Capitalism Kritik
Capitalism Kritik 1
Capitalism K Shell 3
Capitalism K Shell 4
4
Capitalism K Shell 5
Link – Allies 6
Link – Japan 8
Link – Hegemony 9
Link - Terrorism 10
Link – Military 11
Impact - Nuclear War 12
Impact - Extinction 13
Impact – Bio-Diversity 14
Impact – Genocide 15
Impact – Human Rights 16
Impact – Hegemony 17
Impact – Value to Life 18
Alt Fails – State Key 19
Alt Fails – Bottom Up Fails 20
Alt Fails – Fragments Resistance 21
Alt Fails – No Alternative to Cap 22
Perm – Solves Best 26
Perm – Global/Local Good 27
No Revolution 28
AT: Root Cause of War 29
AT: Root Cause of Poverty 30
Capitalism Kritik 1
Capitalism K Shell 3
Capitalism K Shell 4
4
Capitalism K Shell 5
Breaking down the power of the state engages all classes and creates a larger sense of social progress. 5
Jim Glassman 04, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, “Translation hegemony and US labor foreign policy: towards a Gramscian international labor geography”, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 2004, volume 22, pages 573-593 5
Link – Allies 6
Link – Japan 8
8
The US uses its power to influence the development of other institutions – we invaded Japan to recreate a strategic economic partner. 8
Jim Glassman 04, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, “Transnation hegemony and US labor foreign policy: towards a Gramscian international labor geography”, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 2004, volume 22, pages 573-593 8
Link – Hegemony 9
Link - Terrorism 10
Link – Military 11
The US military uses its force with in the global order to legitimize violence 11
Impact - Nuclear War 12
Impact - Extinction 13
Impact – Bio-Diversity 14
Impact – Genocide 15
Impact – Human Rights 16
Impact – Hegemony 17
Impact – Value to Life 18
Alt Fails – State Key 19
Alt Fails – Bottom Up Fails 20
Alt Fails – Fragments Resistance 21
Alt Fails – No Alternative to Cap 22
Perm – Solves Best 26
Perm – Global/Local Good 27
No Revolution 28
AT: Root Cause of War 29
AT: Root Cause of Poverty 30
Capitalism K Shell
Link - The affirmatives construction of a strategic withdrawal underlies and masks the motives of capitalist imperialism to remain undetected
Patnaik 1990 (Prabhat, Eminent and prolific economist who has worked creatively for 40 years at the intersection of Marxian and Keynesian theoretical traditions, professor at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning in the School of Social Sciences at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. He is currently Vice-Chairman of the Planning Board of the Indian state of Kerala., “Whatever happened to imperialism?,” Monthly Review Foundation, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n6_v42/ai_9101140/?tag=content;col1)
It is unnecessary to go on. The point is not, as is often made out, whether the persistence of underdevelopment is because of imperialism or because of internal contradictions in the third world (which in any case represents an ill-formulated counterposing of the two); the point is not whether capitalism can survive without imperialism (a speculative question foreign to the Marxist method); the point is not even whether this ot that theoritician of imperialism was correct (that is hagiography, not analysis). The point is the paradox that while the system of relations covered under the rubric of imperialism has hardly changed over the last decade and a half, fundamental questions are discussed today, even among Marxists, without any reference to it. Yesterday's Marxists in Eastern Europe may have stopped talking about imperialism today for a variety of reasons. Mr. Gorbachev may have written a whole book called Perestroika without a single reference to imperialism. But why should American Marxists, who are under no constraints to emulate their Soviet and Eastern European counterparts, fall into the same deafening silence on the question? The reason, one is tempted to speculate, lies precisely in the very strengthening and consolidation of imperialism. Vietnam was a crisis for imperialism. The fact that the United States had to send half a million troops to attempt to subdue a tiny country was itself an expression of a failure to "manage" things there; the fact that it lost the war only underscored that failure. Since then, however, there has been no comparable crisis. Imperialism has learned to "manage" things better; the very price the people of Vietnam had to pay to win the war has perhaps had a subduing influence on other third world countries. They have also learned that the odds are heavily against them in other ways as well. The emancipation of the third world, as almost everybody, whether in the first or the third world, now realizes, resembles an obstacle race where the horse must fall at one of the obstacles. First, the coming to power of a revolutionary government is itself blocked in several ways; if perchance it does come to power, an economic blackade is imposed upon it; the disaffection generated by social reforms and economic hardships, which are inevitable, is then utilized to foment a civil war, unable to rebuild its shattered economy with the meager resources at its command, it must go abroad for loans, at which point agencies like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank come in, demanding a reversal of the reforms. While some years ago, there were dreams all over the third world of socialism of all kinds, not just Marxian socialism, but Nehruvian socialism, Nyerere's socialism, Jagan's socialism, and the like; today we find the drab grey of IMF "conditionalities" painted all over the third world (and even in the erstwhile socialist world). Many, of course, would say that this is because of the "follies" of the post-liberation regimes in the third world. This argument, to use our ealier analogy, amounts to saying that if the horse could not clear all the obstacles, then it is the horse's fault. Maybe, but I would like to believe that the horse, if it is well-trained and intelligent, can clear all these obstacles. The point is a different one: we should not, in our enthusiasm for blaming the horse, become blind to the obstacles. And the very fact that imperialism has been so successful in putting up obstacles, has been so adept at "managing" potential challenges to its hegemony, has made us indifferent to its ubiquitous presence. Imperialism has learned that half a million troops do not have to be dispatched everywhere; and unless there are half a million troops dispatched somewhere, moral indignation is not widespread, and the reality of imperialism goes unrecognized. It is an irony of history that coercion which is so effective that it can afford to be silent is scarcely recognized as such; it is only on occasions when its effectiveness is diminished to a point where it has to come out in the ugliest of colors that its reality becomes apparent. The deafening silence about imperialism in the current Marxist discourse, especially in this country, is thus a reflection of the extraordinary strength and vigor it is displaying at present
Share with your friends: |
