Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Okay

About nacmjc

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
  1. Hey, I'm looking for a homecut afropessimism file. It doesn't have to be fully blocked out as I'm really just looking to supplement my existing files. Also looking for brown race theory or decoloniality, so message me if you have those too. I've got lots to trade, especially Ks.
  2. nacmjc

    Neolib K

    If I had to sum up the alt to a neolib K in a way that makes sense in the context of the pure economic theory you're asking for, protectionism is the word I'd use. That probably isn't what most teams are advocating for, but it's the closest we're gonna get. This card is a solid advocate of that, and sums up fairly well the basic logic of things like Cubanalismo: Trade liberalization with Cuba “kicks away the ladder†to prevent successful Cuban development – their claims about free trade are historical myths that ignore the success of protectionism in promoting growth and quality of lifeFanelli 8 (Carlo, SSHRC Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Department of Politics & Public Administration, Ryerson University, He received his PhD from the Department of Sociology & Anthropology at Carleton University, “‘Cubanalismo’: The Cuban Alternative to Neoliberalismâ€, New Proposals: Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry Vol.2, No. 1 (November 2008) pgs. 7-16) A closer look at the history of capitalism, however, reveals a much different story than the one being championed by supporters of neoliberalism (Chang 2003). For instance, the majority of today’s advanced industrialized countries of the Global North that are actively championing neoliberalism did not themselves in their early history practice free trade, the removal of tariffs and subsidies, or the retrenchment of the state in order to protect the private interests of capital. Instead, the US and UK, for instance, promoted their national industries through tariffs, subsidies, and an active and intervening role of the state into capitalist ventures (Chang 2003). “These two countries were, in fact, often the pioneers and frequently the most ardent users of interventionalist trade and industrial policy measures in their early stages of development†(Chang 2003:1). One potential explanation for this may be, as the nineteenth century German economist Friedrich List suggests: It is a very common clever device that when anyone has attained the summit of greatness, he kicks away the ladder by which he has climbed up, in order to deprive others of the means of climbing up after him. Any nation which by means of protective duties and restrictions of navigation has raised her manufacturing power and her navigation to such a degree of development that no other nation can sustain free competition with her, can do nothing wiser than to throw away these ladders of her greatness, to preach to other nations the benefits of free trade, and to declare the penitent tones that she has hitherto wandered in the paths of error, and has now for the first time succeeded in discovering the truth. [cited in Chang, 2003:5] If this is the case, as Chang (2003) proposes more than a century later, the historical evidence suggests that advocates of neoliberalism are indeed “kicking away the ladder†that they used to achieve their current level of development so that a very limited and chosen number of nations may reach relative parity. Debunking the neoliberal myth of free trade from the historical perspective demonstrates the paradox faced by neoliberal economists since the majority of underdeveloped nations in the Global South grew much faster when they used active interventionalist policies from 1960 to 1980, than when they did during the following two decades (Chang 2003). Given the history of capitalist development and the substantial differences that exist between what is preached and what is actually practiced, Cuba has chosen to follow its own path to development based not on free trade and laissez-faire economics, but on one centered on a state-led model of growth that emphasis the social and human responsibilities of economic relations. The three pillars of the Cuban economy are, first, state-led economic development; second, a high concentration of public sector employment; and third, a high degree of tariffs and subsidies in order to promote domestic production and consumption. Much like the early history of their neighbours to the north, Cubanalismo attempts to maintain high and stable trade barriers while protecting their infant industries in order to encourage domestic innovation and a strong industrial sector so as to be self-sufficient and shield the Cuban economy from whirlwind international markets. For the most part, Cuban economists and policy makers oversee the majority of economic activities and decisions. This allows the Cuban economy to remain flexible enough so as to adjust to international fluctuations and changing economic uncertainties both domestically and abroad. As Cuban manufacturing industries gained strength and self-dependence, Cuban officials gradually increased FDI throughout the 199 0s. What separates Cubanalismo from neoliberalism in this respect, is that Cuban officials allowed greater levels of FDI only after Cuban industries had become selfreliant so that they could “stand on their own feet†once productivity levels, efficiency, and quality had been more or less achieved. That said, most of the alts won't use the rhetoric of protectionism or answer to that name. They will, however, be about encouraging the growth and development of local, often underserved, economies. (this is the harder policy based alternatives, not the ones that work on a theoretical, pedagogical, and discursive level that Aubtin outlined above. I think also that your attempt to tie down the alts to a hard "sliding scale" is not gonna work. Debate, especially K debate, reflects academia to a large extent. So yeah, you can dismiss academics as "ivory tower" or "naive and unrealistic," but their arguments are still gonna be read and probably should be heard and considered.
  3. nacmjc

    Neolib K

    I've run this K against "normalize relations w/ Cuba"/ "end the embargo" type affs, so I will try to explain my story in this situation. First, check the Washington Consensus article I linked to above. It's pretty much the doctrine of neolib in Latin America. Many of the suggestions of the Consensus very much coincide with what you are talking about, so many of the goals of free trade are either shared with neoliberal ones, or ACHIEVED by neoliberal means. So, I guess the argument would be that yeah, the aff can totally advocate free trade, but there aren't really any policies towards Latin America that are actually Free Trade. So there isn't an aff that does that. We can discuss specific affs if that's what you're looking for. I don't really see what fiat has to do with this discussion. If the government is always and intrinsically linked to and controlled by corporate interests, and has historically acted for those interests, then USFG actions will be essentially neoliberal in intent and effect. Like, even if your aff was "the US will remove any and all restrictions on trade with Mexico," that's still a neoliberal action. The US is in a superior position economically- any action to liberalize trade would therefore not be with the intent of creating equality of economic opportunity between countries so much as remove barriers preventing US corporate interests from gaining strength and markets. That's why institutions like the IMF and the World Bank always require stuff like deregulation on the part of nations they "aid," and NAFTA disadvantaged Mexico so much. Anti-neoliberal authors do not assume the government is quite as benign an institution as you seem to. For them, the US has for pretty much all of history acted to hurt the people of the developing world. The K is based off that understanding, which is key to understanding it.
  4. nacmjc

    Neolib K

    So I run the Neolib K some, and I'll do my best to help answer some questions. That said, there's a lot of lit on the subject and my own interp of the K will not be the same as that of others. That said, here goes.
  5. nacmjc


    To clarify: Judges on my local circuit will always vote for inherency, at larger tournaments almost never. Thanks to everyone. What I'm getting is that inherency acts as a way to guarantee the links of offcase. Ex: econ disad needs inherency to guarantee that the link will be triggered because if the investment is happening in the squo or is just a small increase the link can't be triggered. Is that it?
  6. nacmjc


    Hey, I come from a pretty conservative area where inherency is always a voter. But I've lost rounds because judges don't believe inherency is worth voting on. So I'd like help understanding both of those viewpoints. Can anyone help?
  • Create New...