatus, is the educational apparatus, which has in fact replaced in its functions the previously dominant ideological State apparatus, the Church. One might even add: the School-Family couple has replaced the Church-Family couple. Why is the educational apparatus in fact the dominant ideological State apparatus in capitalist social formations, and how does it function? For the moment it must suffice to say: 1. All ideological State apparatuses, whatever they are, contribute to the same result: the reproduction of the relations of production, i.e. of capitalist relations of exploitation. 2. Each of them contributes towards this single result in the way proper to it. The political apparatus by subjecting individuals to the political State ideology, the 'indirect' (parliamentary) or 'direct' (plebiscitary or fascist) 'democratic' ideology. The communications apparatus by cramming every 'citizen' with daily doses of nationalism, chauvinism, liberalism, moralism, etc., by means of the press, the radio and television. The same goes for the cultural apparatus (the role of sport in chauvinism is of the first importance), etc. The religious apparatus by recalling in sermons and the other great ceremonies of Birth, Marriage and Death, that man is only ashes, unless he loves his neighbour to the extent of turning the other cheek to whoever strikes first. The family apparatus ... but there is no need to go on. 3. This concert is dominated by a single score, occasionally disturbed by contradictions (those of the remnants of former ruling classes, those of the proletarians and their organizations): the score of the Ideology of the current ruling class which integrates into its music the great themes of the Humanism of the Great Forefathers, who produced the Greek Miracle even before Christianity, and afterwards the Glory of Rome, the Eternal City, and the themes of Interest, particular and general, etc. nationalism, moralism and economism. 4. Nevertheless, in this concert, one ideological State apparatus certainly has the dominant role, although hardly anyone lends an ear to its music: it is so silent! This is the School. It takes children from every class at infant-school age, and then for years, the years in which the child is most 'vulnerable', squeezed between the family State apparatus and the educational State apparatus, it drums into them, whether it uses new or old methods, a certain amount of 'know-how' wrapped in the ruling ideology (French, arithmetic, natural history, the sciences, literature) or simply the ruling ideology in its pure state (ethics, civic instruction, philosophy). Somewhere around the age of sixteen, a huge mass of children is ejected 'into production': these are the workers or small peasants. Another portion of scholastically adapted youth carries on: and, for better or worse, it goes somewhat further, until it falls by the wayside and fills the posts of small and middle technicians, white-collar workers, small and middle executives, petty bourgeois of all kinds. A last portion reaches the summit, either to fall into intellectual semi-employment, or to provide, as well as the `intellectuals of the collective labourer, the agents of exploitation (capitalists, managers), the agents of repression (soldiers, policemen, politicians, administrators, etc.) and the professional ideologists (priests of all sorts, most of whom are convinced laymen'). Each mass ejected en route is practically provided with the ideology which suits the role it has to fulfill in class society: the role of the exploited (with a `highly-developed' `professional; 'ethical, 'civic, 'national' and a-political consciousness); the role of the agent of exploitation (ability to give the workers orders and speak to them: 'human relations'), of the agent of repression (ability to give orders and enforce obedience 'without discussion,' or ability to manipulate the demagogy of a political leader's rhetoric), or of the professional ideologist (ability to treat consciousnesses with the respect, i.e. with the contempt, blackmail, and demagogy they deserve, adapted to the accents of Morality, of Virtue, of 'Transcendence, of the Nation, of France's World Role, etc.). Of course, many of these contrasting Virtues (modesty, resignation, submissiveness on the one hand, cynicism, contempt, arrogance, confidence, self-importance, even smooth talk and cunning on the other) are also taught in the Family, in the Church, in the Army, in Good Books, in films and even in the football stadium. But no other ideological State apparatus has the obligatory (and not least, free) audience of the totality of the children in the capitalist social formation, eight hours a day for five or six days out of seven. But it is by an apprenticeship in a variety of know-how wrapped up in the massive inculcation of the ideology of the ruling class that the relations of production in a capitalist Social formation, i.e. the relations of exploited to exploiters and exploiters to exploited are largely reproduced. The mechanisms which produce this vital result for the capitalist regime are naturally covered up and concealed by a universally reigning ideology of the School, universally reigning because it is one of the essential forms of the ruling bourgeois ideology: an ideology which represents the School as a neutral environment purged of ideology (because it is . . lay), where teachers respectful of the 'conscience' and 'freedom' of the children who are entrusted to them (in complete confidence) by their 'parents' (who are free, too, i.e. the owners of their children) open up for them the path to the freedom, morality and responsibility of adults by their own example, by knowledge, literature and their 'liberating' virtues. I ask the pardon of those teachers who, in dreadful conditions, attempt to turn the few weapons they can find in the history and learning they `teach' against the ideology, the system and the practices in which they are trapped. They are a kind of hero. But they are rare and how many (the majority) do not even begin to suspect the 'work' the system (which is bigger than they are and crushes them) forces them to do, or worse, put all their heart and ingenuity into performing it with the most advanced awareness (the famous new methods!). So little do they suspect it that their own devotion contributes to the maintenance and nourishment of this ideological representation of the School, which makes the School today as 'natural', indispensable-useful and even beneficial for our contemporaries as the Church was 'natural, indispensable and generous for our ancestors a few centuries ago. In fact, the Church has been replaced today in its role as the dominant Ideological State Apparatus by the School. It is coupled with the Family just as the Church was once coupled with the Family. We can now claim that the unprecedentedly deep crisis which is now shaking the education system of so many States across the globe, often in conjunction with a crisis (already proclaimed in the Communist Manifesto) shaking the family system, takes on a political meaning, given that the School (and the School-Family couple) constitutes the dominant Ideological State Apparatus, the Apparatus playing a determinant part in the reproduction of the relations of production of a mode of production threatened in its existence by the world class struggle. Here is another alt solves/rhetoric important card. If any of you enjoy the cap debate and want some more cards/files just hit me up Edit: Serrano Strange DDI 08 Lab for this card,
  5. havent been able to locate it, however if any of you decide that you like reading intellectual critique/rethinking alternatives hit me up and I have the Kovel 02 & Hardt & Negri 00. Capital is no longer purely material. Every day, we become producers of intellectual capital. This immaterial labor is a crucial constitutive force in global capital. The ballot’s production has real power. Hardt and Negri 2K (Michael, prof of English at Duke, Antonio, terrorist, Empire, pg 346 – 347) JXu Ether is the third and final fundamental medium of imperial control. The management of communication, the structuring of the education system, and the regulation of culture appear today more than ever as sovereign prerogatives. All of this, however, dissolves in the ether. The contemporary systems of communication are not subordinated to sovereignty; on the contrary, sovereignty seems to be subordinated to communication-or actually, sovereignty is articulated through communications systems. In the field of communication, the paradoxes that bring about the dissolution of territorial and/or national sovereignty are more clear than ever. The deterritorializing capacities of communication are unique: communication is not satisfied by limiting or weakening modern territorial sovereignty; rather it attacks the very possibility of linking an order to a space. It imposes a continuous and complete circulation of signs. Deterritorialization is the primary force and circulation the form through which social communication manifests itself. In this way and in this ether, languages become functional to circulation and dissolve every sovereign relationship. Education and culture too cannot help submitting to the circulating society of the spectacle. Here we reach an extreme limit of the process of the dissolution of the relationship between order and space. At this point we cannot conceive this relationship except in another space, an elsewhere that cannot in principle be contained in the articulation of sovereign acts. The space of communication is completely deterritorialized. It is absolutely other with respect to the residual spaces that we have been analyzing in terms of the monopoly of physical force and the definition of monetary measure. Here it is a question not of residue but of metamorphosis: a metamorphosis of all the elements of political economy and state theory. Communication is the form of capitalist production in which capital has succeeded in submitting society entirely and globally to its regime, suppressing all alternative paths. If ever an alternative is to be proposed, it will have to arise from within the society of the real subsumption and demonstrate all the contradictions at the heart of it. These three means of control refer us again to the three tiers of the imperial pyramid of power. The bomb is a monarchic power, money aristocratic, and ether democratic. It might appear in each of these cases as though the reins of these mechanisms were held by the United States. It might appear as if the United States were the new Rome, or a cluster of new Romes: Washington (the bomb), New York (money), and Los Angeles (ether). Any such territorial conception of imperial space, however, is continually destabilized by the fundamental flexibility, mobility, and deterritorialization at the core of the imperial apparatus. Perhaps the monopoly off force and the regulation of money can be given partial territorial determinations, but communication cannot. Communication has become the central element that establishes the relations of production, guiding capitalist development and also transforming productive forces. This dynamic produces an extremely open situation: here the centralized locus of power has to confront the power of productive subjectivities, the power of all those who contribute to the interactive production of communication. Here in this circulating domain of imperial domination over the new forms of production, communication is most widely disseminated in capillary forms. Our alternative is a crucial step to breaking down capitalism. A constant intellectual attack on capitalism enables the paradigm shift necessary to overthrow capitalism. Kovel 02 (Joel, Alger Hiss Professor of Social Studies at Bard College, The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? pg 223-224) JXu Revolutions become feasible when a people decides that their present social arrangements are intolerable, when they believe that they can achieve a better alternative, and when the balance of forces between them and that of the system is tipped in their favour. None of these conditions is close to being met at present for the ecosocialist revolution, which would seem to make the exercise upon which we are about to embark academic. But the present is one thing, and the future another. If the argument that capital is incorrigibly ecodestructive and expansive proves to be true, then it is only a question of time before the issues raised here achieve explosive urgency. And considering what is at stake and how rapidly events can change under such circumstances, it is most definitely high time to take up the question of ecosocialism as a living process — to consider what its vision of society may be and what kind of path there may be towards its achievement. The present chapter is the most practical and yet also the most speculative of this work. Beaten down by the great defeats of Utopian and socialist ideals, few today even bother to think about the kinds of society that could replace the present with one of ecological rationality, and most of that speculation is within a green paradigm limited by an insufficient appreciation of the regime of capital and of the depths needed for real change. Instead, Greens tend to imagine an orderly extension of community, accompanied by the use of instruments that have been specifically created to keep the present system going, such as parliamentary elections and various tax policies. Such measures make transformative sense, however, only if seen as prefigurations of something more radical - something by definition not immediately on the horizon. It will be our job here to begin the process of drawing in this not-yet-seen. The only certainty is that the result will at most be a rough and schematic model of what actually might emerge. However uncertain the end point, the first two steps on the path are clearly laid out, and are within the reach of every conscientious person. These are that people ruthlessly criticize the capitalist system ‘from top to bottom’, and that they include in this a consistent attack on the widespread belief that there can be no alternative to it. If one believes that capital is not only basically unjust but radically unsustainable as well, the prime obligation is to spread the news, just as one should feel obliged to tell the inhabitants of a structurally unsound house doomed to collapse of what awaits them unless they take drastic measures. To continue the analogy for the critique to matter it needs to be combined with an attack on the false idea that we are, so to speak, trapped in this house, with no hope of fixing it or getting out. The belief that there can be no alternative to capital is ubiquitous and no wonder, given how wonderfully convenient the idea is to the ruling ideology. That, however, does not keep it from being nonsense, and a failure of vision and political will. Whether or not the vision of ecosocialism offered here has merit, the notion that there is no other way of organizing an advanced society other than capital does not follow. Nothing lasts forever, and what is humanly made can theoretically be unmade. Of course it could be the case that the job of changing it is too hard and capital is as far as humanity can go, in which instance we must simply accept our fate stoically and try to palliate the results. But we don’t know this and cannot know this. There is no proving it one way or the other, and only inertia, fear of change or opportunism can explain the belief in so shabby an idea as that there can be no alternative to capital for organizing society. Logic alone neither persuades nor gives hope; something more solid and material is required, a combination of the dawning insight of just how incapable capital is of resolving the crisis, along with some spark that breaks through the crust of inert despair and cynicism by means of which we have adapted to the system. At some point it has to happen if capital is the efficient cause - the realization will dawn that all the sound ideas for, say, regulating the chemical industries, or preserving forest ecosystems, or doing something serious about species-extinctions, or global warming, or whatever point of ecosystemic disintegration is of concern, are not going to be realized by appealing to local changes in themselves, or the Democratic Party, or the Environmental Protection Agency or the courts, or the foundations, or ecophilosophies. or changes in consciousness for the overriding reason that we are living under a regime that controls the state and the economy, and will have to be overcome at its root if we are to save the future. Relentless criticism can delegitimate the system and release people into struggle. And as struggle develops, victories that are no more than incremental by their own terms stopping a meeting of the IMF, the hopes stirred forth by a campaign such as Ralph Nader’s in 2000 can have a symbolic effect far greater than their external result, and constitute points of rupture with capital. This rupture is not a set of facts added to our knowledge of the world, but a change in our relation to the world. Its effects are dynamic, not incremental, and like all genuine insights it changes the balance of forces and can propagate very swiftly Thus the release from inertia can trigger a rapid cascade of changes, so that it could be said that the forces pressing towards radical change need not be linear and incremental, but can be exponential in character. In this way, conscientious and radical criticism of the given, even in advance of having blueprints for an alternative, can be a material force, because it can seize the mind of the masses of people. There is no greater responsibility for intellectuals. In what follows, there will be neither blueprints nor omniscience, although I will be laying out certain hypothetical situations as a way of framing ideas. The overall task can be stated simply enough: if an ecological mode of production is the goal, what sort of practical steps can be defined to get us there? What might an ecosocialist society look like? How are the grand but abstract terms of basic change to be expressed as functions of lived life? And how can the path towards an ecosocialism that is not sharply defined incorporate the goal towards which it moves? Both of these cards were pulled from Northwestern's senior lab 08 file. Thanks to Jeffrey & Ankita for making this file.
  6. Hey all, @ Bkennedy, is that herod 4 card that you're referencing the alt for a cap K that claims that ~100k or something like that people have to be on board for a successful overthrow of capitalism? Also, if people think that this is the only viable alternative to capitalism look into johnson 95 (dont have much more information cuz I dont have my tubs etc with me, ill look around for it on my backfiles. Cheers!)
  7. I dunno, that card that you're reading as a "free link" to nuclear war seems to state that other countries shouldn't reserve the right to veto our domestic legislation. This is not the same thing, at least in my opinion, as that card saying that if the US consults one organization/country/whatever it may be then the US loses military dominance. the tag is very nice though. "Allowing foreign countries or international institutions to veto or modify unrelated U.S. policies would make a mockery of our foreign policy and destroy the credibility of American leadership. " I think that the US significantly reducing foreign intervention in any of the aforementioned countries might be relevant to some international organization such as NATO.
  8. those are all fine arguments and whatnot but the biggest problem with consult plans is.....the person the US consults saying no. No neg team is going to have a card that says X will agree with the binding consultation etc over our plan. It will say something like oh, JApan and the US have agreed on stuff in the past and then the neg will make the aff look pretty bad by winning it without the aff arguing that they would say no.
  9. I'm looking thru all this stuff and all I have to say is... well not much at all btu hi all ar debaters. If anyone needs a hand with some small task i may be able to work on some stuff quick b4 the semester heats up too much.
  10. "Nobody's going to Russelville. They won't even have enough teams to make it a qualifier for the Arkansas State Tournament. Plus the judging there is always really shitty." Well from what I've heard pretty much every tournament has had shitty judging. And apparently I'm just a central jerk with a grudge or something (said random novice Fayetteville debater)
  11. judges in arkansas will vote on ridiculous shit like having one shoe that is dark brown and one being light brown and therefore you lose. It sucks but its part of this nebulous terrible conception of "debate" that many judges in Arkansas hold. That is all, good luck to everyone debating in Arkansas, I may see those of you that are going to attend UAM this next summer, and I'll maybe judge at Rogers but I dont know where else I'll be able to judge. Good luck at whatever the next tourney is
  12. I havent heard about whether or not it will be open but I've heard rumors that funding will play a leading role in the majority of debates. woopie!
  13. who else is gonna be at bentonville?
  14. Well while I appreciate the comments and think that I won't get spread out or lost in an arkansas varsity round.. I also think that we can't take all blame onto these other people, because after all i missed my judging commitment last night because there wasnt a place to park and this morning because my phone was on silent. So while I am qualified I wasnt with the school and therefore woken up like I was used to. :\ the one round I did judge was fun tho.. and by fun, well you get it
×
×
  • Create New...