Neolib Neg AT Impact Turns
AT Cap Solves War
AT Neolib Solves War
Empirics disprove— capitalism is a driving force for conflict. There is not a single war in the past
century that was not motivated for economics reasons – Afghanistan, Desert Storm, , Korea, World
War 2, and every other major conflict in the past century were motivated by economic interests.
All their arguments are Occidental: it only assumes conflict in the context of developed, capitalist
countries that are in Western Europe and the United States. It precludes any analysis of
underdeveloped, post colonial nations, which neoliberalism screwed and is now in a state of violent
disarray
Capitalism results in never-ending war & inter-state competition—impact is nuclear annihilation.
Callinicos 2004 Alex, Director of the Centre for European Studies at King’s College, The Revolutionary
Ideas of Karl Marx, 2004 pg. 196-197
Capitalism has not changed its spots. It is still based on the exploitation of the working class, and liable to
constant crises. The conclusion that Marx drew from this analysis, that the working class must overthrow
the system and replace it with a classless society, is even more urgent now than in his day. For the
military rivalries which are the form increasingly assumed by competition between capitals now threaten
the very survival of the planet. As Marx’s centenary approached, the fires of war flickered across the
globe—in Lebanon, Iran and Iraq, Kampuchea, southern Africa, the Horn of Africa, Afghanistan
and the South Atlantic. The accumulation of vast armouries of nuclear destruction by the
superpowers, missilerattling in the Kremlin, talk of ‘limited’ and ‘protracted’ nuclear war in Washington—
these cast a shadow over the whole of humanity. Socialist revolution is an imperative if we are to
change a world in the grip of economic depression and war fever, a world where 30 million rot on
Western dole queues and 800 million go hungry in the Third World. To that extent, Marx’s ideas are
more relevant today than they were 100 years ago. Capitalism has tightened its grip of iron on every portion
of the planet since 1883, and is rotten-ripe for destruction, whether at its own hands through nuclear
war, or at the hands of the working class. The choice is between workers’ power or the ‘common
ruination of the contending classes’—between socialism or barbarism. Many people who genuinely wish to
do something to remedy the present state of the world believe that this stress on the working class is much
too narrow. The existence of nuclear weapons threatens everyone, whether workers or capitalists or whatever.
Should not all classes be involved in remedying a problem which affects them all? What this ignores is that
what Edward Thompson has called ‘exterminism’— the vast and competing military apparatuses which
control the arms race—is an essential part of the working of capitalism today. No sane capitalist
desires a nuclear war (although some insane ones who believe that such a war would be the prelude to the
Second Coming now hold positions of influence in Washington). But sane or insane, every capitalist is
part of an economic system which is bound up with military competition between nation-states.
Only a class with the interest and power to do away with capitalism can halt the march to Armageddon. Marx
always conceived of the working class as the class whose own self-emancipation would also be the liberation
of the rest of humanity. The socialist revolution to whose cause he devoted his life can only be, at one and
the same time, the emancipation of the working class and the liberation of all the oppressed and exploited
sections of society. Those who accept the truth of Marx’s views cannot rest content with a mere intellectual
commitment. There are all too many of this sort around, Marxists content to live off the intellectual credit of
Capital, as Trotsky described them. We cannot simply observe the world but must throw ourselves, as Marx
did, into the practical task of building a revolutionary party amid the life and struggles of the working class.
‘The philosophers have interpreted the world,’ wrote Marx, ‘the point, however, is to change it.’ If Marxism is
correct, then we must act on it.
Neoliberal expansion is used to justify a new kind of modern war
Roberts and Sparke, Professors of geography at the Universities of, respectively, Kentucky and
Washington 03 (Susan and Matthew, “Neoliberal Geopolitics”, Antipode 35:5, 2003, Wiley Online)//AS
Armed with their simple master narrative about the inexorable force of economic globalization,
neoliberals famously hold that the global extension of free-market reforms will ultimately bring
worldwide peace and prosperity. Like Modernity and Development before it, Globalization is thus
narrated as the force that will lift the whole world out of poverty as more and more communities are
integrated into the capitalist global economy. In the most idealist accounts, such as those of New York
Times columnist Thomas Friedman (1999:xviii), the process of marketized liberalization is represented as
an almost natural phenomenon which, “like the dawn,” we can appreciate or ignore, but not presume to
stop. Observers and critics of neoliberalism as an emergent system of global hegemony, however,
insist on noting the many ways in which states actively foster the conditions for global integration,
directly or through international organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund, and the World Trade Organization (Gill 1995). Under what we are identifying as neoliberal
geopolitics, there appears to have been a new development in these patterns of state-managed
liberalization. The economic axioms of structural adjustment, fiscal austerity, and free trade have
now, it seems, been augmented by the direct use of military force. At one level, this conjunction of
capitalism and war-making is neither new nor surprising (cf Harvey 1985). Obviously, many wars—
including most 19thand 20th-century imperial wars—have been fought over fundamentally economic
concerns. Likewise, one only has to read the reflections of one of America’s “great” generals, Major
General Smedley Butler, to get a powerful and resonant sense of the long history of economically
inspired American militarism. “I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major
General,” Butler wrote in his retirement, [a]nd during that period, I spent most of that time being a
high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. Neoliberal Geopolitics
887In short I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was part of a racket at the time.
Now I am sure of it. I helped make Honduras “right” for American fruit companies in 1903. I helped
make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a
decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen
Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped
purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912. I brought light to
the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard
Oil went its way unmolested. (quoted in Ali 2002:260) If it was engaged in a kind of gangster capitalist
interventionism at the previous fin-de-siècle, today’s American war-making has been undertaken in a
much more open, systematic, globally ambitious, and quasicorporate economic style. Al Capone’s
approach, has, as it were, given way to the new world order of Jack Welch.
XT
Capitalism makes a constant state of war inevitable—disarmament and
cooperation is impossible in a capitalist-centric world.
Seligman 99—Editor of the Socialist Action Magazine
(Carole, “Capitalism and War”, Socialist Action, October 1999,
http://www.socialistaction.org/news/199910/war.html)//AW
The weapons
producers are a key part of the U.S. ruling class. They play a direct role in
determining U.S. foreign and domestic policy, including in the Balkans. Six huge companies dominate
the arms market in the U.S. and much of the world. They are Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, Textron,
Raytheon, Boeing, and McDonnell-Douglas. These are the producers of the weapons of mass destruction, the
jets, the Cruise missiles, the tanks, and the depleted uranium bullets, rockets, and mortars that
pierce the tanks. Remember the $64 billion that the U.S. has budgeted for the F-22 fighter jets at
$200 million each? The original justification for producing this new generation of fighter planes
was made during the Cold War against the so-called Evil Empire. Now, without that rationale,
phony as it was, the new justification is that the U.S. is selling F-15s, F-16s (made by Lockheed)
and F-18s (made by Boeing) to the new NATO allies, so the U.S. must produce a newer model
capable of shooting down the ones they are selling now. Air Force officials are already proposing
overseas sales of the F-22, so, the cry will go up for the next generation of terrorist weapons of
mass destruction. This is the mechanism of the war economy in which we live. Lenin said that
"disarmament is obviously utopian under capitalism." This is even more true now than
when he said it, because the arms-makers have assumed ever greater power and wealth. Over half
of the U.S. arms exports (many sold to governments who shoot down their own peoples or workers and peasants of neighboring
countries) are paid for with our taxes. The arms manufacturers are so "patriotic" that in five out of the last
six wars where the U.S. has sent troops into conflict-Panama, Iraq and Kuwait, Somalia, Haiti,
and Bosnia, American forces faced adversaries that had previously received U.S. weapons,
military technology, or training. [Journalist Alan Nairn testified the last week of September 1999, before a Congressional
sub-committee in Washington, D.C., about seeing loads of spent ammunition casings on the streets of Dili, capital of East Timor. He
could read the name of the U.S. manufacturer on them. This ammunition had been supplied to the Indonesian military, and then to
the militias, by the United States.] During World War II, many of the wealthiest war profiteers, the very
companies with controlling power in American society, joined in cartels with Nazi-run German
industry, making agreements to limit the production and acquisition of vital war material (such as
magnesium, tungsten carbide, and tetracene, for example.) This and many other forms of cooperation between
the American and German biggest industries before, during, and after the war, was exposed by
socialists and other honest people during the war. Profit-making was the engine that drove all
the major countries, except the Soviet Union, in fighting World War II-not saving the Jews and
other persecuted peoples of the world! Albanian Kosovars will be learning this bitter lesson
under occupation, that the NATO forces were not bombing them to save them, but to secure
Yugoslavia-which, though moving towards capitalism, is still not a capitalist country-as a field
for capitalist exploitation
Capitalism necessitates war – empirics prove
Nitzan & Bichler, Professors of Political Economy at York University, 2006
[Jonathan & Shimshon, “Capitalism and War” Global Research, November 16, 2006,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/capitalism-and-war/3890]//SGarg
The recent flurry of wars – from Afghanistan and Iraq to Gaza and Lebanon – has revived talk of
imperialism, military Keynesianism and the military-industrial Complex. Capitalism, many radicals
have long argued, needs war. It needs it to expand its geographical reach; it needs it to open up new
markets; it needs it to access cheap raw materials; and it needs it to placate opposition at home and
pacify rebellious populations abroad.1 The common perception is that war serves to boost the
economy. According to this argument, military conflict – and high military spending in preparation for
such conflict – generates overall growth and helps reduce unemployment. This feature of military
spending turns it into an effective fiscal tool. In years of slack, the government can embark on military
Keynesianism, increase its spending on weapons and pull the economy out of recession. Over the longer
haul, military expenditures are said to undermine the peaceful, civilian outlook of liberal regimes.
Spending on the military boosts the business interests of the large armament corporations, hardens
the outlook of the security apparatus and emboldens the top army brass. Together, these groups
become increasingly fused in an invisible, yet powerful, military-industrial Complex – a complex that
gradually comes to dominate policy and pushes society toward foreign aggression and military
adventurism. The Rise and Demise of Military Keynesianism Theories of military Keynesianism and the
military-industrial complex became popular after the Second World War, and perhaps for a good reason.
The prospect of military demobilization, particularly in the United States, seemed alarming. The U.S.
elite remembered vividly how soaring military spending had pulled the world out of the Great
Depression, and it feared that falling military budgets would reverse this process. If that were to
happen, the expectation was that business would tumble, unemployment would soar, and the
legitimacy of free-market capitalism would again be called into question. Seeking to avert this prospect,
in 1950 the U.S. National Security Council drafted a top-secret document, NSC-68. The document, which
was declassified only in 1977, explicitly called on the government to use higher military spending as a
way of preventing such an outcome. 2 NSC-68 marked the birth of military Keynesianism. In the decades
that followed, military expenditures seem to have worked as the document envisaged. The basic process
is illustrated in Figure 1. The graph shows the relationship between U.S. economic growth and the
country’s military spending. The thin line plots the annual rate of economic growth against the right
scale. The thick line shows the level of military spending, expressed as a share of GDP and plotted
against the logarithmic left scale.3 Both series are smoothed as ten-year moving averages to emphasize
their long term tendencies. [Figure 1. U.S. Military Spending and Economic Growth] The data show a comovement of the two series, particularly since the 1930s. The rise in military spending in preparation
for the Second World War coincided with a massive economic boom. Military spending had risen to 43
percent of GDP by 1944 and averaged 20 percent of GDP during the 1940s. This rise was accompanied
by soaring economic growth, with annual rates peaking at 18 percent in 1942 and averaging 6 percent
during the 1940s (the peak levels of the early 1940s cannot be seen in the chart due to the smoothing
of the series). After the war, military spending began to trend downward, but remained at very high
levels for the next couple of decades. The adoption of military Keynesianism, along with the wars in
Korea and Vietnam, helped keep military expenditures at 12 percent of GDP during the 1950s and at 10
percent during the 1960s. Economic growth during this period averaged over 4 percent – lower than in
the Second World War, but rapid enough to sustain the buoyancy of American capitalism and the
confidence of its capitalists. Both big business and organized labor supported this set up. The large
corporate groups saw military spending as an acceptable and even desirable form of government
intervention. At the aggregate level, these expenditures helped counteract the threat of recession at
home and offset the loss of civilian markets to European and Japanese competitors – yet without
undermining the sanctity of private ownership and free enterprise. At the disaggregate level, many large
firms received lucrative contracts from the Pentagon, handouts that even the staunchest free marketers
found difficult to refuse. The large unions endorsed military Keynesianism for different reasons. They
agreed to stay out of domestic politics and international relations, to accept high military expenditures,
and to minimize strikes in order to keep the industrial peace. In return, they received job security, high
wages and the promise of ever-rising standards of living. The consensus was aptly summarized in 1971
by President Nixon, who pronounced that “we are all Keynesians now.” But that was the peak. By the
early 1970s, the Keynesian Coalition of big business and organized labor started to unravel, military
Keynesianism began to wither and the welfare-warfare state commenced its long decline.
2NC
1. Empirics disprove—Iraq war was about oil-driven profit motive
2. False—cap doesn’t facilitate interdependence—pure capitalism means selfinterest and profit drive—profit drive causes endless drive for accumulation
that causes war
3. Finite resources mean war is inevitable under capitalism—nations compete for
limited resources to satisfy populations
4. Capitalism and war are inextricably linked—the neoliberal ideology demands
constant and predatory accumulation
Reyna, Associate researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology 99 (Stephen P., Deadly Developments: Capitalism, States
and War, Psychology Press, 1999, University of Michigan Libraries)//AS
Thomas Hobbes published Leviathan in l65l, beginning modem English discourse concerning the state. Hobbes' state consisted of the
"Soveraigne" and the "Subject" in a dominion (l968:228). I accept this Hobbesian notion of a state as a sovereign government and a subject civil
society, and my
concern in the present article is to introduce an approach that helps to explain the emergence
of the modem version of this Leviathan. So, in a sense, I tell a whale of a story, but do so using the logical approach introduced
below. The "logics" of what I call the new social anthropology. as opposed to those of mathematics, concern directions taken as a result of
complex actions, with it understood that "complexes" are groups of institutions in which force is concentrated' There
have been logics
of "capital accumulation" that move in the direction of increasing and concentrating capital force in
capitalist complexes. There have also been logics of "predatory accumulation" that move in the
direction of increasing and concentrating violent force within government complexes. Scholars have
recognized that changes internal to Atlantic European states"˜ capitalist complexes increased their capital accumulation and were influential in
the emergence of the modem state. Few scholars have contemplated any such role for predatory accumulation. and systematic analysis of the
relationships between the two logics in the making of the Leviathan has been virtually ignored. I argue in this article thata
militarycapitalist complex, based upon two mutually reinforcing logics of predatory and capital accumulation.
contributed to the formation of the modern state because the complex allowed the reciprocating
logics to produce more violent and capital force than was possible when they operated alone. 'Die military
capitalist complex. then. might be imagined as a sort of structural steroid that bulked up stately whales into Hobbes' "great Leviathan." a
creature with the forces of a "mortal God" ( l968:227) that-luckily for England-turned out by |763 to be England.
5. Neoliberal expansion is used to justify a new kind of modern war
Roberts and Sparke, Professors of geography at the Universities of, respectively, Kentucky and Washington 03 (Susan and
Matthew, “Neoliberal Geopolitics”, Antipode 35:5, 2003, Wiley Online)//AS
Armed with their simple master narrative about the inexorable force of economic globalization,
neoliberals famously hold that the global extension of free-market reforms will ultimately bring
worldwide peace and prosperity. Like Modernity and Development before it, Globalization is thus narrated as the force that will
lift the whole world out of poverty as more and more communities are integrated into the capitalist global economy. In the most idealist
accounts, such as those of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (1999:xviii), the process of marketized liberalization is represented as
an almost natural phenomenon which, “like the dawn,” we can appreciate or ignore, but not presume to stop.
Observers and critics of
neoliberalism as an emergent system of global hegemony, however, insist on noting the many ways in
which states actively foster the conditions for global integration, directly or through international organizations such
as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization (Gill 1995). Under what we are identifying as neoliberal
geopolitics, there
appears to have been a new development in these patterns of state-managed
liberalization. The economic axioms of structural adjustment, fiscal austerity, and free trade have
now, it seems, been augmented by the direct use of military force. At one level, this conjunction of capitalism
and war-making is neither new nor surprising (cf Harvey 1985). Obviously, many wars—including most 19thand 20th-century
imperial wars—have been fought over fundamentally economic concerns. Likewise, one only has to read the reflections of one of America’s
“great” generals, Major General Smedley Butler, to get a powerful and resonant sense of the long history of economically inspired American
militarism. “I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major General,” Butler wrote in his retirement, [a]nd during that
period, I spent most of that time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. Neoliberal Geopolitics
887In short I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. I helped make
Honduras “right” for American fruit companies in 1903. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I
helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central
American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking
house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see
to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. (quoted in Ali 2002:260) If it was engaged in a kind of gangster capitalist interventionism at the
previous fin-de-siècle, today’s
American war-making has been undertaken in a much more open, systematic,
globally ambitious, and quasicorporate economic style. Al Capone’s approach, has, as it were, given way to the new world
order of Jack Welch.
Extra Cards
Capitalism and war are inextricably linked—the neoliberal ideology demands constant
and predatory accumulation
Reyna, Associate researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology 99 (Stephen P., Deadly Developments: Capitalism, States
and War, Psychology Press, 1999, University of Michigan Libraries)//AS
Thomas Hobbes published Leviathan in l65l, beginning modem English discourse concerning the state. Hobbes' state consisted of the
"Soveraigne" and the "Subject" in a dominion (l968:228). I accept this Hobbesian notion of a state as a sovereign government and a subject civil
society, and my
concern in the present article is to introduce an approach that helps to explain the emergence
of the modem version of this Leviathan. So, in a sense, I tell a whale of a story, but do so using the logical approach introduced
below. The "logics" of what I call the new social anthropology. as opposed to those of mathematics, concern directions taken as a result of
complex actions, with it understood that "complexes" are groups of institutions in which force is concentrated' There
have been logics
of "capital accumulation" that move in the direction of increasing and concentrating capital force in
capitalist complexes. There have also been logics of "predatory accumulation" that move in the
direction of increasing and concentrating violent force within government complexes. Scholars have
recognized that changes internal to Atlantic European states"˜ capitalist complexes increased their capital accumulation and were influential in
the emergence of the modem state. Few scholars have contemplated any such role for predatory accumulation. and systematic analysis of the
relationships between the two logics in the making of the Leviathan has been virtually ignored. I argue in this article thata
militarycapitalist complex, based upon two mutually reinforcing logics of predatory and capital accumulation.
contributed to the formation of the modern state because the complex allowed the reciprocating
logics to produce more violent and capital force than was possible when they operated alone. 'Die military
capitalist complex. then. might be imagined as a sort of structural steroid that bulked up stately whales into Hobbes' "great Leviathan." a
creature with the forces of a "mortal God" ( l968:227) that-luckily for England-turned out by |763 to be England.
Neoliberalism’s class system pushes indigenous populations to the periphery,
stripping them of their identidy while also hurting the State’s ability to provide
education and health care. This spurs mass violence and revolutions
Parada, Professor of International Social Work and Graduate Research Seminar at Ryerson University,
6/18/2007
(Henry, “Regional Perspectives...from Latin America : Social work in Latin America History, challenges and renewal,” International Social Work
Vol 50.4, 560-64. Sage Publishing)//SG
Latin America1 has a long history of struggle for social justice and human rights. Recently, neo-liberal
ideologies and globalization have spurred numerous acts of resistance across Latin American states. The
neo-liberal agenda adopted by Latin America, also called capitalismo salvaje, or savage capitalism, has
intensified the poverty and social instability in the region and led to the further marginalization and
social exclusion of extensive populations(Renique, 2006: 37). Actions in Venezuela, Mexico, Argentina, Central America and Chile
are among such responses against the intrusion of international global capital into Latin America (Grassi and Alayon, 2005; Mendoza, 2005). In
this current context of resistance, social workers are struggling to define a role for their profession that is relevant to those with whom they
work. This is not a new challenge for the social work pro- fession in Latin America, which has struggled to find a place for itself since the first
school of social work was established in Chile in 1925.The
current situation differs, however, in the prominence of
social movements across the continent and particularly of indi- genous activists who, according to Landa
(2005: 12), ‘have raised their own voice, clearly indicating that they do not need to be repre- sented by
people outside their own communities’. This article exam- ines current attempts by the social work profession in Latin America
to shift its practice from one that works on behalf of others and thereby represents their voice, to one that works alongside others who speak
for themselves. The current context of resistanceThere
are numerous examples of the ongoing social and political
upheavals throughout Latin America against neo-liberalism and globalization. Mass mobilizations in
Peru, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecua- dor and Mexico have made it clear that the Washington Consensus has
been received with resistance(Ellner, 2006; Gindin, 2006; Mendoza, 2005; Saad-Filho, 2005a, 2005b). The indigenous
peoples, particularly from Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru have also challenged neo-liberalism.
Indigenous identity is closely related to oppression, poverty and marginalization(Nash, 2006: 126). Accordingly,indigenous people have presented a strong front against neo- liberalism, arguing that its
accompanying structural reforms have furthered their marginalization.Indigenous resistance to neo-liberal policies is
clearly seen in Bolivia’s two recent popular mobilizations, namely, the water and gas rebellions.In 2000, indigenous Bolivians
reacted to the privati- zation of water and the increase of household water bills by 200 per- cent. Then,
in October 2003, they protested against the repressive regime of Sanchez De Lozada, especially his gas
and oil policies, which provided generous benefits to foreign companies and little benefit to
Bolivians(Hylton and Thomson, 2006: 161–72). In Bolivia, a country with a population in which 62 percent claim indi- genous identity,
previous indigenous movements sought to establish alliances with unions and middle-class oppositional forces, but these relationships were
tentative and temporary due to distrust and overt racism. In contrast, the October 2003 social mobilization ‘confirmed thatBolivia
has
entered a new revolutionary cycle in which indi- genous actors have taken the leading role’ (Hylton and
Thomson, 2006: 161).Social movements, including the Bolivian rebellions, have affected the professional
identity of Latin American social workers. Indigen- ous peoples, women, workers, students and other
social groups have demanded to be part of the civil society from which they have been excluded for so
long(Conway, 2004; Renique, 2006). They are asking that social work engage in a new relationship, one which includes political listening by
academics and practitioners, as well as the development of social and political responses in the form of policies, advocacy and community
participation. Social movement participants argue that social workers should be engaged in allowing the voices of the excluded to be heard by
the privileged (Matus and Ponce de Leon, n.d.). The historical development of social work in Latin America Social work in Latin America has
gone through four important per- iods or paradigm changes. The first involved the establishment of social work as discipline with its own
knowledge, skills and prac- tices. There was a strong ‘philanthropic and moralizing . . . remedial’ tone in its practice (Aguerrebere, 2001: 22).
This form of social work emphasized individualistic interventions and reflected North American social work practices. A strong positivistic
paradigm influenced the training of social workers during this period, most of whom were educated at a technical level (Aguerrebere, 2001;
Velez, 2003). The main goal during this period was to establish a legitimate space for social work to be recognized as a discipline that was useful
to the state (Friedson, 1994). The second period was characterized by the attempt to integrate social science epistemology into social work,
using a somewhat eclectic approach. Tremendous emphasis was placed on the use of the so-called scientific method and on the development
of technical-methodological modes of social work practice. As a result, the gap between theory and practice widened. On the one hand, the
development of social science objectives and methodolo- gies required that social work adopt some of these forms of knowl- edge. On the
other hand, state institutional demands required that social work respond to different kinds of social problems, thereby creating a schism
between theory and practice (Velez, 2003). The third period, also called the re-conceptualization movement, is the most extensively studied
(Aguerrebere, 2001; Alayon, 2005; Dieguez, 2004; Grassi and Alayon, 2005; Mendoza, 2005). The re- conceptualization process was, in effect, a
political reaction to the dissatisfaction with social work as it was taught in Latin American universities, and to the kind of social work practiced
in state institu- tions (Aquin, 2005). Political events that influenced the development of this conceptual movement in Latin America included
the students’ revolt in Paris in 1968, the Cuban revolution, and certain American political actions such as the Vietnam war and the failed
attempts to invade Cuba by the Kennedy administration. Theoreti- cal influences included the theory of development, Marxism, Freire’s
concientizacio ́n proposals and the theology of liberation (Alayon, 2005). Many social workers talked of a ‘re-conceptualized . . . a cri- tical . . . a
dialectical . . . a Marxist social work practice’ (De Paula Faleiros, 2005: 57).Each
country in Latin America experienced reconceptualization differently, depending on the level to which social work had devel- oped as a
discipline. A heterogeneous movement, it responded to national political circumstances experienced by
social workers, social work academics and the general population. But they shared a strong reaction to North American
influence, not only in social work but in all socio-economic aspects of Latin American life.One consequence of reconceptualization was that social work as a discipline and as a profession was devalued, forcing many social
workers to abandon it for other forms of political action. By and large, the desire of social workers to become politically engaged with
marginalized groups resulted in a discipline that became vague and diffuse (Alayon, 2005; Araneda, 2005; Velez, 2003).The fourth period
of social work represents a response to the adoption of a neo-liberal agenda in Latin American
countries. At this time, new rules of capitalism, which affected Latin America and its relationship with
first-world countries, were introduced. These rules included the disciplining of labor and management to
benefit financial sectors, the diminishing intervention of the state in the areas of social welfare and
social services, the privatization of public companies and the strengthening of transnational corporations(Dumenil and Levy, 2005).The ensuing changes affected the capacity of the state to provide services such
as education, health care and pensions. Further, the state institutions that provided these services were the main sources of jobs
for social workers, thus leaving many of them unemployed. Those social workers who remained in the system had to transform their practices
once again. Social work was reintroduced as ‘neo-philanthropic in which intervention is not based on social rights but in an intervention based
on individual charity and moralistic values’ (Aguerrebere, 2001: 31; Velez, 2003). New managerialism as a form of practice has also become a
domi- nant discourse in Latin American national institutions. The new managerialism introduced a technocratic model, the main goal of which is
to widen the social control of social workers (Aguerrebere, 2001; Sewpaul and Holscher, 2004). Efficiency, efficacy, outcome- based measures,
market competitiveness and accountability are some of the new expectations of social workers who continue to work within the state welfare
system. As a result of the reality created by neo-liberalism and globaliza- tion, there is a need for social work to renegotiate its position through
new forms of networking and the creation of new Latin American social work organizations
Neoliberal expansion is used to justify a new kind of modern war
Roberts and Sparke, Professors of geography at the Universities of, respectively, Kentucky and Washington 03 (Susan and
Matthew, “Neoliberal Geopolitics”, Antipode 35:5, 2003, Wiley Online)//AS
Armed with their simple master narrative about the inexorable force of economic globalization,
neoliberals famously hold that the global extension of free-market reforms will ultimately bring
worldwide peace and prosperity. Like Modernity and Development before it, Globalization is thus narrated as the force that will
lift the whole world out of poverty as more and more communities are integrated into the capitalist global economy. In the most idealist
accounts, such as those of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (1999:xviii), the process of marketized liberalization is represented as
an almost natural phenomenon which, “like the dawn,” we can appreciate or ignore, but not presume to stop.
Observers and critics of
neoliberalism as an emergent system of global hegemony, however, insist on noting the many ways in
which states actively foster the conditions for global integration, directly or through international organizations such
as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization (Gill 1995). Under what we are identifying as neoliberal
geopolitics, there
appears to have been a new development in these patterns of state-managed
liberalization. The economic axioms of structural adjustment, fiscal austerity, and free trade have
now, it seems, been augmented by the direct use of military force. At one level, this conjunction of capitalism
and war-making is neither new nor surprising (cf Harvey 1985). Obviously, many wars—including most 19thand 20th-century
imperial wars—have been fought over fundamentally economic concerns. Likewise, one only has to read the reflections of one of America’s
“great” generals, Major General Smedley Butler, to get a powerful and resonant sense of the long history of economically inspired American
militarism. “I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major General,” Butler wrote in his retirement, [a]nd during that
period, I spent most of that time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. Neoliberal Geopolitics
887In short I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. I helped make
Honduras “right” for American fruit companies in 1903. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I
helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central
American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking
house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see
to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. (quoted in Ali 2002:260) If it was engaged in a kind of gangster capitalist interventionism at the
previous fin-de-siècle, today’s
American war-making has been undertaken in a much more open, systematic,
globally ambitious, and quasicorporate economic style. Al Capone’s approach, has, as it were, given way to the new world
order of Jack Welch.
AT Cap Solves Democracy
AT: Cap K2 Freedom
Note: DO NOT READ WITH DEMOCRACY LINK
1. False—capitalism subjugates all people to the endless profit drive—prevents
happiness and freedom by valuing human life economically
2. More freedom in the world of the alt—economic equality enables equal
opportunity
3. Neoliberalism is control—“free market” is a convenient term for “heavily
regulated in favor of the elite”—it’s control without the masses knowing
4. Neoliberalism imposes control on unwilling societies and represses political
dissidents
Peck and Tickell, Canada Research Chair in Urban & Regional Political Economy ,Professor of Geography, University of British
Columbia and Professor at Canada Research Chair in Urban & Regional Political Economy and Professor of Geography, University of British
Columbia respectively,
02 (Jamie and Adam, “Neoliberalizing Space”, Antipode 34:3, July 2002
The new religion of neoliberalism combines a commitment to the extension of markets and logics of
competitiveness with a profound antipathy to all kinds of Keynesian and/or collectivist strategies. The
constitution and extension of competitive forces is married with aggressive forms of state downsizing, austerity financing, and public- service
"reform."• Andwhile rhetorically
antistatist, neoliberals have proved adept at the (mis)use of state power
in the pursuit of these goals.For its longstanding advocates in the Anglo-American world,
neoliberalism represents a kind of self-imposed disciplinary code, calling for no less than monastic restraint. For its
converts in the global south, neoliberalism assumes the status of the Latinate church in medieval Europe,
externally imposing unbending rule regimes enforced by global institutions and policed by local functionaries.
Meanwhile, if not subject to violent repression, nonbelievers are typically dismissed as apostate
defenders of outmoded institutions and suspiciously collectivist social rights.
5. Democracy in the neoliberal state simply utilizes a politics of disposability to
decide who get to vote and and who gets to exist – effectively considering all
others a “disposed” population
Giroux, Ph.D. @ Carnegie-Mellon University, Global TV Network Chair Professorship at McMaster
University in the English and Cultural Studies Department, 2008
(Henry A., “Beyond the biopolitics of disposability: rethinking neoliberalism in the New Gilded Age,”
Social Identities: Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture, Vol. 14.5, pp 606-607)//SG
At the dawn of the new millennium, it is commonplace for references to the common good, public trust, and
public service to be either stigmatized or sneered at by people who sing the praises of neoliberalism and
its dream of turning ‘the global economy . . . into a planetary casino’(Castoriadis, 2007, p. 47). Against this dystopian
condition, the American political philosopher, Sheldon Wolin, has argued thatbecause of the increasing power of
corporationsand the emergence of a lawless state (given immense power during the administration of George W. Bush),American
democracy is not only in crisis, it is also characterized by a sense of powerlessness and experiences of
loss. Wolin (2000) claims that this sense of loss is related ‘to power and powerlessness and hence has a claim upon theory’ (p. 3). In making a
claim upon theory,loss aligns itself with the urgency of a crisis, a crisis that demands a new theoretical
discourse while at the same time requiring a politics that involves contemplation, that is, a politics in which
modes of critical inquiry brush up against the more urgent crisis that threatens to shut down even the possibility of critique.For Wolin, the
dialectic of crisis and politics points to three fundamental concerns that need to be addressed as part of
a broader democratic struggle. First, politics is now marked by pathological conditions in which issues of
death are overtaking concerns with life. Second, it is no longer possible to assume that democracy is
tenable within a political system that daily inflicts massive suffering and injustices on weak minorities
and those individuals and groups who exist outside of the privileges of neoliberal values, that is, those
individuals or groupswho exist inwhat Achille Mbembe (2003) calls ‘death-worlds,new and unique forms of social existence in which
vast populations are subjected to conditions of lifeconferring upon them the status of the living dead’(pp. 39�40).Third,
theory in some academic quarters now seems to care more about matters of contemplation and
judgment in search of distance rather than a politics of crisisdriven by an acute sense of justice, urgency, and
intervention. Theory in this instance distances itself from politics, neutered by a form of self-sabotage in which ideas are removed from the
messy realm of politics, power, and intervention. According to Wolin (2000),
Even though [theory] makes references to real-world controversies,its
engagement is with the conditions, or the politics,
of the theoretical that it seeks to settle rather than with the political that is being contested over who
gets what and who gets included. It is postpolitical. (p. 15)
Extra Cards
In a world of neoliberalism, ruling coalitions can supplant the will of the majority
Prasch 12 – Department of Economics, Middlebury College (Robert E. Prasch, “Neoliberalism and Ethnic
Conflict” Review of Radical Political Economics, 2012, Sage Publications) MR
Having low expectations of the state, it comes to be bypassed, even despised, by all and sundry. This, in turn,
creates a political vacuum that may be seized by kleptocrats and political parties pursuing sectarian
agendas. Unwilling or unable to provide state goods and services, yet desirous of legitimacy,
opportunistic leaders – democratic and authoritarian alike – may be inclined to seek it on the basis of a shared
religion or ethnic heritage. This, of course, is best accomplished by presenting one’s own group as under
threat by a nefarious and hostile “other.”2 Racially or ethnically divisive politics, then, can be a
substitute for responsible or citizencentered governance (Sheth 2004). Knowing this, a neoliberal “comprador”
class might be inclined to ally itself with a prominent ethnic group or religious party to facilitate the
advancement of a narrow or self-serving agenda. Such considerations undoubtedly contribute to the otherwise uneasy alliance
between elements of the financial elite and evangelical Christians in the United States. When the state is discredited and
ongoing economic stagnation is the likely prognosis, ruling coalitions must be established on alternative
grounds if the needs of the majority are to be denied.
Neoliberalism hurts the quality of Democracy in Latin America
Weyland 04 (Kurt Gerhald Weyland- Professor of Latin American Politics at the University of Texas Austin, Staatsexamen from
Johannes-Gutenberg Universitat Mainz in 1984, a M.A. from UT in 1986, and a Ph.D. from Stanford University in 1991 Project
Muse- Latin American Politics and Society Volume 46 Number 1 “Neoliberalism and Democracy in Latin America: A Mixed
Record” Spring 2001 http://www.plataformademocratica.org/Publicacoes/24140_Cached.pdf)
This essay argues that neoliberalism
has strengthened the sustainability of democracy in Latin America but
limited its quality. Drastic market reform seems to have abetted the survival of competitive civilian rule through its external and internal
repercussions. By opening up Latin American countries to the world economy, neoliberalism has exposed them to more of the international
pressures for preserving democracy that intensified with the end of the Cold War. At the same time, the move
to market economics
has weakened leftist parties, trade unions, and other proponents of radical socioeconomic reform,
reassuring elites and preventing them from undermining democracy. But tighter external economic
constraints limit governments’ latitude and thereby restrict the effective range of democratic choice;
and the weakening of parties and interest associations has depressed political participation and eroded
government accountability. The available evidence therefore suggests that neoliberalism has been a mixed blessing for Latin
American democracies. political democracy and economic liberalism (Sheahan 1987, chap. 12; Gibson 1992, 168–71).
Expansion of neoliberalism in Latin America destroy any hope of democracy –
increases poverty, exploitation, and risk of economic decline
Spring, Professor and researcher at the National University of Mexico, 2008
(Ursula Oswald, “Globalization from Below: Social Movements and Altermundism — Reconceptualizing Security from a Latin American
Perspective,” Globalization and Environmental Challenges - Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace, Vol 3, 388-91.
SpringerLink.)//SG
Low confidence in institutions and the ambiguous role of the military all over Latin America indicates
also a low trust in democracy. Not only electoral frauds, very long and expensive election campaigns, favouring television
companies, but also corrupt governments, have destroyed the well-being of entire nations. Probably the most dramatic case is Argentina, a
world economic power in the early 19th century. During the crisis at the end of the 1990’s half of its population became impoverished. Similar
processes occurred in all other countries of the subcontinent by transferring wealth from the majority to a tiny minor- ity (tables 26.2, 26.3).
Figure 26.9 expresses this lack of confidence and a mixed feeling with democracy. Debates, collective decision-making, and solidarity belong to
their own system of traditional ruling (Olvera 2002). For
a neo- liberal world of monopolized mass media and central-
ized decision-making these traditions are too slow. On the other side, the imposition of a world market,
glo- bal capital flows, instant communications, social vul- nerability, imposition of the SAP by IMF, have
reduced hope in democracy and livelihood. In 2005, a study by the Latinobarómetro showed that a great
majority would again prefer a military dictatorship to an economic crisis. These results can be explained by two
decades of loosing income and well-being. Fur- thermore, in many countries in LA the trust in a dem- ocratic government, transparent elections
or changes in the conditions of life through election processes were disappointed, especially in Paraguay, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico with high
degree of distrust (figure 26.9). A social reaction has been a renewed political radicalization in most countries of LA (MST, piqueteros13,
Zapatistas; Ouviña 2005). This has cre- ated a complicated political and institutional situa- tion, but has offered LA an enormous potential for
growth, investment and well-being, and for civil soci- ety to organize better.Mexico,
having a border of more than 3,000 km
with the U.S., was not exempt from these processes of re- gressive globalization. The first economic
crisis and the first SAP agreement imposed by IMF started in 1976. In 1994, Mexico started with a severe
economic crisis in the era of neoliberalism and globalization. Similar crises occurred a few years later in
Asia, Rus- sia, Brazil, and Argentina. However, the crisis of the peasants started earlier, due to the
exhaustion of the model of stable development(CEPAL 1978; IMF 1977), but primarily due to the interests of
the na-tional elite to link up with globalization. The excessive bureaucracy and an inefficient bourgeoisie
controlling the government were unable to cope with a new phase of globalization(Kaplan 2002). The substitution of the import-based modernization process and the rapid urbanization were reducing the rural accu- mulation, and major financial
resources were drained into the urban and industrial sectors. As a result, the rural development was subsumed under the urban and since the
1950’s an important process of urbaniza- tion was underway, making Mexico City the biggest city in the Third World (Negrete/Ruíz 1991). Since
the 1960’s, peasants started to migrate to the U.S., later also to Canada with legal permissions and in the 1980’s, when U.S. migration policy
changed, they became illegal (figure 26.10).Environmental de-
struction, aggravated by climate change, highly subsidized world basic food prices, and since 1982 a rapid opening of the domestic to the global market had
drastically worsened the situation of peasants and in- digenous people. This process of exclusive
globaliza- tion was reinforced with the signing of NAFTA (Ar- royo/Villamar 2002),which reconfigured
traditional alliances and opposition along non-national lines. Un- equal terms of trade in the world market obliged producers to associate themselves within product lines: coffee, pineapple, and fair trade was an alternative for organized peasants to mitigate the
negative affects of dumping and overproduction in the world market. In this context, the Ejército Zapatista de Lib- eración Nacional (EZLN:
Zapatistas) in Chiapas14 surprised the Mexican government and the festivities of the bourgeoisie on 1 January 1994 with a declara- tion of war.
The military response was directly moni- tored by foreign governments and social groups due to a new internet channel controlled by the
Catholic Church (laneta.com), which was at the service of the uprisings. After ten days of intensive repression, inter- national pressure forced
the Mexican government to declare an armistice.Simultaneously, the
public expo- sition of indigenous discrimination
and poverty con-fronted the country with the ‘other Mexico’ (Bonfil 1987) of the poor, ill, abandoned,
and exploited. The apparently modern nation(last under the OECD countries)showed the world how regions and
social groups live in absolute poverty and underdevelopment similar to Haiti and Ethiopia, due to the
unequal de- velopment and resource exploitation.International and national solidarity started, forcing a peace agree- ment;
but both the chamber of deputies and senators objected to the agreed modification of the Constitu- tion, leaving the indigenous population in
the same marginal situation.
Democracy in the neoliberal state simply utilizes a politics of disposability to decide
who get to vote and and who gets to exist – effectively considering all others a
“disposed” population
Giroux, Ph.D. @ Carnegie-Mellon University, Global TV Network Chair Professorship at McMaster
University in the English and Cultural Studies Department, 2008
(Henry A., “Beyond the biopolitics of disposability: rethinking neoliberalism in the New Gilded Age,”
Social Identities: Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture, Vol. 14.5, pp 606-607)//SG
At the dawn of the new millennium, it is commonplace for references to the common good, public trust, and
public service to be either stigmatized or sneered at by people who sing the praises of neoliberalism and
its dream of turning ‘the global economy . . . into a planetary casino’(Castoriadis, 2007, p. 47). Against this dystopian
condition, the American political philosopher, Sheldon Wolin, has argued thatbecause of the increasing power of
corporationsand the emergence of a lawless state (given immense power during the administration of George W. Bush),American
democracy is not only in crisis, it is also characterized by a sense of powerlessness and experiences of
loss. Wolin (2000) claims that this sense of loss is related ‘to power and powerlessness and hence has a claim upon theory’ (p. 3). In making a
claim upon theory,loss aligns itself with the urgency of a crisis, a crisis that demands a new theoretical
discourse while at the same time requiring a politics that involves contemplation, that is, a politics in which
modes of critical inquiry brush up against the more urgent crisis that threatens to shut down even the possibility of critique.For Wolin, the
dialectic of crisis and politics points to three fundamental concerns that need to be addressed as part of
a broader democratic struggle. First, politics is now marked by pathological conditions in which issues of
death are overtaking concerns with life. Second, it is no longer possible to assume that democracy is
tenable within a political system that daily inflicts massive suffering and injustices on weak minorities
and those individuals and groups who exist outside of the privileges of neoliberal values, that is, those
individuals or groupswho exist inwhat Achille Mbembe (2003) calls ‘death-worlds,new and unique forms of social existence in which
vast populations are subjected to conditions of lifeconferring upon them the status of the living dead’(pp. 39�40).Third,
theory in some academic quarters now seems to care more about matters of contemplation and
judgment in search of distance rather than a politics of crisisdriven by an acute sense of justice, urgency, and
intervention. Theory in this instance distances itself from politics, neutered by a form of self-sabotage in which ideas are removed from the
messy realm of politics, power, and intervention. According to Wolin (2000),
Even though [theory] makes references to real-world controversies,its
engagement is with the conditions, or the politics,
of the theoretical that it seeks to settle rather than with the political that is being contested over who
gets what and who gets included. It is postpolitical. (p. 15)
At Cap Solves Environment
2NC
1. Empirics disprove—environmental degradation massively worse since the
industrial revolution
2. Tech solves arguments are logically flawed—capitalism created those problems
in the first place—creates an endless cycle
3. Profit motive disproves—under capitalism profit outweighs all so people will
exploit the environment at any cost
4. Even if it works now, it’s unsustainable—resources are finite
5. Expanding neoliberalism assures total environmental destruction and increases
disease susceptibility
Gill, Distinguished Research Professor of Political Science at York University, 95 (Stephen, “Globalisation, Market Civilisation, and
Disciplinary Neoliberalism”, Millennium - Journal of International Studies 24:3, 1995, Sage Publications)//AS
Neoliberal forms of rationality are largely instrumental and are concerned with finding the best means
to achieve calculated ends. For neoliberals, primary motivations are understood in a possessively
individualistic framework. Motivation is provided by fear and greed, and is reflected in the drive to acquire more
security and more goods. Yet, any significant attempt to widen this pattern of motivation would entail an
intensification of existing accumulation and consumption patterns, tending to deplete or to destroy the ecostructures of the planet, making everyone less secure and perhaps more vulnerable to disease (even the
powerful). Thus, if North American patterns of accumulation and consumption were to be significantly
extended, for example to China, the despoliation of the global eco-structure would be virtually assured. Even
so, the central ideological message and social myth of neoliberalism is that such a possibility is both
desirable and attainable for all: insofar as limitations are recognised, this is at best through a redefinition of the concept of
"˜sustainable development' so as to make it consistent with the continuation of existing patterns of accumulation and consumption."•
6. Neoliberalism destroys the environment—resources are being irreversibly
depleted—tech can’t fix
De La Barra, Chilean political activist, international consultant and former UNICEF Latin America Public Policy Advisor 07-- (Ximena,
“THE DUAL DEBT OF NEOLIBERALISM”, Imperialism, Neoliberalism and Social Struggles in Latin America”, 9/1/09, edited by Dello Bueno and
Lara, Brill Online)//AS
Meanwhile, environmental
management remains on a permanent collision course with the neoliberal,
of production. The incessant search for expansion, consuming ever more nonrenewable resources in the process, fails to assume the accompanying environmental costs and
results in an irreversible deterioration. Technological innovation concentrated in the hands of just a few private
transnational corporations is unable to act as an engine for social transformation and reduction of
environmental risk, instead serving as a vehicle for intensifying exploitation of labour, social
exclusion, and environmental destruction.Globalisation and the growth of industrial production and commercial
advertising have created new patterns of consumption catering only to select sectors while increasing the
production of wastes and pollution. At the same time, there has been no corresponding rhythm of increasing the capacity for
waste reduction or even recycling the valuable resources being lost in waste, including water. This loss of balance has degraded
ecosystems to an alarming extent. In the last 50 years, the overall level of deterioration has sharply
accelerated. Climatic change is increasingly providing us with a painful reminder of this. The availability of water per capita
agro-export model
is now less than half of what once existed and these supplies are being contaminated by pesticides,
fertilisers, and untreated human wastes. Air quality is likewise worsening, resulting in at least a 50% increase in
registered respiratory infections. Five times more combustible fuels are being burned and four times as much emissions of carbon monoxide
are The Dual Debt of Neoliberalism • 43being produced. The proportion of urban inhabitants relative to the total has grown from 17% to 50%,
while the investments being made in urban infrastructure are being reduced. The use of cement has multiplied four-fold and the expansion of
built areas has limited the natural drainage capacity, especially in urban areas, causing more frequent and more severe flooding.
Over the
last 25 years, the planet has lost a third of its natural resources in terms of forests, fresh water, and
marine species. Meanwhile, a high proportion of vegetation that fulfils a hydro-regulating role has been lost, and global warming has
come to threaten our future as a species (UNDP 1998).4 Growing environmental risks therefore constitute an
additional negative consequence of the dominant development model. Coupled with increased social
vulnerability, the result is a breeding ground for the so-called “natural” disasters that continue to
increase in frequency and intensity
Extra Cards
Neoliberal expansion is unsustainable and causes pollution, diminishing resources,
and environmental destruction
Faber and McCarthy, Professor of Sociology at Northeastern University and Director of the Northeastern Environmental Justice
Research Collaborative and Assistant Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the college of Charleston 03 (Daniel and Deborah, “Neoliberalism, Globalization and the Struggle for Ecological Democracy: Linking Sustainability and Environmental Justice”, Just Sustainabilities:
Development in an Unequal World, 2/28/03,
http://books.google.com/books/about/Just_Sustainabilities_Development_in_an.html?id=I7QBbofQGu4C)//AS
To sustain economic growth and higher profits in the new global economy, American companies are increasingly
adopting ecologically unsustainable systems of production. Motivated by the growing costs of doing business and threat
of increased international competition in the era of globalization, corporate America initiated a political movement
beginning in the early 19805 for "regulatory reform', ie the rollback of environmental laws, worker
health and safety, consumer protection, and other state regulatory protectionsseen as impinging
upon the "˜free' market and the profits of capital. Termed "˜neo- liberalism'the recent effect has been a
general increase in the rate of exploitation of both working people (human nature) and the
environment (mother nature), as witnessed by the assaults upon labour, the ecology movement and
thewelfare state. Coupled with increased trade advantages brought about by corporate-led globalization and significant innovations in
high technology and service related industries in the "˜new economy', the US experienced a record-breaking economic boom under the Clinton
administration during the l990s, However, this economic
"˜prosperity' was to a large degree predicated upon the
increased privatized-maximization of profits via the increased socialized-minimization of the costs of
production, iethe increased displacement of potential business expenses onto the American public in
the form of pollution, intensified natural resource exploitation and other environmental problems.
Though progress was made on a number of critical issues, thc ecological crisis continued to deepen during the 1990s.
Expanding neoliberalism assures total environmental destruction and increases
disease susceptibility
Gill, Distinguished Research Professor of Political Science at York University, 95 (Stephen, “Globalisation, Market Civilisation, and
Disciplinary Neoliberalism”, Millennium - Journal of International Studies 24:3, 1995, Sage Publications)//AS
Neoliberal forms of rationality are largely instrumental and are concerned with finding the best means
to achieve calculated ends. For neoliberals, primary motivations are understood in a possessively
individualistic framework. Motivation is provided by fear and greed, and is reflected in the drive to acquire more
security and more goods. Yet, any significant attempt to widen this pattern of motivation would entail an
intensification of existing accumulation and consumption patterns, tending to deplete or to destroy the ecostructures of the planet, making everyone less secure and perhaps more vulnerable to disease (even the
powerful). Thus, if North American patterns of accumulation and consumption were to be significantly
extended, for example to China, the despoliation of the global eco-structure would be virtually assured. Even
so, the central ideological message and social myth of neoliberalism is that such a possibility is both
desirable and attainable for all: insofar as limitations are recognised, this is at best through a redefinition of the concept of
"˜sustainable development' so as to make it consistent with the continuation of existing patterns of accumulation and consumption."•
Neoliberalism destroys the environment—resources are being irreversibly depleted—
tech can’t fix
De La Barra, Chilean political activist, international consultant and former UNICEF Latin America Public Policy Advisor 07-- (Ximena,
“THE DUAL DEBT OF NEOLIBERALISM”, Imperialism, Neoliberalism and Social Struggles in Latin America”, 9/1/09, edited by Dello Bueno and
Lara, Brill Online)//AS
Meanwhile, environmental
management remains on a permanent collision course with the neoliberal,
of production. The incessant search for expansion, consuming ever more nonrenewable resources in the process, fails to assume the accompanying environmental costs and
results in an irreversible deterioration. Technological innovation concentrated in the hands of just a few private
transnational corporations is unable to act as an engine for social transformation and reduction of
environmental risk, instead serving as a vehicle for intensifying exploitation of labour, social
exclusion, and environmental destruction.Globalisation and the growth of industrial production and commercial
advertising have created new patterns of consumption catering only to select sectors while increasing the
production of wastes and pollution. At the same time, there has been no corresponding rhythm of increasing the capacity for
waste reduction or even recycling the valuable resources being lost in waste, including water. This loss of balance has degraded
ecosystems to an alarming extent. In the last 50 years, the overall level of deterioration has sharply
accelerated. Climatic change is increasingly providing us with a painful reminder of this. The availability of water per capita
is now less than half of what once existed and these supplies are being contaminated by pesticides,
fertilisers, and untreated human wastes. Air quality is likewise worsening , resulting in at least a 50% increase in
agro-export model
registered respiratory infections. Five times more combustible fuels are being burned and four times as much emissions of carbon monoxide
are The Dual Debt of Neoliberalism • 43being produced. The proportion of urban inhabitants relative to the total has grown from 17% to 50%,
while the investments being made in urban infrastructure are being reduced. The use of cement has multiplied four-fold and the expansion of
built areas has limited the natural drainage capacity, especially in urban areas, causing more frequent and more severe flooding.
Over the
last 25 years, the planet has lost a third of its natural resources in terms of forests, fresh water, and
marine species. Meanwhile, a high proportion of vegetation that fulfils a hydro-regulating role has been lost, and global warming has
come to threaten our future as a species (UNDP 1998).4 Growing environmental risks therefore constitute an
additional negative consequence of the dominant development model. Coupled with increased social
vulnerability, the result is a breeding ground for the so-called “natural” disasters that continue to
increase in frequency and intensity
AT: Cap Solves Food Security
1NC Offence
1. Alt solves—absent neoliberalism lack of profit drive means everyone gets the
food they need
2. Increased agricultural yields are irrelevant—they only serve wealthy developed
countries while leaving devastated poor behind
3. Due to the rapid decline and unsustainability of neoliberalism, we are currently
experiencing the highest food costs since 1845, and will continue to experience
inflation until we turn away from neoliberalism.
Moore, Assistant Professor of Environmental History atUmeå University, 2008 (Jason W., Ecological Crises and the Agrarian Question in
World-Historical Perspective,Lunds University Monthly Review, pages 54-55, November 2008,
http://www.sam.lu.se/upload/Humanekologi/Moore2008.pdf)//CS
lf it was not clear before, it became increasingly apparent over the course of 2008 thatagriculture is one
of the decisive
battlegrounds of neoliberal globalization-l would say the decisive battleground.This latest effort to remake
agriculture in the image of capital-this time, as a composite of agro- export platforms whose variance
with the global factory can be found only in the former's direct relation with the soil-has entered a
phase of rapidly declining returns for capital as a whole. The worm has turned on the neoliberal agroecological project.We shouldn't let the short-run profiteering around food or oil obscure this. Rising food costs-the highest
in real prices since 1845, or so The Economist reports (December 6, 2007)-mean that the systemwide costs of
(re)producing the world's working classes are going up, a situation that cannot be resolved (as it was in the
long nineteenth century) by incorporating vast peasant reservoirs in the colonial world. Marx's "latent"• reserve army of labor has dwindled to
a wisp of what it was a century ago, or even twenty-five years ago, on the eve of China’s breakneck industrialization.
4. Neoliberal economic policies exacerbate food insecurity at individual and state
levels—reduce income and prevent necessary export diversification in
developing countries
Gonzalez 04 (Carmen G., Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law, “Trade Liberalization, Food Security, and the
Environment: The Neoliberal Threat to Sustainable Rural Development”, Symposium: Whither Goes Cuba: Prospects for Economic & Social
Development: Part II of II: Cuba's Future in a Globalized World, Fall 2004, University of Michigan Libraries)//AS
The article's conclusions are two-fold, First, "free
trade" is a misnomer. The neoliberal trade regime
institutionalizes a double standard that permits protectionism in developed countries while requiring
developing countries to open their markets to highly subsidized foreign competition. This double standard
reinforces pre-existing patterns of trade and production that undermine the livelihoods of rural
smallholders, degrade the natural resource base necessary for food production, and impede the
economic diversification necessary for food security at the national level. Second, as explained in Part V of the article,
even if the neoliberal model were applied in an even-handed manner to both developed and developing countries,
it would nevertheless have a negative impact on food security and ecological sustainability. In order to
assess the impact of trade liberalization in the agricultural sector, it is important to grasp four counter-intuitive points
developed in Parts I and II of the article. First, hunger is a function of poverty rather than food scarcity. Food
production has kept far ahead of population growth for nearly half a century. People go hungry
because they lack the resources with which to purchase or grow food. Consequently, measures that increase
poverty will have a negative impact on food security. Second, nearly eighty percent of the world's undernourished
people reside in rural areas in the developing world. Most of these malnourished people are small farmers whose
livelihoods depend on selling their agricultural output. Policies that depress agricultural prices (such as food aid or productionenhancing programs like the Green Revolution) exacerbate hunger by rendering small farmers destitute, thereby
depriving them of the income with which to purchase agricultural inputs, pay taxes, and purchase consumer goods
and food not produced on the farm. Third, economic diversification is necessary to achieve food security at the
national level. A food secure country is one that can grow or import the food necessary to feed its
population. The most food insecure countries are those that rely on one or two agricultural
commodities to finance the importation of food products." These countries are vulnerable to world market price
fluctuations and to the declining terms of trade for agricultural commodities relative to manufactured goods. Economic policies that
directly require or indirectly reinforce specialization in a handful of primary agricultural commodities
exacerbate food insecurity by hindering economic diversification. Fourth, biological diversity is necessary for
ecosystem health and for the integrity of the food supply. Consequently, monocultural production
techniques that maximize the production of a few crops degrade the natural resource base necessary
for food production by eroding biological diversity, promoting pest and disease infestation. depleting soil fertility, and
requiring massive application of harmful agrochemicals. Taken together, these insights highlight the misguided nature of
international efforts to solve the problem of hunger by providing free or subsidized food, by promoting
monocultural production based on the theory of comparative advantage, and by maximizing the supply ol' food without regard to the impact
on poverty and inequality. The significance
of these observations is often obscured by the fact that the relevant
research has been undertaken in different disciplines. For example, the ecological literature on sustainable agriculture and
the economic literature on food security make analogous critiques of the theory of comparative advantage as applied to the agricultural sector.
Contrary to the theory of comparative advantage, economic specialization in the cultivation of monocultures is inimical to the biological
diversity essential to ecosystem health. This economic specialization is also an obstacle to the economic diversification necessary to promote
food security. One
of the contributions of this article is to bring together insights from a variety of
disciplines in order to explain the links among hunger, rural poverty, and environmental degradation
and to explore the roots of these problems in historical and contemporary international trade and
agricultural policy. It is important to emphasize that trade liberalization did not create the patterns of trade
and production that produce food insecurity and environmental degradation in the developing world. Rather, these
patterns have their genesis in colonialism, in the post-colonial integration of many developing countries into the global trading
system, and in the unintended consequences of post-World War ll development assistance programs (such as the Green Revolution). Trade
liberalization under structural adjustment and under the WTO trade regime aggravates hunger and
natural resource degradation precisely because it reinforces these underlying trade and production
patterns.
5. Neoliberal policies perpetuate a double standard that prevents food
diversification in developing countries and devastates individuals’ ability to buy
food
Gonzalez 04 (Carmen G., Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law, “Trade Liberalization, Food Security, and the
Environment: The Neoliberal Threat to Sustainable Rural Development”, Symposium: Whither Goes Cuba: Prospects for Economic & Social
Development: Part II of II: Cuba's Future in a Globalized World, Fall 2004, University of Michigan Libraries)//AS
As detailed in Part Ill, the structural
adjustment programs mandated by the IMF and World Bank exacerbated
the problem of economic specialization and ecologically harmful monocultures by requiring developing
countries to increase agricultural exports in order to boost the foreign exchange earnings available to service
the foreign debt. In addition, developing countries were required to eliminate agricultural subsidies and to
lower tariffs and eliminate non-tariff barriers. Because these policy prescriptions did not apply to industrialized
countries, structural adjustment promoted a double standard that plagues the agricultural sector to this
day: protectionism in wealthy countries; liberalized trade in poor countries. While developing countries opened
their markets to foreign competition, the United States and the European Union (EU) increased agricultural subsidies and utilized both tariff
and non-tariff barriers to keep out developing country exports. Structural
adjustment had a devastating impact on food
security and the environment in the developing world. The reduction or elimination of (tariff and non-tarifl)
import barriers resulted in an influx of cheap, subsidized food from the United States and the European Union.
Small farmers were rendered destitute, and hunger increased at the household level. By depressing
food prices, the cheap imports also discouraged domestic food production. At the same time, the protectionist
import barriers and trade- distorting subsidies maintained by the United States and the European Union reduced developing country export
revenues. Food
security declined at the national level as developing countries produced less food and
had less foreign exchange with which to purchase imports. Finally, the export-oriented policies favored by
the World Bank and the IMF degraded the environment by promoting the expansion of chemicalintensive, monocultural production techniques (industrial agriculture). The widespread adoption of industrial
agriculture has contributed to a wide range of ecological problems. including soil degradation, loss of agricultural
productivity, depletion of freshwater resources, contamination of water supplies by pesticides and fertilizers,
loss of biological diversity, and loss of ecosystem resilience."•
2NC Offence
Even fair trade rules can’t solve food security—existing economic disparities make
recovery impossible within the neoliberal system
Gonzalez 04 (Carmen G., Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law, “Trade Liberalization, Food Security, and the
Environment: The Neoliberal Threat to Sustainable Rural Development”, Symposium: Whither Goes Cuba: Prospects for Economic & Social
Development: Part II of II: Cuba's Future in a Globalized World, Fall 2004, University of Michigan Libraries)//AS
Many proponents
of trade liberalization would agree with the above analysis and would argue that the solution is
simple: level the playing field by requiring the United States and the EU to eliminate agricultural subsidies
and reduce tariffs. As explained in Part V, dismantling the protectionist barriers of the United States and the EU would
certainly reduce the inequities in the global trading system, but trade liberalization is not sufficient to promote food security
and ecological sustainability in the long term. First, trade liberalization in the industrialized world is not
sufficient to address the distortions and inequities caused by the monopolization of agricultural
markets by a handful of transnational corporations. For example, live agrochemical companies currently control over sixtyfive percent of the global pesticide market. Many of these companies have merged with companies that produce seeds and fertilizers. These
companies can extract monopolistic prices for key agricultural inputs. A similar concentration of market power
exists among the transnational corporations that process and market agricultural output. These companies utilize their market
power to dictate agricultural commodity prices. Farmers are increasingly squeezed between the handful of transnational
corporations that supply inputs and the handful of transnational corporations that purchase their agricultural output. The
monopolization of agricultural trade by transnational agribusiness places developing country farmers
at an enormous competitive disadvantage and threatens to perpetuate poverty and hunger. Second,
trade liberalization impedes the economic diversification necessary to promote food security at the
national level. Contrary to the free market prescriptions of the IMP, the World Bank, and the WTO, virtually all
industrialized countries (including the United States, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom) relied on tariffs,
subsidies, and other interventionist measures to industrialize. Most recently, the newly industrializing countries of
South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore successfully industrialized their economies using a combination of tariffs, subsidies, and regulation of
foreign investment. 'trade
liberalization deprives developing countries of the very tools used by
industrialized countries to diversify and industrialize their economies. Finally, trade liberalization poses a threat to
the biological diversity necessary to maintain healthy agroecosystems. The elimination of U.S. and EU subsidies and import barriers is
anticipated to increase crop specialization in the developing world in aocordance with the dictates of global markets. This development would
continue the erosion of crop diversity and the displacement of sustainable agricultural production techniques by chemical-intensive
monocultures.
Neoliberal globalization serves only the interests of transnational corporations—
enforces poverty that prevents food security for millions
Palma 03 (Juvelina, delegate from MOFGA [Maine Organic Farmers and Growers Association] ’s sistering organizations in El Salvador,
“The Challenges to Food Security Posed by Neoliberal Globalization”, MOFGA, 2003,
http://www.mofga.org/Publications/MaineOrganicFarmerGardener/Winter20032004/ChallengestoFoodSecurity/tabid/1416/Default.aspx)//AS
That which begins with the lack of respect for the dignity of a single human life ends too quickly with
disaster for entire nations. All humans that inhabit this planet have the right to a life full of dignity, and the
fundamental condition to achieve dignity is sovereignty and food security for all. The fight against social, political, economic and cultural
exclusion converts into one of the most powerful forces to inspire social movements to work for the construction of a more just and humane
society. In a world that daily witnesses deepening inequality between human beings, our vision and our actions cannot remain passive before
the reality of injustice that transcends the barriers between countries and confronts us in two worlds: one of misery and one of opulence.
Neoliberal globalization has made poverty and food insecurity a reality for millions of people around
the world. The United Nations’ most recent reports on human wealth reports that the income of the richest 1% is equal to
the income of the world’s poorest 57 percent. The divide of inequality between rich and poor is every
day greater. The richest 5% of the world’s population earns 114 times more than the poorest 5 percent. The concentration of wealth in few
hands is obliging 300 million people in the world to live on less than 1 dollar a day. This new form of neocolonialism – called
neoliberal globalization – advances by giant steps, creating free trade areas for large transnational
businesses around the world, creating areas where they can trade without obstacle. The interests of
domination and concentration of capital leave in [their] wake destruction and contamination of the
environment. The reality of social exclusion gives rise to forced displacement of the world’s people, depriving them of the right to live in
their homes of origin in front of the declining opportunities that they face. It is apparent that development is possible for a
few, while the vast majority will live in conditions of underdevelopment and poverty . The advance of this
new form of neocolonialism in the hands of transnational corporations puts in grave danger the sovereignty and self-determination of all
people.
This new mercantilism obliges the reduction of the functions of the state and leaves open the
way for large transnational capital to impose regulations that without a doubt serve only their
individual, particular interests. [The results of] this unlimited drive for riches that the large corporations have [are that] one day
they install themselves in a certain country, the next day they move on to whatever country offers them the best
conditions for profit, without respect for labor rights or those of human beings and development
itself. The assembly plant maquiladoras (sweatshops), the capitalist organizations, are an example of this type of development, where the
conditions of work convert into a second slavery. Now in the beginning of this new millennium … in the era of technological advancement, the
development of civilization should drive us toward real human development, putting people as the central axis of this process. [However, in
reality], thousands of peasants see themselves obliged to abandon in a forced manner the arena of their survival – agriculture – [in the face of]
this lack of viable policies to support alternative development for this sector. This
leaves them in a situation of misery and
hunger in their world. In Latin America, millions of campesinos (peasants) have migrated to the United States
and other countries in search of better conditions of life, bringing along with it huge consequences in terms
of disintegration of families and the loss of human resources for the development of underdeveloped
countries. The voraciousness of markets renders impossible free competition with equal conditions, given the reality that always the most
powerful will survive, leaving at a disadvantage small competitors. According to the World Food Program, this reality presents itself both within
and among countries. For this reason, there
cannot be food security in the world as long as the face of social
exclusion is expressed through malnutrition that millions of children suffer around the world. There
cannot be food security while the life expectancy in many countries of the world does not surpass 40 years. For this reason, our fight should get
underway to defeat hunger and misery – the principal enemies of humanity – and not to waste resources that destroy other human beings.
Defence
No famine- countries will always have sufficient access to food
Gardiner 2008 (Duane T. Gardiner, Texas A&M University, and Raymond W. Miller, Late, Utah University, Soils in Our
Environment, 2008, p. 21)//NR
In short the world is demanding more food, more fiber, and more industrial crops grown on less land using less water. If the population
continues to increase at the current rate (7000 more people per hour), one can
predict that the world will experience critical
resource shortages during the lifetime of young people alive today. Despite all this doom and gloom, most people are
not hungry. In fact, the food supply has become more stable, especially for the more developed countries.
During the twentieth century, growth in world economies and standards of living exceeded growth in
population.
AT: Cap Solves Gender Equality
at: gender equality
Neoliberalism entrenches gender division and inequality
Crookshanks 8 – Ph.D Political Science @ University of Alberta (John Douglas,
“Neoliberal Globalization: Threats to Women’s Citizenship in Canada”, 2008,
http://www.cst.ed.ac.uk/Events/Conferences/documents/CrookshanksJPaper.pdf, RSpec)
That being said, Brodie and Macdonald, like other gender-focussed authors, do recognize that neoliberalism does
fundamentally revolve around gender. Although it is a contradiction of the economic order’s rejection of the
relevance of gender, much of global neoliberalism is founded on the subordination of what society
equates with women (care-giving and selflessness) to male- centred concepts (public-sphere
work and competition). Feminine qualities are subordinated as the market values and pays for
traditionally male (public) work while it expects citizens (mostly women) to do the private
sphere work, such as care-giving, for free (Bakker 1996). This situation therefore provides
additional harm to women’s right to social security. The feminization of labour also ensures that
women’s work is more often part­time, low­paying, and with few benefits. While some women may not
feel any effects of market citizenship, “women” are not a homogenous group and particular women are in a much worse
situation. 3 For example, women are over-represented among single parents and poor seniors and there is a growing gap
between classes of women (Canadian-born women with university degrees had an employment rate of 86% while recent immigrant
women with degrees were employed at 58%) (Macdonald 2006: 138). Thus, Bakker explains that one should not believe that gender
is the only important factor in globalization but that it is a vital part of an affected “matrix of identities” (1996: 8).
Neoliberalism is the root cause of violence against women – ensure extinction –
star this card
Shiva 13 – Ph.D Quantum Physics @ U of Western Ontario, M.A. Philosophy of Science @ U of
Guelph, renown activist (Vandana, “Vandana Shiva: Our Violent Economy is Hurting Women “,
1/18/13, http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/violent-economic-reforms-and-women,
RSpec)
Violence against women has taken on new and more vicious forms as traditional patriarchal
structures have hybridized with the structures of capitalist patriarchy. We need to examine the
connections between the violence of unjust, unsustainable economic systems and the growing
frequency and brutality of violence against women. We need to see how the structures of traditional
patriarchy merge with the emerging structures of capitalist patriarchy to intensify violence
against women. Cyclones and hurricanes have always occurred. But as the Orissa Supercyclone, Cyclone Nargis, Cyclone Aila,
Hurricane Katrina, and Hurricane Sandy show, the intensity and frequency of cyclones has increased with climate change. Our
society has traditionally had a bias against the girl child. But the epidemic of female feticide and the
disappearance of 30 million unborn girls has taken that bias to new levels of violence and new
proportions. And it is into this context of the dynamics of more brutal and more vicious violence
against women (and multiple, interconnected forms of violence) that the processes unleashed by
neoliberalism are contributory factors. Firstly, the economic model focusing myopically on
“growth” begins with violence against women by discounting their contribution to the economy.
The more the government talks ad nauseum about “inclusive growth" and “financial inclusion,” the more it
excludes the contributions of women to the economy and society. According to patriarchal
economic models, production for sustenance is counted as "non-production." The
transformation of value into disvalue, labour into non-labour, and knowledge into nonknowledge is achieved by the most powerful number that rules our lives, the patriarchal
construct of GDP—Gross Domestic Product—which commentators have started to call the Gross
Domestic Problem. National accounting systems which are used for calculating growth as GDP are based on the assumption
that if producers consume what they produce, they do not in fact produce at all, because they fall outside the production boundary.
The production boundary is a political creation that, in its workings, excludes regenerative and renewable production cycles from the
area of production. Hence, all women who produce for their families, children, community, and society
are treated as "non-productive" and "economically inactive." When economies are confined to
the marketplace, economic self-sufficiency is perceived as economic deficiency. The devaluation
of women’s work, and of work done in subsistence economies of the Global South, is the natural
outcome of a production boundary constructed by capitalist patriarchy. By restricting itself
to the values of the market economy, as defined by capitalist patriarchy, the
production boundary ignores economic value in the two vital economies which are
necessary to ecological and human survival. They are the areas of nature’s economy, and sustenance
economy. In nature’s economy and the sustenance economy, economic value is a measure of how the earth’s life and human life are
protected. Its currency is life-giving processes, not cash or market price. Secondly, a model of capitalist patriarchy
which excludes women’s work and wealth creation in the mind, deepens the violence by
displacing women from their livelihoods and alienating them from the natural resources on
which their livelihoods depend—their land, their forests, their water, and their seeds and
biodiversity. Economic reforms based on the idea of limitless growth in a limited world, can only
be maintained by the powerful grabbing the resources of the vulnerable. The resource grab that
is essential for “growth” creates a culture of rape—the rape of the earth, of local self-reliant
economies, and of women. The only way in which this “growth” is “inclusive” is by its inclusion
of ever larger numbers in its circle of violence. I have repeatedly stressed that the rape of the Earth
and rape of women are intimately linked, both metaphorically in shaping worldviews, and
materially in shaping women’s everyday lives. The deepening economic vulnerability of women
makes them more vulnerable to all forms of violence—including sexual assault. Thirdly, economic
reforms lead to the subversion of democracy and privatization of government. Economic systems influence political systems. The
government talks of economic reforms as if it has nothing to do with politics and power. Leaders talk of keeping politics out of
economics, even while they impose an economic model shaped by the politics of a particular gender and class. Neoliberal
reforms work against democracy. We have seen this recently with the Indian government pushing through "reforms" to
bring in Walmart through FDI in retail. Corporate-driven reforms create a convergence of economic and
political power, a deepening of inequalities, and a growing separation of the political class from
the will of the people they are supposed to represent. This is at the root of the disconnect between politicians and
the public that we experienced during the protests that have grown throughout India since the Delhi gang rape. Worse, an alienated
political class is afraid of its own citizens. This is what explains the increasing use of police to crush nonviolent citizen protests, as we
have witnessed in Delhi. A privatized corporate state must rapidly become a police state. This is why the
politicians must surround themselves with ever increasing VIP security, diverting the police from their important duties to protect
women and ordinary citizens. Fourthly, the economic model shaped by capitalist patriarchy is based on the
commodification of everything, including women. When we stopped the WTO in Seattle, our slogan was, “Our
An economics unleashed by economic liberalization—an economics of
deregulation of commerce, of privatization and commodification of seeds and food, land and
water, women and children—degrades social values, deepens patriarchy, and
intensifies violence against women. Economic systems influence culture and social values. An economics
of commodification creates a culture of commodification, where everything has a price, and
nothing has value. The growing culture of rape is a social externality of economic reforms. We need
to institutionalize social audits of the neoliberal policies which are a central instrument of patriarchy in our
times. If there was a social audit of corporatizing our seed sector, 270,000 farmers would not
have been pushed to suicide in India since the new economic policies were introduced. If there
was a social audit of the corporatization of our food and agriculture, we would not have every
fourth Indian hungry, every third woman malnourished, and every second child wasted and
stunted due to severe malnutrition. India today would not be the Republic of Hunger that Dr. Utsa Patnaik has written
world is not for sale."
about. The victim of the Delhi gang rape has triggered a social revolution. We must sustain it, deepen it, expand it. We must demand
and get speedy and effective justice for women. We must call for fast-track courts to convict those responsible for crimes against
women. We must make sure laws are changed so justice is not elusive for victims of sexual violence. We must continue the demand
for blacklisting of politicians with criminal records. We must see the continuum of different forms of violence against women, from
female feticide to economic exclusion and sexual assault. We need to continue the movement for the social reforms needed to
guarantee safety, security, and equality for women, building on the foundations laid during India's independence movement and
continued by the feminist movement over the last half-century. The agenda for social reforms, social justice, and
equality has been derailed by the aganda of “economic reforms" set by capitalist patriarchy. And
while we do all this we need to change the ruling paradigm that reduces society to economy, the
economy to the market, and is imposed on us in the name of “growth." Society and economy are not
insulated from each other . The processes of social reforms and economic reforms can no longer be separated. We need economic
reforms based on the foundations of social reforms that correct the gender inequality in society, rather than aggravating all forms of
injustice, inequality, and violence. Ending violence against women needs to also include moving beyond
the violent economy to nonviolent, sustainable, peaceful, economies that give respect to women
and the Earth.
Heteronormative
Neoliberal policies are distinctly heteronormative and treat women as disposable
Cornwall et. al, professor of anthropology and development in the school of global studies at the University of Sussex 08 (Andrea,
Jasmine Gideon, and Kalpana Wilson, “Introduction: Reclaiming Feminism: Gender and Neoliberalism “, IDS Bulletin 39:6, 12/08, Wiley Online
Library)//AS
The literature that emerged in the early 1990s showing the gender blindness of neoclassical
economics and the markedly negative effects of neoliberal policies on women (see, for example, Elson 1992;
Sparr 1995) has been complemented in recent years by a new wave of studies which1document some of the
perverse consequences of a swing of the pendulum as development agencies have turned their
attentions to women (see, for example, Batliwala and Dhanraj 2004). A new direction emerging in recent critical work is a
focus on the normative dimensions of development programmes, and, in particular on the implicit or
explicit heteronormativity that lies at the heart of the development industry (Bedford 2005; Griffin
2006). A number of studies highlight the extent to which the anti-poverty programmes that have arisen in part to mitigate
the effects of neoliberal economic reforms have a marked tendency to reproduce and reinforce
deeply conservative notions of womanhood and of women’s role within the family (Molyneux 2006). Others explore the
confluence of influences, including the scale of the influence exerted by neo-conservative elements within foreign and national institutions,
that have come to play a decisive role in shaping policy responses in many countries (see contributions by Bradshaw and Bedford, this IDS
Bulletin). Paradoxically, while
those in the mainstream development institutions who have championed
neoliberal economic policies have never really been able to grasp the concept of gender, they appear
to have acquired a growing interest in women. Where feminists once highlighted the systematic institutional bias against
women in economic policy, we now see institutions like the World Bank and the Department for International Development (DFID) lauding the
importance of giving women more of a role in economic development. Women
become, in the language of DFID’s glossy Gender Equality
at the Heart of Development (2007), a ‘weapon’ in the fight against poverty, as the World Bank proclaims that investing in
women entrepreneurs is ‘Smart Economics’ (Buvinic and King 2007). The scene has shifted. Women are no longer on the sidelines, or ignored
altogether. And yet
when we take a closer look at the way in which women come to be represented, it
becomes evident that what appears may be far from what feminists might have desired. Hawkesworth
evokes the tenor of the way women come to be represented in these new narratives: Women are simultaneously hailed as
resourceful providers, reliable micro-entrepreneurs, cosmopolitan citizens, and positioned as
‘disposable domestics’, the exploited global workforce, and as displaced, devalued and
disenfranchised diasporic citizens. (Hawkesworth 2006: 202)
Neoliberalism grounds economic value in masculinity—undermines feminism
Clarke, Professor of Social Policy (Social Policy and Criminology) in the Faculty of Social Sciences at The Open University 04 (John,
“Dissolving the public realm?: The logics and limits of neo-liberalism”, Journal of Social Policy 33:1, 2004,
http://oro.open.ac.uk/4377/1/download.pdf)//AS
I want to draw out some
of the different means of dissolving the public realm used by neo-liberalism (and in its
starting point must be the powerful and complex insistence on the
primacy of the private. In neo-liberal discourse, the ‘private’ means a number of inter-locking things, each of
which is naturalised by being grounded in extra-social or pre-social forms. First, it designates the market as the site of
private interests and exchange. Private interests in this sense are both those of the abstract individual (known as
‘economic man’ for good reason) and the anthropomorphised corporation, treated as if it was an individual. This
personifying of the corporation extends to its having needs, wishes, rights and even feelings. Corporations
alliances with neo-conservatism). The
are, in a sense, doubly personified – both in the persons of their heroic leaders (Chief Executive Officers) and in the corporate entity itself
(Frank, 2000). This personification enables some distinctive populist rhetorics characteristic of neo-liberalism. Both
types of individual
the burdens of taxation, the excesses of regulation, the interference
with their freedom and shackling of the ‘entrepreneurial spirit’ by ‘big government’. Government/the
(economic man and the corporation) suffer
state/public institutions are challenged in the name of what Frank (2000) calls ‘market populism’. But the individualist definition of the private
is also a point of crossover between the market and the familial/domestic meaning of private. ‘Economic man’ is also ‘family man’, motivated
by the interests of himself and his family. The
individual of neo-liberalism is profoundly, normatively and
complexly gendered (Kingfisher, 2002: 23–5). Kingfisher argues that the ‘possessive individualist’ form of
personhood involves distinctive understandings of ‘independence’ and ‘self-sufficiency’: ‘Autonomy, the
pursuit of rational selfinterest and the market are mutually constitutive in this formulation...there is an equivalence between individualism and
self-sufficiency’ (2002: 18). This conception of the independent individual – detached from social relationships – is grounded in the distinction
between public and private in a different form:32 john clarke In this construction,
‘independence’ is displayed in the public
realm, while ‘dependence’ is sequestered to the private sphere ...the public, civil society generated by means of the
social contract is predicated on the simultaneous generation of a private sphere, into which is jettisoned all that which is not amenable to
contract. (2002: 24) This distinction between public and private is deeply gendered (Pateman, 1988; Lister,1997). It
has two implications for neo-liberalism. On the one hand, it is the site of potential alliances with a range of other political discourses that
sustain a gendered and familialised conception of social order (from Catholic familialism to Christian Socialism, for example). On the other, it is
a focus for tensions and conflicts around women’s dual role (articulating public and private realms in the ‘dual shift’ of
waged and unwaged labour). Welfare reform – in the US, UK and elsewhere – has been partly about the resolution of these tensions in relation
to lone motherhood (Kingfisher, 2002).
Neoliberalism relies on antiquated, heterosexist and patriarchal notions of societal
structure
Clarke, Professor of Social Policy (Social Policy and Criminology) in the Faculty of Social Sciences at The Open University 04 (John,
“Dissolving the public realm?: The logics and limits of neo-liberalism”, Journal of Social Policy 33:1, 2004,
http://oro.open.ac.uk/4377/1/download.pdf)//AS
Such changes
have involved significant – and largely invisible – transfers between the public and private
realm, including transferring costs from public resources to (typically unmeasured) household resources. This
form of privatisation assumes the existence of a stable nuclear family as the norm of household formation, and
the persistence of a gendered division of domestic/caring labour. The conception of infinitely elastic
female labour continues to underpin such privatisation, even in the face of substantial change in the patterns of women’s
paid employment. Policy makers have clung on to these beliefs with remarkable consistency despite the impact of social and economic change,
and despite
the political struggles that have challenged this complex of familial, patriarchal and
heterosexual norms. Of course, this ‘privatisation’ is not merely a process of transfer to an unchanged private space. The private
is reworked in the process – subject to processes of responsibilisation and regulation; and opened to
new forms of surveillance and scrutiny. Both corporate and state processes aim to ‘liberate’ the private – but
expect the liberated subjects to behave responsibly (as consumers, as parents, as citizen-consumers).
Whether such subjects come when they are called is a different matter.
Neoliberalism constructs gender-specific division of labor that ascribes traditional
identities based on gender and encourages patriarchy.
Wichterich, member of the scientific advisory council of Attac Germany andactive in WIDE (Women in
Development Europe),2009 (Christa, “Women peasants, food security and biodiversity in the crisis of
neoliberalism” Development Dialogue Issue 51, http://rosaluxeuropa.info/userfiles/file/DD51.pdf#page=173)//CS
Masculine and feminine roles in agriculture are constructed within the gender-specific division of labour and in the
context of the dual agricultural production system – commercial, chemical-intensive monocultures, on the one hand,
and mixed cultures geared towards local markets and self-sufficiency, on the other. Under the influence of local
regional and global market forces and in the socio-cultural allocation of gender-specific tasks
and capacities, traditional responsibilities and social ascription of masculinity and femininity are
entangled in ever-new ways and transform power relations(Krishna 2004; Rupp 2007). The Guatemalan
peasant women who design their kitchen garden like many spirals turning into each other of corn, sweet potatoes and
other vegetables are tied by a mixture of survival pragmatism, ancestor worship and natural philosophy to their land
and biodiversity. They treat both as an inheritance from their ancestors, from which they are not allowed nor want to
separate themselves through sale. The plots should remain in the clan or in the ethnic community, in order to ensure
their survival and well-being.The peasant women have had their own understanding of biodiversity
and of the seed as their own means of production ‘for centuries’. They see their work selfconsciously as value-creating activity and their knowledge as productive capacity, with the help of
which they have not only maintained the genetic stock, but have productively further developed it. Furthermore, they
have accumulated detailed knowledge of the nutritional value and healing powers of local species. Traditional
knowledge in these reproduction contexts is a constitutive element of survival spaces and a central livelihood resource
(Kuppe 2002).The women peasants therefore understand themselves as investors: they give value
to the plants and develop their productivity, which in its turn ensures that the women enjoy
esteem in the community. Their practical and strategic interest in biodiversity and in food
security often brings the women peasants into conflict with their men. Official government
agricultural advisors offer the men commercial seeds and praise the advantages and earning
possibilities of monocultures, recently above all those of organic fuel. In Burkina Faso, many peasants
followed the desire of the government and planted cotton, reducing the fields of the women, in order to have more
land available for the allegedly lucrative cotton. The women nevertheless continued to foster and care for biodiversity
in the kitchen gardens. It was precisely that which ensured their food supply when ¶ the cotton prices on the world
market fell into the basement. Peasant women in Tanzania had a similar experience. In a subversive action, they
planted banana trees and cabbage between the coffee trees, even though the government had forbidden mixed
farming on the export fields.
Expropriates Movement
Neoliberalism appropriates the feminist agenda for its own purposes while removing
their political agency
Cornwall et. al, professor of anthropology and development in the school of global studies at the University of Sussex 08 (Andrea,
Jasmine Gideon, and Kalpana Wilson, “Introduction: Reclaiming Feminism: Gender and Neoliberalism “, IDS Bulletin 39:6, 12/08, Wiley Online
Library)//AS
These challenges to feminist engagement come at a time when the wider
changes wrought by the impact of neoliberal
economic policies and ideology have taken their toll on feminist activism. Hawkesworth notes that neoliberal
policies "˜cut back the very aspects of the state that feminist activists seek to build up' (2006: 121) and were
accompanied by a gendered reconfiguration of responsibilities between dtizens and the state. Once the burden of social service
provision had been shifted decisively onto poor women and community level "˜civil society organisations', 'civil
society' itself was cast in an ever more significant role: as an all-purpose intermediary which would
simultaneously keep the state in check, make up for its shortcomings, use proximity to "˜the poor' to
help them to help themselves, and represent the masses who could not speak for themselves. As this
implies, 'civil society' has increasingly come to be regarded by development agencies and donors as a key space for intervention and control.
Donor funding for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on a massive scale has led to women's movements and
organisations in many countries undergoing a process of depoliticising 'NGOisation' (Fllvaiez 1998) - with damaging
consequences for the mobilisation of women, as Islah Jad (this IDS Bulletin) shows This has contributed to a lack
of political muscle, as once-active feminist organisations become (or are displaced by) increasingly depoliticised service providers,
reliant on contracts from the state or grants from the development industry, As the 'invited spaces' of neoliberal governmentality have come to
displace and be used to delegitimise the "˜invented spaces' (Miraftab 2004) of social mobilisation, "empowerment
has come to be
associated with individual self- improvement and donor interventions rather than collective struggle
(Sardenberg, this IDS Bulletin). Contemporary development policy narratives speak not just of women, but of the term that became a rallying
cry for southern feminists in the early 19905; 'women's empowerment'. With this has come a series of narratives about women as more
efficient and responsible that accentuate women's compliance with normative expectations. Women
appear in these narratives
as hard-pressed mothers struggling for the wellbeing and betterment of their families. Development is
presented as giving women a well- deserved chance to improve their circumstances, so as to be able to
benefit their families, communities and their nations The World Bank's Buvinic and King (2007) for example, offer a neat chain of
causalities that begins with empowering women and girls and leads to economic growth and poverty reduction. Similar stories are told in the
promotional materials of a number of agencies. Words
like 'agency' and even 'power' come to be appropriated for
this purpose (see, for example, Alsop 2005) Indeed, contributors to this IDS Bulletin highlight how, along with 'empowerment',
an entire lexicon of terms that were once associated with feminist activism have come to be laden
with the attributed meanings of development agencies. Srilatha Batliwala, author of a foundational 1994 report that
helped to put "˜women's empowerment' on the development map, reflects on how the term 'empowerment' has been eviscerated of its
original political content (Badiwala 2007). As Kalpana Wilson argues, 'agency'
has become a particularly troubling object
for neoliberal appropriation. Reduced to the exercise of individual preference - or even to the acquisition of assets, in the World
Bank's framework - 'agency' joins "˜choice' in a coupling of concepts that permits little scope for any talk about power, inequities or indeed any
structural constraints at all.
Neoliberalism strips empowerment of political meaning and imposes economic
standards of success while generalizing women’s condition
Cornwall et. al, professor of anthropology and development in the school of global studies at the University of Sussex 08 (Andrea,
Jasmine Gideon, and Kalpana Wilson, “Introduction: Reclaiming Feminism: Gender and Neoliberalism “, IDS Bulletin 39:6, 12/08, Wiley Online
Library)//AS
Neoliberal empowerment narratives not only empty ‘empowerment’ of any contentious political
content, they also make money – microcredit loans, conditional cash transfers, enhanced access to markets and livelihood assets
– the magic bullet, as if that were somehow enough to effect wholesale transformations in women’s
lives. As Charmaine Pereira, reflecting on the package of interventions promised in the Nigerian Economic Empowerment and Development
Strategy, notes: The assumption here is that a package that brings together single measures to address women’s concerns will, in and of itself,
bring about empowerment. This is
a far cry from challenging the ideologies that justify gender inequality,
changing prevailing patterns of access to and control over resources (as opposed to providing the
resources themselves), and transforming the institutions that reinforce existing power relations . [p45]
That a concern for women finds its way into national economic policies is, of course, some mark of success. Indeed one might think surely
feminists ought to be glad to see that the issues that they fought so hard to get onto the agenda are now appearing in the pronouncements of
development agencies with such regularity and apparent commitment. Yet, if we look at the shape that this success has taken, or been
translated into, a positive reading of development’s absorption of the language of ‘gender’ is harder to sustain. Josephine Ahikire talks of the
‘apparent divergence between the terms gender and feminism’ in Uganda. It
has come to be the case in many contexts that
‘gender’ has come to gain a softer, more conciliatory touch, its use a device to distance the user from
association with ‘feminism’. And when ‘gender’ is used by mainstream agencies to talk about women, as it generally is, the women
who come into view are not everywoman. Rather, the predominant representation of women is as those who lack
agency and opportunities. One of the problems, as Ahikire points out, is that the: … broad motive to highlight the
plight of women, the fact that women tend to be the worst victims of poverty, wars, disease (such as the
HIV/AIDS pandemic) unfortunately translates into a field of ‘lamentations’ that may in the end carry a
critical anti-feminist message. [p30] A consequence, Ahikire goes on to highlight, is that the language of vulnerability and
marginalisation that 4 has come to be associated with ‘gender’, runs the risk of infantilising women, lumping them together with children as
the deserving objects of intervention. It is precisely the nature of the response to the victim narrative that a number of the contributors to this
collection highlight as one of the contradictions produced by the convergence of Gender and Development and neoliberal thinking and practice.
Any vestige of a more dignified way of talking about women who are living in poverty falls away. The
stereotypical woman that these discourses evoke is always heterosexual, usually either with an
abusive or useless husband or a victim of abandonment struggling to survive as a female-headed
household. She is portrayed as abject and at the same time as eager to improve herself and her
situation if only she could be ‘empowered’.
Neoliberal policies marginalize and attempt to eliminate feminist politics—viewed as
illegitimate special interest
Teghtsoonian, Professor of Policy and Practice at the University of Victoria 03 (Katherine, “W(h)ither Women's Equality?
Neoliberalism, Institutional Change and Public Policy in British Columbia”, Policy and Society 22:1, 2003, ScienceDirect)//AS
Commentators in a number of jurisdictions have noted that governments
pursuing a neoliberal agenda have often
displayed a hostility to women’s policy agencies, which has been reflected in their transfer to more
peripheral locations within the public service, staffing and funding cuts, or outright elimination. This was
evident in Australia during the late 1990s, when the right-wing government led by John Howard eliminated a number of federal women’s policy
agencies and implemented significant cuts to the resources available to those that remained (Sawer 1999, 43-8). Similar policies have been
pursued by governments at the state level in Australia (Chappell 1995; Sawer 1999, 41), as well at the federal and provincial levels in Canada
(Burt 1997; Malloy 1999) as neoliberalism has taken root in the corridors of power. Such changes have often been carried out as part of a wider
restructuring and downsizing of the bureaucratic state. As a result, the
staff of women’s policy agencies have found that,
in addition to a reduction in the material resources available to them, their work has been made more
difficult by significant disruptions to their working relationships with staff in other government
departments. As Sawer has argued, writing in the Australian context, one result of this “increased volatility of bureaucratic structures and
the continuous change environment” is that “it is difficult to sustain the structures needed for long-term projects
such as improving the status of women, and there is a continuing loss of corporate memory. ... [In
addition], there is a devaluing of process, including the information sharing that has been central to
feminist work” (Sawer 1999, 42). The demotion or elimination of women’s policy agencies reflects that element within
neoliberalism that frames feminist and other identity-based forms of politics undertaken by
marginalized groups, as the illegitimate and unrepresentative expression of “special interests”. This
formulation contrasts these interests and the groups articulating them, presented as particularistic and self-serving, with the interests and
policy preferences of gender-neutral “ordinary citizens” and “consumers”, understood to be expressive of a broader public interest (Brodie
1995). In this discursive
framework, which was particularly30 - Katherine Teghtsoonian prominent in Canada during the 1990s, the
activities – indeed, the very existence – of women’s policy agencies seem suspect.
Domestic Violence
Neoliberal policies reentrench heterosexist structures and prevent aid for domestic
violence victims
Cornwall et. al, professor of anthropology and development in the school of global studies at the University of Sussex 08 (Andrea,
Jasmine Gideon, and Kalpana Wilson, “Introduction: Reclaiming Feminism: Gender and Neoliberalism “, IDS Bulletin 39:6, 12/08, Wiley Online
Library)//AS
While neoliberalism may be archetypically associated with the individual as atomistic rational agent, its roots
lie in liberal
theory, which has always excluded women from this notion of individuality. So perhaps we should not be
surprised if, as several of the contributions to this IDS Bulletin demonstrate, neoliberalism subsumes women into an image
of the protective mother who will translate any gains from the market into the means for household
survival, and will be prepared to make unlimited personal sacrifices to provide the household with a
safety net against the ravages of neoliberal macroeconomic policies. Ideologically, this works to re-embed
women within familial relations. As a result, the family becomes a key site for the exercise of neoliberal
governmentality. Sarah Bradshaw and Kate Bedford (this IDS Bulletin) draw attention to the extent to which Latin American
social policies both presuppose and reinforce a model of the family that has the heterosexual couple
at its heart. Bradshaw shows how contemporary social protection programmes divert attention away from
the female householdhead to the nuclear family. Bedford, focusing on a World Bank-funded family strengthening
programme in Argentina, explores the extent to which programmes like these are reinscribing and renaturalising a
particular form of heterosexual IDS Bulletin Volume 39 Number 6 December 2008 5intimate and familial relations. ‘Good
mothers’ come to be coupled with ‘responsible men’ as ‘partners’, as the state retreats further from supportive
social provision. Bedford shows the defining role that was played by the bank in the programme, naturalising private provision of care within
the family as ‘an efficient and empowering way to resolve tensions between paid and unpaid labour’. The
net result, she contends,
is reduced policy space for domestic violence, greater policy openings for conservative religious
organisations concerned with ‘the family’ and difficulties arguing for social provision outside the family, such as
institutionalised childcare. She highlights the ironies of the extent to which an articulation of the problem that seemed to address long-standing
feminist concerns led to a solution that few feminists might agree with: After all, many feminists wanted men to stop shirking domestic work
and International Financial Institutions to take care seriously. However we did not necessarily want childcare erased as a policy priority,
replaced by more shared (but still privatised) caring labour within couples ... [or] poor men held responsible for women’s poverty. [p64–5]
Neoliberalism overtakes feminist movements and prevents access to aid for victims of
domestic violence
Bumiller, Professor of Political Science and Women's and Gender Studies at Amherst College 08 (Kristin, “In an Abusive State: How
Neoliberalism Appropriated the Feminist Movement against Sexual Violence”, Duke Univeristy Press, 4/25/08,
http://books.google.com/books/about/In_an_Abusive_State.html?id=6m3GzvoBWYkC)//AS
By the late 19705, the
tenets of neoliberalism began to influence American public policy at home and abroad.
firstterm as president marks the shift to neoliberal principles of governance which are
associated with less restraint on free-market policies, pro-corporatism, privatization, and in particular, the transfer of
public services to private organizations. This shift significantly affected the already established feminist
anti-violence movement in its attempts to reform the criminal justice programs and build up victim
services. The call for state responsibility for preventing and treating victims was in direct contrast to
the new ethics of personal responsibility that was the cornerstone of the neoliberal agenda. This
contradiction was resolved, but the cost was the incorporation of the feminist anti violence movement into the
apparatus of the regulatory state. For example, the rationale for providing services for women was transformed by the neoliberal
Ronald Reagan's
agenda." The organizers ofthe shelter movement saw the necessity of encouraging women to take advantage of available government benefits,
but only as a temporary means to provide for their children. Importantly, seeking
government help was part ofa growing
recognition both within shelter organizations and in the feminist movement more generally of the
fundamental insecurity of marriage as an institution. Now, in many battered women's shelters women
are required to apply for all appropriate state benefits as part ofa process of showing that they are taking all necessary
steps to gain self-suH'iciency. These requirements entangle women in an increasingly value-laden welfare
program tied to the promotion of the traditional nuclear family, fear of dependency, and distrust of women as
mothers."• These ties, moreover, come with fewer benefits as the "de volution" of welfare systems has brought about cutbacks in services and
rescaling to the local level. "' At the same time, the welfare system has become more linked to other forms of state involvement, in~ cluding
probate court actions concerning custody, paternity hearings, child protective serwdces, and relationships with school officials. As a result,
when women seek help from shelters, it now produces an inevitable dependency on the state.
Ignores Identity Politics
Neoliberlaism simultaneously ignores and exacerbates women’s oppression and
removes the consideration of gender in politics
Teghtsoonian, Professor of Policy and Practice at the University of Victoria 03 (Katherine, “W(h)ither Women's Equality?
Neoliberalism, Institutional Change and Public Policy in British Columbia”, Policy and Society 22:1, 2003, ScienceDirect)//AS
But the
consequences of neoliberal resistance to understanding gender as a relevant and legitimate
dimension of politics extend far beyond the terrain of the state. Feminist scholars and activists alike have noted the
debilitating impact that the policy agenda flowing from neoliberal orientations has had for diverse
groups of women in a number of countries in the industrialized west, including Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United States
(Brodie 1995; Bunkle 1995; Hancock 1999; Kingfisher 2002). Women’s economic and social well-being has been
undermined by significant reductions in the supports available to women who experience a variety of
barriers to participation in the paid labour force (including caregiving responsibilities, disability, and
racism); cuts to funding for community-based organizations advocating for, and providing services to, women; and an exponential increase in
unpaid caregiving work, as services are cut back and women take up the slack in their families and communities. And yet the gendered
impacts of key features of the neoliberal program are erased within neoliberal discourse. As Janine Brodie
has argued, the elements of neoliberalism “act simultaneously to intensify gender inequality and to
erode the political relevance of gender” (Brodie 2002, 99). It is important to note that the emergence of neoliberalism as a logic
informing government priorities has not waited on, or required, the electoral victory of parties of the right. In many cases, neoliberal impulses
have been reflected in the policies pursued by (ostensibly) social democratic administrations, coexisting uneasily with more progressive policy
directions (Hancock 1999). Certainly a tension between neoliberal and social justice commitments was visible in the governing agenda of the
left-of-centre New Democratic Party (NDP), in office in British Columbia during the 1990s (Teghtsoonian 2000), and was particularly
pronounced under the Fourth Labour Government in New Zealand between 1984 and 1990 (Larner 1996). Attending to these internal
complexities within government programs assists us in identifying important threads of continuity, as well as disjunctures, when the partisan
composition of government changes. Neoliberal continuities across the left-right divide are discernible not just in the content of particular
policies, but in the more general “strategies of rule” that neoliberalism prescribes (Larner 1996; 2000).W(h)ither Women’s Equality? - 31
Nikolas Rose (1996, 1999) argues that, rather
than trying to exert direct control over service providers and
agencies, governments deploying neoliberal strategies of rule govern indirectly, “at a distance”. Various
“technologies” of accountability, audit and budgetary discipline that are mobilized by government exert a
significant constraining influence on the decisions and self-understandings of organizations outside of
government, even as these appear to be autonomous agencies, free to define their organizational structures, priorities
and modes of working. Although Rose is interested primarily in understanding the network of relationships between government and the
panoply of agencies and organizations outside of it, we can observe many of the “technologies” that he identifies also being deployed within
government itself, accumulating over time under the aegis of governments of both the left and the right. As with other elements of
neoliberalism, there is an important gendered dimension to these strategies of rule which will be explored in the discussion below.
Neoliberal policies ignore women’s concerns—especially when they intersect with
other identity groups
Teghtsoonian, Professor of Policy and Practice at the University of Victoria 03 (Katherine, “W(h)ither Women's Equality?
Neoliberalism, Institutional Change and Public Policy in British Columbia”, Policy and Society 22:1, 2003, ScienceDirect)//AS
This failure to address the intersections among multiple dimensions of marginalization in women’s
lives arguably reflects the neoliberal antipathy to identity-based politics discussed earlier. We see this
orientation embedded in the Liberal Party’s approach to the value of “equality” as outlined in the “New Era” documents it produced prior to
the 2001 election indicating the directions that it planned to pursue if returned to office. Thus, in “A New Era of Equality” (the second-to-last of
thirty-three pages) the Liberals prioritized the need to get “a fair shake” for the province of British Columbia within the Canadian federal system
and to attend more carefully to the interests of “rural British Columbians”, rather than the interests of identitybased groups. These
latter
were delegitimized in the following terms:The NDP have ... treated equality issues as so-called ‘wedge
issues’, using women, aboriginals, seniors, gays and lesbians, multicultural groups and others as
political pawns to try to gain partisan advantage. That’s no way to build our future. We must start treating all citizens fairly,
equally, and with respect, regardless of where they live or who they are. A BC Liberal Government will be guided by the principle of equality. ...
Equality of opportunity, responsibility and rights is what our Constitution guarantees. And all British Columbians are entitled to no less. (BC
Liberals 2001, 32) With the exception of the promise to “ensure that all aboriginal governments have the same legal status in BC as they do in
every other province” (intended to minimize, rather than enhance, that status), the twelve commitments presented as avenues to “A New Era
of Equality” discuss plans for “British Columbians”, “Canadians”, “rural communities”, and “local government” – conceptual containers which
render invisible the specific interests of identity-based groups, including (multiply-marginalized) women.6 The transformation of Women’s
Equality into Women’s Services and Social Programs has been accompanied by a number of shifts in the unit’s responsibilities and priorities.
One of the most noticeable of these has been the return of responsibility for support for child care services, which had been transferred from
Women’s Equality to the Ministry for Children and Families in 1997. The return of child care services to the branch might appear to be a
positive move for women: the significant increase in the women’s policy agency budget resulting from this transfer could enhance its “clout”
within government. Further, the reintegration of child care services into a bureaucratic context charged with gender analysis might auger well
for ongoing sensitivity in policy decisions to women’s particular interest in access to affordable, quality child care for their children. And yet this
is not how events have unfolded. Instead, the Liberal government moved quickly to undo progressive changes to child care policy that had been
adopted by the previous administration. For example, it repealed the NDP’s Child Care Services Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2001
and was providing funding that reduced the cost to parents of after-school child care from $12 to $7 per day per child up to the age of twelve
years. In addition to the material benefit to families that this policy entailed (estimated by the government at $1,100 per child annually for the
average family), it was intended by the NDP government as one component of an on-going process of reframing access to quality, affordable
child care as a universal service, rather than as a meanstested benefit. By contrast, the Liberals
have insisted that government
subsidies should be restricted to those who are most in need; in their view, as Lynn Stephens has argued, reduced
government spending on child care is necessary in order to make the system “more affordable for taxpayers”.7 As a further contribution to this
latter goal, the funding provided by Women’s Services and Social Programs for the forty-seven child care resource and referral agencies
throughout the province will be cut to zero effective March 2004.8 Women’s Services will continue to fund and administer transition and
second-stage houses, to support related services for women and their children who are fleeing families in which they have been the targets of
violence by intimate partners, and to fund anti-violence projects more generally. However, the thirty-seven community-based Women’s
Centres, which provide a range of information, referral and advocacy services to women throughout the province, have suffered a very
different fate. The funding they receive from Women’s Services – which amounted to $1.9 million during the final year of the NDP
administration – is to be eliminated entirely as of 31 March 2004. In addition, the $4.7 million provided by the Ministry of Women’s Equality
under the previous government to support the province’s innovative bridging programs, designed to facilitate a transition to employment for
women who have experienced violence, will also be eliminated at the conclusion of the 2003/04 fiscal year (MWE 2001a, 15; CAWS 2002a, 12).
The elimination of these expenditures from the Women’s Services’ budget have been accompanied by deep and wide-ranging cuts to programs
and community-based organizations funded through other government departments.9 These cutbacks,
which have impeded girls
and women’s access to health services, education, housing, disability supports, social assistance
benefits, and legal and advocacy services, have been driven by the legislated requirement that the
provincial government bring in a balanced budget in fiscal year 2004/05 and subsequently. Their magnitude reflects
the need to compensate for sizable tax cuts that the Liberal government announced immediately after the 2001 election, and
which have delivered the greatest benefits to the most well-off individuals in the province (Lee 2001). with higher
incomes may benefit from the tax cuts, but most women in the province are paying a significant price one way or
another for the policy package as a whole. And, far from having an advocate for their interests within government, they have a
Minister of State for Women’s Equality who has indicated that “I agree with everything our government does”.10
Terminal Impact: Fem
Feminist movements are essential for peace—patriarchal institutions are a root cause
of war
Cockburn, feminist researcher and writer, is Honorary Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Warwick, 10
(Cynthia, “Gender Relations as Causal in Militarization and War”, International Feminist Journal of Politics 12:2, 2010, Taylor and Francis)//AS
Based on empirical research among women's antiwar organizations worldwide, the article derives a feminist
oppositional standpoint on militarization and war. From this standpoint, patriarchal gender relations are
seen to be intersectional with economic and ethno-national power relations in perpetuating a
tendency to armed conflict in human societies. The feminism generated in antiwar activism tends to be holistic, and
understands gender in patriarchy as a relation of power underpinned by coercion and violence. The
cultural features of militarization and war readily perceived by women positioned in or close to armed conflict, and their sense of war as
systemic and as a continuum, make its gendered nature visible. There are implications in this perspective for antiwar movements. If gender
relations are one of the root causes of war, a feminist programme of gender transformation is a necessary
component of the pursuit of peace.
Patriarchal institutions cause war—feminist movements are integral in peace-empirics
Cockburn, feminist researcher and writer, is Honorary Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Warwick, 10
(Cynthia, “Gender Relations as Causal in Militarization and War”, International Feminist Journal of Politics 12:2, 2010, Taylor and Francis)//AS
In many countries and regions around the world, women
are organizing inwomen-only groups and networks to oppose militarism and
prevent wars or bring wars to an end, to achieve justice and sustainablepeace. From early in 2005 I carried
out two years’ fulltime empirical researchinvestigating the constitution and objectives, the analyses
and strategies ofsuch organizations.2The research involved 80,000 miles of travel to twelvecountries on four continents, and
militarization,to
resulted in case studies of ten countrybased groups, fourteen branches of Women in Black in five countries andthree other transnational
networks – the Women’s International League forPeace and Freedom, Code Pink and the Women’s Network against Militarism.Yet this was
only a slender sample of the movement of movements that iswomen’s engaged opposition to militarization and war in the
contemporaryworld.In this article I summarize or encapsulate the unique feminist analysis of warthat women seemed to me to be evolving
from their location close to armedconflict combined with their positionality as women, and the activism towhich they had been provoked. I
draw out here only the boldest of itsthemes, the ‘strong case’ on gender and war. It is that patriarchal
genderrelations
predispose our societies to war. They are a driving force perpetuatingwar. They are among the causes
of war. This is not, of course, to say that genderis the only dimension of power implicated in war. It is
not to diminish thecommonly understood importance of economic factors (particularly an
everexpansive capitalism) and antagonisms between ethnic communities, statesand blocs (particularly the institution of the nationstate) as causes of war.Women antiwar activists bring gender relations into the picture not as analternative
but as an intrinsic, interwoven, inescapable part of the very samestory.
Patriarchal hierarchies must be resisted—cause war and violence
Tickner, distinguished scholar in residence atthe Schoolof International Services at American University92 (J. Ann, “Gender in
International Relations Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security”, Columbia University Press, 1992,
http://www.ces.uc.pt/ficheiros2/files/Short.pdf)//AS
Masculinity and politics have a long and close association. Characteristics associated with "manliness," such as toughness, courage, power,
independence, and even physical strength, have, throughout history, been those most valued in the conduct of politics, particularly
international politics. Frequently, manliness
has also been associated with violence and the use of force, a type
of behavior that, when conducted in the international arena, has been valorized and applauded in the
name of defending one's country. This celebration of male power, particularly the glorification of the male warrior,
produces more of a gender dichotomy than exists in reality for, as R. W. Connell points out, this stereotypical image of
masculinity does not fit most men. Connell suggests that what he calls "hegemonic masculinity," a type of culturally dominant
masculinity that he distinguishes from other subordinated masculinities, is
a socially constructed cultural ideal that, while it
patriarchal authority and legitimizes a
patriarchal political and social order. Hegemonic masculinity is sustained through its opposition to
various subordinated and devalued masculinities, such as homosexuality, and, more important, through its relation to
various devalued femininities. Socially constructed gender differences are based on socially sanctioned, unequal relationships between
does not correspond to the actual personality of the majority of men, sustains
men and women that reinforce compliance with men's stated superiority. Nowhere in the public realm are these stereotypical gender images
more apparent than in the realm of international politics, where the characteristics associated with hegemonic masculinity are projected onto
the behavior of states whose success as international actors is measured in terms of their power capabilities and capacity for self-help and
autonomy.
AT Cap Solves Poverty
AT Neolib Solves Poverty
Capitalism structurally needs poverty: the extraction of surplus value from the poor
through exploitation is a key engine of property. The wealth is concentrated at the top
- wealth does not trickle down the the social hierarchy
Neoliberalism’s rapid requirement for urbanization exacerbates the rich-poor divide
resulting in ruined livelihoods, increased inequality, increased poverty, detrimental
environmental impacts, and horrific living conditions
Greenberg, Ph.D in Anthropology at University of Michigan, 2012
(James B., Thomas Weaver (Ph.D. in Anthropology at University of California at Berkeley), Anne
Browning-Aiken (Ph.D. in Anthropology at University of Arizona), William L. Alexander (Professor of
Anthropology at University of Arizona), “The Neoliberal Transformation of Mexico,” Neoliberalism and
Commodity Production in Mexico, University Press of Colorado, pp 328-329)//SG
Neoliberal development has led tothe accoutrementsof modernization and prog- ress, such as arguably
better infrastructure and certainly greater opportunities for a narrow set of Mexican and foreign elites.
For the masses,however, neoliberalism has created toll roads they can’t afford to use. While free trade
has harmonized prices between the UnitedStatesand Mexicofor most commodities, forworking people
incomes remain flat and putting food on the table, let alone buying the foreign goods that flood the
market, remains a struggle.Neoliberal development has made the rich richer and the poor desperate.
Beyond its costs for Mexico’s masses, the economy and the environment have paid the price of
neoliberal devel- opment. Although conditions were far from good before,employment, working
conditions, distribution of income, and living conditions have become markedly worse for the masses
under neoliberalism. As these conditions have worsened, so have violence, oppression, and
environmental degradation.The implementation of neoliberal policy was brutal, particularly for Mexico’s
rural poor. Rather than helping the poor, these policies have deepened poverty and ruined livelihoods.
Even by the World Bank’s own accounts, 5 to 10 percent of Mexico’s rural population still lives on under
a dollar per day, and another 20 percent lives on less than two dollars a day (World Bank
2004:xx).National fig- ures, however, hide rural poverty. By 1996, following neoliberal restructuring and
NAFTA, 80 percent of the rural population fell below this line. Rural poverty numbers improved slowly
between 1998 and 2006, according to the World Bank, because of public and private transfers (the latter
from migrant remissions) and increases in tourism and services; the poverty rate fell to 55 percent. But
as the US economy soured, rural poverty again began to rise and stood at 61 percent in 2008 (World
Bank 2012). Under neoliberalism, inequality has also been increas- ing in the United States since the
1980s (Glasmeier 2007; Uchitelle 2007). Beyond the growing inequalities in wealth, widespread and
growing poverty comes with other social costs. As displaced rural migrants pour into Mexico’s cit- ies,
they face both large-scale unemployment and horrific living conditions;the only housing they may be
able to afford is improvised out of cardboard and other temporary materials and they seldom have heat,
electricity, or water. Without sewers and sanitation, these slums are breeding grounds for diseases of
poverty and deteriorating health (Davis 2006).These problems are only the down-payment on the social
costs of neoliber- alism. For peasants and smallholders fleeing ruined rural economies, migration entails
a process of class transformation: unable to make a living working their own lands, they must now work
for someone else. Working for wages changes the basic logic of livelihoods. Whether the migrants find
work in Mexico or in the United States, working for wages rewards households that send more workers
into labor markets, and the people left behind must find ways to earn cash. This situation irrevocably
changes the gender division of household labor.
Capitalism lies at the root of poverty – their evidence is influenced by corporations who do anything
for the sole purpose of profit
Wolff, 11 Ph.D. @ Yale, Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and
currently a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School
University in New York
[Richard, “Capitalism and Poverty” MRZine, 11/10/11,
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/wolff111011.html]//SGarg
The US Census Bureau recently reported what most Americans already knew. Poverty is
deepening. The gap between rich and poor is growing. Slippage soon into the ranks of the poor now
confronts tens of millions of Americans who long thought of themselves as securely "middle class." The
reality is worse than the Census Bureau reports. Consider that the Bureau's poverty line in 2010 for a
family of four was $22,314. Families of four making more than that were not counted as poor. That
poverty line works out to $15 per day per person for everything:food, clothing, housing, medical care,
transportation, education, and so on. If you have more than $15 per day per person in your household
to pay for everything each person needs, the Bureau does not count you as part of this country's poverty
problem. So the real number of US citizens living in poverty -- more reasonably defined -- is much
larger today than the 46.2 million reported by the Census Bureau. It is thus much higher than the 15.1
per cent of our people the Bureau sees as poor. Conservatively estimated, about one in four Americans
already lives in real poverty. Another one in four is or should be worried about joining them soon. Longlasting and high unemployment now drains away income from families and friends of the unemployed
who have used up savings as well as unemployment insurance. As city, state, and local governments
cut services and supports, people will have to divert money to offset part of those cuts. When Medicare
and if Social Security benefits are cut, millions will be spending more to help elderly parents. Finally,
poverty looms for those with jobs as (1) wages are cut or fail to keep up with rising prices, and (2)
benefits -- especially pensions and medical insurance -- are reduced. Deepening poverty has multiple
causes, but the capitalist economic system is major among them. First, capitalism's periodic crises
always increase poverty, and the current crisis is no exception. More precisely, how capitalist
corporations operate, in or out of crisis, regularly reproduces poverty. At the top of every corporation,
its major shareholders (15-20 or fewer) own controlling blocs of shares. They select a board of directors
-- usually 15-20 individuals -- who run the corporation. These two tiny groups make all the key
decisions: what, how, and where to produce and what to do with the profits. Poverty is one result of
this capitalist type of enterprise organization. For example, corporate decisions generally aim to
lower the number of workers or their wages or both. They automate, export (outsource) jobs, and
replace higher-paid workers by recruiting domestic and foreign substitutes willing to work for
less. These normal corporate actions generate rising poverty as the other side of rising profits. When
poverty and its miseries "remain always with us," workers tend to accept what employers dish out to
avoid losing jobs and falling into poverty. Another major corporate goal is to control politics. Wherever
all citizens can vote, workers' interests might prevail over those of directors and shareholders in
elections. To prevent that, corporations devote portions of their revenues to finance politicians,
parties, mass media, and "think tanks." Their goal is to "shape public opinion" and control what
government does. They do not want Washington's crisis-driven budget deficits and national debts to be
overcome by big tax increases on corporations and the rich. Instead public discussion and politicians'
actions are kept focused chiefly on cutting social programs for the majority. Corporate goals include
providing high and rising salaries, stock options, and bonuses to top executives and rising dividends
and share prices to shareholders. The less paid to the workers who actually produce what
corporations sell, the more corporate revenue goes to satisfy directors, top managers, and major
shareholders. Corporations also raise profits regularly by increasing prices and/or cutting production
costs (often by compromising output quality). Higher priced and poorer-quality goods are sold mostly to
working people. This too pushes them toward poverty just like lower wages and benefits and
government service cuts. Over the years, government interventions like Social Security, Medicare,
minimum wage laws, regulations, etc. never sufficed to eradicate poverty. They often helped the
poor, but they never ended poverty. The same applies to charities aiding the poor. Poverty always
remained. Now capitalism's crisis worsens it again. Something more than government interventions or
charity is required to end poverty.
Their understanding of poverty is flawed – Poverty becomes inevitable in the neoliberal dominated
system – it’s like a game of musical chairs, there are more people than there are chairs
Johnson, Ph.D. in Sociology @ University of Michigan, 97
[Allan, “Why is there poverty?” Excerpt from “The Forest and The Trees: Sociology as Life, Practice, and
Promise” http://www.agjohnson.us/essays/poverty/]//SGarg
Following the course of major social problems such as poverty, drug abuse, violence, and oppression, it
often seems that nothing works. Government programs come and go as political parties swing us back
and forth between stock answers whose only effect seems to be who gets elected. If anything, the
problems get worse, and people feel increasingly helpless and frustrated or, if the problems don’t affect
them personally, often feel nothing much at all. As a society, then, we are stuck, and we’ve been stuck
for a long time. One reason we’re stuck is that the problems are huge and complex. But on a deeper
level, we tend to think about them in ways that keep us from getting at their complexity in the first
place. It is a basic tenet of sociological practice that to solve a social problem we have to begin by seeing
it as social. Without this, we look in the wrong place for explanations and in the wrong direction for
visions of change. Consider, for example, poverty, which is arguably the most far-reaching, longstanding cause of chronic suffering there is. The magnitude of poverty is especially ironic in a country
like the United States whose enormous wealth dwarfs that of entire continents. More than one out of
every six people in the United States lives in poverty or near-poverty. For children, the rate is even
higher. Even in the middle class there is a great deal of anxiety about the possibility of falling into
poverty or something close to it – through divorce, for example, or simply being laid off as companies try
to improve their competitive advantage, profit margins, and stock prices by transferring jobs overseas.
How can there be so much misery and insecurity in the midst of such abundance? If we look at the
question sociologically, one of the first things we see is that poverty doesn’t exist all by itself. It is
simply one end of an overall distribution of income and wealth in society as a whole. As such, poverty
is both a structural aspect of the system and an ongoing consequence of how the system is organized
and the paths of least resistance that shape how people participate in it. The system we have for
producing and distributing wealth is capitalist. It is organized in ways that allow a small elite to control
most of the capital – factories, machinery, tools – used to produce wealth. This encourages the
accumulation of wealth and income by the elite and regularly makes heroes of those who are most
successful at it – such as Microsoft’s Bill Gates. It also leaves a relatively small portion of the total of
income and wealth to be divided among the rest of the population. With a majority of the people
competing over what’s left to them by the elite, it’s inevitable that a substantial number of people are
going to wind up on the short end and living in poverty or with the fear of it much of the time. It’s like
the game of musical chairs: since the game is set up with fewer chairs than there are people, someone
has to wind up without a place to sit when the music stops. In part, then, poverty exists because the
economic system is organized in ways that encourage the accumulation of wealth at one end and
creates conditions of scarcity that make poverty inevitable at the other. But the capitalist system
generates poverty in other ways as well. In the drive for profit, for example, capitalism places a high
value on competition and efficiency. This motivates companies and their managers to control costs by
keeping wages as low as possible and replacing people with machines or replacing full-time workers
with part-time workers. It makes it a rational choice to move jobs to regions or countries where labor is
cheaper and workers are less likely to complain about poor working conditions, or where laws
protecting the natural environment from industrial pollution or workers from injuries on the job are
weak or unenforced. Capitalism also encourages owners to shut down factories and invest money
elsewhere in enterprises that offer a higher rate of return. These kinds of decisions are a normal
consequence of how capitalism operates as a system, paths of least resistance that managers and
investors are rewarded for following. But the decisions also have terrible effects on tens of millions of
people and their families and communities. Even having a full-time job is no guarantee of a decent living,
which is why so many families depend on the earnings of two or more adults just to make ends meet. All
of this is made possible by the simple fact that in a capitalist system most people neither own nor
control any means of producing a living without working for someone else. To these social factors we
can add others. A high divorce rate, for example, results in large numbers of single-parent families who
have a hard time depending on a single adult for both childcare and a living income. The centuries-old
legacy of racism in the United States continues to hobble millions of people through poor education,
isolation in urban ghettos, prejudice, discrimination, and the disappearance of industrial jobs that, while
requiring relatively little formal education, nonetheless once paid a decent wage. These were the jobs
that enabled many generations of white European immigrants to climb out of poverty, but which are
now unavailable to the masses of urban poor. Clearly, patterns of widespread poverty are inevitable in
an economic system that sets the terms for how wealth is produced and distributed. If we’re
interested in doing something about poverty itself – if we want a society largely free of impoverished
citizens – then we’ll have to do something about both the system people participate in and how they
participate in it. But public debate about poverty and policies to deal with it focus almost entirely on the
latter with almost nothing to say about the former. What generally passes for ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’
approaches to poverty are, in fact, two variations on the same narrow theme of individualism. A classic
example of the conservative approach is Charles Murray’s book Losing Ground. Murray sees the world
as a merry-go-round. The goal is to make sure that “everyone has a reasonably equal chance at the
brass ring – or at least a reasonably equal chance to get on the merry-go-round.” He reviews thirty
years of federal antipoverty programs and notes that they’ve generally failed. He concludes from this
that since government programs haven’t worked, poverty must not be caused by social factors. Instead,
Murray argues, poverty is caused by failures of individual initiative and effort. People are poor because
there’s something lacking in them, and changing them is therefore the only effective remedy. From this
he suggests doing away with public solutions such as affirmative action, welfare, and income support
systems, including “AFDC, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and the rest. It would leave
the working-aged person with no recourse whatsoever except the job market, family members, friends,
and public or private locally funded services.” The result, he believes, would “make it possible to get as
far as one can go on one’s merit.” With the 1996 welfare reform act, the United States took a giant step
in Murray’s direction by reaffirming its long-standing cultural commitment to individualistic thinking and
the mass of confusion around alternatives to it. The confusion lies in how we think about individuals and
society, and about poverty as an individual condition and as a social problem. On the one hand, we can
ask how individuals are sorted into different social class categories, what characteristics best predict
who will get the best jobs and earn the most. If you want to get ahead, what’s your best strategy? Based
on many people’s experience, the answers come fast and easy: work hard, get an education, never give
up. There is certainly a lot of truth in this advice, and it gets to the issue of how people choose to
participate in the system as it is. Sociologically, however, it focuses on only one part of the equation
by leaving out the system itself. In other words, it ignores the fact that social life is shaped both by the
nature of systems and how people participate, by the forest and the trees. Changing how individuals
participate may affect outcomes for some. As odd as this may seem, however, this has relatively little to
do with the larger question of why widespread poverty exists at all as a social phenomenon. Imagine for
a moment that income is distributed according to the results of a footrace. All of the income in the
United States for each year is put into a giant pool and we hold a race to determine who gets what. The
fastest fifth of the population gets 48 percent of the income to divide up, the next fastest fifth splits 23
percent, the next fastest fifth gets 15 percent, the next fifth 10 percent, and the slowest fifth divides 4
percent. The result would be an unequal distribution of income, with each person in the fastest fifth
getting nine times as much money as each person in the slowest fifth, which is what the actual
distribution of income in the United States looks like. If we look at the slowest fifth of the population
and ask, “Why are they poor?” An obvious answer is, “They didn’t run as fast as everyone else, and if
they ran faster, they’d do better.” This prompts us to ask why some people run faster than others, and
to consider all kinds of answers from genetics to nutrition to motivation to having time to work out to
being able to afford a personal trainer. But to see why some fifth of the population must be poor no
matter how fast people run, all we have to do is look at the system itself. It uses unbridled competition
to determine not only who gets fancy cars and nice houses, but who gets to eat or has a place to live or
access to health care. It distributes income and wealth in ways that promote increasing concentrations
among those who already have the most. Given this, the people in this year’s bottom fifth might run
faster next year and get someone else to take their place in the bottom fifth. But there has to be a
bottom fifth so long as the system is organized as it is. Learning to run faster may keep you or me out
of poverty, but it won’t get rid of poverty itself. To do that, we have to change the system along with
how people participate in it. Instead of splitting the ‘winnings’ into shares of 48 percent, 23 percent, 15
percent, 10 percent, and 4 percent, for example, we might divide them into shares of 24 percent, 22
percent, 20 percent, 18 percent, and 16 percent. There would still be inequality, but the fastest fifth
would get only 1.5 times as much as the bottom instead of 12 times as much, and 1.2 times as much
as the middle fifth rather than more than 3 times as much. People can argue about whether chronic
widespread poverty is morally acceptable or what an acceptable level of inequality might look like. But if
we want to understand where poverty comes from, what makes it such a stubborn feature of social
life, we have to begin with the simple sociological fact that patterns of inequality result as much from
how social systems are organized as they do from how individuals participate in them. Focusing on
one without the other simply won’t do it. The focus on individuals is so entrenched, however, that even
those who think they’re taking social factors into account usually aren’t. This is as true of Murray’s critics
as it is of Murray himself. Perhaps Murray’s greatest single mistake is to misinterpret the failure of
federal antipoverty programs. He assumes that federal programs actually target the social causes of
poverty, which means that if they don’t work, social causes must not be the issue. But he’s simply got it
wrong. Welfare and other antipoverty programs are ‘social’ only in the sense that they’re organized
around the idea that social systems like government have a responsibility to do something about
poverty. But antipoverty programs are not organized around a sociological understanding of how
systems produce poverty in the first place. As a result, they focus almost entirely on changing
individuals and not systems, and use the resources of government and other systems to make it
happen. If antipoverty programs have failed, it isn’t because the idea that poverty is socially caused is
wrong. They’ve failed because policymakers who design them don’t understand what makes the
cause of something ‘social.’ Or they understand it but are so trapped in individualistic thinking that they
don’t act on it by targeting systems such as the economy for serious change.
XT
Dominant capitalist systems make development projects aimed at poverty impossible
Baker and Weisbrot, 3 -- Co-Directors – Center for Economic and Policy Research, (Dean and Mark,
“False Promises on Trade”, July 25, 2003, http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0725-02.htm)//AA
Similarly, most of sub-Saharan Africa is suffering from an un-payable debt burden. While there has been
some limited relief offered in recent years, the remaining debt burden is still more than the debtor
countries spend on health care and education. The list of problems imposed on developing countries
can be extended at length bans on the industrial policies that led to successful development in the
west, the imposition of patents on drugs and copyrights on computer software and recorded material,
inappropriate macro-economic policies imposed by the IMF and the World Bank. All of these factors
are likely to have far more severe consequences for the development prospects of low and middleincome countries than the agricultural policies of rich countries.
Discussion is key – Capitalism can no longer be immune from criticism – their examples of how
capitalism alleviates poverty don’t acutally solve the problem, they simply offer a surface solution
while not attacking the root causal issue
Johnson, Ph.D. in Sociology @ University of Michigan, 97
[Allan, “Why is there poverty?” Excerpt from “The Forest and The Trees: Sociology as Life, Practice, and
Promise” http://www.agjohnson.us/essays/poverty/]//SGarg
The result is that some people rise out of poverty by improving their competitive advantage, while
others sink into it when their advantages no longer work and they get laid off or their company
relocates to another country or gets swallowed up in a merger that boosts the stock price for
shareholders and earns the CEO a salary that in 2005 averaged more than 262 times the average
worker’s pay. But nothing is even said – much less done – about an economic system that allows a
small elite to own and control most of the wealth and sets up the rest of the population to compete
over hat’s left. And so, individuals rise and fall in the class system, and the stories of those who rise
are offered as proof of what’s possible, and the stories of those who fall are offered as cautionary
tales. The system itself, however, including the huge gap between the wealthy and everyone else and
the steady proportion of people living in poverty, stays much the same. A second type of program seems
to assume that individuals aren’t to blame for their impoverished circumstances, because it reaches out
with various kinds of direct aid that help people meet day-to-day needs. Welfare payments, food
stamps, housing subsidies, and Medicaid all soften poverty’s impact, but they do little about the
steady supply of people living in poverty. There’s nothing wrong with this in that it can alleviate a lot of
suffering. But it shouldn’t be confused with solutions to poverty, no more than army field hospitals can
stop wars. In relation to poverty as a social problem, welfare and other such programs are like doctors
who keep giving bleeding patients transfusions without repairing the wounds. In effect, Murray tells us
that federal programs just throw good blood after bad. In a sense, he’s right, but not for the reasons he
offers. Murray would merely substitute one ineffective individualistic solution for another. If we do as
he suggests and throw people on their own, certainly some will find a way to run faster than they did
before. But that won’t do anything about the ‘race’ or the overall patterns of inequality that result from
using it as a way to organize one of the most important aspects of human life. Liberals and
conservatives are locked in a tug of war between two individualistic solutions to problems that are
only partly about individuals. Both approaches rest on profound misunderstandings of what makes a
problem like poverty ‘social.’ Neither is informed by a sense of how social life actually works as a
dynamic relation between social systems and how people participate in those systems. This is also what
traps them between blaming problems like poverty on individuals and blaming them on society. Solving
social problems doesn’t require us to choose or blame one or the other. It does require us to see how
the two combine to shape the terms of social life and how people actually live it. Because social
problems are more than an accumulation of individual woes, they can’t be solved through an
accumulation of individual solutions. We must include social solutions that take into account how
economic and other systems really work. We also have to identify the paths of least resistance that
produce the same patterns and problems year after year. This means that capitalism can no longer
occupy its near-sacred status that holds it immune from criticism. It may mean that capitalism is in
some ways incompatible with a just society in which the excessive well-being of some does not require
the misery of so many others. It won’t be easy to face up to such possibilities, but if we don’t, we will
guarantee poverty its future and all the conflict and suffering that go with it.
2NC
1. Empirically false—rampant poverty today particularly in countries exploited by
rich nations
2. Their evidence is biased and Eurocentric—poverty only decreases in the select
few nations that benefit from neoliberalism
3. No reason to redistribute resources in the status quo under capitalism—won’t
happen
4. Neoliberalism’s rapid requirement for urbanization exacerbates the rich-poor
divide resulting in ruined livelihoods, increased inequality, increased poverty,
detrimental environmental impacts, and horrific living conditions
Greenberg, Ph.D in Anthropology at University of Michigan, 2012
(James B., Thomas Weaver (Ph.D. in Anthropology at University of California at Berkeley), Anne Browning-Aiken (Ph.D. in Anthropology at
University of Arizona), William L. Alexander (Professor of Anthropology at University of Arizona), “The Neoliberal Transformation of Mexico,”
Neoliberalism and Commodity Production in Mexico, University Press of Colorado, pp 328-329)//SG
Neoliberal development has led tothe accoutrementsof modernization and prog- ress, such as arguably better
infrastructure and certainly greater opportunities for a narrow set of Mexican and foreign elites. For the
masses,however, neoliberalism has created toll roads they can’t afford to use. While free trade has
harmonized prices between the UnitedStatesand Mexicofor most commodities, forworking people incomes
remain flat and putting food on the table, let alone buying the foreign goods that flood the market, remains a
struggle.Neoliberal development has made the rich richer and the poor desperate. Beyond its costs for Mexico’s
masses, the economy and the environment have paid the price of neoliberal devel- opment. Although
conditions were far from good before,employment, working conditions, distribution of income, and living
conditions have become markedly worse for the masses under neoliberalism. As these conditions have
worsened, so have violence, oppression, and environmental degradation.The implementation of neoliberal policy
was brutal, particularly for Mexico’s rural poor. Rather than helping the poor, these policies have deepened poverty and
ruined livelihoods. Even by the World Bank’s own accounts, 5 to 10 percent of Mexico’s rural population still lives on under a dollar per
day, and another 20 percent lives on less than two dollars a day (World Bank 2004:xx).National fig- ures, however, hide rural
poverty. By 1996, following neoliberal restructuring and NAFTA, 80 percent of the rural population fell
below this line. Rural poverty numbers improved slowly between 1998 and 2006, according to the World Bank, because of public and
private transfers (the latter from migrant remissions) and increases in tourism and services; the poverty rate fell to 55 percent. But as the US
economy soured, rural poverty again began to rise and stood at 61 percent in 2008 (World Bank 2012). Under neoliberalism, inequality has also
Beyond the growing inequalities in
wealth, widespread and growing poverty comes with other social costs. As displaced rural migrants pour
into Mexico’s cit- ies, they face both large-scale unemployment and horrific living conditions;the only
been increas- ing in the United States since the 1980s (Glasmeier 2007; Uchitelle 2007).
housing they may be able to afford is improvised out of cardboard and other temporary materials and they seldom have heat, electricity, or
water. Without sewers and sanitation, these slums are breeding grounds for diseases of poverty and deteriorating health (Davis 2006).These
problems are only the down-payment on the social costs of neoliber- alism. For peasants and
smallholders fleeing ruined rural economies, migration entails a process of class transformation: unable
to make a living working their own lands, they must now work for someone else. Working for wages changes the
basic logic of livelihoods. Whether the migrants find work in Mexico or in the United States, working for wages rewards households that send
more workers into labor markets, and the people left behind must find ways to earn cash. This situation irrevocably changes the gender division
of household labor.
5. Neoliberalism exacerbates wealth gaps and leads to tremendous poverty
Albo, Department of Political Science, York University, 06 (Gregory, “The Unexpected Revolution: Venezuela Confronts Neoliberalism”,
Presentation at the University of Alberta, International Development Week, 1/06, http://socialistproject.ca/theory/venezuela_praksis.pdf)//AS
The social
impacts of neoliberalism have been dismal. The processes of social exclusion and polarisation that
sharpened in the 1980s across Latin America have continued with faltering per capita incomes and massive
informal sector growth, in the order of an astonishing 70-80 percent of new employment, to the present. With ECLA long having
declared the 1990s Latin A1nerica's second lost decade, it will soon have to do so for a third.'0 Here Venezuela records the same
numbing neoliberal patternsof reproduction of social inequality as elsewhere: some 80 percent of the population lives
in poverty, while 20 percent enjoy the oligarchic wealth produced by rentier oil revenues; the worst performance in per
capita GDP in Latin American from the late 1970s to the present, with peak income levels cut almost in halt, a collapse of rural incomes leading
to massive migration into the cities, with close to 90 per cent of the population now in urban areas, particularly Caracas, one of the world's
growing catalogue of slum cities; 3/4 of new job growth estimated to be in the informal sector, where half of the working population is now
said to "˜work'; and recorded unemployment levels (which have quite unclear meaning given the extent of reserve armies of underemployed in the informal economy) hovering
between 15 to 20 per cent for a decade. The tally of social ills
produced by neoliberal models of economic development makes for sober reading. These all impinge on any
attempt an alternate direction for the Venezuelan state, although the booming oil sector allows for far more room for redistributional policies
and potential to convert oil revenues into "˜endogenous development' than elsewhere. However, to date, there has been only some modest
increase in incomes for waged workers and poorer sections, which can largely be attributed to the economic recovery.
There has been
no radical redistribution of income and only modest shiiis in high-income tax burdens.
Extra Cards
Neoliberalism is a trap that secures the subordination of the poor to satisfy the rich
Crouch 11 – English sociologist and political scientist, former Professor of Governance and Public
Management in the University of Warwick Business School until 2011 (Colin Crouch, “The Strange Nondeath of Neo-liberalism” Winner of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung prize, Polity Press, August 8 2011) MR
Neoliberalism, compromised by the soft approach of Chicago economics towards concentrations of wealth in market—dominating
corporations, and further compromised by having created, through banking deregulation, markets that thrive on inadequate information, has
led us into a trap : We can secure our collective welfare only by enabling a very small number of
individuals to become extremely rich and politically powerful. The essence of this trap is perfectly expressed in what is now
happening to the Welfare state. Governments have to make deep cuts in social services, health and education
programmes, pension entitlements and social transfers to the poor and unemployed. They have to do this to satisfy
the anxieties of the financial markets over the size of public debt, the operators in these markets being the
very same people who benefited from the bank rescue, and who have already begun to pay
themselves high bonuses — bonuses ‘earned’ because their operations have been guaranteed against risk
by the government spending that created the public debt.
Growth can’t solve poverty—social development can exist without economic growth
De La Barra, Chilean political activist, international consultant and former UNICEF Latin America Public Policy Advisor 07—(Ximena,
“THE DUAL DEBT OF NEOLIBERALISM”, Imperialism, Neoliberalism and Social Struggles in Latin America”, 9/1/09, edited by Dello Bueno and
Lara, Brill Online)//AS
On the other hand, it
has been amply demonstrated that high levels of social development can be reached
even in the absence of robust economies. This can only happen if the correct priorities are set and the necessary political will is
present. One study of ten national case studies suggested that the redistribution of goods and income will not happen automatically and that
there is no guarantee that the distribution of income in a market economy is going to be neutral (Lewis
1997). The study concluded by affirming public policy makers will do well to build upon the potential synergy that exists between investments
in education, water and sanitation, and health and nutrition in order to maximise the possible levels of social development in a context of
highly limited resources. The study also concluded that
growth in itself will not reduce poverty in terms of income
nor in terms of human development, unless there are public policies that are specifically oriented to this objective (Lewis 1997).
Neoliberalism’s massive inequality results in a society in which 1% of the world
receives 57% of its income at the expense of everyone else – empirically proven that
neoliberalism doesn’t increase social well-being or economic efficiency
Navarro,M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Public Policy, Sociology, and Policy Studies at Johns Hopkins
University, 2007
(Vicente, “NEOLIBERALISM AS A CLASS IDEOLOGY; OR, THE POLITICAL CAUSES OF THE GROWTH OF
INEQUALITIES,” International Journal of Health Services, Vol. 37.1, pp 51-54)//SG
Another correction that needs to be made as a rebuttal to neoliberal dogma is thatneoliberal public policies have been
remarkably unsuccessful at achieving what they claim to be their aims: economic efficiency and social
well-being. If we compare the period 1980–2000 (when neoliberalism reached its maximum
expression)1 with the immediately preceding period, 1960–1980, we can easily see that 1980–2000 was
much less successful than 1960–1980 in most developed and developing capitalist countries. As Table 1
shows,the rate of growth and the rate of growth per capitain all developing (non-OECD)countries (excluding China)were
much higher in 1960–1980 (5.5% and 3.2%) than in 1980–2000 (2.6% and 0.7%). Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker, and David Rosnick (7) have
documented thatthe improvement in quality-of-life and well-being indicators (infant mortality, rate of school enrollment,
life expectancy, and others)increased faster in 1960–1980than in 1980–2000 (when comparing countries at the same level of
development at the starting year of each period). And as Table 2 shows,
the annual rate of economic growth per capita in
the developed capitalist countries was lower in 1980–2000 than in 1960–1980. But, what is also important to
stress is that due to the larger annual economic growth per capita in the OECD countries than in the developing countries (except China), the
difference in their rates of growth per capita has been increasing dramatically. This means, in practical terms,
that income inequalities
between these two types of countries have grown spectacularly, and particularly between the extremes (see Table 2).
But, most important, inequalities have increased dramatically not only among but within countries, developed
and developing alike.Adding both types of inequalities (among and within countries), we find that, as Branco Milanovic (8) has
documented,the top 1 percent of the world population receives 57 percent of the world income , and the
income difference between those at the top and those at the bottom has increased from 78 to 114
times.It bears emphasizing that even though poverty has increased worldwide and within countries that are following neoliberal public
policies, this does not mean the rich within each country (including developing countries) have been adversely affected. As a matter of fact,the
rich saw their incomes and their distance from the non-rich increase substantially. Class inequalities
have increased greatly in most capitalist countries.NEOLIBERALISM AS THE ROOT OF INEQUALITIESIn each of these countries,
then, the income of those at the top has grown spectacularly as a result of state interventions. Consequently, we need to turn to some of the
categories and concepts discarded by large sectors of the left: class structure, class power, class struggle, and their impact on the state. These
scientific categories continue to be of key importance to understanding what is going on in each country. Let me clarify that a scientific concept
can be very old but not antiquated. “Ancient” and “antiquated” are two different concepts. The law of gravity is very old but is not antiquated.
Anyone who doubts this can test it by jumping from the tenth floor. There is a risk that some sectors of the left may pay an equally suicidal cost
by ignoring scientific concepts such as class and class struggle simply because these are old concepts.We
cannot understand the
world (from the Iraq War to the rejection of the European Constitution) without acknowledging the existence of classes
and class alliances, established worldwide between the dominant classes of the developed capitalist
world and those of the developing capitalist world. Neoliberalism is the ideology and practice of the
dominant classes of the developed and developing worlds alike.But before we jump ahead, let’s start with the situation
in each country.Neoliberal ideology was the dominant classes’ response to the considerable gains achieved
by the working and peasant classes between the end of World War II and the mid-1970s. The huge increase in
inequalities that has occurred since then is the direct result of the growth in income and well-being of the dominant classes, which is a
consequence of class-determined public policies such as: (a)deregulation
of labor markets, an anti–working class move;
financial markets, which has greatly benefited financial capital, the hegemonic branch of capital in
the period 1980–2005; (c) deregulation of commerce in goods and services, which has benefited the highconsumption population at the expense of laborers; (d )reduction of social public expenditures, which has hurt the working class;
(e) privatization of services, which has benefited the top 20 percent of the population(by income) at the expense
of the well-being of the working classes that use public services; ( f )promotion of individualism and consumerism, hurting
the culture of solidarity; (g) development of a theoretical narrative and discourse that pays rhetorical
homage to the markets, but masks a clear alliance between transnationals and the state in which they are based; and (h)
promotion of an anti-interventionist discourse, that is in clear conflict with the actual increased state interventionism, to
promote the interests of the dominant classes and the economic units—the transnationals—that foster
their interests. Each of these class-determined public policies requires a state action or intervention that
conflicts with the interests of the working and other popular classes.
[Continued – Footnote] 1The starting point of neoliberalism and of the growth in inequalities was July 1979, with
Paul Volker’s dramaticincrease in interest ratesthat slowed down economic growth—plus the two oil shocks that
particularly affected countries highly dependent on imported oil (see 5). Volker increased interest rates (thus creating a
(b)deregulation of
worldwide recession) as an anti–working class move to weaken labor in the United States and abroad. The rate increase also initiated, as Arrighi
(6) noted, a flow of capital to the United States, making it very difficult for other countries, especially poor countries, to compete for the limited
capital. The fact that petrol Euro dollars (which increased enormously with the oil shocks) were deposited in the United States made the
scarcity of capital particularly hard for poor countries to adapt to. This is the time when the stagnation of the poor countries started.The
countries most affected by these neoliberal public policies were the Latin American countries, which
followed these policies extensively, and the African countries (the poorest of the poor), which saw extremely
negative economic growth. In 2000, 24 African countries had a smaller GNP per capita than 25 years
earlier.
Proponents are wrong—neoliberalism only increases economic inequality
Hursh and Henderson, associate professor of education at the University of Rochester and PhD at the Warner Graduate School of
Education and Human Development 11 (David and Joseph, “ Contesting global neoliberalism and creating alternative futures”, Discourse:
Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 32:2, May 2011, Routledge)//AS
Globally,
neoliberal policies have been imposed on developing countries through the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF). Their policies used the ideal of free trade to open up markets to multinational
corporations often to the detriment of local production, especially in agriculture (Shiva, 2000), and scaled back
government spending on social services, if not privatizing them (Jomo, 2007). Consequently, in many developing countries the
role of government has been diminished to guaranteeing minimum standards and welfare and creating
conditions favourable for capital investment, leading to what some have described as the hollowing out of the state
(Clapham, 1996). As Harvey (2006) writes: “the fundamental mission of the neoliberal state is toa create a ‘good business
climate’ and therefore to optimize conditions for capital accumulation no matter what the consequences for
employment or social well-being. This contrasts with the social democratic state that is committed to full employment and the
optimization of the wellbeing of all its citizens subject to the condition of maintaining adequate and stable rates of accumulation.” (p. 25) While
the primary aim of neoliberalism is to restore corporate profitability over the welfare of its citizens, proponents
claim that giving
free reign to corporations and 174 D.W. Hursh and J.A. Henderson Downloaded by [Emory University] at 11:52 28 June 2013
unleashing individuals to pursue their own economic self-interests is the best way to ensure economic growth and,
therefore, to provide for an improved standard of living for those in developed and developing countries and for the
poor worldwide. However, as Jomo (2007) and Berry and Serieux (2007) write, since the rise of globalization and
neoliberalism in the 1970s, economic growth has slowed and the ‘income inequality has worsened in
most countries in the world in recent decades’ (Jomo, 2007, p. xix). Even in the USA, long held up as the exemplar of
capitalist development, under neoliberalism household income has grown only because of the rise of two-worker households, men earn less
than their fathers did, and, as measured by the Gini coefficient, income inequality has grown (The Economist, 2010).
Resisting capitalism is critical to liberate the subjugated masses in Latin America
Renique, Associate Professor in the Department of History at the City College of the City University of New York ( Gerardo, “Latin America
today: The revolt against neoliberalism”, Socialism and Democracy 10--, 19:3, 9/20/10,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08854300500284561#.UcnZQvnVCSo)//AS
Peasant/Indian intervention in politics has long been manifested through everyday acts of resistance.
These remained fragmented and localized, however, until the second half of the 20th century. Landlord and state
responses to subaltern defiance rested on the systematic use of violence and the deepening of
colonial forms of domination and exploitation – what Anı´ balQuijano calls the coloniality of power. In his essay, Quijano
examines the political trajectory of Indian resistance in Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador, describing the current power crisis in terms of the crisis of
coloniality. He
suggests that the achievement of autonomy and of a pluri-ethnic state will not only mark
the end of the Eurocentric nation-state but will also force the redefinition of both the national
question and the problem of political democracy.Gonza´lez Casanova argues similarly, in his essay on the EZLN,
thattheZapatista forms of autonomous self-government (caracoles or conches) express what he describes as a “culture of power” forged in 500
years of resistance to colonialism and to the Eurocentric logic of state power. In place of the latter, Zapatista forms
of people’s power
offer an idiosyncratic form of direct rule aimed on the one hand at strengthening democracy, dignity,
and autonomy, and, on the other, at building an alternative way of life, thereby helping to revitalize
the universal struggle for democracy, liberation, and socialism.
Neoliberal policies privilege the wealthy and commercialize self-worth
Gill, Distinguished Research Professor of Political Science at York University, 95 (Stephen, “Globalisation, Market Civilisation, and
Disciplinary Neoliberalism”, Millennium - Journal of International Studies 24:3, 1995, Sage Publications)//AS
One vehicle for the emergence of this situation has been policies that tend to subject the majority to
market forces whilst preserving social protection for the strong (e.g., highly skilled workers, corporate capital, or
those with inherited wealth). These
policies are cast within a neoliberal discourse of governance that stresses
the efficiency, welfare, and freedom of the market, and self-actualisation through the process of
consumption. However, the effects of these policies are hierarchical and contradictory, so that it is also possible to
say that the neoliberal turn can itself be interpreted as partly a manifestation of a crisis of governmental
authority and credibility, indeed of governability, within and across a range of societies. It represents what Gramsci called
"˜a rift between popular masses and ruling ideologies' expressed in widespread "˜scepticism with regard
to all theories and general formulae and to a form of politics which is not simply realistic in fact...but which is cynical in its immediate
manifestations
Neoliberalism commodifies life and marginalizes the non-wealthy
Gill, Distinguished Research Professor of Political Science at York University, 95 (Stephen, “Globalisation, Market Civilisation, and
Disciplinary Neoliberalism”, Millennium - Journal of International Studies 24:3, 1995, Sage Publications)//AS
From a socio-historical perspective a
remarkable feature of contemporary world society is how more and more
aspects of everyday life in _OECD nations have come to be premised upon or pervaded by market values,
representations, and symbols, as time and distance are apparently shrunk by scientific- technological innovation, the hyper-mobility of financial
capital, and some types of information flows. Commercialisation
has configured more aspects of family life, religious
practice, leisure pursuits, and aspects of nature. Indeed, processes of commodification have
progressively encompassed aspects of life that had been viewed as inalienable."• Increasingly, patent
rights over human genes and tissue, plants, seeds, and animal hybrids are obtained routinely by pharmaceutical
and agricultural corporations, including the DNA of "˜endangered peoples' (that is, aboriginal or native
peoples). These private "˜inte1lectual' property rights are being intemationalised and extended into the legal regimes of the world through
the new World Trade Organisation. Such developments are taking place when, in much of the OECD, there has been little political
debate over the repercussions of biotechnology and genetic innovation, to say nothing of the privatisation of
life-forms."• At the same time, large numbers of people are almost totally marginalised from
enjoyment of the fruits of global production.
Neoliberalism exacerbates wealth gaps and leads to tremendous poverty
Albo, Department of Political Science, York University, 06 (Gregory, “The Unexpected Revolution: Venezuela Confronts Neoliberalism”,
Presentation at the University of Alberta, International Development Week, 1/06, http://socialistproject.ca/theory/venezuela_praksis.pdf)//AS
The social
impacts of neoliberalism have been dismal. The processes of social exclusion and polarisation that
sharpened in the 1980s across Latin America have continued with faltering per capita incomes and massive
informal sector growth, in the order of an astonishing 70-80 percent of new employment, to the present. With ECLA long having
declared the 1990s Latin A1nerica's second lost decade, it will soon have to do so for a third.'0 Here Venezuela records the same
numbing neoliberal patternsof reproduction of social inequality as elsewhere: some 80 percent of the population lives
in poverty, while 20 percent enjoy the oligarchic wealth produced by rentier oil revenues; the worst performance in per
capita GDP in Latin American from the late 1970s to the present, with peak income levels cut almost in halt, a collapse of rural incomes leading
to massive migration into the cities, with close to 90 per cent of the population now in urban areas, particularly Caracas, one of the world's
growing catalogue of slum cities; 3/4 of new job growth estimated to be in the informal sector, where half of the working population is now
said to "˜work'; and recorded unemployment levels (which have quite unclear meaning given the extent of reserve armies of underemployed in the informal economy) hovering
between 15 to 20 per cent for a decade. The tally of social ills
produced by neoliberal models of economic development makes for sober reading. These all impinge on any
attempt an alternate direction for the Venezuelan state, although the booming oil sector allows for far more room for redistributional policies
and potential to convert oil revenues into "˜endogenous development' than elsewhere. However, to date, there has been only some modest
increase in incomes for waged workers and poorer sections, which can largely be attributed to the economic recovery.
There has been
no radical redistribution of income and only modest shiiis in high-income tax burdens.
Neoliberal influence disproportionately hurts the poor
Gwynne and Kay, professors at the School of Geography, University of Birmingham and the Institute of Social Studies at the Hague
respectively 00, (Robert and Cristóbal, “Views from the periphery: futures of neoliberalism in Latin America”, Third World Quarterly 21:1,
2000, JSTOR)//AS
The transformations of labour markets introduces the wider theme that neoliberal
reform has been associated with
negative effects in such social areas as income distribution and poverty. These negative effects can be seen in the
impact of neoliberal reforms in at least five areas of the labour market (Bulmer-Thomas, 1996). (1) Unemployment rate: trade
liberalisation, fiscal andlabourmarket reform have combined to substantially increase unemployment
during the economic crisis and the process of economic restructuring. Those companies unable to compete with foreign firms in the domestic
market lay off workers, govemments drastically reduce the numbers of civil servants and short-term contracts make temporary unemployment
more common. (2) Real minimum wage: labour market and fiscal reforms have
normally operated to reduce the minimum
wage in real terms--both to save govemment spending on social provision and to maximise employment during economic restructuring.
Although the real minimum wage declines during the economic crisis, it can subsequently increase once economic growth becomes more
sustained (as in Chile since the late l980s). Real wages: trade liberalisation, fiscal and labour market reform have all tended to exert downward
pressure on real wages-as companies face more competition from overseas firms, as governments increase wages and salaries at lower rates
than inflation and as greater flexibility enters the labour market. Again a distinct sequencing can be found, with real wages declining during the
first phase of economic restructuring but with slight increases occurring once the labour market subsequently tightens. Wealth effects: the
impact of fiscal reform, the liberalisation of trade and domestic capital markets and increased
inflow of foreign capital has
been to substantially increase the wealth of the top two deciles of income earners the capitalist class
in general and entrepreneurs in particular. (5) The urban informal sector. This corresponds to that pan of the urban economy that is smallscale, avoids regulation and covers a wide variety of activities. During the phase of economic restructuring the informal sector tends to expand
as more enterprises wish to enter the unregulated sector. However, subsequently it can decline as it becomes easier for small-scale enterprises
to comply with the more limited regulations required of a deregulated formal sector. It has been argued (de Soto, 1989) that the urban market
does offer opportunities for many (as in petty commerce). However, as Thomas (1996) and Roberts (1995) point out, these are basically survival
strategies and enterprises will
normally remain with low levels of capital accumulation and therefore
income. It would be interesting to know the level of support for the economic model from these sectors. Again support would probably
emerge when economic growth resumes. Increased subcontracting from larger firms to small-scale informal enterprises would be one example
of such trickle-down mechanisms operating.
AT Space Col
1. Empirically disproven—USSR went to space under a communist regime—their
card says free markets are key to space tech innovation but I’m pretty sure the
USSR beat the US into space
2. Space col irrelevant if we bring neolib with us—we’ll only continue exploiting
resources and damaging people and the environment
3. Space col only available to the rich—turns their escape claims because it’s
physically impossible to launch 7 billion people into space—they’ll leave the
poor behind
4. Space colonization is unrealistic and can’t solve extinction
Anissimov 08 (Michael, managed Singularity Summit and worked as media director for the Machine Intelligence Research Institute,
“We Are in Trouble”, Accelerating Future, 9/22/13, http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2008/09/we-are-in-trouble/)//AS
Space stations or lunar settlements won’t help mankind avoid numerous types of extinction risks. This is because
1) any colony would remain near-completely dependent on Earth unless very large and in possession of advanced
nanotechnology, and 2) the greatest danger, from superintelligence, could easily reach its long arm into
space and crush any human colony if it wanted to.¶ This is not a challenge we can run away from. We
have to stay here and fix it. Space will not swoop down and save the day.¶ Regarding self-replicating threats, it’s
likely that a deep underground self-sufficient bunker would be nearly equivalent in its protective value
to a space station, not to mention thousands of times cheaper. On Earth, there is air, organic and inorganic building materials,
water, radiation shielding, proximity to other humans, and many other amenities. Even if you completely nuked the face of
the planet, it would still remain the most habitable neighborhood in the solar system, hands down. This
might have something to do with the fact that we descend from a lineage that has lived here and adapted to the environment for billions of
years.¶ When
dealing with extinction risks, we have to be practical, not fanciful, with visions of
expensive space stations or lunar bases. That’s reality.
XT: Impact Defence
Space colonization is terminally impossible—hard laws of science prohibit
Finkel 11 (Alan, “Forget space travel: it’s just a dream”, Cosmos, 4/11/11, http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/planets-galaxies/the-futurespace-travel/)//AS
HUMAN EXPANSION across the Solar System is an optimist’s fantasy. Why? Because of the clash of two
titans: physics versus chemistry.¶ In the red corner, the laws of physics argue that an enormous amount of
energy is required to send a human payload out of Earth’s gravitational field to its deep space destination and back again.¶ In
the blue corner, the laws of chemistry argue that there is a hard limit to how much energy you can
extract from the rocket fuel, and that no amount of ingenuity will change that.¶ Start with a
lightweight payload – a dozen astronauts collectively weighing less than a tonne. Now add the life support systems for a
one-year journey, with sufficient food, water, oxygen and an energy source to keep their living quarters warm and bright. Fifty
tonnes, perhaps?¶ Add the rockets and rocket fuel for mid-course corrections, and for landing somewhere interesting
then taking off to return to Earth, and the mass spirals to excess.¶ The laws of physics are immutable. According to
these laws, accelerating that large mass and fighting against planetary gravitational fields requires a
tremendous amount of energy.¶ Now consider the laws of chemistry. You can’t change them by
legislation. The energy content that can be liberated from rocket fuel, and the propulsion force that can be generated,
depend on the mass of the fuel, the molecular bond energies and the temperature at which the
chemicals burn.¶ Scientists and rocket engineers have known this for more than a century and have worked hard to optimise all the
parameters. But at the end of the day, there is only so much that you can get out of the rocket fuel – and it’s not enough.¶ SOMEHOW, THE
FACT that this clash of the titans restricts our ability to undertake deep space flights doesn’t feel right. Surely
the magic of our
success in electronics and information systems should apply?¶ Moore’s law tells us that every two years the number
of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles. Futurologists assure us that the total volume of humanity’s knowledge doubles every five years.
Why, then, shouldn’t our ability to lift a payload double every five, 10 or even 20 years?¶ Sadly, the
analogy does not apply. In the case of electronics and information systems, we are dealing with soft
rules, related to the limits of human ingenuity. In the case of space flight, we are dealing with hard rules, related
to the limits of physics and chemistry.¶ Rocket engineers and scientists have been battling these limits of physics and chemistry
for years, with diminishing prospects for further gains.¶ Add to these hard limits the fear of failure from nervous governments worried about
the political backlash if something goes wrong and, no surprise, the added weight for redundant safety and life-support systems makes return
trips to other planets utterly impractical.
Space colonization is logically impossible—takes thousands of years and technology
that will never exist
Stross 07 (Charlie, British writer of science fiction, “The High Frontier, Redux”, Economist’s View, 6/16/07,
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/06/the_economics_o.html)//AS
I write SF for a living. Possibly because of this, folks seem to think I ought to be an enthusiastic proponent of space exploration and space
colonization. Space exploration? Yep, that's a fair cop — I'm all in favour of advancing the scientific enterprise. But actual
space
colonisation is another matter entirely, and those of a sensitive (or optimistic) disposition might want to stop reading right now
...¶ I'm going to take it as read that the idea of space colonization isn't unfamiliar; domed cities on Mars, orbiting cylindrical
space habitats a la J. D. Bernalor Gerard K. O'Neill, that sort of thing. Generation ships that take hundreds of years to ferry colonists out to other
star systems where — as we are now discovering — there are profusions of planets to explore.¶ And I don't want to spend much time talking
about the unspoken ideological underpinnings of the urge to space colonization, other than to point out that they're there, that the case for
space colonization isn't usually presented as an economic enterprise so much as a quasi-religious one. "We can't afford to keep all our eggs in
one basket" isn't so much a justification as an appeal to sentimentality, for in the hypothetical case of a planet-trashing catastrophe, we (who
currently inhabit the surface of the Earth) are dead anyway. The future extinction of the human species cannot affect you if you are already
dead: strictly speaking, it should be of no personal concern.¶ Historically, crossing
oceans and setting up farmsteads on
new lands conveniently stripped of indigenous inhabitants by disease has been a cost-effective
proposition. But the scale factor involved in space travel is strongly counter-intuitive.¶ Here's a handy
metaphor: let's approximate one astronomical unit — the distance between the Earth and the sun, roughly
150 million kilometres, or 600 times the distance from the Earth to the Moon — to one centimetre. Got that? 1AU = 1cm. (You may
want to get hold of a ruler to follow through with this one.)¶ The solar system is conveniently small. Neptune, the outermost planet in our solar
system, orbits the sun at a distance of almost exactly 30AU, or 30 centimetres — one foot (in imperial units). Giant Jupiter is 5.46 AU out from
the sun, almost exactly two inches (in old money).¶ We've sent space probes to Jupiter; they take two and a half years to get there if we send
them on a straight Hohmann transfer orbit, but we can get there a bit faster using some fancy orbital mechanics. Neptune is still a stretch —
only one spacecraft, Voyager 2, has made it out there so far. Its journey time was 12 years, and it wasn't stopping. (It's now on its way out into
interstellar space, having passed the heliopause some years ago.)¶ The Kuiper belt, domain of icy wandering dwarf planets like Pluto and Eris,
extends perhaps another 30AU, before merging into the much more tenuousHills cloud and Oort cloud, domain of loosely coupled long-period
comets.¶ Now for the first scale shock: using our handy metaphor the Kuiper belt is perhaps a metre in diameter. The Oort cloud, in contrast, is
as much as 50,000 AU in radius — its outer edge lies half a kilometre away.¶ Got that? Our
planetary solar system is 30
centimetres, roughly a foot, in radius. But to get to the edge of the Oort cloud, you have to go half a
kilometre, roughly a third of a mile.¶ Next on our tour is Proxima Centauri, our nearest star. (There might be a brown dwarf or two
lurking unseen in the icy depths beyond the Oort cloud, but if we've spotted one, I'm unaware of it.) Proxima Centauri is 4.22 light years away.A
light year is 63.2 x 103 AU, or 9.46 x 1012 Km. So Proxima Centauri, at 267,000 AU, is just
under two and a third kilometres, or
two miles (in old money) away from us.¶ But Proxima Centauri is a poor choice, if we're looking for habitable real
estate. While exoplanets are apparently common as muck, terrestrial planets are harder to find; Gliese 581c, the first such to
be detected (and it looks like a pretty weird one, at that), is roughly 20.4 light years away, or using our metaphor,
about ten miles.¶ Try to get a handle on this: it takes us 2-5 years to travel two inches. But the proponents of
interstellar travel are talking about journeys of ten miles. That's the first point I want to get across: that if the distances
involved in interplanetary travel are enormous, and the travel times fit to rival the first Australian settlers, then the distances and times
involved in interstellar travel are mind-numbing.¶ This is not to say that interstellar travel is impossible; quite the contrary.
But to do so effectively you need either (a) outrageous amounts of cheap energy, or (b) highly efficient robot
probes, or (c) a magic wand. And in the absence of (c) you're not going to get any news back from the other
end in less than decades. Even if (a) is achievable, or by means of (b) we can send self-replicating factories and have them
turn distant solar systems into hives of industry, and more speculatively find some way to transmit human beings there, they are going
to have zero net economic impact on our circumstances (except insofar as sending them out costs us money).
Space colonization can’t save humanity—only a seed even with massive technology
improvements
The Daily Galaxy 07 (“Space Colonization -Our Future or Fantasy?”, 6/20/07,
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/06/space_colonizat.html)//AS
The problems with Hawking’s solution is that while
it may save a “seed” of human life- a few lucky specimens- it won’t
save Earth’s inhabitants. The majority of Earthlings would surely be left behind on a planet
increasingly unfit for life.¶ In a futuristic mode similar to Hawking, both Steven Dick, chief NASA historian and Carnegie-Mellon
robotics pundit, Hans Moravec, believe that human biological evolution is but a passing phase: the future of mankind will be as vastly evolved
sentient machines capable of self-replicating and exploring the farthest reaches of the Universe programmed with instructions on how to
recreate earth life and humans to target stars.¶ Dick believes that if there is a flaw in the logic of the Fermi Paradox, and extraterrestrials are a
natural outcome of cosmic evolution, then cultural evolution may have resulted in a post-biological universe in which machines are the
predominant intelligence.¶ Renowned science-fiction writer, Charlie Stross,
argued last week in his High Frontier Redux blog that
space colonization is not in our future, not because it's impossible, but because to do so effectively you need either outrageous
amounts of cheap energy, highly efficient robot probes, or "a magic wand."¶ "I'm going to take it as read that the idea of space colonization
isn't unfamiliar," Stross opens his post, "domed cities on Mars, orbiting cylindrical space habitats a la J. D. Bernal or Gerard K. O'Neill, that sort
of thing. Generation ships that take hundreds of years to ferry colonists out to other star systems where — as we are now discovering — there
are profusions of planets to explore."¶ "The
obstacles facing us are immense distance and time -the scale factor
involved in space travel is strongly counter-intuitive."¶ Stross adds that "Planets that are already habitable
insofar as they orbit inside the habitable zone of their star, possess free oxygen in their atmosphere,
and have a mass, surface gravity and escape velocity that are not too forbidding, are likely to be
somewhat rarer. (And if there is free oxygen in the atmosphere on a planet, that implies something else — the presence of pre-existing
photosynthetic life, a carbon cycle, and a bunch of other stuff that could well unleash a big can of whoop-ass on an unprimed human immune
system."¶ Stross sums up by saying that while "I won't rule out the possibility of such seemingly-magical technology appearing at some time in
the future in the absence of technology indistinguishable from magic that, interstellar travel for human beings even in the comfort of our own
Solar System is near-as-dammit a non-starter."
5. Space colonization distracts from earthly problems caused by neoliberalism
that will cause extinction in the near term
Williams 10 (Lynda, professor of engineering and physics at Santa Rosa Junior College, “Irrational Dreams of Space Colonization”, Peace
Review, a Journal of Social Justice 22:1, Spring 2010, http://www.scientainment.com/lwilliams_peacereview.pdf)//AS
Life on Earth is more urgently threatened by the destruction of the biosphere and its life ¶ sustaining habitat
due environmental catastrophes such as climate change, ocean ¶ acidification, disruption of the food
chain, bio-warfare, nuclear war, nuclear winter, and ¶ myriads of other man-made doomsday prophesies. If we
accept these threats as ¶ inevitabilities on par with real astronomical dangers and divert our natural,
intellectual,¶ political and technological resources from solving these problems into escaping them, ¶
will we playing into a self-fulfilling prophesy of our own planetary doom? Seeking space ¶ based
solutions to our Earthly problems may indeed exacerbate the planetary threats we face. This is the core of the
ethical dilemma posed by space colonization: should we put ¶ our recourses and bets on developing human colonies on other
worlds to survive natural ¶ and man-made catastrophes or should we focus all of our energies on solving the ¶ problems that create these
threats on Earth?
XT: Neolib bad for space col
We must solve earth-based problems first—space colonization focus dooms us to
extinction
Williams 10 (Lynda, professor of engineering and physics at Santa Rosa Junior College, “Irrational Dreams of Space Colonization”, Peace
Review, a Journal of Social Justice 22:1, Spring 2010, http://www.scientainment.com/lwilliams_peacereview.pdf)//AS
If we direct our intellectual and technological resources toward space exploration without ¶
consideration of the environmental and political consequences, what is left behind in the ¶ wake? The
hype surrounding space exploration leaves a dangerous vacuum in the ¶ collective consciousness of
solving the problems on Earth. If we accept the inevitability ¶ of Earth’s destruction and its biosphere, we are left looking toward
the heavens for our ¶ solutions and resolution. Young scientists, rather than working on serious environmental ¶
challenges on Earth, dream of Moon or Martian bases to save humanity, fueling the ¶ prophesy of our
planetary destruction, rather than working on solutions to solve the ¶ problems on Earth. ¶ Every space faring entity, be
they governmental or corporate, face the same challenges.¶ Star Trek emboldened us all to dream of space, the final frontier. The
reality is that our ¶ planet Earth is a perfect spaceship. We travel around our star the sun once every year, and ¶ the sun pull us
with her gravitational force around the galaxy once every 250 million ¶ years through star systems, star clusters and all the possible exosolar
planets that may ¶ host life or be habitable for us to colonize. The
sun will be around for billions of years ¶ and we have
ample time to explore the stars. It would be wise and prudent for us as a ¶ species to focus our
intellectual and technological knowledge now into preserving our ¶ spaceship for the long voyage
through the stars, so that once we have figured out how to ¶ make life on Earth work in an
environmentally and politically sustainable way, we can¶ then venture off the planet into the final
frontier of our dreams.
AT Cap Solves Stability
Neoliberalism causes global instability – resource conflicts and structural violence
– the drive for capital ensures national and class conflict
Neoliberalism only patches up conflicts – root causes are left unaddressed
Kirk and Okazawa 2k (*Gwyn Kirk Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies @ U of
Oregon, Ph.D Sociology @ LSE, B.A. Sociology @ Leeds U, *Margo Okazawa-Rey, B.A. Sociology
@ Capital U, Ed.D @ Harvard, “Neoliberalism, Militarism, and Armed Conflict”, Social Justice,
Vol. 27, No. 3, 2000, RSpec)
Talbot emphasizes the profits to be made from rebuilding infrastructure destroyed by war in Yugoslavia and the maneuvering for
Neoliberal imperatives mean that peace
agreements do not address the root causes of conflict or make provisions for
meaningful reconciliation or reparations (Lipschutz and Jonas, 1998). Rather, their goal is to provide
short-term efforts to patch up and "normalize" the situation so that "business as usual" can
resume as quickly as possible. Adel Samara provides an example of this in the tenth article, arguing that the Oslo
peace accords are entirely based on neoliberal assumptions that are shared by the Palestinian
Authority (PA) and the Israeli state. Areas of the West Bank and Gaza under the jurisdiction of
the PA remain dominated by Israeli economic policies and subordinate to prescriptions of the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Samara urges the PA to delink from the Israeli economy as
contracts that began as soon as the bombing stopped.
quickly as possible and to give priority to "food security, basic needs, and the protection of independent producers, especially those
cultivating the land," as happened during the intifada when investments were directed toward survival needs.
Neoliberalism makes global instability inevitable
Kotz 2k – Professor of Economics @ U of Massachusetts Amherst, Ph.D Econ @ UC Berkeley,
M.A. Econ @ Yale (David, “Globalization and Neoliberalism”,
http://people.umass.edu/dmkotz/Glob_and_NL_02.pdf, RSpec)
If neoliberalism continues to reign as the dominant ideology and policy stance, it can be argued that
world capitalism faces a future of stagnation, instability, and even eventual social breakdown.20
However, from the factors that have promoted neoliberalism one can see possible sources of a move back toward state-regulated
capitalism at some point. One possibility would be the development of tight oligopoly and regulated competition on a world scale.
Perhaps the current merger wave might continue until, as happened at the beginning of the 20th century within the US and in other
industrialized capitalist economies, oligopoly replaced cutthroat competition, but this time on a world scale. Such a development
might revive big business support for an interventionist state. However, this does not seem to be likely in the foreseeable future. The
world is a big place, with differing cultures, laws, and business practices in different countries, which serve as obstacles to
overcoming the competitive tendency in market relations. Transforming an industry’s structure so that two to four companies
produce the bulk of the output is not sufficient in itself to achieve stable monopoly power, if the rivals are unable to communicate
effectively with one another and find common ground for cooperation. Also, it would be difficult for international monopolies to
exercise effective regulation via national governments, and a genuine world capitalist state is not a possibility for the foreseeable
future. If state socialism re-emerged in one or more major countries, perhaps this might push the
capitalist world back toward the regulationist state. However, such a development does not seem likely. Even if
Russia or Ukraine at some point does head in that direction, it would be unlikely to produce a serious rival socioeconomic system to
that of world capitalism. A more likely source of a new era of state interventionism might come from one of the remaining two
factors considered above.
The macro-instability of neoliberal global capitalism might produce a major
economic crisis at some point, one which spins out of the control of the weakened regulatory
authorities. This would almost certainly revive the politics of the regulationist state. Finally, the
increasing exploitation and other social problems generated by neoliberal global capitalism
might prod the socialist movement back to life at some point. Should socialist movements revive and begin to
seriously challenge capitalism in one or more major capitalist countries, state regulationism might return in response to it. Such a
development would also revive the possibility of finally superceding capitalism and replacing it
with a system based on human need rather than private profit.
Neoliberalism ensures global conflict and militarism
Kirk and Okazawa 2k (*Gwyn Kirk Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies @ U of
Oregon, Ph.D Sociology @ LSE, B.A. Sociology @ Leeds U, *Margo Okazawa-Rey, B.A. Sociology
@ Capital U, Ed.D @ Harvard, “Neoliberalism, Militarism, and Armed Conflict”, Social Justice,
Vol. 27, No. 3, 2000, RSpec)
The trend toward a neoliberal global economy and the prevalence of militaries and militarism
worldwide are often treated as separate, unre- lated phenomena. Many activists and scholars who critique
and challenge the negative effects of increasing global integration emphasize economic factors (e.g., Bales, 1999; Chossudovsky,
1997; Greider, 1997; Mander and Goldsmith, 1996; Sassen, 1998; Teeple, 1995). These include the fact that workers in one
country are pitted against those of another as corporate managers seek to maximize profits, that
systems of inequality based on gender, race, class, and nation are inherent in the international
division of labor, that nation-states are cutting social welfare supports, that women and children
experience superexploitation especially in countries of the global South, and that there is
increasing polarization of material wealth between rich and poor countries, as well as within
richer countries. Critics also point to the role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade
Organization (WTO), which require structural changes to make economies more profitable for private investors and to open markets
for so-called free trade. Activists and scholars who are concerned primarily with militarism and de-
militarization critique the prevalence of war or the threat of war to resolve transnational and
intranational disputes (e.g., Reardon, 1996; Hague Appeal for Peace, 1999). They point to bloated military
budgets that absorb resources needed for socially useful programs in many countries, to the fact
that civilians make up the vast majority of the casualties of contemporary warfare, and that
massive numbers of people are displaced 90% of them women and children as a result of wars.
They note the profitability of the arms trade. They also emphasize connections between
militarism and violence against women, and the incidence of human rights violations in military
conflicts. We are not suggesting that such analysts and commentators see no overlap between these two clusters of issues.
However, in critiquing and challenging neoliberal economic integration, it is essential to take
account of militarism as an intrinsic element. Conversely, in analyzing militarism, war, and
armed conflict, it is also necessary to consider global economic forces and institutions. The goal
of this special issue, then, is to show how neoliberalism and militarism are inextricably
linked.
Neoliberalism fuels all conflicts and global instability
Kirk and Okazawa 2k (*Gwyn Kirk Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies @ U of
Oregon, Ph.D Sociology @ LSE, B.A. Sociology @ Leeds U, *Margo Okazawa-Rey, B.A. Sociology
@ Capital U, Ed.D @ Harvard, “Neoliberalism, Militarism, and Armed Conflict”, Social Justice,
Vol. 27, No. 3, 2000, RSpec)
In the first article, Steven Staples argues that: The relationship between globalization and militarism should
be seen as two sides of the same coin. On one side, globalization promotes the conditions that
lead to unrest, inequality, conflict, and, ultimately, war. On the other side, globalization fuels
the means to wage war by protecting and promoting the military industries needed to produce
sophisticated weaponry. This weaponry, in turn, is used or is threatened to be used to protect
the investments of transnational corporations and their shareholders. As several contributors note,
colonial expansionism and the quest for control of strategic locations historically have been a
major justification and impetus for military intervention. Control over scarce resources is an
essential element in many contemporary conflicts. The Persian Gulf War was about oil, as the
U.S. catchphrase, "our oil is under their soil," made clear. Michael Renner's list of international
water disputes provides examples on every continent (Table 1). These disputes are of varying
intensity and have not led to armed conflict in most cases, but the potential is there. Fighting
between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, for example, which has been going on for over 50
years, concerns control of this watershed region. Water allocation, water diversion, and water
rights are also key elements of tension in the Middle East. In the third article, Ian Smillie
discusses the role of the lucrative diamond industry in war-torn Sierra Leone, noting that
"diamonds small pieces of carbon with no great intrinsic value have been the cause of
widespread death, destruction, and misery for almost a decade." He argues that the point of this
war "may not actually have been to win it, but to engage in profitable crime under the cover of
warfare." Although U.N. Security Council Resolution 1306 bans trading in diamonds from areas
held by the Sierra Leone Revolutionary United Front (RUF), the RUF has financed its military activities
since 1991 by selling diamonds for arms. Pressure on traders and consumers to avoid purchasing "conflict diamonds" has led to
recent efforts to reorganize the diamond trade somewhat. Since the 1950s, Smillie notes, the government of Sierra Leone has made
no pretence of being able to provide security for mining companies, and has required them to provide their own security. Talbot
comments on the role of privately held Military Protection Resource Inc. in former Yugoslavia. Lochbihler (1999: 19) makes a more
general point, noting "an increase in the dissolution of state structures, which also means an erosion of the monopoly of violence by
the state." This has given rise to a "new security industry" comprised of paid military experts and mercenaries who are "of service to
whomever can pay."
AT Failed States
Capitalism hurts non-capitalist societies economy’s causing the countries to become failed states
Alagappa and Inoguchi 99 (Muthiah Alagappa-Alagappa is the Tun Hussein Onn Chair in international studies at the Institute of
Strategic and International Studies in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. His research focuses primarily on Asian security, the political legitimacy of
governments, civil society and political change, and the political role of the military in Asia and Professor Emeritus of University of Tokyo,. And ,
Takashi Inoguchi PhD in political science from MIT “ International Security Management and the United Nations” 1999
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tcLEaace2iUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA83&dq=capitalism+%22failed+states%22&ots=29IUI_uqOQ&sig=g
2zgGwEp6gJb5jkPJUlq1cP4pUk#v=onepage&q&f=false)
is rooted in the nature of the economy African countries inherited at their independence. So much has
colonial incorporation of the African economy into the
European capitalist framework created many structural deficiencies. making the economies
"susceptible not only to internally generated crises but also to dislocations arising from the crises of
global Capitalism as refracted into the local economies.” This makes the economies too structurally weak to
withstand the challenges of nation-building. A final issue worth considering is the nature of the élites that took over the
leadership of these countries at independence. In virtually all cases, these "inheritance élites" were more concerned with
the desire to perpetuate themselves in power man to advance the interests or their fledging nations.
A third characteristic
been written on the subject that a summary will suffice.' The
This is largely because of the attraction of power and the fear of what life would be like outside office. The perpetuation was implemented
through suppression, corruption. and the exploitation of primordial allegiances.
In all the failed states, the role of the
"élites," some of whom became warlords in their respective countries, has been redoubtable. It is no
mere coincidence that all those who emerged as warlords in recently collapsed nations had played important political, economic, or military
roles in the affairs of their respective countries before the collapse.
All the "peculiar" characteristics identified above
are quite important in appreciating the problem of recent state failure. The first "wave"• of failed states in the
continent came towards the end of the second decade of independence. This was "when regimes that had replaced the original nationalist
generation were overthrown. carrying the whole state structure with them into a vacuum."" States that collapsed during this phase include
Chad and Uganda. The second wave came in the late 1980s, and continued into the 1990s. The concentration of this chapter is on the latter
wave, because it has implications that could spread into the coming century, and also because most ol' the states affected by the first wave are
now well on the path of recovery.
Failed States impact is over-exaggerated
Traub 2011 (James Traub a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, “Think Again: Failed
States”
http://www.jmhinternational.com/news/news/selectednews/files/2011/08/20110801_20110701_Forei
gnPolicy_ThinkAgainFailedStates.pdf)
But the truth is that some state failure poses a real danger to the United States and the West, and some does not.
Consider the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where some 5 million or more people have died in the wars that have convulsed
the country since the mid-1990s -- the single most horrific consequence of state failure in modern times. What
has been the consequence to Americans? The cost of coltan, a material mined in Congo and used in cell
phones, has been extremely volatile. It's hard to think of anything else. Even the role of failed states in
global terrorism may have been overstated. To start, terrorism is only a problem in failed states with
significant Muslim populations -- admittedly, 13 of the top 20 in this year's Failed States Index. But the correlation between
failure and global menace is weaker than we think. Islamist militants in unequivocally failed Muslim states such as Somalia,
or profoundly weak ones such as Chad, have thus far mostly posed a threat to their own societies. They are surely less of a danger
to the West than Pakistan or Yemen, both at least somewhat functional countries where state ideology
and state institutions abet terrorists. In his new book, Weak Links, scholar Stewart Patrick concludes that "a middle-ranking
group of weak -- but not yet failing -- states (e.g., Pakistan, Kenya) may offer more long-term advantages to
terrorists than either anarchic zones or strong states." (See "The Brutal Truth.") Terrorists need infrastructure, too. The 9/11
attacks, after all, were directed from Afghanistan, but were financed and coordinated in Europe and more stable parts of the Muslim world, and
were carried out mostly by citizens of Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda is a largely middle-class organization. A
similar pattern plays out in the
world of transnational crime. Take the three-cornered drug market that links cocaine growers in Latin America, traffickers in West
Africa, and users in Europe. The narcotraffickers have found the failed states of West Africa, with their unpatrolled ports and corrupt and
undermanned security forces, to be perfect transshipment points for their product. Drugs are dumped out of propeller planes or unloaded from
ships just off the coast of Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, or Sierra Leone, and then broken into smaller parcels to be shipped north. But the criminal
gangs operate not out of these Hobbesian spaces but from Ghana and Senegal -countries with reliable banking systems,
excellent air connections, pleasant hotels, and innumerable opportunities for money laundering. The
relationship is analogous to that between Afghanistan, whose wild spaces offer al Qaeda a theater of
operations, and Pakistan, whose freewheeling urban centers provide jihadists with a home base.
AT LGBT
1. Not reverse causal—no reason activism can’t continue in the world of the alt
2. Alt is better for activism—opens up spaces for political activism to resist the
oppression of capital and helps all political movements
3. Their card is only about economic freedom—there’s economic freedom for all
in the world of the alt
4. Neoliberal policies repress identity politics and LGBT activism
Smith, professor in the Department of Social Science at York University 05 (Miriam, “Resisting and reinforcing neoliberalism: lesbian and
gay organising at the federal and local levels in Canada”, Policy and Politics 33:1, 2005, IngentaConnect)//AS
This article explores the
impact of neoliberalism on group and social movement politics through a
comparison of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)2 organising at the local level in the city of Toronto
and LGBT organising at the federal level3 in Canada. The constitution of neoliberalism as a set of policies and as a
discursive construction of the new ‘common sense’ of politics entails a reformulation of the
relationship between the individual, the market, the state and the intermediary organisations – interest
groups, voluntary sector organisations and social movement organisations – that represent and articulate the interests and
identities of civil society (Jenson and Phillips, 1996; Jenson, 1999). In Canada, as in other countries, the credibility and capacity
for collective political advocacy has been undercut by attacks on the labour movement (Panitch and Swartz,
2003), by social policy downloading to the local level, by the dismantling of federal programmes that used
to fund advocacy for disadvantaged groups, and by the accelerating trend of public consultation through depoliticised models
of ‘partnership’, ‘charity’ and service provision (Jenson and Phillips, 1996; Jenson, 1999; McKeen and Porter, 2003). The delegitimation
of advocacy and collective action reinforces the discursive and ideological impact of neoliberalism,
helping to cement political and electoral coalitions behind neoliberal political leaders and to shift the terms of political discourse
in ways that reduce democratic choice and present neoliberal policies and social practices as natural
and unavoidable (Brodie, 1996; Hindess, 1997).
5. Neoliberal policies cut social welfare critical for LGBT youth—dooms them to
violence and poverty
Smith, professor in the Department of Social Science at York University05 (Miriam, “Resisting and reinforcing neoliberalism: lesbian and
gay organising at the federal and local levels in Canada”, Policy and Politics 33:1, 2005, IngentaConnect)//AS
Supporting Our Youth (SOY) is a Toronto non-profit organisation that offers services¶ and support to LGBT youth in the city5¶ . SOY was
organised in response to perceived¶ needs in the LGBT youth community in Toronto, which were defined in part by¶ LGBT professionals
working in social services. In their view, LGBT
youth are¶ more vulnerable to poverty, suicide, street involvement
and violence than straight¶ youth because they are more likely to lack family support or to have been
turned¶ out of the family home before they are able to be independent. These vulnerable¶ youth face a social services
system that does not recognise their specific needs for¶ shelter, food, education, freedom from violence and adult
nurturing and guidance¶ (Lepischak, 2002; Purdy, 2002; SOY, 2003). In the view of those working in local¶ social service groups such as SOY,
cuts to social services, welfare and education in¶ the city of Toronto have had important and specific effects
on LGBT youth.¶ According to SOY’s leaders, local voluntary sector groups in Toronto are on the¶ receiving end of social service cuts –
where the ‘rubber hits the road’ – when they¶ see young people who live in the street because of their inability to
access affordable¶ housing and who are victims of suicide, violence and gay-bashing in part because¶
they do not have a home (Purdy, 2002; Lepischak, 2002; Xtra, 23 May 1996). As¶ one SOY leader explains:¶ I think that the reductions
in welfare and the more stringent qualifications¶ have had a huge impact. The cost of housing has escalated and no new housing¶ has been
built to support it…. So the availability of housing is shrinking and¶ … so people are staying on the streets or in the shelter system longer,
having¶ a much harder time getting out of that system and into some kind of stable¶ housing. I also think that we are seeing kids coming out
younger and younger¶ now, and the reactions that they are getting from their families aren’t any¶ better…. Some of the youth … have been in
the shelter system for like five¶ years or six years.… I think the cuts have had a huge major negative effect.¶ (Lepischak, 2002)
AT Economy
Neoliberalism causes unemployment
Palley 04 (Thomas I. Palley- chief economist at the U.S.-China Security Review Commission, “From
Keynesianism to Neoliberalism: Shifting Paradigms in Economics” April 2004
http://www.thomaspalley.com/docs/articles/selected/Neo-liberalism%20-%20chapter.pdf)
For the last 25 years, economic policy
and the public’s thinking have been dominated by a conservative economic
philosophy known as neoliberalism. The reference to “liberalism” reflects an intellectual lineage that connects with 19th century economic
liberalism associated with Manchester, England. The Manchester system was predicated upon laissez-faire economics and was closely
associated with free trade and the repeal of England’s Corn Law, which restricted importation of wheat. Contemporary neoliberalism is
principally associated with the Chicago School of Economics, which emphasizes the efficiency of market competition, the role of individuals in
determining economic outcomes, and distortions associated with government intervention and regulation of markets.1 Two
critical
tenets of neoliberalism are its theory of income distribution and its theory of aggregate employment
determination. With regard to income distribution, neoliberalism asserts that factors of production--labor and capital--get paid what they
are worth. This is accomplished through the supply and demand process, whereby payment depends on a factor’s relative scarcity (supply) and
its productivity, which affects demand. With regard to aggregate employment determination, neoliberalism
asserts that free
markets will not let valuable factors of production--including labor--go to waste. Instead, prices will adjust to ensure that
demand is forthcoming and that all factors are employed. This assertion is at the foundation of Chicago School monetarism, which claims that
economies automatically self-adjust to full employment and that the use of monetary and fiscal policy to permanently raise employment
merely generates inflation.2 These two theories have been extraordinarily influential, and they contrast with the
thinking that held sway in the period between 1945 and 1980. During this earlier era, the dominant theory of employment determination was
Keynesianism, which maintains that the level of economic activity is determined by the level of
aggregate demand.3 Additionally, Keynesians maintain that capitalist economies are subject to periodic weakness
in the aggregate demand generation process, resulting in unemployment. Occasionally, this weakness can
be severe and produce economic depressions--as exemplified by the Great Depression. In such a world,
monetary and fiscal policy can stabilize the demand generation process.
AT Solves Bioterror
Terrorism is merely a product of US dominance – radicals take up arms against the oppression of
hegemonically dominant capitalism
Neoliberal globalization is the motive for terrorism
Stern 05 ( Jessica, a fellow at the FXB Center for Health and Human Rights at the Harvard School of Public Health. She is an Advanced Academic Candidate at
the Massachusetts Institute of Psychoanalysis and one of the foremost experts on terrorism. She serves on the Hoover Institution Task Force on National Security
and Law. In 2009, she was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship for her work on trauma and violence. Excerpt from "Addressing the Causes of Terrorism : Culture".
Publihsed by the Club de Madrid, March 8-11 2005. http://media.clubmadrid.org/docs/CdM-Series-on-Terrorism-Vol-1.pdf ) JA
Gardner Peckham does not believe that globalization is a motivating factor for terrorists: while
globalization increases the flow of trade and ideas, thereby increasing terrorists’ capacity to do us harm,
their interest in doing so is not a result of that process. The counterargument, which the author of this
paper and other members of the working group subscribe to, is that globalization and the need to
compete for jobs and ideas on a global scale feels humiliating, even if global productivity rises and
although, on average, most people benefit. Terrorists find a way to augment and strengthen this
feeling of humiliation among potential recruits. In this context, it is worth recalling the words of Bin
Laden’s deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, who argues that it is better for the youth of Islam to pick up arms
than to submit to the humiliation of globalization and Western hegemony
Dispersal of Bioweapons is Impossible.
Smithson 05 Amy E., PhD, project director for biological weapons at the Henry L. Stimson Center.(
“Likelihood of Terrorists Acquiring and Using Chemical or Biological Weapons”.
http://www.stimson.org/cbw/?SN=CB2001121259)//NR
Terrorists cannot count on just filling the delivery system with agent, pointing the device,
and flipping the switch to activate it. Facets that must be deciphered include the
concentration of agent in the delivery system, the ways in which the delivery system
degrades the potency of the agent, and the right dosage to incapacitate or kill human or
animal targets. For open-air delivery, the meteorological conditions must be taken into
account. Biological agents have extreme sensitivity to sunlight, humidity, pollutants in the
atmosphere, temperature, and even exposure to oxygen, all of which can kill the microbes .
Biological agents can be dispersed in either dry or wet forms. Using a dry agent can boost
effectiveness because drying and milling the agent can make the particles very fine, a key factor
since particles must range between 1 to 10 ten microns, ideally to 1 to 5, to be breathed into the
lungs. Drying an agent, however, is done through a complex and challenging process that
requires a sophistication of equipment and know-how that terrorist organizations are
unlikely to possess. The alternative is to develop a wet slurry , which is much easier to
produce but a great deal harder to disperse effectively. Wet slurries can clog sprayers and
undergo mechanical stresses that can kill 95 percent or more of the microorganisms.
And, No bioterrorism or impact- Multiple Obstacles and No Motive
Stolar 6 October 2006, *Alex Stolar: Research Officer, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, “BIOTERRORISM AND US POLICY RESPONSES ASSESSING THE
THREAT OF MASS CASUALTY,” http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/1659566521IPCS-Special-Report-31.pdf//NR
Each of these steps presents significant hurdles for terrorists. Acquiring a strain of a Category A
agent which is significantly robust for storage, reproduction, transport, and dispersal, and which has the
virulence to infect large numbers to inflict mass casualties is very difficult. Likewise, growing,
storing, and transporting biological agents requires substantial financial, logistical, and
technological resources, as well as highly trained scientists and technicians. Most of all, according
to William Patrick of the US Army Biological Warfare Laboratories, dissemination is the
largest hurdle for bioterrorism.4 Indeed, after devoting billions of dollars and years of research,
dispersal is still a challenge before US and Russian biological weapons scientists. It is unlikely, at this
stage, that terrorists will have the means, sophistication, logistics, or motivation to carry out a bioterrorist
attack. Preparing biological agents for an attack is very hard and costly. Despite spending millions of
dollars, and several years of work, the Aum Shinrikyo cult was unable to develop an effective
biological weapon. Likewise, the 2001 Anthrax attacks in the United States involved very virulent
Anthrax spores, but only five persons were killed. More sophisticated spores and dispersal methods would
be required for a mass causalty attack. As Professor Milton Leitenberg notes, apart from the
Rajneeshee cult attack in 1984, which sickened many, but killed none, “there is apparently no other
‘terrorist’ group that is known to have successfully cultured any pathogen.”5 Moreover, a lingering
question is, why would terrorists use bioweapons in an attack? Executing a biological weapon attack
is difficult and expensive, and does not suit the modus operandi of the sole group with the means to
pursue bioterrorism, Al Qaeda. At present, Al Qaeda favors simple attacks that generate great fear. 9/11
was executed with box cutters; the Madrid train attacks with dynamite purchased from petty
criminals6; the London 7/7 bombings utilized simple explosives that could be fashioned with easily
available materials and little expertise7; and the terrorists in the recent plot to bomb flights from London
to the US intended to use nail polish remover and hair bleach.8 Al Qaeda favors creating great fear at
little cost. Why would it stray from this effective formula to bioterrorism which is expensive and of
questionable reliability?9 The unavoidable conclusion is that only a nation-state could conduct a
bioweapon attack. However, a taboo against using biological weapons exists—not since World
War II has one state attacked another with biological weapons. Like non-state actors, states seem to prefer
the lower costs and high reliability of conventional weapons or even chemical weapons . Accordingly, it
seems the threat of bioterrorism in the near future is low. Neither terrorists nor states seem likely
to use bioweapons for attack. Therefore, though possible, it does not seem probable that a mass
casualty bioterrorist attack will occur over the next five to ten years. It is unlikely that states will use
bioweapons against other states. It is equally unlikely that states will use a terrorist organization as a
conduit to attack another state. Only terrorist organizations , operating alone within a weak or failed
state, would develop bioweapons for an attack against a state. However, terrorist organizations like Al
Qaeda presently lack the expertise, logistics, and equipment for a bioterror attack . In the next five years,
it is unlikely that terrorists will acquire such capabilities. Beyond that time frame, what stands
between terrorists and potent bioweapons are the policies of individual states and multilateral
bioweapon non-proliferation regimes. If the policies of states and the relevant international regimes
are robust, terrorists will be unable to mount bioterror attacks . If, on the other hand, these policies
and regimes are feeble, or even counterproductive, the threat of bioterrorism will be real and
grave. The present circumstances provide great reason for optimism. Unlike nuclear terrorism,
there is no imminent threat of biological terrorism. Thoughtful and effective strategies
implemented today can eliminate this threat. How often is this case true in international security?
How often can strategists say, this threat could be dangerous in a decade, but is not dangerous now , and
can be prevented forever if the right steps are taken? One would think that the world, and the US
in particular, would seize this opportunity to prevent this future threat ; unfortunately, however,
America’s biodefense policies since 9/11 are hurting rather than helping efforts to minimize
bioterrorism risks. Bioterrorism presents a grave, but not imminent threat to America and the world.
American leadership is needed to make sure terrorists never acquire the ability to execute a mass casualty
bioattack. Unfortunately, America’s biodefense strategies are currently increasing the risks of
bioterrorism. In the years ahead, those American leaders responsible for protecting the US
against bioterrorism should heed the maxim which has served so many doctors so well for so
long: Primum non nocere.
XT – No BioTerror
No extinction from bioweapons
O’Neill 4 O’Neill 8/19/2004 [Brendan, “Weapons of Minimum Destruction” http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA694.htm]//NR
David C Rapoport, professor of political science at University of California, Los Angeles and editor
of the Journal of Terrorism and Political Violence, has examined what he calls 'easily available
evidence' relating to the historic use of chemical and biological weapons. He found something
surprising - such weapons do not cause mass destruction. Indeed, whether used by states, terror
groups or dispersed in industrial accidents, they tend to be far less destructive than conventional
weapons. 'If we stopped speculating about things that might happen in the future and looked instead at
what has happened in the past, we'd see that our fears about WMD are misplaced' , he says. Yet such
fears remain widespread. Post-9/11, American and British leaders have issued dire warnings
about terrorists getting hold of WMD and causing mass murder and mayhem. President George
W Bush has spoken of terrorists who, 'if they ever gained weapons of mass destruction', would
'kill hundreds of thousands, without hesitation and without mercy' (1). The British government
has spent £28million on stockpiling millions of smallpox vaccines, even though there's no
evidence that terrorists have got access to smallpox, which was eradicated as a natural disease in
the 1970s and now exists only in two high-security labs in America and Russia (2). In 2002,
British nurses became the first in the world to get training in how to deal with the victims of
bioterrorism (3). The UK Home Office's 22-page pamphlet on how to survive a terror attack,
published last month, included tips on what to do in the event of a 'chemical, biological or
radiological attack' ('Move away from the immediate source of danger', it usefully advised).
Spine-chilling books such as Plague Wars: A True Story of Biological Warfare, The New Face of
Terrorism: Threats From Weapons of Mass Destruction and The Survival Guide: What to Do in
a Biological, Chemical or Nuclear Emergency speculate over what kind of horrors WMD might
wreak. TV docudramas, meanwhile, explore how Britain might cope with a smallpox assault and
what would happen if London were 'dirty nuked' (4). The term 'weapons of mass destruction'
refers to three types of weapons: nuclear, chemical and biological. A chemical weapon is any
weapon that uses a manufactured chemical, such as sarin, mustard gas or hydrogen cyanide, to
kill or injure. A biological weapon uses bacteria or viruses, such as smallpox or anthrax, to cause
destruction - inducing sickness and disease as a means of undermining enemy forces or
inflicting civilian casualties. We find such weapons repulsive, because of the horrible way in
which the victims convulse and die - but they appear to be less 'destructive' than conventional
weapons. 'We know that nukes are massively destructive, there is a lot of evidence for that', says
Rapoport. But when it comes to chemical and biological weapons, 'the evidence suggests that we should
call them "weapons of minimum destruction", not mass destruction', he says. Chemical weapons
have most commonly been used by states, in military warfare. Rapoport explored various state
uses of chemicals over the past hundred years: both sides used them in the First World War;
Italy deployed chemicals against the Ethiopians in the 1930s; the Japanese used chemicals
against the Chinese in the 1930s and again in the Second World War; Egypt and Libya used
them in the Yemen and Chad in the postwar period; most recently, Saddam Hussein's Iraq used
chemical weapons, first in the war against Iran (1980-1988) and then against its own Kurdish
population at the tail-end of the Iran-Iraq war. In each instance, says Rapoport, chemical
weapons were used more in desperation than from a position of strength or a desire to cause
mass destruction. 'The evidence is that states rarely use them even when they have them', he has
written. 'Only when a military stalemate has developed, which belligerents who have become
desperate want to break, are they used.' (5) As to whether such use of chemicals was effective,
Rapoport says that at best it blunted an offensive - but this very rarely, if ever, translated into a
decisive strategic shift in the war, because the original stalemate continued after the chemical
weapons had been deployed. He points to the example of Iraq. The Baathists used chemicals
against Iran when that nasty trench-fought war had reached yet another stalemate. As Efraim
Karsh argues in his paper 'The Iran-Iraq War: A Military Analysis': 'Iraq employed [chemical
weapons] only in vital segments of the front and only when it saw no other way to check Iranian
offensives. Chemical weapons had a negligible impact on the war, limited to tactical rather than
strategic [effects].' (6) According to Rapoport, this 'negligible' impact of chemical weapons on
the direction of a war is reflected in the disparity between the numbers of casualties caused by
chemicals and the numbers caused by conventional weapons. It is estimated that the use of gas
in the Iran-Iraq war killed 5,000 - but the Iranian side suffered around 600,000 dead in total,
meaning that gas killed less than one per cent. The deadliest use of gas occurred in the First
World War but, as Rapoport points out, it still only accounted for five per cent of casualties.
Studying the amount of gas used by both sides from1914-1918 relative to the number of fatalities
gas caused, Rapoport has written: 'It took a ton of gas in that war to achieve a single enemy
fatality. Wind and sun regularly dissipated the lethality of the gases. Furthermore, those gassed
were 10 to 12 times as likely to recover than those casualties produced by traditional weapons.'
(7) Indeed, Rapoport discovered that some earlier documenters of the First World War had a
vastly different assessment of chemical weapons than we have today - they considered the use of
such weapons to be preferable to bombs and guns, because chemicals caused fewer fatalities.
One wrote: 'Instead of being the most horrible form of warfare, it is the most humane, because it
disables far more than it kills, ie, it has a low fatality ratio.' (8) 'Imagine that', says Rapoport,
'WMD being referred to as more humane'. He says that the contrast between such assessments
and today's fears shows that actually looking at the evidence has benefits, allowing 'you to see
things more rationally'. According to Rapoport, even Saddam's use of gas against the Kurds of
Halabja in 1988 - the most recent use by a state of chemical weapons and the most commonly
cited as evidence of the dangers of 'rogue states' getting their hands on WMD - does not show
that unconventional weapons are more destructive than conventional ones. Of course the attack
on Halabja was horrific, but he points out that the circumstances surrounding the assault
remain unclear. 'The estimates of how many were killed vary greatly', he tells me. 'Some say
400, others say 5,000, others say more than 5,000. The fighter planes that attacked the civilians
used conventional as well as unconventional weapons; I have seen no study which explores how
many were killed by chemicals and how many were killed by firepower. We all find these attacks
repulsive, but the death toll may actually have been greater if conventional bombs only were
used. We know that conventional weapons can be more destructive.' Rapoport says that terrorist
use of chemical and biological weapons is similar to state use - in that it is rare and, in terms of causing
mass destruction, not very effective. He cites the work of journalist and author John Parachini, who
says that over the past 25 years only four significant attempts by terrorists to use WMD have been
recorded. The most effective WMD-attack by a non-state group, from a military perspective, was
carried out by the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka in 1990. They used chlorine gas against Sri Lankan
soldiers guarding a fort, injuring over 60 soldiers but killing none. The Tamil Tigers' use of
chemicals angered their support base, when some of the chlorine drifted back into Tamil territory confirming Rapoport's view that one problem with using unpredictable and unwieldy chemical
and biological weapons over conventional weapons is that the cost can be as great 'to the attacker as
to the attacked'. The Tigers have not used WMD since.
Disease =/= Extinction
Gladwell 99 (Malcolm, The New Republic, July 17 and 24, 1995, excerpted in Epidemics: Opposing Viewpoints, p. 31-32)//NR
Every infectious agent that has ever plagued humanity has had to adapt a specific strategy but
every strategy carries a corresponding cost and this makes human counterattack possible.
Malaria is vicious and deadly but it relies on mosquitoes to spread from one human to the next,
which means that draining swamps and putting up mosquito netting can all hut halt endemic
malaria. Smallpox is extraordinarily durable remaining infectious in the environment for years,
but its very durability its essential rigidity is what makes it one of the easiest microbes to create
a vaccine against. AIDS is almost invariably lethal because it attacks the body at its point of great
vulnerability, that is, the immune system, but the fact that it targets blood cells is what makes it
so relatively uninfectious. Viruses are not superhuman. I could go on, but the point is obvious.
Any microbe capable of wiping us all out would have to be everything at once: as contagious as flue, as
durable as the cold, as lethal as Ebola, as stealthy as HIV and so doggedly resistant to
mutation that it would stay deadly over the course of a long epidemic. But viruses are not,
well, superhuman. They cannot do everything at once. It is one of the ironies of the analysis of
alarmists such as Preston that they are all too willing to point out the limitations of human
beings, but they neglect to point out the limitations of microscopic life forms.
XT – Cap = Root Cause
Terror not an existential risk but that rhetoric has sustained US heg
Marcopoulos 09 [Alexander J. Marcopoulos, J.D. from Tulane, BA in Economics and Philosophy “Terrorizing Rhetoric: The
Advancement of U.S. Hegemony Through the Lack of a Definition of ‘Terror’”, January 13 2009, SSRN,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1327155]hw
In summary, an examination of U.S.
rhetoric during the Cold War provides useful insight into the ways in which
U.S. rhetoric regarding terrorism has been exploited as a vehicle for maintaining U.S. hegemony.
Because of its ability to shape conceptions of truth and cater to human emotions such as fear,
language can be an effective tool in a nation’s quest to project power. Specifically, because the U.S. has (perhaps
strategically) failed to provide a static definition for the word “terror,” it has been able to invoke that word to construct threats, to inspire
fear, and to plot a particular strategic foreign policy course. It is thus submitted that not
since the “red scare” rhetoric of the
Cold War has a single word been able to affect such tremendous policy change in the world. Having
established that the lack of a definition of the word “terror” has allowed the U.S. to exploit it as a vehicle for
hegemonic power projection, this Paper will conclude by inquiring whether in doing so, the U.S. has engaged in a sustainable
enterprise. In terms of the U.S. being able to invoke the word “terror” to justify throwing its weight
around in the international community, it appears as though the Bush Administration’s War on Terror
strategy successfully preserved U.S. hegemony in some ways. However, this Paper will attempt to prove that the
current approach is growing increasingly untenable and will force the incoming Obama Administration to plot a new foreign policy course
with regard to terrorism. As previously discussed, the U.S. has done many things to exploit the lack of a static definition of “terror.” It is here
that the dots should be connected to paint a picture of the mechanics of the U.S.’s hegemonic strategy regarding the use of the word
“terror.” The U.S. has taken a word traditionally used to describe a certain type of criminal act.166 It has morphed the meaning of that word
so as to cause it to connote an act of war.167 As such, the
U.S. has applied its recently adopted policy of “preemption
and preeminence,” sometimes referred to as “the Bush Doctrine,” so that it may invoke the word “terror” to justify
preemptive exertions of its power in the world.168 But in invoking the word “terror,” the U.S. has
proceeded carefully in only justifying actions that are in its strategic best interest. 169 Since it is in the best
interest of the U.S. to (1) not be bound to act when it does not want to, and (2) to choose to act when strategically beneficial, the U.S.
has benefited from not having a static definition of “terror” because the status quo usage of the word
provides it with the flexibility to act only when it chooses to.170 While the foregoing process demonstrates how the
U.S. has been able to apply the word “terror” to instances of its choosing, it does not explain how the U.S. has been able to act
hegemonically in persuading the rest of the world to follow suit.171 That capability stems from the
word “terror” itself and the way it has been molded into a tool of power projection.172 The rhetoric of
the U.S. regarding terror has created an existential threat out of what is actually just a set of violent
tactics.173 The mere invocation of that word has been able to set the international community in motion at the drop of a hat (or bomb),
as evidenced by the quickness with which the U.S. has been able to use it in garnering the support of otherwise unfriendly countries.174
The U.S. has made it clear that the rest of the world faces a forced choice of either supporting the U.S.
or being deemed a “terrorist” state.175 Fearful of the consequences of what the latter may entail, the
U.S. has been able to coerce countries to allow for a U.S. military, economic, and intelligence presence
within their borders.176 Thus has evolved a predominant norm in U.S. foreign policy, centered on the
quintessentially hegemonic behavior that stems from one undefined term. All seems well for the U.S. in this
scenario as it may ostensibly do as it pleases as long as the issue is relevant to its wide-sweeping War on Terror. However, as time goes by
and the shock of the September 11 attacks has subsided, the international community has become less and less sympathetic to the demands
of the U.S. regarding terrorism.177 That fact is underscored by the decline of support for the Bush Administration’s policies domestically and
the failure of the Republican Party to retain its control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. Perhaps the U.S.
is unable to sustain this form of hegemony after all. There was a time immediately following the September 11 terror attacks when the U.S.
was able to capitalize on the sympathy of the rest of the world regarding the shocking blow that it had just been dealt.178 When
the
attacks were still fresh in the minds of people all over the world, it seemed as though the U.S. could
garner support for almost any retaliatory measure it conjured up within the bounds of reason (and
sometimes without).179 It is during this time that the U.S. was most able to embark on its practice of
unilateralism in its response to terrorism.180 The rest of the world sat back and watched as the U.S.
forewent the “New World Order” multilateral approach to security employed by President Bush, Sr., and instead,
invoked the right to self-defense under the UN Charter in invading Afghanistan.181 A few years later, the rest of the world did not give the
U.S. as much room to exert itself, as many influential countries expressed resentment at the unilateral policies of the U.S. regarding its war
in Iraq.182 As an attempt to quell hostilities and justify its presence there, the U.S. even invoked the word “terror” regarding Iraq, trying to
establish some tie between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Al Qaeda.183 Partly because the deep sympathy the rest of the world expressed
over September 11 had waned somewhat, the invocation of the word “terror” in this context was not the trump card it used to be.184 It is
clear now that the rest of the world will expect an altogether different strategy from Presdient-elect Obama, because “terror,” unlike the
Visa card, is no longer accepted everywhere.