OPEN BORDERS1NC 1. CASE TURN – a. In the long-term open borders will be reversed and lead to excessive violence – Brexit proves Wilkinson 16 Brexit, debate has focused on just one specific concern: immigration. the alarmism about immigration has somehow hit new heights. the leader of the (UKIP), unveiled a poster last week featuring a queue of refugees and migrants with the words “BREAKING POINT” in red. Critics have compared the imagery to Nazi propaganda. Politicians from both major parties are now keen to show they take concerns about immigration seriously—while too few attempt to make a convincing case for welcoming migrants. Member of Parliament Jo Cox, 41, was shot dead Thomas Mair, appeared in court charged with her murder. When asked to give his name, he instead said “death to traitors, freedom for Britain.” Leave EU was also accused of stoking prejudice after it claimed continued E.U. membership would put Britons in danger by exposing them to the criminality of Turkish citizens. Rather than reaffirm their commitment to the union’s open borders, proE.U. politicians responded to these claims by insisting that free movement of people between Turkey and the U.K. is, “not going to happen.” Wilkins on, Abi. “T he Brexi t Vote Is R eall y About J ust One Thi ng.” T he New Republic, 21 J une 2016, newrepublic .com/articl e/134507/brexi t- vote-reall y-jus t-one-thing. the nic kname for T hurs day’s r eferendum on whether the U.K. s houl d leave or remain in the European Uni on, c oncer ns a thic ket o f iss ues: Empl oyment rights. Tr ade agreements . T axation autonomy. Di plomatic infl uenc e. But over whel mingl y, the It was a sign of things to c ome. Of course, right- wi ng news papers have been running s tories for years about the s upposed dangers of i mmigration fr om Eur opean countries . “Sol d out! Flights and buses full as Romanians head for the U K” screamed The D aily M ail, for exampl e, after c ontrols on migrati on fr om those states were li fted i n 2013. Last year, i n response to the c ontinent’s migrant crisis, Kati e H opki ns wr ote a col umn for The Sun calling for g uns hi ps to be deployed in the Mediterranean Sea to s top r efugees fr om entering Europe. H er pi ec e began, “No, I don’t c are. Show me bodies floati ng in water, pl ay vi olins and s ho w me s kinny people looki ng sad. I s till don’ t c are.” As the J une 23 vote has dr awn clos er, “Mass migration is allowi ng terrorists to pour into Europe” read a D aily M ail headli ne in April, whil e T he Sun cl aimed, “Ti de of T error: Ji hadis AR E expl oiting r efugee crisis to s muggle mi litants acros s Eur ope.” Nigel Far age, U.K. Independence Party Farage is one of the most pr ominent figur es i n the anti-E.U. movement, and i n many ways this r eferendum r epr es ents the c ul minati on of his life’s wor k. H e first joi ned the U KIP when it was in i ts i nfanc y, i mmedi atel y followi ng the signing of the 1992 M aastricht Treaty to cr eate an i ntegrated Europe. H e became the party’ s leader i n 2006, and has overseen its rise from obscurity to become a major political forc e. UKIP s ec ured nearl y 13 perc ent of votes in l ast year’s general election. Due to the U .K.’s non-pr oporti onal elec tor al s ys tem, this didn’t translate into a sig nificant legislati ve pr esenc e: The par ty hol ds j ust one s eat in the Hous e of C ommons . But UKIP’s i nfl uenc e has been far-reachi ng. Last T hursday, outsi de a librar y in West Yor ks hire where s he was about to hold a cons tituenc y surger y. A moder ate by most measur es, she had been a s trong advoc ate for the rights of refugees and migrants. She was als o a voc al bac ker of the Remain campaign and had tweeted a photo of her hus band and c hildr en aboar d last Wednesday’s pr o-E.U . T hames flotill a. T his week, 52- year-old Among those who were alr eady critical of the anti-immigrant tone of the Leave c ampaign, many feel that Cox’ s death is a direc t c onseq uenc e of s uc h extr eme and di visi ve rhetoric. “If you keep tal king about br eaki ng poi nts and traitors,” one 20-s omethi ng Londoner told me, “it’s not s urprisi ng someone might s nap.” M any i n the anti- E.U. camp have pus hed bac k agai nst what they s ee as the “ politiciz ati on of a tr agedy.” T hey c ontend that M air was a l oner who appar entl y s uffered from mental illness; as suc h, his actions can’t be blamed on the wi der political climate. I s poke to one man who s ai d that, though he pl anned to vote for the U.K. to remain in the E.U ., “I feel a bit uneas y about anyone usi ng this as an argument for R emain.” n r ec ent days , s everal promi nent anti -E.U. figures have tri ed to distanc e thems el ves from the mos t toxic as pects of the Leave campaign. Barones s Warsi , for mer c hair of the Cons er vati ve Party, went as far as to s wi tch her allegianc e to R emai n, describi ng the “hate and xenophobia” of UKIP’s “breaki ng point” pos ter as “ a s tep too far.” She has fac ed Isl amophobic abus e onli ne since defecti ng, and right- wi ng Br eitbart London nic knamed her “Barones s T oken.” Other politicians have stuck to their guns whil e attempting to emphasiz e the disti ncti on between the Leave.EU c ampaign, which Far age is as soci ated with, and the for mall y dis tinc t Vote Leave campaign, whic h is s upported by most pro- Leave M Ps. “T hat’s not my politics and that’s not my c ampaign,” for mer London Mayor Boris Johnson tol d r eporters during a r ecent tour of fis hing ports in East Anglia. However, l ast month Turkey is n’t c urrentl y part of the E.U ., but is keen to neg otiate members hip, and headlines have war ned this means “ 75 million Tur ks [are] on course for vis a-free tr avel in EU”— a cl ai m which has been r epeated by Leave campaig ners . Cameron r ecentl y c onfirmed that he wouldn’t support Tur key j oini ng the E.U . within the next couple of years , but dodged questi ons on l onger-ter m possibiliti es. in the words of Labour M P C huka U munna, 1. Growth DA a. Open borders would skyrocket the economy EATON 17 Georg e Eaton, po litical editor of New Stateman, a po litical and cultur al m agaz ine publish ed in Lon don, 8-21-17, "The econo mic and mor al case for glob al op en bord er s," N ew St atesm an https://www.newst atesm an.com /2017/08/economic- and-mor al- case-g lobal-open-bo rders/ JRG Across the worl d, borders ar e bei ng cl osed, not opened. In the U S, D onal d Tr ump has vowed to hal ve i mmigrati on to 500,000 and to cap the number of r efugees at 50,000. In the U K, the Cons er vati ve government has reaffir med i ts pledge to end fr ee movement after Br exit is c oncluded. In Eur ope, Hungar y, Poland and the Cz ec h R epublic ar e bei ng s ued by the EU for r efusing to acc ept a mandator y s har e of r efugees. Even J eremy C orbyn’s Labour Party has foll owed the rightward drift. Its g eneral el ecti on manifesto promis ed to end fr ee movement, and C orbyn r ecentl y complai ned of t he “ wholes al e i mportation of under pai d wor kers from centr al Europe”. Among ec onomists , however, a diametricall y oppos ed c onvers atio n prevails. T hey argue that r ather than li miting free movement, leaders s houl d expand it: from Europe to the world. Mic hael Cl emens , a s eni or fellow at the Center for Global D evelopment, li kens the pr es ent s ys tem to leavi ng “trillion- dollar bills on the sidewal k”. Economists estimate allowing migrants to move to any country they choose would increase global GDP by between 67 and 147 per cent. A doubling of GDP would correspond to 23 years of growth at 3 per cent. By contrast, the International Monetary Fund estimates that permitting the entirely free movement of capital would add a mere $65bn. that (a $78tr n i ncreas e) b. Economic growth is unsustainable, turns the case Samuel Alexander, 2015. Dr. Samuel Alexander, co-director of the Si mplicity Institute, is a le cturer at the Offi ce for Environme ntal Programs, University of Melbourne, Australia, teaching a cours e called ‘ Consumeris m and the Growth E conomy: I nterdis ciplinary Pers pectives’ i nto the Masters of Environment. He is als o a Resear ch Fellow with the M elbourne Sustaina ble Society Institute. 8/11 /15. Su ffi ciency Econo my: Enou gh, for Everyone, Forever. http://si mplicitycollective.com/introducti on-t o-s ufficie ncy -economy Accesse d 7/5 /18 // WR-N CP INTRODU CTION What is to be done? This is s urely one of the central questions for those of us w ho are ani mated by what Charles Eise nstein calls ‘the more bea utiful w orld our hearts know is possi ble’; a ce ntral questi on for thos e of us with the fire of e cologi cal de mocracy burning in our eyes. Yet, it is a question that de mands engage ment with three preli minary questions, the answ ers to which provide the ne cessa ry gui dance for e ffective practi cal action. First, we must adequately understand the nature and extent of the overlapping crises that confront us today. Secondly, we must envision the alternative world, or matrix of alternative worlds, that woul d ade quately diss olve the curre nt cr ises and pr ovide the foundations for a flourishing human civilisation i nto the de ep future. And thirdly, having provided an a ccurate critique and having envisi one d an appr opriate and effective alternative, we must me ditate deeply on the question of strategy – the question of how best to direct our ener gies and resource s if we are to maxi mise our cha nce s of buildi ng the new worl d we have imagined. The n, and only then , are we in a position to ask ourselves the ulti mate que stion: w hat is to be done? If that question is asked prematurely, or if it is asked having answered any one of the preli minary que stions ina dequately, the n there is a great risk that one’s a ction, motivated by the best of i ntentions, is dire cted in ways that fail to e ffe ctively produce any positive effect and, indeed, may even be counter-productive to the ca use. T he publication of my two volumes of colle cted e ssays – P ROSPE ROUS DESCENT a nd SUFFICIE NCY E CONOMY – re prese nts an attempt to engage these questi ons as directly and as clearly as pos sible. The primary motivation for doi ng so arises from my concern that much of the literature on overlapping crises, ‘sustainable development’ fails to understand the magnitude of our and for that reason, the envisioned alternatives or s olutions widel y propos ed tend t o be fundame ntally misconceived. Further more, w hen the critique of the e xisting worl d is off ta rget and whe n the envisi one d alternatives are mis conceived, it should come as no sur prise that the strategies proposed for ac hieving the stated goals are si milarly flawed. I f our map is poorl y drawn and our compa ss is broke n, we are unlikely to arrive at w here we need to g o. Is it any wonder humanity see ms s o lost and directionless? Over the years of writing the se essays my ideas and pers pectives have naturally evolved in a diale ctical relations hip with other people’s idea s, and are constantly being refine d further as my e xperie nce of the ever -changing worl d is digested a nd re flected upon. The human condition is s uch that the sands of thoug ht forever s hift be neath our feet. Nevertheless, having now s pent the best part of a decade engaging the questions posed a bove, I notice that the evide ntial ground upon whi ch I stand is fir ming up, providi ng me with confide nce that the position I de fend – radical though it may see m – is a ccurate, even if there may be matters of detail that will always be open to revision or refi nement. In this introduction I woul d like to state some of the funda mental tenets w hich shape t he foll owing essays , in the hope that this will guide the interpretation of those es says, espe cially at those time s when these central ideas lie be neath the s urfa ce of a more focused di scussion. As I am writing this introduction after having written the e ssays, there is als o the lu xury of having the full bene fit of what I have learned t hroughout the writing proces s. Here are twelve de fining the ses that sha pe my work: 1. planet is a recipe for ecological and humanitarian catastrophe. Pursuing growth on a finite limitless Despite the controversy that still surrounds the ‘li mits to growth’ perspe ctive, there is somethi ng strikingly obvious a bout the idea that if human population keeps growi ng, if our resource and energy de mands on the natural e nvironment continue expandi ng, and i f our strea ms of waste and polluti on keep growi ng, then eve ntually we will under mine the e cologi cal foundations of our civilisation s o violently that nature will fight ba ck and bri ng things into balance. Let us fa ce the fa ct, too, that ‘bri nging things int o balance’ is a eu phe mis m for mass population die-off, signifyi ng a pros pective tragedy of uns peakable pr oportions. So the que stion is not so much whether there are limi ts to growth – of cour se there are limits to growt h! – but rather when t hose li mits will begin to impos e themselves on our current ways of living and force us to live differently. It woul d be far better for peopl e and pla net that we anticipate the se limits and begin w orking toward a post-growth e conomy now. Nee dless to say, this will not be easy. We have developed two cent uries of industrial, growth-orientated momentum that will make it incre dibly difficult to consci ously redire ct the economi c trajectory so fundamentally. But transitioning ‘beyond growth’ is a transformation that is coming, one way or another. Better it be by design tha n disa ster. 2. ‘ is a dangerous myth that entrenches the status quo. When the limits to growt h are raised in objecti on to the growth model of progres s, ma ny fantasy that science and technology will save the day. naïve. It is of the ut most i mporta nce, of cours e, that we use the best of our te chnological knowledge to help us achieve a s ustainable way of life thr ough e ffi cien cy impr oveme nts. It woul d be foolis h to argue otherwise. But effe ctive, the drive for efficie ncy must be s hape d and li mited by an ethi cs of suffi cien cy. That is to say, our aim shoul d not be to do ‘ more with les s’ (whi ch is the flawed paradigm of gree n growth), but to do ‘enough with less ’ (whi ch is the paradigm of s ufficie ncy ). 3. Green growth’ people seem comforted by the Current for ms of growth may have ecological li mits, these people acknowledge, but they then insist that the global economy ca n and should keep gr owing forever, if only we learn how to pr oduce and consume more e ffi cie ntly. This is nice i n theory, per haps, but it is biophysically efficiency cannot ‘decouple’ economic growth from impact ‘Degrowth’ alone ecological (i.e., planne d contraction of re sour ce and energy de mands) is necessary in the develope d nations in order to move towar d a just and sustaina ble economy that operate s within the sustainable carrying capa city of the planet. sufficiently to pr oduce a sustainable way of life. The exte nt of decoupling re quired is simply too great. To be When the e xtent of ecological overshoot is understood, and bearing in mind the fa ct that ecol ogical room must be left for poorest nations to attain a digni fied e xisten ce, there i s no es capi ng the fa ct that degr owth is req uired in the developed – or rather overdeveloped – regions of the world. T his is not a popular thesis, but it does re flect a bi ophysi cal reality. 4. Addressi ng poverty within a degrowth fra mework i mplies a redi stribution of wealth a nd power on a much more egalitarian basis . Within the growt h model it is assume d that poverty will be eliminate d throug h continue d growth of the global economy via some ‘tri ckle down’ effect. T his is an e cologi cally unsupportable pathway to poverty eliminati on, be cause it relies on continued growt h on an alrea dy overbur dene d planet. Once it is recogni sed that growth cannot solve the pr oble m o f poverty and in fact threate ns to e xacer bate it through climate change, conti nued e col ogical degra dation, or e conomic collapse , it becomes clear that the only cohere nt pathway beyond poverty lies in a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and power wit hin a degrowth model of progress. T his is not the place to argue how that coul d be a chieved – there are many options. The pre sent point is si mply to acknowledge that it is a necessary feature of any transition to a just and s ustainable w orld. 5. Degr owth implies radically red uce d energy and re sour ce req uireme nts compared to overdeveloped nations. Among ot her things, degrowth means giving up affluent, consumer lifestyles and e mbra cing ‘si mpler ways’ of living that provide for mostly local needs using mostly local resour ces. T his is an i mplication of the environme ntal predi came nt that few dare to a cknowle dge, since most pe ople se em resi stant to giving up the comforts and conve nien ces of cons umer a ffl uen ce. But given the e xtent of ecol ogical overs hoot, there is no way that the cons umer way of life could be universalised . Consumeris m was an e xperi ment that faile d. It led civilisation dow n a dead e nd. We are now being called to reimagine the good life beyond consumer culture and explore new conceptions of progress 2. and prosperity. This does not ne cessarily mea n hardship. It means focusi ng on w hat is sufficie nt to live well – and pur suing that goal with all the wisdom, creativity, and compa ssion we can muster. 6. It is not en oug h merely to live more simply within existing structure s and syste ms. While challenging ourselves to live more COUNTERPLAN a. The United States Supreme Court should declare the doctrine of “corporate personhood” unconstitutional and give federal prosecutors the authority to revoke a corporate charter. b. The CP eliminates evil corporations explicitly punishing them for crimes Noonan , JD from GWU Law Sc hool, Februar y 2012 ( Kyle, “The C as e for a F ederal Cor por ate C harter R evoc ation Penalty,” 80 Geo. Was h. L. Rev. 602, Lexis) Congress should give federal prosecutors the authority to revoke a state-granted corporate charter as punishment for federal crimes. federal charter revocation better meets the criminal justice goal of retribution. Providing a meaningful way to end a corporation's existence as punishment for serious criminal behavior meets the public's need for retribution far better than the current system. the current system fails to provide adequate deterrence or retribution for corporate misconduct. The reality today is that pr osec uti on of egregious cri minal behavior committed by c orporations - behavi or res ulti ng, for example, i n preventable deaths, property destruction, and envir onmental devastati on - is handl ed largel y at the feder al, rather than st ate, l evel. n26 T he s ystematic fail ure of federal l aw enforc ement to adequatel y address c orporate crime, of which BP provi des an ill ustrati ve rec ent exampl e, is rooted in part i n the dis connec t between the dominance of feder al cri minal law and the state-bas ed exi stenc e of mos t c orporati ons. T his N ote argues that, to remedy this iss ue, There are three c entral r easons for maki ng charter revoc ati on available as a federal penalty. First, s uc h a c hange would improve deterrence. Gi vi ng federal prosec utors this exis tenti al power n27 over cor porati ons woul d i mpr ove deterrenc e by preventing fines from becomi ng a c ost of doing busin ess for cor por ati ons . In BP-N A's c ase, repeated penalties of tens of milli ons of doll ars n28 appear to have failed to send a str ong enoug h signal to the c ompany to force a change i n its behavi or.Sec ond, Although an indi vidual c an be i mprisoned for crimi nal ac ts, a c orpor ation has " no soul to be damned, and no body to be kic ked ," n29 making monetar y penalties the mos t c ommonl y appli ed federal cri mi nal s ancti on. n30 C orporate fines a nd res titution c an [*607] often be passed along to c onsumers, n31 and fr equentl y leave the c orporation fundamentall y unchanged fr om befor e the penalty was l evied, n32 leaving the public need for r etributi on ag ains t the bad actor unmet. n33 Third, c orporate charter revoc ati on goes to the i ntegrity of the law its elf. Incor por ation is an affirmati ve grant of power issued by a s tate. n34 In other wor ds, a cor por ati on is a leg al ficti on n35: it has no natur al existence, but instead exists bec ause the l aw r ecog nizes it. n36 T he integrity of the l aw is challenged when a s tate's own cr eati on fl aunts the ver y s ys tem that created it. The affirmati ve blessi ng of i ncor por ati on cannot possibl y mean that other l aws, s uch as those r egul ating crimi nal conduc t, must give way. Thus , revoc ati on of c harters for cor por ations that have s hown thems el ves to be inc apabl e of c ompl yi ng with the law pr otects the integrity of l aw itself. This Note begins wi th a brief hi stor y of the cor por ate for m i n the Uni ted States and the evoluti on of c orporations from l oc al , public-ori ented entities c hartered by state legislatur es to eno rmou s m ultin ation al o rgan iz ations whos e l egal existence is a matter of rote adminis tration by a state agenc y. T his Part als o des cribes the development of c orporate crimi nal liability. Part II illus trates why It als o explai ns why current legal mec hanis ms to end a c orporation's exi stenc e - i ncl udi ng charter revoc ati on by state attorneys gener al, fines equal to the corporation's assets after designation as a cri minal pur pose organiz ation, and debar ment fr om feder al c ontracti ng - eac h fail to meet thes e needs or have disqualifyi ng pr obl ems [* 608] of their own. Part III details the legislation that C ongress s houl d pass to authoriz e feder al pr osec utors to revoke a state-granted c orporate c harter and c. And, eliminating corporate personhood is key to exposing the corporations that are committing these environmental abuses in the first place MTA 2001 MTA. “Abolis h C orporate Personhood T al k.” M ove to Amend, 21 Sept. 2001, movetoamend.org/abolis h-cor por ate-personhood. , the Supremes declared unanimously that corporations are persons deserving the law's protection. corporations received the status of persons by simple judicial fiat. And they did this at a time when all women, all Native Americans, and even most African American men were still denied the right to vote. they were assured 5th Amendment protection of due process. they got 4th Amendment search and seizure protection. freedom of the press and speech. since corporate persons have First Amendment rights, they can basically contribute as much money as they want to political parties and candidates. because they have legal personhood status, corporations are like superhumans with all the advantages and none of the disadvantages that we mere mortals have. the work of corporatists is to take this system global. Racism, ethnic, ideological, and cultural distrust were all intentionally instituted to prevent people from making common cause the whole thing had to go. corporate personhood is a bad thing, because it was the pivotal achievement that allowed an artificial entity to obtain the rights of people, thus relegating us to subhuman status. Corporate persons are now protected against search without a warrant under the 4th Amendment. This means that OSHA and the EPA have to schedule their inspections at a time convenient to corporate managers. If you think the air, land, or water in your community is being polluted, or the workers mistreated, neither you nor the government can go on corporate property to get information without legal permission. If corporate personhood is eradicated, a floodgate of possibilities opens for citizen sovereignty to replace corporate governance. By focusing on the crucial block — corporate personhood — and applying enough force to pry the door open, the whole concept of what's politically and humanly possible shifts in profound and exciting ways. a s eries of lower c our t c ases, the watershed moment c ame i n 1886 when the Supreme C ourt heard a c as e c alled Santa Cl ara Count y v. Souther n Pacific R ailroad. Citing the 14th Amendment, and without hearing any arguments There was no public debate about this and no l aw passed i n C ongress — T en years later, in Pless y v. F ergus on, the Supreme Court es tablished the "s eparate but equal" doctrine that legaliz ed raci al s egregati on through what became known as "Ji m Crow" laws . In l ess than 30 years, Afric an-Americ ans had effec ti vel y los t their l egal personhood rights while cor porati ons had acquired them. And in cas e you're s till wondering whether the primar y pur pose of the C ons titution and the body of law it s pawned is about pr otecting property r ather than peopl e, listen to this. Of the 14th Amendment c as es heard in the Supr eme Court i n the first 50 years after its adopti on, l ess than one-half of one perc ent invoked it i n protec tion of Afric an- Americans, and mor e than 50% as ked that its benefits be extended to c orporations. When you l ook at two- plus centuries of US leg al his tor y, the patter n is that peopl e acquire rights by amendment to the C ons titution — a long, drawn-out, difficul t proc ess — and c or por ations acq uire them by Supreme C ourt decisi ons. Rights for c orpor ations, bec ause they're about pr operty, is about who is excl uded; rights for human bei ngs is about who is i ncluded. Onc e c orporations had jumped the li ne, they pr oc eeded to purs ue the Bill of Rights thr ough more Supr eme Court c as es. In 1893 In 1906 In 1925 i t was In 1976 the Supr emes deter mi ned that money is equal to s peec h, and And s o we find ours el ves in a ti me when c orporations have amass ed enormous power and wealth, and c ontrol nearl y ever y aspec t of our lives , bec ause the y masq uer ade — under the law at least — as one of us. But most of us don't know it. A key reas on for that is that the whol e thi ng is pretty es oteric. A c orporati on is a l egal fic tion, an abstrac tion. You can't s ee or hear or touc h or s mell a cor por ation — it's j ust an i dea that people agree to and put into writing. But Corpor ations now have infi nite lifespans s o they can c ontinue to acc umulate wealth and power forever. You can cut off the figurati ve ar m or leg or even head of a cor por ation and it c an still c ontinue to exist. F urther more, cor por ate l awyers invoke their personhood status or not at their convenienc e, allowi ng them to be whatever they want ac cor ding to their needs. Along with this abstract existence, c orporations have acq uired a lot more abstract property. Owners hip of land and buil dings is still i mportant, but now c orporate pr operty als o includes c onc epts like miner al rights, drilling rights , air pollution cr edits, i ntellectual property, and even — under N AFTA — rights to futur e profits. All this abstrac tion fi ts i n to the ways property is us ed to maintai n mi nority rule. When c orporations were over on the duti es si de of the line, the pri mar y techni que for enforci ng minority r ule was to establis h that onl y a ti ny perc entag e c ould q ualify as " We the Peopl e" — in other wor ds, that mos t people wer e s ubhuman. As differ ent groups of peopl e s truggled to be incl uded i n those first thr ee wor ds of the C onstituti on and eventually s ucceeded, the c orporation cr oss ed over to the rights si de and ul timatel y became s uper human, s till mai ntaini ng an artificiall y el evated status for a s mall number of peopl e. T oday Having acquir ed the ability to g over n i n the U nited States, the cor por ation is the ideal ins trument to gai n c ontrol of the res t of the world. The c oncepts, l aws, and tec hniques perfected by the ruli ng minority her e are now bei ng forced down the thr oats of peopl e ever ywhere. First, a complicit r uling elite is c o-opted, ins tall ed, or pr opped up by the U S militar y and the government. Then, j ust as slaver y and immigrant status onc e kept wages nonexistent or at pover ty levels , now s weats hops, maquiladoras , and the prison-indus trial c ompl ex provide ultra-c heap l abor with littl e or no regul ati on. J ust as sharecroppi ng and c ompany store scrip onc e kept people trapped i n per manentl y s ubser vi ent produc tion r oles , now the IMF and WB's str uctural adjus tment pr ograms keep entire countries in permanent debt, the world's poor est peopl e forced to feed i nterest payments to the world's ric hest while their own families g o hungry. J ust as genoci de was waged ag ains t nati ve p opulati ons that li ved s ustainabl y on the l and, now wars are i nstig ated agai nst peopl es and r egimes that resist the so-c alled " free tr ade" mantra bec aus e they have the audaci ty to hold their own ideas about governance and resource dis tribution. sexism, classis m, homophobi a, and di visi ve r eligious , agains t the ruli ng mi nority, and thos e s ystems c ontinue their destr ucti ve wor k today. T hese s ystems of oppressi on that I' ve been tal king about weren't established over night; they were gradually and s ometi mes surr eptitiousl y i ntr oduc ed and refined in ways that made them acc eptable. At the ti me of the C onstituti on, c orporati ons were wi del y re vil ed, but a c entur y later they were a commonpl ace busi nes s institution, and a c entur y after that they' ve bec ome our i nvisibl e g over nment! T hey accomplished this over dec ades , c hanging a littl e piece of law here and inc orpor ating a thr ow-away c omment in a j udicial decision there.R esis tanc e to thes e oppres sions evol ved i n a si milar way. Those who wis hed to end slaver y, for example, wor ked for many years coll ecti ng infor mation, refi ning their anal ysis, and deba ting among thems el ves. They came to understand the iss ue as one of human rights and that the whole ins titution of slaver y was fundamentall y wr ong. T hey di dn't c ome up with a Slaver y R egul ator y Ag enc y or vol untary c odes of conduc t for sl ave owners. They c alled thems el ves Abolitionists — We look at c orporate personhood the same way. We see that cor por ate personhood was wrongl y gi ven — not by We the People, but by nine Supreme C ourt judges. We further see that And finall y, bec aus e of the way c orporate pers onhood has enabl ed c orporati ons to gover n us, we see that i t is s o bad, we must eradic ate it. Sl aver y is the leg al ficti on that a pers on is property. C orpor ate pers onhood is the l egal fiction that pr operty is a pers on. Li ke abolis hing sl aver y, the wor k of eradic ati ng cor por ate pers onhood takes us to the deepest questi ons of what it me ans to be human. And if we are to li ve in a democrac y, what does it mean to What woul d c hange if c orporations did not have pers onhood? Well, her e ar e a few exampl es. If cor porate pers ons no longer had first amendment right of free s peec h, we could pr ohi bi t all c orporate political ac ti vity — no mor e c ontributions to c andidates or parti es, no more lobbyi ng. J us t think of the ripple eff ect on our political proces s if no c orporate money c oul d contami nate it! Just thi nk of the cons equenc es if c orporate polluters were no l ong er shi elded by the C ons titution! Without their pr otecti ons under the 5th and 14th Amendments, c orporati ons c oul d be pr evented fr om merging and owni ng stoc k i n other cor por ations . We c oul d leafl et i n malls, we co uld pass l aws agai nst chai n stores and c ell phone towers, we c oul d organiz e openl y at wor k. We thi nk the campaign to end c or por ate pers onhood is li ke appl yi ng a mas si ve crowbar at the mos t pi votal point ag ains t a stuc k door holdi ng bac k democrac y. N o more tr ying the key i n the rusted loc k; no mor e poki ng with a c oat hanger her e and ki c king at a c orner there. We hope you'll joi n us i n this wor k and we l ook for war d to cr eati ve coll abor ation as we rec onnect with our s over eignty. T hank you! d. CP solves best QUIGLEY 12 Quigley, Bill. “Occupying Corporations: How to Cut Corporate Power.” Comm on Dream s, 6 Feb. 2012, www.co mmondreams.org/view s/2012/ 02/ 06/occupying -corporations-how-cut-corporate-power. We must strip them of corporate personhood and cut them down to size Corporate crime is widespread. Corporate abuse is even more widespread. For example, Corporate Accountability International named six Koch Industries for spending Corporati ons are obviousl y not people. But R omney i s accur ate i n the s ens e that cor por ati ons have hijac ked most of the rights of peopl e while evadi ng the res ponsi bilities . An i mpor tant part of the s oci al justic e ag enda is democr atizi ng cor por ati ons . T his means we mus t radic ally change the l aws s o people can be in charge of cor porati ons. so democrac y c an wor k. People are taking acti on s o democrac y c an regul ate the siz e, sc ope and acti ons of c or por ations . One of the mos t basic rol es of soci ety is to protec t the peopl e from harm. T he massi ve siz e of many inter national cor por ati ons makes democratic c ontr ol over them nearl y i mpossibl e. The New Yor k Ti mes, ProPublic a and others have r eveal ed Wall Street giants li ke J PMorgan, Citigroup, Bank of America and Goldman Sac hs have been charged with fr aud many ti mes onl y to get off by payi ng hundr eds of millions. Pr ofess ors at U ni versi ty of Virginia have doc umented hundreds of c or por ations whic h have been found guilty or pled guilty in federal courts. to its Cor por ate H all of Shame, i ncluding: over $50 million to fund climate change denial; Monsanto for mass producing cancer causing chemicals; Chevron for dumping more than 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into the Ecuadorian Amazon; Exxon Mobil for being the worst polluter; Without dramatic changes, how can we expect people in small or even big countries to force corporations like Wal-Mart, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, BP, Toyota or Chevron to live by the same rules all the people have to? strip corporations of the special artificial legal protections they have created for themselves. Blackwater (now Xe) for killing unarmed Ir aqi ci vilians and hiring par amilitaries ; and H alliburton, the nati on’s leadi ng war pr ofiteer. M aki ng cor por ati ons res ponsi bl e to democr ac y of the people is c hallenging consi deri ng Wal -Mart, the world’s biggest c or por ation, does more business its elf annuall y than all but two doz en of the two hundred plus c ountries in the world. Justice demands we make s ure cor por ati ons do not har m peopl e. D emocrac y must r equire that they operate for the common good. In or der to cut c orporations down to siz e, the people mus t The stor y of how c orporations took the full rights of l egal pers ons i n one of the great per vers e tragedies in legal his tor y. Cor porati ons have wor ked the courts mercilessl y si nc e 1819 to take a wi de vari ety of cons titutional rights that wer e designed to c over onl y peopl e. For exampl e, the F ourteenth Amendment was pass ed in 1868 to make s ure all citizens, partic ularl y freed slaves and peopl e of color, had full rights . T here was no mention of protec ting c orporations. But cor por ati ons jumped on this opportunity res ulti ng in a q ues tionabl e Supr eme C ourt decisi on that granted them l egal pers onhood. At r oug hl y the s ame ti me, the Supreme C ourt approved “separate but eq ual” r acial segreg ation. T hus in thirty years , African Americ ans lost their legal personhood, while cor por ati ons acquired theirs. Cor por ati ons now cl ai m: 1st amendment fr ee s peec h rights to advertis e and i nfl uenc e elec tions: 4th amendment s earc h and s eiz ure rights to r esist subpoenas and c hall eng es to their cri minal actions ; 5th amendment rights to due process ; 14th amendment rights to due proc ess where cor porati ons took the rights of former sl aves and us ed them for cor por ate protec tion; plus rights under the C ommerc e and C ontracts claus es of the cons titution. T he mos t recent cor por ate judici al takeover of constituti onal rights is the 2010 Supreme C ourt decisi on in Citizens United versus the Federal Election C ommission. T he c ourt ruled that cor por ati ons ar e protec ted by the First Amendment s o they c an use their money to infl uenc e elections. Becaus e of the bad Supr eme Court decisions, it takes a constituti onal amendment by the peopl e to c hang e the laws bac k. An amendment r equires two-thir ds of both hous es of C ongress to agree then three-quarters of the states must vote to rati fy. T his will take real wor k. But despi te the gr owing siz e and unrestric ted power of cor por ati ons , peopl e are fighti ng bac k. D ozens of groups ar e wor king to r evers e Ci tizens U nited and restor e li mits on c orporate el ecti on advoc ac y. In Januar y 2011, groups deli vered petitions signed by over 750,000 people c alling on C ongress to amend the C onstituti on and r evers e the decisi on. M ore than 350 l oc al events wer e hel d i n late Januar y 2012 to c hall enge the Citizens United decisi on. Groups challenging thi s injustic e include Code Pi nk, Common Caus e, Free Speech for Peopl e, M oveon.org, Move to Amend, N ational Lawyers Guil d, POC LAD , Public Citiz en, People for American Way, T he C enter for M edia a nd Democrac y, and make it clear that corporations are not people, are not entitled to the rights of people, and cannot contribute to political campaigns. The legal fiction of corporate personhood and the constitutional rights taken by corporations must cease. Join the efforts to cut them down to size and restore the right of the people Women’s League for Peac e and Fr eedom. M any groups ar e as ki ng for a br oad c onstituti onal amendment that makes it cl ear that cor porati ons ar e not people and should n ot be gi ven any c onstituti onal rights . R epres entati ves T ed Deutsc h of Flori da, Ji m Mc Gover n of M ass achusetts and Senator Berni e Sanders of Ver mont have s pons ored bills in Congress to start the proc ess for a c ons titutional amendment to There ar e also many energetic acti ons at the state l evel . People for the American Way list organizational efforts i n nearl y all 50 s tates to end c orporate influenc e i n elections or amend the c ons titution. Mas si ve cor por ati ons now r ule the earth. But they are rec ent arrivals whic h c an and s hould be dispatc hed. It is ti me for peopl e to agai n take c ontrol. to govern. 1. Zapatista K a. Open Borders is the end goal of neoliberal globalization Ackerman 11 (Dr. Edwi n Ac kerman uses c omparati ve- historical methods to unders tand how political i dentiti es for m and bec ome oper ati ve. H e has s tudied this pr ocess i n two c ontexts : politic al party for mati on in Lati n Americ a, and the historical traj ector y of debates over ‘illegal’ i mmigrati on from the global South to the U .S. His wor ks has been published in Ethnic and R aci al Studi es, the Journal of Language and Politics , and C ontexts, and has been featured i n N ati onal Public R adi o (N PR), among other medi a outlets. H e is curr entl y wor ki ng on a book manuscript that foc us es on how mass political parties for m and c onsoli date, devel opi ng a comparison between post-revolutionar y Mexi co and Boli via. Edwi n is a for mer MFP Fell ow and F ord Fell ow. H e r ecei ved his PhD in Sociol ogy fr om UC Ber keley, “N AFTA and Gatekeeper: A T heoretical Ass ess ment of Border Enforcement i n the Er a of the N eoliberal State”, Ber keley J our nal of Soci olog y, 2011, ac ces sed 7/13/18, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23345247) //JC Existi ng Theor etic al Fr amewor ks: Erosion versus Trans for mation Geographer Lawr ence A. Herz og, who has studi ed the U.S.-Mexic o border region ( but not bor der enforc ement), has s uggested that the internationalization of the world economy: has led to an inevitable reshaping of boundary functions. The most obvious change has been the shift from boundaries that are heavil y pr otected and militariz ed to those that are more porous, permitting cross-border social and economic interaction ( inter ested in the incr easi ng urbaniz ati on of inter national boundar y zones. Where N orth M eets South ( 1990) focuses on the ec on omic and functi onal circulation patterns that have emerged between " twin cities" and whic h ' eclipse the traditi onal scr eening functi ons of boundaries" (xi). H erzog devel ops the c oncept of "trans-fr ontier metr opolis": " independentl y of the will of governments. H erz og writes : 1992:5-6). While s uch a statement is obvi ousl y per plexi ng consi deri ng the pr esent situation, it is i mportant to point out that H erzog was th e d ejure fun ction s of th e bou ndar y ar e f ading , giving way to n ew terr itorial political com munities with som e d egr ee of autonom y and jurisdiction ov er th eir tran sn ation al living sp ace " ( xi). A centr al i dea i n H erzog's wor k is that some overall tendenc y to move progres si vel y away from fortifi ed barriers has been i n effect beginning i n the s econd half of the twentieth centur y. For the author, the traditional functions of boundaries (to functi onall y and s ymbolic ally repres ent the outer lini ng of the sover eign nation s tate) have been changed. Whi le the c oncept of "tr ans- frontier metr opolis" s eems to exaggerate the c hanging r ole of nati on states, one of the i deas is that bor ders ar e bei ng changed cr oss-nati onal trade, migrati on, and global trans portati on have g enerated a sc al e of human behavi or that transc ends the nation-state [...] the bor der zone between the United States and M exic o is one suc h place. H ere, not onl y is the boundar y increasingl y por ous, it has bec ome the l oc us of l arge perma nent ur ban centers (1990:2- 3). T he idea that the nation state is being transc ended is rei nforced by H erz og's embrac e of a world-s ystems approac h: " boundar y z ones deri ve their meani ng from a r ole determi ned by the wor ki ngs of the worl d economy" ( 1990:13). Furthermore, H erzog argues: " Boundar y citi es have bec ome s o functionall y intertwi ned that their futur es are i nextricabl y bound, whet her or not the nati onal g over nments ar e abl e to devis e for mal proce dures for addr essing border-related problems" (1990:61; emphasis added). So, whil e it might be eas y to dis mis s H erzog's proposi tions as blatantl y misguid ed c onsi dering the enforc ement policies that began i n 1994, there is still a sovereignty is being decentered and redistributed onto other entities such as supranational organizations, level at whic h his i deas ar e worth consi deri ng (world-s ystems approac h aside — whi ch would explai n the s hift in border polici es as a functi on of a c hange in the world ec onomy); if we take his i deas seriousl y we coul d c oncl ude that the curr ent polici es are a sig n of the c ontradicti on that exi sts between the i nterests of at l east a part of the s tate and the tendenci es unleas hed by globalizati on. T he state is tr ying to bl oc k a tendenc y that transc ends it, yet the tr ans cend ing is happeni ng anyway (through incr eased ec onomic i nteracti on and undocumented immigrati on, for example) . Sas ki a Sasse n ( 1995) has als o poi nted out a si milar c ontradicti on. Whil e s he has emphasiz ed the ways in whic h inter national agreements on human rights that li mit s tate autonomy, and the inter national legal regime for business trans acti ons (65). Sas sen writes: "Ec onomic gl obalization denation alizes nati onal ec onomies ; i n c ontras t, imm igr ation is ren ation alizing politics [...] that national state cl ai ms all its old s plendor i n asser ting its sover eign right to c ontrol its bor ders" ( 63) . Denation alization is i n progres s onl y i n a highl y s pecializ ed ins titutional and functi onal way ( 65). The q ues tion becomes: "how c an t he state r elinquis h s overeignty i n s ome realms and cli ng to it i n others ?" ( 64). For Sass en, the ans wer has to do with the fact th at immigration legisl ation lies within the C ongressional J udici ar y C ommittee (not wi thi n the F oreign Affairs committee, for e xample). Since Congress is s ubj ect to different i nteres ts based on variegated c onstituenci es, we stumbl e upon a "polic y- making tug of war" (76) between c ongressional intent and the foreign affairs prioriti es of the exec uti ve: "i mmigrati on polic y c ontinues to be c har acterized by i ts for mal isol ati on from other maj or proc ess es, as if it wer e pos sibl e to handle migration as a bounded, cl os ed event" ( 91). Even so, Sas sen beli eves that human rights regi mes begin to impi nge on the pri ncipl e of nation-bas ed citiz enshi p and the boundaries of the nati on (95). T his i dea has been ec hoed by Soys al, although in a mor e qualified manner: boundaries ar e not more flui d, but rights within them ar e, and i t is perhaps pr ecis el y bec ause of this that the state s eeks to enforc e territorial exclusion (1994:141). Soys al writes: The flui d boundaries of membershi p do not necessaril y mean that the boundaries of th e nation-state- are flui d. N either does it i mpl y that the nation-s tate is less pr edominant than before. Indeed, the nation-states, still acting upon the national model — sinc e their exis tenc e is pr edic ated on tins model — c onstantl y tr y to keep out for eigners by iss uing new ali ens laws and adopting r estricti ve i mmigrati on policies (1994:141; emphasis added). However, the li mits of human-rights r egimes have been evi dent in ins tanc es i n which border-enforcement polici es i n the U.S. have been contes ted on thes e grounds . In 1999, the San Diego c hapter of the American Ci vil Liberties U nion and the C alifor nia Rur al Legal Assis tanc e F oundatio n plac ed a demand before the Inter-American C ommission on H uman Rights agai nst the gover nment of the Uni ted States. T he petition alleged that the State was r es ponsi ble for the deaths of migrants who l ost their li ves after the i mplementati on of Operation Ga tekeeper (Inter-Americ an Commissi on R eport 2005). Acc ordi ng to the petiti oners, the U.S. gover nment was ac ting i n vi olati on of Article I of the American D eclar ation of Human Rights by designi ng str ategies that consciousl y aimed at r e-channeling the fl ow of undoc umented migration to hars h rur al terrain. T he government del ayed in submitti ng a res pons e to the C ommissi on for clos e to two years . In its eventual defense, the govern ment argued that migrant deaths c oul d not be attributed to state acti ons but rather to people being ill prepared to cr oss harsh terrain; ther e was no basis under the Americ an Declaration to sugges t that a go ver nment was obligated to resort to "all r easonabl e efforts" to mini miz e threats to the right to life when crafting polic y me as ures (Inter-American C ommissi on Repor t 2005) . T he state c ontended that i t c oul d not be held res ponsi ble for the natural l andsc ape or " for the illeg al acti vity that its law-enforc ement personnel are acting to pr event." T he U.S. gover nment c ould not be as ked to "indiscri minatel y forgo i ts s overeign right and duty to contr ol the entr y of foreign nati onals wi thi n its territor y." The C om mission si ded with the State. Whil e the models pres ented by H erz og and Sass en s everel y un der esti mate the conti nui ng power of the s tate's bor der-enforc ement capabiliti es and i ntentionality, it is unfair to charac teriz e the debate as one between beli evers in the " erosion" of the s tate and thos e who s ee the power of the state even in an era i n whic h the ethos of neoliberalism, at a basic level, is a theory that claims that human well-being is best advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms, and hence state intervention in markets must be liberaliz ati on was pr evalent. After all ( especi all y s o for Sas sen), there is an implicit i dea that a part of the state is i mmers ed i n "fighting" agains t the erosi on of its traditi onal functi ons in the border. We might be i n a better positi on to unders tand bor der-enforc ement policies if we c oncentr ate on the ways in whic h the s tate has been tr ansformed under neoli ber alis m. F or D avid Har vey ( 2005:2), for exampl e, although severely restrained (the state c annot poss ess enough i nfor mation to s ec ond-guess mar ket sig nals, and it mig ht become per meated by i nteres t groups who shape state inter ventio ns for their own benefi t), i n practic e, ther e is, however, an i mpor tant r ole for the state: [N]eoli ber alism does not make the state or partic ular i nstitu tions of the s tate (s uc h as the c ourts and police func tions) irrelevant [...] There has, however, been a radical r ec onfigurati on of s tate i nsti tutions and practic es (partic ularl y wi th res pect to the balanc e between c oerci on and c ons ent, between the powers of c apital and of popul ar movements , and between executi ve and judici al power, on the one hand, and powers of repre sentati ve democrac y on the other) (Har vey 2005:78; emphasis added). This means that, while there is a push to increase the free mobility of capital between sectors, regions, and countries — which implies that barriers such as tariffs, punitive taxation, and environmental controls must be removed — the state is expected to proactively promote a "good business-investment climate." This tension within the theory of the neo liberal state results in practices that favor a good business climate over collective rights of labor or environmental protection ( Harvey 2005:70) . F or Har vey the neoli ber al state i n practi ce tends to produc e legisla ti on and regul ator y fr amewor ks that advantag e c orporations ( or specific inter ests such as energy, pharmac euticals , and agribusiness) ( 77). In fulfilling this tas k, the s tate may incr eas e i ts c oerci ve capacities: T he neoliberal state will res ort to coerci ve legislation and policing tactic s (anti- pic keting r ules , for instanc e) to dis pers e or repres s c ollec ti ve for ms of opposition to cor por ate power. F or ms of sur veillanc e and polici ng multi pl y: in the U S, i nc arcer ati on bec ame a key state str at eg y to deal with prob l ems arising among the dis car ded wor kers and marginaliz ed popul ations. The coerci ve ar m of the state is augmented to pr otect cor por ate inter ests and, if nec ess ar y, to repress dis sent ( 77). Loi'c Wacquant (2009) has taken up and exten ded the anal ysis of the coerci ve aspect of the neoliberal state by posi ting that the penal ap paratus has i ncreasi ngly bec ome part of the cor e organs of the state. The penal appar atus c omes to embody state s over eignty and is instrumental in imposing c ategories and upholdi ng material and s ymbolic di visi ons . Wacquant writes: the ongoing c apitalis t "r evol ution from above commonl y call ed neoliberalis m entails the enlargement and exaltation of the penal s ec tor of the bureaucratic fiel d, so that the state may c he c k the s oci al reverberations c aused by the diffusi on of s oci al ins ec urity i n the lower r ungs of the class and ethnic hi erarc h y as well as ass uag e popul ar discontent over the derelic tion of its tr aditi onal ec onomic and social duties (305) . Wacquant builds o n Pierr e Bourdi eu's notions of the bureaucratic fi eld as travers ed by two i nter necine s truggles. The first str uggle pits the " higher state nobility" of polic y makers ai mi ng to pr omote mar ket- ori ented refor ms agai nst the "l ower state nobility" of exec utants adhering to tr adi tional g overnment goals. T he s econd s trug gle — an oppositi on between the " Left hand" and the "Right hand" of the s tate — is between the "s pendthrift" mi nistries in charge of "social functi ons," on the left, and the ministri es c harged with enforcing the new economic discipli ne (budg et c uts , fis cal i nc enti ves and economic der egulation) on the right. Wacquant wis hes then to inc orporate an anal ysis of the penal appar atus of the s tate as a cor e c onstituent of the Right hand (289). He writes : E ver ywhere the l aw-and- order guignol has become a c ore ci vic theater onto whose stage elected officials pr anc e to dr amatize moral nor ms and dis play their profess ed c apacity for decisi ve ac tion, thereby r eaffir ming the politic al rel evance of Levi athan at the ver y moment when they organize i ts powerles sness with res pect to the mar ket (298). Wacquant, however, is critical of H arvey, who Wacquant s ees as faili ng to envisi on how the penal appar atus is centr al to the nor mal functioni ng of neoliberalis m ( 309). F or H ar vey, Wacquant cl aims, the s tate i nter venes onl y when the neoliberal order breaks down. Furthermore, the victi ms of state i nter venti on have not been opponents of cor por ate rul e, as Har vey would have it, but r ather pr ecari ous fr ac ti ons of the prol etariat. Wacq uant als o poi nts out that law enforc ement carries an "expressi ve func tion [with the] ramifyi ng material effects [of] gener ating] c ontr olling i mag es and public categ ories, to stoke c ollec ti ve emoti ons and acc entuate s alient social boundaries , as well as to acti vate s tate bureaucraci es s o as to mould s ocial ties and str ategies" ( 309). Indeed, Douglas S. Massey et al. ( 2002) argue that border militariz ati on strategi es were enac ted mostl y for s ymbolic political purpos es and wer e gener ated by the partic ular i nterac tions between ec onomic i nsecuriti es and the "c ulti vati on of public hysteria about undoc umented mi gration" (88). Acc ordi ng to Massey et al., INS bureaucrats detec ted a means of increasing both their prestige and their resources by promoting an i mag e of a border in crisis. R ec alling the impact of the Border Patr ol's public rel ati ons fil m Bor der U nder Sieg e, M ass ey et al. state: "Los t i n the uproar was the fac t that the i mag es were a direct c onseq uenc e of the Bor der Patr ol's own polici es — neither the number nor the charac teristic s of migrants had c hanges in any signi ficant way" (2002:88) . Yet, it i s still uncl ear where one c oul d plac e border enforc ement wi thi n a model ( Wacq uant's and Har vey's ali ke) that does not pr ovide a spac e for instanc es in whic h the repres si ve ar m of the state is ag grandiz ed in at least appar ent detri ment to s trict neoliberal sc hemes. This oversight c an par adoxic all y result in a disreg ard for the connec tion between bor der enforc ement and N AFTA, or in exaggerated notions about the correspondence between the s tate and c api tal. Indeed, s ome have s een N AFT A and Gatekeeper as serving co mplem entar y fun ction s for national and tran sn ation al capitalism ( maintai ning a vast amount of wor kers i n M exic o to feed the maquil ador as while at the same ti me allowi ng jus t enoug h wor kers to cross the bor der — un doc umented, and henc e s ubor dinated — to s atisfy American i ndustri es dependent on mi grant l abor). H us pek (2001) goes as far as to i mpl y that Gatekeeper has a s ocial -evol uti onist function as a filter that all ows i n onl y thos e who ar e more fit for wor k (those who are able to undergo the hars h c onditi ons of capitalists demand cheaper labor for their domestic industries and actively recruit the "industrial reserve army of labor" found in foreign labor markets. clandesti ne crossi ng). In ti mes of high pr oduc tion, it is argued, Convers el y, in ti mes of economic unc ertainty, a demand for a mor e cl osed immigration polic y arises in order to avoid capital i nstability. Gr ac e C hang (2000:174) for example, has argued that the "tru e functi on of the IN S [is] to regul ate the movement, availability, and independenc e of migrant labor ." C ertai nl y we c an think of the ways i n which border-enforcement polici es may end up benefiti ng capitalist s ec tors. Har vey ( 2005:168-169) writes that the "geographic al mobility of c apital per mits it to dominate a global labor forc e whose own g eographi c al mobility is cons trained." U ndoc umented l abor's "clandes tine" s tatus automatical ly r es ults i n the pres ence of a marginalized and subordinated pool of l abor, and, as Peter Brownell (2001:85) writes : "M exican w or k ers are not i nher entl y 'cheap l abor.' R ather , U.S. i mmigrati on polic y struc tur es the c onditi ons of their partici pation i n the labor mar ket." But to pr ovi de a caus al expl anati ons of the wor kings of the state s olel y by referenc e to the benefits alloc ated (often i ndir ectl y) by its polici es puts us too cl os e to a functi onalist anal ysis at best, and, at worst, bec omes pur e s pecul atatio n. Neil Brenner (2004) provi des us with a thir d model to be c onsi dered. Brenner has argued agai nst the i deas of the immi nent demis e of the nation s tate due to the unc ontroll abl e forc es of gl obalization, while at the s ame ti me critiquing the " pur el y territor i alist, nati onall y foc us ed models [which] have become an inadeq uate basis for understanding the r api dl y c hanging i nstituti onal and geographical lands capes of c apitalism" (7). Brenner is inter ested in understandi ng statehood under c ontemporar y capitalism by developi ng the counter argument that national states are being q ualitati vel y transformed, not dis mantl ed. F or him, s tate power , polic y for mation, and s ociopolitical struggle ar e bei ng dec entraliz ed i n r espons e to both global and domes tic press ur es, maki ng city-regions " key ins titutional sites i n which a maj or resc aling of nati onal s tate power has been unfoldi ng" (3). While Br enner is mostl y i nteres ted i n the tr ans for mati on of state s truc tur es i n rel ati on to c apitalist development, it is i mportant to c on sid er that the s tate func tions at differ ent j urisdicti onal l evel s. Indeed, a recent trend has been for cities to pass anti-immigrati on laws indepen dent of the feder al gover nment (M ass ey et al. 2002:93). It is als o i mpor tant to note, for example, that the a nti-i mmigration campaign that l ed up to C aliforni a's Pr opositi on 187, which woul d deny public ser vic es to undoc umented i mmigrants in the state arguabl y beg an in Januar y 1992 when Gustavo de la Vina, a Border Patr ol c hief in San Dieg o, unilaterall y decided to put up a new fenc e and depl oy additi onal agents j ust in ti me for many undoc umented migrants' return to the U.S. after vi siting famil y i n D ec ember. When migrants and s mugglers enc ountered thes e new obstacl es, they began organizi ng "banzai runs" (of fi fty or more i mmi grants) thr oug h the cl osest unbarricaded s ector (the offici al port of entr y its elf). By that ti me, de l a Vina ha d ass embled a vi deo cr ew to document the funnel ed migrator y flow and later edit a public r elati ons vi deo en titl ed Border U nder Si ege. T he video bec ame an important res ourc e during Governor Pete Wils on's push for Pr opositi on 187 (in fact, it s till remai ns arc hi val footage of c hoic e for many mains tream medi a outl ets even thoug h " banz ai runs" have dis appear ed al tog ether after Gatekeeper). Also, in the case of the border-enforcement buildup of the 1990s , it is inter esti ng to note that its i mmedi ate prec ursor was Op eration Bloc kade, which was als o unilaterall y l aunc hed by the Border Patr ol s ector i n El Pas o, T exas, in 1993 (N evins 2002:90). F urther more, in Nevi ns's descrip tion of the more immediate political atmos phere pri or to the i mpl emen tation of Gatekeeper, the new operation is disc uss ed as an attempt by the Clinton adminis tration to cr eate a counterweight to the politic al c apital gai ned by the R epublic an Party through Gover nor Pete Wilson and his push for Pr opositi on 187. Fr om a politic al s tandpoint, Gatekeeper was enac ted as a way to pr ove that the Clinton admini stration was "s erious" about stopping undoc umented immigration and to co mmuni cate to the voter that Wilson's Pr opositi on 187 was, henc e, unc alled for. It is hard to s ay that Gatekeeper is due to a r esc aling of the s tate bec aus e certain decisi ons wer e taken at a l ocal level. Indeed, i f these deci si ons are i n hindsight c onsi dered historic all y r elevant it is bec ause they inaugurated a s et of policies that were pr ojected as a national str ateg y. T he federal state si mpl y adopted l ocall y developed appr oac hes when it s aw it fit its inter ests . b. The system ensures perpetual commodification until absolute zero- the fundamental logic of capitalist economics necessitates the complete destruction of the environment. Foster and Magdoff ‘10 (John Bell amy and Fr ed, profess or of s oci olog y at the Uni versity of Or egon and profess or emeritus at the Uni versity of Ver mont, Marc h, “What Ever y Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalis m,” Monthl y R evi ew, http://monthl yr eview.org/2010/03/01/what-ever y-environmentalist- needs-to- know-about-c api talis m/) ecological crisis cannot be solved within the logic of the present system. The system of world capitalism is clearly unsustainable in: (1) its quest for never ending accumulation of capital ; (2) its agriculture and food system that pollutes the environment (3) its rampant destruction of the environment; (4) its search for technological magic bullets as a way of avoiding the growing social and ecological problems arising from its own operations. The struggle is ultimately against the system of capital. It must rooted in egalitarianism, community, and a sustainable relation to the earth. The reason that the opposition to the logic of capitalism—ultimately seeking to displace the system altogether—will grow more imposing is that there is no alternative, if the earth as we know it, and humanity itself, are to survive. Just as new challenges that confront us are changing in our time, so are the possibilities for the development of freedom and sustainability. The foregoi ng anal ysis, i f c orrect, poi nts to the fact that the The various sugges tions for doing s o have no hope of s ucc ess . leading to pr oducti on that must conti nuall y expand to provi de pr ofits and still does not all ow uni versal ac cess to a s uffici ent quantity and quality of food; its conti nuall y r ecreati ng and enhanci ng of the str atific ati on of wealth wi thi n and between c ountri es; and (5) The transiti on to an ecol ogical— which we believe mus t als o be a s ocialis t— economy will be a steep asc ent and will not occ ur overnig ht. This is not a questi on of “stormi ng the Winter Pal ac e.” R ather, it is a dynamic, multifaceted struggle for a new c ultural c ompac t and a new pr oduc ti ve s ystem. begin, however, by opposi ng the logic of capital, endeavoring in the here and now to create i n the inters tices of the s ys tem a new s oci al me tabolism The basis for the creati on of s ustainabl e human devel opment must aris e fr om within the s ystem domi nated by capital, without bei ng part of it, j ust as the bourgeoisi e its elf ar ose in the “ por es” of feudal s ociety.54 Eventuall y, thes e i niti ati ves c an bec ome powerful enough to c onstitute the basi s of a revol utionar y new movement and s ociety. All over the world, s uc h str uggles i n the interstic es of c apitalist society ar e now taking place, and are too numer ous and too c ompl ex to be dealt wi th full y here. Indigenous peoples today, given a new basis as a r esul t of the ong oing revol uti onar y s truggle in Boli via, are r einforci ng a new ethic of r es ponsibility to the earth. La Vía C ampesi na, a global peas ant-farmer organiz ati on, is pr omoti ng new for ms of ecol ogical agriculture, as is Brazil’s M ST (M ovi mento dos Trabalhador es R urais Sem T erra), as are Cuba and Venezuel a. R ec entl y, Venezul ean Pr esident H ugo C hávez str ess ed the social and environmental r eas ons to wor k to get ri d of the oil-renti er model in Venez uela, a maj or oil exporter.55 T he cli mate j ustic e movement is demandi ng egalitarian and anti-capitalist sol utions to the cli mate crisis. Ever ywhere r adic al, es senti all y anti-c api talist, s trategies ar e emerging, based on other ethics and for ms of organiz ation, rather than the pr ofit moti ve: ec ovillag es; th e new urban environment pr omoted i n C uritiba i n Brazil and els ewhere; experi ments in permac ulture, and c ommunity-s upported agricult ure, far ming and i ndustri al c ooperati ves i n Venez uel a, etc . T he World Soci al F orum has gi ven voic e to many of thes e aspir ati ons . As leading U .S. environmentalist J ames Gustave Speth has stated: “T he internati onal s oci al movement for c hange — whi ch r efers to i tself as ‘the irresisti ble ris e of gl obal anti-capitalism’ —is str ong er than many may i magi ne and will grow str onger.”56 H ere, the ai ms of ecol og y and s oci alism will nec ess arily meet. It will bec ome incr easi ngl y cl ear that the di stribution of l and as well as food, health c are, housi ng, etc. should be based on fulfilling human needs and not mar ket forces . T his is, of c ours e, easier sai d than done. But it means maki ng ec onomic decisi ons through democr atic proces ses occ urring at local, regional , and multiregional levels. We mus t fac e s uch iss ues as: ( 1) How can we suppl y ever yone wi th basic human needs of food, water, s helter , cl othing, health c are, educ ati onal and c ultural opportuni ties ? ( 2) How muc h of the ec onomic pr oducti on s hould be cons umed and how much invested? and (3) H ow s houl d the i nvestments be directed? In the proc ess , people must fi nd the best ways to c arr y on thes e acti viti es wi th positi ve i nteracti ons with natur e—to i mprove the ec os ys tem. New forms of democr ac y will be needed, with emphasis on our res ponsi bilities to eac h other, to one’s own c ommunity as well as to c ommunities around the world. Ac complishi ng this will, of course, r equire soci al planni ng at every level: loc al, r egional, nati onal, and internati onal— whic h c an onl y be s ucc essful to the extent that it i s of and by, and not just ostensi bl y for, the people.57 T he ver y pur pose of the new s us tai nable s ys tem, whic h is the nec ess ar y outcome of thes e i nnumerable struggles (necessar y in ter ms of s ur vi val and the ful fillment of human potenti al), must be to s atis fy the basic materi al and non- material needs of all the people, while protecting the global environment as well as loc al and regional ec os ys tems . T he envir onment is not s omething “exter nal” to the human ec onomy, as our present i deol og y tells us; i t c onstitutes the es senti al life s upport s ys tems for all li vi ng creatures. T o heal the “ metabolic rift” between the economy and the environ ment means new ways of li ving, manufacturi ng, growi ng food, trans portati on and s o forth.60 Suc h a s ociety must be s ustainable; and s ustainability r equires subs tanti ve equality, r ooted i n an eg alitari an mode of produc tion and cons umption. T oday we mus t s trive to constr uct a genui ne socialist s ystem; one in whic h bureaucr ac y is kept in chec k, and power over pr oduc tion and politics tr ul y resides with the people. c. ¡Ya Basta! — Enough is enough. Our alternative is solidarity with and participation in the Zapatista Army of National Liberation. d. At this junction, we note that the neoliberal economic politics discipline all of our engagement towards Mexico. Thus, we take this opportunity to affirm solidarity with the Zapatistas, in favor of a different form of engagement, a different pedagogy, beyond neoliberalism. e. We must use the logic of egalitarianism that undergirds the topic to make an evental demand for solidarity Nail 12 (Thomas, postdoc tor al lecturer i n the Philosophy D epartment at the U ni versity of D enver, “Returni ng to R evoluti on” , ed. Clair e Col ebrook et al., p 137-138)-jn there exists a third type: the participatory body politic. Zapatismo presents an interesting case in political theory and practice Zapatismo abandons In the l ast sec tion I argued that, oppos ed to the two dang ers of representati on and anti-repr esentati on, This new body politic is defined by its partici pator y mutability: the degree to whic h i ts c onditi ons ar e transformed by the partici pation of the el ements and s ubj ects affected by it. I further argued that i n or der to unders tand the str ucture and function of this participator y and r evol uti onar y body politic we need to understand the unique relations hip it articul ates between thr ee differ ent dimensions: its c ondi tions, el ements and kinds of s ubj ects . R epr es entati onal, anti-representati onal and par ticipator y politic al bodies eac h express a different type of rel ati onshi p between these thr ee di mensions. But this has onl y been a theor etic al development. In this next section I argue that the Zapatistas have created a revol utionar y and par ticipator y body politic in pr actic e. The two sides of theor y and prac tice thus c ons titute the str ategy I am c alling r evol uti onar y participati on. becaus e it cannot be understood by the politic al philosophi es of liberalis m or Mar xis m. both the noti ons of sovereign power Instead, they have constructed a new kind of body politic based on participation. They call this mandar obedeciendo, or leading by obeying. based on politic al and juri dical r epres entation and the basic tenets of M arxist scienc e, vanguardis m, state c apture, clas s str uggle and the deter minati on of the economy ‘in the las t instanc e’. M arcos and the earl y EZLN, upon arrivi ng in C hi apas, found that their Mar xist, Leninis t and M aoist prec oncepti ons were ‘ totall y i nadequate for c ommunic ating with the l ocal popul ation’ and eventuall y c oncluded that their original pl ans for str ugg le wer e ‘ undemocr atic and authoritarian’ (Ross 2006: 14) . But the Zapatistas are not a ‘postmodern’ revolution i n the s ens e that they mer el y rej ect thes e for ms of repres entation i n fa vour of a s pontaneous or s pecul ati ve leftis m. process 25 But what i s leadi ng by obeying, and how does it functi on as a practic e of politic al partici pation? Perhaps, the new politi c al moralit y is c ons truc ted i n a new spac e which will not be the taki ng or r etention of power, but the counter weight and opposition which c ontai ns and obliges the power to ‘rule by obeyi ng’ . . . ‘[R]ule by obedi ence’ is not withi n the c oncepts of ‘ politic al sci ence’ and it is devalued by the mor ality of ‘ efficienc y’ whic h defi nes the politic al acti vity whi ch we suffer . (Marc os 2004b: 217) T he new body politic the Zapatismo is defined by this reciprocal governance, not by the taking of representative power or the rejection of all political organisation. Zapatis tas invent is thus one whos e condi tions for s oci al or der and incl usi on mus t obey the c oncrete el ements and s ubj ects obedi ent to this same s oci al order. Leading by obeyi ng thus expr ess es a politic al vertigo or par ticipator y feedbac k l oop between the leaders who obey the led, and the l ed who mus t lead the leaders and obey. M andar obedeci endo breaks the traditional politic al dis tinc tion between means and ends; it ‘ makes the r oad by wal ki ng’. The proces s of l eading by obeyi ng c an be understood as the mutual trans for mati on of three different di mensi ons: a r evoluti onar y condi tion, i ts c oncrete prac tices and its form of revol uti onar y s ubjecti vi ty. f. In fact, we are a part of Zapatismo—it’s a universal movement —it’s time to embrace a new politics. Nail 12 (Thomas, postdoc tor al lecturer i n the Philosophy D epartment at the U ni versity of D enver, “Returni ng to R evoluti on” , ed. Clair e Col ebrook et al., p 139)-jn As a body politic, Z apatis mo invents a new c onditi on for social order and i nclusi on. Li ke the phenomena of the r evol uti on of 1789, the Paris C ommune and the r evol uti on of 1917, Z apatis mo is a sing ular event in the sens e that it is irreducibl e to historicall y necessar y caus al c hai ns. In 1994, i n M exico, Z apatis mo held no resemblanc e to any recognis able legal or l egitimate politi cal thi ng within the pres ent ‘s tate of affairs’, that is , no political repres entation ( party) , mar ket repres entation, linguis tic r epres entation ( their languages ar e not s poken or rec ognis ed by political repres entati ves) or r epr es entati on by the local i ndigenous l eaders (caciq ues). Ther e was no caus al nec essi ty that Z apatis mo should have exi sted, no way i t c oul d have been deduc ed from the domai ns of ‘rights’, ‘c ommoditi es’ or ‘class s truggle’ fr om which it emerged. . arrang ement anyway The singul ar event of Z apatis mo is thus not conditioned on req ues ts for r epr es entati on li ke ‘rights’, the overthr ow of the state, a new mar ket ec onomy or a new ethnic nationalis m, but i nstead takes on its own self-r efer ence or autonomy from withi n the situation. But the c onditi on of the Zapatistas’ body politic is als o uni vers al in the sens e that i t is both incl usi ve and i nfini te in i ts c onseq uenc es. From the repres entati onal poi nt of view of Mexi can politi cs, the marginalis ed and unr epr es ented Z apatis tas of C hiapas have no ‘legiti mate’ exis tenc e and yet they c oexi st i mmanentl y and heterogeneousl y withi n the politic al ‘To be Zapatista’ does not mean that you must be represented by the EZLN or that you must be indigenous, or even from Mexico. But Zapatismo cannot mean anything one wants. Zapatismo means participating in a struggle against neoliberalism and for direct self-management wherever one is and to whatever degree one is capable of. Without a prior or immutable condition for exclusion, the Zapatistas have made it clear that anyone can become a Zapatista to the degree that they share their struggle. 26 Many around the world have subsequently taken up this universal event where they are (Europe, Asia, North America and so on). So rather than simply affirming their difference and unrepresentability, the Zapatistas have created a singular- absolute event/intervention and given it a specific consistency of its own , heter ogeneous to the r egimes of politic al repres entation. This sing ular-uni versality is practi call y c onstituted through the creation of Enc uentr os (inter national gatherings)27 that ai m to i ncl ude others that will change the natur e of Zapatis mo as a s ocial body eac h ti me they meet (s ee Chatterton 2007) . g. We should recreate debate as a pedagogical space beyond the ideological parameters of neoliberalism. This is the only way to change the world—each and every instance is key Rodriguez 9 (Arturo, pr ofess or in the C olleg e of Educ ati on at Bois e State Uni versity, “Anti-c apitalist Anal ytical Fusion: Scienc e, Pedagog y and Revol ution”, Journal for Acti vist Science & Technol og y Educ ation, volume 1, number 2, pp. 48- 58)-jn-gender+ disability modi fied If the above res embles a rant c onsider why a s tring of words that includes politic al and ec onomic critique and the ac tual mar ket func tions of our global society affect the r eader’s vi ew of this paper. T he academy tur ns its nos e at wor k marginall y revi ewed or c onstruc ted as outcr y, pedagog y of indignation (Freir e, 2004) at how peopl e c ontinue to enslave other peopl e while destroyi ng the last us eable res ources on the planet. Organic and ac ademy trained i ntellectuals have gi ven the world their li ves, their blood s weat and fears c hasing the ether, the unifying princi ple, in some fi elds read as tr uth in an effort to s ol ve the worl ds m ys teri es. And how are they r epai d? They are indicted by the F BI, distr acted fr om their wor k by coll eagues who s cream bl oody mur der as they find ways to take s olac e from the ever yday right wing never endi ng barrage. Is it the argument they ar e after when they cry foul ? Or is it the sign, the s ymbol of freedom r epr esented by a life’s wor k in the ac ademy s haring the li vi ng experience with students , c olleagues, all wor kers ali ke managing the li ving, the breathing and the dyi ng. And what is capitalist s chooli ng at its best mar ked by the ali enati ng pri ncipal: fuc k [forget] the [one] guy & J aramillo, 2009) even the right c an s ee the fl uidity of acc epti ng the c hanging c onditi on of the s ys tem what Lacan r efers to as s ynthome of s oci eties (Lac an, 2006). that hel ped you graduate that ens ured you made it to the next step , the next posi tion on the res earc h/c ar eer l adder. Was it tr uth we were after as we began our doctoral s tudy i n the hopes of sheddi ng light on s ome obsc ure fac t? The mati ng pri ncipl es of the mud-was p or s exuality in the human male, ar e thes e blac k holes in the minds eye as rebellion takes the plac e of cultur al logic and cultural truth? So pr ogressi ve educ ators a refl ecti on of the reality that is human des troy the earth and its atmos pher e when their pedag ogy ens ures chil dren l ear n the sci ence nec ess ary to produce i ndus trial c oatings , fertilizer and c yani de without als o ens uring they acquir e the depth of c onsciousness nec ess ar y to make c onnecti ons between wearing a gol d and diamond ring and the use of c yanide and s trip mi ning for their pr oduc tion. Pushi ng further, why is Mar xis m such a wor d of abus e (Mc Lar en Radical pedagogy aint for the timid, it is a critical revolutionary praxis marked by the blood of Zapatistas , searc h for truth is not about fi ndi ng the sourc e of all energy or a c atal yzi ng pri ncipal. It is the understandi ng that humans and obj ects s har e rel ati ons hi ps, princi ples that adhere to organiz ation al value and metaphysic al c oncepti on and oscillations. human made Che Guevara and progressi ve i ntellec tuals organic and ac ademic ali ke that understand a need for change . from grippi ng tight to the c os mic orgone (Reic h, 1973) that does not permi t any competing princi pal or i deol ogy to s eep i n The The gangrene of racism, sexism, fascism and homophobia are (McLaren & Jar amillo, 2009) they are the l egac y of the left and of the right. What can be done about them is mar ked by the wa ys i ntellectuals enact and partici pate in their praxis . A critical refl exi vity that draws the ki te-s tring of princi pal between the mar ket need to produce chemical s for c ons umption li ke Z yklon B and the neces sar y day to day Socratic disc ursi ve practi ces doing more than s houti ng out to father capital in the clas sroom. Human and environmental devastation are the end result of our social relations (Rodriguez, 2009) whic h i ncludes the needs and whi ms of mar kets and of the hyper-complex s ystems that ar e s ocieties as they tr ade i n material and human s urpl us value. The l egac y of M ar x and critic al anal ys es are not the mere Utopic visions of a few stal wart yet antiquated intellectuals (McLaren, 2009) they are an entreaty All symbols of experience return to the source; that is we humans police ourselves and each other and we free ourselves and each other. Closing Remarks War is class war as those cultural critique positioni ng trade c ons cious ness and s ocial amnesia as the cul prits on the mar ket stage of gl obal c api talist dominati on. Critic al s ocial theor y does not dis-clude what is or what the ag ent knows or has known, li ke the c onglomerate it promulgates all bypr oduc t of human relations bad and good as actors that c ontrib ute to the enslavement of the indi vidual and the devas tati on of the natur al envir onment. Dis semi nation, the s ymbol, the di vision of units and of labor, the s tructure of the phenomenon all bear as a deri vati ve of the human and envi ronmental condi tion of existenc e mar ki ngs of each other. The global mar ket occ upi es vir tuall y ever y cor ner of the str uggle for humanity (McLaren & J ar amill o, 2007) c hildren i n cl assr ooms ar e the dir ect inheritors, as they grow to adulthood of the sort of s ocial and natural environment adults acc ept. who reap the benefits, profit margins, on a global scale are never those with most at risk ; the s ol diers doing the killing i n the fi elds benefi t onl y so far as their us e value is jus tified i n c ontrolling the world vi a the whol esal e sl aug hter of, “ enemy combatants.” T hese are c hildren and adul ts i n the s o c alled terrorist states who happen to be in the way of c ementi ng capitalist s oci al rel ati ons — whether c opper , oil, ti mber or human inter ests . F urther mor e the human life s pan is far too s hort for any one human being to h ave an effect that significantl y i mpacts the worl d mar ket. We ar e far beyond the moment wher e the M olotov coc ktail, the baton or a roc k thrown by its s elf c an c ause the adopti on among the human c hain of a worl dwide posi tion for r evol uti on. Ev en when riots occur , the 1960s, 1980s or 1990s globall y, the mar ket fights indi vidual citiz ens to a s tandstill. H ard to throw a r oc k when you ar e star ving, or when you have to exc avate rubbl e to r ec over and then bur y your chil dren. And yet the US has been s ucc ess full y fought to a s tandstill, i n the mar ket by C uba and Venez uel a and at war by Afg hanistan and Ir aq. Why does a militar y that possesses the s ole sur vi vi ng global Air Forc e, Navy and Army c ontinue to make war on people that return fire from horsebac k usi ng mus kets and si ngle s hot World War I er a muniti ons? The war beg un in 2003 was c onc ei ved over ten years prior; in 2009 the U S is still at war with accor ding to Gi bson, a militar y with no long histor y of defens e no inter nal defens e i ndus tr y of note, no definabl e s uppl y lines, no cl ear c hain of c ommand or centr al leaders hip (2009). Can i t be there is more to life and war than production or enslavement? T he cl assrooms as McLaren and Jar amillo r elate and as Bencz e and Alsop elaborate, wer e the last tr ul y public domai ns wher e students and teachers c ould engage in a r es pite from the dominant i deolog y (2009, 2009). They could take it upon themsel ves to c onsi der the soci al rel ati ons that exist and their effec t on the enviro nment. Accor ding to Critical educators in and out [are] a measure of change as the onslaught of David Hursc h, “Neo-liber als’ desir e not to i nter vene in mar kets and to foc us on economic growth, pri maril y ter ms of c ons umption, has both signific antl y c ontributed to the envir onmental pr obl ems that we face and to global war ming.” ( 2009: p5) T he copper c anyons in U tah were not put their by meteors but by mi ning operations. The depl eti on of s almon and s teelhead in the ri vers and s treams of C aliforni a, Oregon and Was hington did not happen as a pr oduct of the ravages of ti me. H uman constr ucted, petroc hemicals , posi tions on the treatment of the environment as things exis ting s olel y for the purpos e of provi di ng the cor por atocrac y with s urpl us value created all of i t. of the classroom stand as neoliberalism continues. People cause the ravages of time to negatively affect the planet, surplus accumulation whether it is PCB’s in the Hudson, Yet there is another more insidious form of surplus accumulation—it is the toll on students in classrooms ammonium nitrates at the mouths of the world’s major rivers or the debris from surface and subsurface detonations of nuclear material. across the globe of curricula and pedagogies ensuring students leave classrooms functionally illiterate. Capable only of reading and acting out the prescribed lives global capitalists have set. Human agency and enslavement result as people live their lives careless to the effect their actions have on the natural environment and each other. Pedagogists in the natural and social sciences do more than share information with their students. They leave a lasting imprint, a seed for enlightenment, which may contribute to the production of knowledge. But, more importantly, offer an alternative to the living currently destroying the planet.