cap kritique

CDL Core Files 2014/2015

Index

Capitalism Critique

NEG

Capitalism Critique Negative

281Capitalism Critique Negative

282Capitalism 1NC [1/3]



2852NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #1 No Link [1/1]

2862NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #2 Capitalism Good [1/1]

2872NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #3 Permutation [1/1]

2882NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #4 Key to the Environment [1/1]

2892NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #5 Alternative Fails [1/2]


291Plan-Specific Link: Aquaculture [1/1]

292Plan-Specific Link: Offshore Wind [1/1]

293Plan-Specific Link: Oil Drilling [1/1]

294Plan-Specific Link: Coral Reef Exploration [1/1]

Answers follow in the same file.

Capitalism 1NC [1/3]

A. Link ocean exploration and development are part and parcel of capitalisms project of exploitation.

Clark and Claussen 2005[Brett Clark and Rebecca Clausen. Professors of Sociology at North Carolina State-Raleigh and Fort Lewis, respectively. The Metabolic Rift and Marine Ecology: An Analysis of the Ocean Crisis within Capitalist Production 2005. http://courses.arch.vt.edu/courses/wdunaway/gia5524/clausen.pdf]

We have reached a point where the cumulative and ongoing human effect on the oceanic environment is threatening the biological integrity of marine ecosystems. In turn, the ability of marine environments to provide livelihoods for those who depend on the sea is placed at risk. The body of scientific knowledge about oceanic systems presents a sobering lesson on the coevolution of human society and the marine environment during the capitalist industrial era. The June 2003 Pew Oceans Commission report to the nation highlights this concern: Marine life and vital coastal habitats are straining under the increasing pressure of our use. We have reached a crossroads where the cumulative effect of what we take from, and put into, the ocean substantially reduces the ability of marine ecosystems to produce the economic and ecological goods and services that we desire and need. What we once considered inexhaustible and resilient is, in fact, finite and fragile. (p. v) Both land and sea are confronting serious environmental stresses that threaten their ability to regenerate. The particular problems experienced in each biological realm cannot be viewed as isolated issues or aberrations, only to be corrected with further technological development. Rather, these ecological conditions must be understood as they relate to the systematic exploitation of nature for profit. The negative human health and ecological consequences of capitalist fish production must be analyzed in relation to an economic system based on the accumulation of capital. The capacity of humans to transform nature in ways detrimental to societies has long been known. Only recently, however, have social interactions with nature, as well as ecological limits, become major subjects for sociological inquiry (Buttel, 1987; Dunlap, 1997; Foster. 1994). As the scale of environmental problems escalates, the ecological sustainability of human societies is being called into question (Buell, 2003; Commoner, 1971 ; Ehrlich & Holdren, 1971 ; Foster, 2002; Vitousek, Mooney, Lubchenko, & Melilo, 1997). The oceans serve as a critical realm where society interacts with nature. A historical materialist approach illuminates how the human relationship with the ocean has changed over time as specific social and economic conditions evolved. Although social science has been slow to examine issues related to oceans, the range of social issues (sustenance, employment, transportation, pollution, etc.) related to the seas demands more attention.


B. Impact capitalist pillage of the ocean risks extinction as a result of ecological destruction and ruthless competition

Clark and Claussen 2008[Brett Prof Sociology at the University of Utah. And Rebecca Prof Sociology at Fort Lewis. The Oceanic Crisis: Capitalism and the Degradation of Marine Ecosystem The Monthly Review, 2008. http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-oceanic-crisis-capitalism-and-the-degradation-of-marine-ecosystem/]

Oceans that were teeming with abundance are being decimated by the continual intrusion of exploitive economic operations. At the same time that scientists are documenting the complexity and interdependency of marine species, we are witnessing an oceanic crisis as natural conditions, ecological processes, and nutrient cycles are being undermined through overfishing and transformed due to global warming. The expansion of the accumulation system, along with technological advances in fishing, have intensified the exploitation of the world ocean; facilitated the enormous capture of fishes (both target and bycatch); extended the spatial reach of fishing operations; broadened the species deemed valuable on the market; and disrupted metabolic and reproductive processes of the ocean. The quick-fix solution of aquaculture enhances capitals control over production without resolving ecological contradictions. It is wise to recognize, as Paul Burkett has stated, that short of human extinction, there is no sense in which capitalism can be relied upon to permanently break down under the weight of its depletion and degradation of natural wealth. Capital is driven by the competition for the accumulation of wealth, and short-term profits provide the immediate pulse of capitalism. It cannot operate under conditions that require reinvestment in the reproduction of nature, which may entail time scales of a hundred or more years. Such requirements stand op posed to the immediate interests of profit. The qualitative relation between humans and nature is subsumed under the drive to accumulate capital on an ever-larger scale. Marx lamented that to capital, Time is everything, man is nothing; he is at the most, times carcase. Quality no longer matters. Quantity alone decides everything.Productive relations are concerned with production time, labor costs, and the circulation of capitalnot the diminish- ing conditions of existence. Capital subjects natural cycles and processes (via controlled feeding and the use of growth hormones) to its economic cycle. The maintenance of natural conditions is not a concern. The bounty of nature is taken for granted and appropriated as a free gift. As a result, the system is inherently caught in a fundamental crisis arising from the transformation and destruction of nature. Istvn Mszros elaborates this point, stating: For today it is impossible to think of anything at all concerning the ele-mentary conditions of social metabolic reproduction which is not lethally threatened by the way in which capital relates to themthe only way in which it can. This is true not only of humanitys energy requirements, or of the management of the planets mineral resources and chemical potentials, but of every facet of the global agriculture, including the devastation caused by large scale de-forestation, and even the most irresponsible way of dealing with the element without which no human being can survive: water itself....In the absence of miraculous solutions, capitals arbitrarily self-asserting attitude to the objective determinations of causality and time in the end inevitably brings a bitter harvest, at the expense of humanity [and nature itself].


C. Alternative vote negative to reject their endorsement of capitalism. Imagining an economic movement away from capitalism achieves real, concrete change.

White and Williams 2012[Richard White Senior Lecturer of Economic Geography at Sheffield Hallam University. And Cohn Williams Professor of Public Policy in the Management School at University of Sheffield. Capitalist Hegemony: Rereading Western Economics in the Accumulation of Freedom, 2012. Pg 131-32]

The American anarchist Howard Ehrlich argued, "We must act as if the future is today." What we have hoped to demonstrate here is that noncapitalist spaces are present and evident in contemporary societies. We do not need to imagine and create from scratch new economic alternatives that will successfully confront the capitalist hegemony thesis, or more properly the capitalist hegemony myth. Rather than capitalism being the all powerful, all conquering, economic juggernaut, the greater truth is that the "other" noncapitalist spaces have grown in proportion relative in size to the capitalism realm. This should give many of us great comfort and hope in moving forward purposefully for, as Chomsky observed: "[a]lternatives have to be constructed within the existing economy, and within the minds of working people and communities."' In this regard, the roots of the heterodox economic futures that we desire do exist in the present. Far from shutting down future economic possibilities, a more accurate reading of "the economic" (which decenters capitalism), coupled with the global crisis that capitalism finds itself in, should give us additional courage and resolve to unleash our economic imaginations, embrace the challenge of creating "fully engaged" economies. These must also take greater account of the disastrous social and environmental costs of capitalism and its inherent ethic of competition. As Kropotkin wrote: Don't compete!competition is always injurious to the species, and you have plenty of resources to avoid it! Therefore combinepractice mutual aid! That is the surest means for giving to each and all to the greatest safety, the best guarantee of existence and progress, bodily, intellectual, and moral .... That is what Nature teaches us; and that is what all those animals which have attained the highest position in the respective classes have done. That is also what man [skithe most primitive manhas been doing; and that is why man has reached the position upon which we stand now." A more detailed and considered discussion of the futures of work, however, is beyond the scope of this chapter. What we have hoped to demonstrate is that in reimagining the economic, and recognizing and valuing the noncapitalist economic practices that are already here, we might spark renewed enthusiasm, optimism, insight, and critical discussion within and among anarchist communities. The ambition here is similar to that of GibsonGraham, in arguing that: The objective is not to produce a finished and coherent template that maps the economy "as it really is" and presents... a ready made "alternative economy." Rather, our hope is to disarm and dislocate the naturalized dominance of the capitalist economy and make a space for new economic beeomingsones that we will need to work to produce. If we can recognize a diverse economy, we can begin to imagine and create diverse organizations and practices as powerful constituents of an enlivened non capitalist policies of place.

2NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #1 No Link [1/1]

1. The affirmative is aligned with capitalist interests. Ocean exploration and development are not neutral projects, but instead serve to facilitate exploitation for the expansion of the market. Our 1NC Clark and Claussen evidence says despite the finite nature of ocean resources, capital interests provide never-ending justifications for exploitation.

2. [INSERT PLAN-SPECIFIC LINK]

2NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #2 Capitalism Good [1/1]

1. Capitalism risks extinction. A profit motive exists for unsustainable exploitation of Earths oceans, which ensures runaway overfishing and habitat destruction. Our 1NC Clark and Claussen evidence says even though capitalists purport to protect the oceans, when push comes to shove they will always prioritize economic benefits, which is an unsustainable model.

2. Capitalism is fundamentally unsustainable and risks extinction.

Wise et al 2010[Raul. Professor of Development Studies at the Universidad Autonoma de Zacatecas (Mexico). Reframing the Debate on Migration, Development and Human Rights: Fundamental Elements October 2010. www.migracionydesarrollo.org]

At the end of the first decade of the 21st century, a general crisis centered in the United States affected the global capitalist system on several levels (Mrquez, 2009 and 2010). The consequences have been varied: Financial. The overflowing of financial capital leads to speculative bubbles that affect the socioeconomic framework and result in global economic depressions. Speculative bubbles involve the bidding up of market prices of such commodities as real estate or electronic innovations far beyond their real value, leading inevitable to a subsequent slump (Foster and Magdof, 2009; Bello, 2006). Overproduction. Overproduction crises emerge when the surplus capital in the global economy is not channeled into production processes due to a fall in profit margins and a slump in effective demand, the latter mainly a consequence of wage containment across all sectors of the population (Bello, 2006). Environmental. Environmental degradation, climate change and a predatory approach to natural resources contribute to the destruction of the latter, along with a fundamental undermining of the material bases for production and human reproduction (Fola- dori and Pierri, 2005; Hinkelammert and Mora, 2008). Social. Growing social inequalities, the dismantling of the welfare state and dwindling means of subsistence accentuate problems such as poverty, unemployment, violence, insecurity and labor precariousness, increasing the pressure to emigrate (Harvey, 2007; Schierup, Hansen and Castles, 2006). The crisis raises questions about the prevailing model of globalization and, in a deeper sense, the systemic global order, which currently undermines our main sources of wealthlabor and natureand overexploits them to the extent that civilization itself is at risk. The responses to the crisis by the governments of developed countries and international agencies promoting globalization have been short-sighted and exclusivist. Instead of addressing the root causes of the crisis, they have implemented limited strategies that seek to rescue financial and manufacturing corporations facing bankruptcy. In addition, government policies of labor flexibilization and fiscal adjustment have affected the living and working conditions of most of the population. These measures are desperate attempts to prolong the privileges of ruling elites at the risk of imminent and increasingly severe crises. In these conditions, migrants have been made into scapegoats, leading to repressive anti- immigrant legislation and policies (Massey and Snchez, 2006). A significant number of jobs have been lost while the conditions of remaining jobs deteriorate and deportations increase. Migrants living standards have drastically deteriorated but, contrary to expectations, there have been neither massive return flows nor a collapse in remittances, though there is evidence that migrant worker flows have indeed diminished.

2NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #3 Permutation [1/1]

1. The permutation still links to our capitalism impacts. Ocean exploration and development is inseparable from capitalism because financial interests always override the oceans well-being. If we win our link arguments, you should reject the permutation theres no benefit to preferring it over the alternative alone.

2. The permutation is capitalism in disguise. Total rejection is necessary.

Kovel 2002[Joel. Professor of Social Science at Bard College. The Enemy of Nature, 2002. Pg 142-43]

The value-term that subsumes everything into the spell of capital sets going a kind of wheel of accumulation, from production to consumption and back, spinning ever more rapidly as the inertial mass of capital grows, and generating its force field as a spinning magnet generates an electrical field. This phenomenon has important implications for the reformability of the system. Because capital is so spectral, and succeeds so well in ideologically mystifying its real nature, attention is constantly deflected from the actual source of eco-destabilization to the instruments by which that source acts. The real problem, however, is the whole mass of globally accumulated capital, along with the speed of its circulation and the class structures sustaining this. That is what generates the force field, in proportion to its own scale; and it is this force field, acting across the numberless points of insertion that constitute the ecosphere, that creates ever larger agglomerations of capital, sets the ecological crisis going, and keeps it from being resolved. For one fact may be taken as certain that to resolve the ecological crisis as a whole, as against tidying up one corner or another, is radically incompatible with the existence of gigantic pools of capital, the force field these induce, the criminal underworld with which they connect, and, by extension, the elites who comprise the transnational bourgeoisie. And by not resolving the crisis as a whole, we open ourselves to the spectre of another mythical creature, the many-headed hydra, that regenerated itself the more its individual tentacles were chopped away. To realize this is to recognize that there is no compromising with capital, no schema of reformism that will clean up its act by making it act more greenly or efficiently We shall explore the practical implications of this thesis in Part III, and here need simply to restate the conclusion in blunt terms: green capital, or non-polluting capital, is preferable to the immediately ecodestructive breed on its immediate terms. But this is the lesser point, and diminishes with its very success. For green capital (or socially/ecologically responsible investing) exists, by its very capital-nature, essentially to create more value, and this leaches away from the concretely green location to join the great pool, and follows its force field into zones of greater concentration, expanded profitability and greater ecodestruction.

2NC / 1NR Extensions: A/T #4 Key to the Environment [1/1]

1. Capitalism isnt key to the environment it destroys the environment. The motives that underlie the plan are driven by the competition for wealth and short-term gain. Capitalism and environmental sustainability are mutually exclusive because capitalism cannot operate under conditions that require protecting nature. Thats our 1NC Clark and Claussen evidence. 2. Capitalism destroys the environment

Smith 2007

[Richard. Post-Doctoral Fellow at the East-West Center and Rutgers University. The Eco-suicidal Economics of Adam Smith Capitalism Nature Socialism, Vol 18 N2. 2007. Available via Proquest]Despite the difficulty such a massive challenge poses, it does not mean that people have to starve. On the contrary, if we do not make these cuts and restructure the global economy, not only will millions soon die from starvation, floods, drought and other catastrophes, but the capitalist engine of ecodestruction will drive humanity to the brink of collapse, if not extinction. The problem is, given the requirements of capitalist reproduction, particularly the need to meet shareholder demands for growing profits, no corporation can cut production and stay in business. Furthermore, any broad effort to slow production and consumption would only bring on market collapse and economic depression. So, as long as Blair, Stern, Al Gore, and the rest of the corporate and political elite are committed to maintaining and perpetuating global capitalism as their first and foremost priority, they have no choice but to subordinate the environment to growth and consumption, override their own environmental targets, turn themselves into hypocrites, and doom the future of humanity. To imagine, as they do, that technical innovations, carbon taxes, "green shopping" and the like will allow production and consumption to spiral endlessly upward and consume evermore resources while pollution and emissions spiral downward is to live in a delusional dreamworld of faith-based economics that has no empirical basis.11 Through most of human history up to around the 17th century, humanity suffered from class structures that put brakes on productivity growth, institutionalized underproduction as a regular feature of economic life, and so brought on periodic famines and demographic collapse. But since the advent of the capitalist mode of production, humanity has both benefitedbut also increasingly sufferedfrom the opposite problem: crises and consequences of overproduction, which have typically taken the form of economic crashes and depression. Today, this engine of relentless technological revolution and productivity growth has built an economy of such power, capacity and scale that it is systematically destroying the very ecological basis of human life.


1. The alternative solves rejecting capitalism allows status quo movements against it to achieve success. Our 1NC White and Williams evidence says rejecting capitalism allows us to move toward real alternatives within the existing economy.

2. The alternative solves best. Collections of people against capitalism are gathering in the status quo a clear vision against capitalism is key to their effective resistance.

Wise 2009[Raul. Professor of Development Studies at the Universidad Autonoma de Zacatecas, in Mexico. Forced Migration and US Imperialism: the Dialectic of Migration and Development Crit Sociol, 2009. Available via Proquest.]

The profound need for change in the structural dynamics and strategic practices at work in the current schemes of regional integration and neoliberal national development have given way to two types of social agents, which can be separated into two groups: those from above and those from below. The current economic project has clearly been implemented from above by the agents of US imperialism in tandem with Mexican allies. They work within a political coalition that seeks to maintain the privileges of neoliberal integration and push them to its very limits. In short, this is an actual class project that promotes economic asymmetries, social inequalities and phenomena such as poverty, unemployment, labor precarization and migration. In contrast, those below particularly in Mexico are mostly unhappy and disenchanted, although they sometimes engage in open acts of opposition, resistance, and rebellion. It is true that there is currently no collective agent that can articulate a project that counters the one being implemented by neoliberal elites. However, we should point out that a number of dispersed social alternative movements have willingly, even optimistically, sprung up. The Mexican agricultural sector, one of the quarters that has been hardest hit by the implementation of NAFTA and is suffering in the productive, commercial, population and environmental areas, has given rise to movements like El Barzn (The Plow), El Campo No Aguanta Ms (The Countryside Cant Take Anymore; see Bartra, 2003) and the campaign Sin Maz no hay Pas (No Corn, no Country). Other denouncers of the neoliberal system include the Ejrcito Zapatista de Liberacin Nacional (Zapatista Army of National Liberation, EZLN) and its Otra Campaa (Other Campaign), as well as some sectors of the social and electoral left who have converged into the Coalicin por el Bien de Todos (Coalition for the Good of All) and the Convencin Nacional Democrtica (National Democratic Convention). There are also other more or less important national sociopolitical movements, but what is worth noticing is that the widespread popular discontent (which could even extend to the majority of Mexicans) is not expressed in an organized manner and has not produced yet an alternative development project. On a binational level, the actions of opposition forces have been even more scattered. Initially, the Red Mexicana de Accin frente al Libre Comercio (Mexican Action Network in Opposition of Free Trade) communicated with likeminded organizations in the USA and Canada that opposed the signing of NAFTA, but since then its actions (which involve agreements between unions and social organizations on both sides of the border) have been few and far between (Brooks and Fox, 2004). The idea that migrants are agents of development has been promoted for over a decade. This proposal, which is in no way sustainable when applied to large-scale social processes, suggests that migrants should be held responsible for promoting development in their countries of origin. And yet, as Fox (2005) has pointed out, migrant society has produced social actors who operate on three levels: integration into US society (e.g. unions, the media, and religious organizations); networki ng and promoti on of devel opment i n pl aces of ori gi n (i . e. nati ve organizations), and binational relationships that combine the previous two (i.e. pan-ethnic organizations). For example, Mexican migrant organizations fund public works and social projects in their communities of origin with the aid of the program Tres por Uno.


Wise continues, no text deleted

And during the spring of 2006 USA-residing immigrants participated in massive marches in favor of their working, political, social, and civil rights. As for the latter, Petras (2006) points out that between March 25 and May 1, 2006 close to five million migrant workers and their supporters marched through nearly 100 cities of the US. This, he notes, is the biggest and most sustained workers demonstration in the history of the USA. In its 50-year history, the US trade union confederation, the AFL-CIO, has never been capable of mobilizing even a fraction of the workers convoked by the migrant workers movement. The rise and growth of the movement is rooted in the historical experience of the migrant workers (overwhelmingly from Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean), the exploitative and racist experience they confront today in the USA and the future in which they face imprisonment, expulsion and dispossession. Generally speaking, migrants and their organizations affect the political, social, economic, and cultural aspects of sending and receiving countries to varying degrees. However, it would be a theoretical mistake to present migrants themselves as a collective agent of transformation. If we intend to portray them as agents of development, then we had better examine the strategic projects and structural dynamics present on the different planes and levels, as well as the interests that prompt participation from above and from below. This will allow us to understand the role played by migrants. Stating that they cannot be considered agents of development does not entail a pessimistic message advocating immobility. Quite the opposite: this can help us disentangle possible forms of articulation between migrant organizations and social sectors that seek a new type of development agenda, one that can be applied on the global, regional, national, and local levels. Only then will we be able to discuss the configuration of an agent of social transformation that includes migrant participation. In any case, as Petras (2006) has pointed out, [t]he emergence of the mass migrant workers movement opens a new chapter in the working class struggle both in North America, and Central America. First and foremost it represents the first major upsurge of independent working class struggle in the USA after over 50 years of decline, stagna- tion and retreat by the established trade union confederation.

Plan-Specific Link: Aquaculture [1/1]

( ) Aquaculture is fundamentally aligned with capitalism it is designed achieve capital accumulation

Phyne 1997

[John. Capitalist Aquaculture and the Quest for Marine Tenure in Scotland and Ireland Studies in Political Economy, 1997. Available via Ebscohost.]

During the enclosure of English agriculture, commoners became subject to poaching violations for continuing to exercise customary rights which dated from "time immemorial. The law converted common lands into the private property necessary for capital accumulation. Yet, in England and elsewhere, the marine environment remained subject to public, private and customary rights. Currently, the introduction of industrial aquaculture into a multipurpose marine environment presents conflicts analogous to the struggle for enclosure. Industrial aquaculturalists, like capitalist farmers, want legal and en- forceable property rights to ensure their interests in capital accumulation." Within the context of late twentieth century capitalism, however, this is contingent upon the legal framework used by the state in coastal areas.

Plan-Specific Link: Offshore Wind [1/1]

( ) The plan is fundamentally capitalist. Their green revolution simply re-distributes exploitation.

White 2002[Damian. PhD and Research Fellow in the School of Cultural Studies at the University of East London. A Green Industrial Revolution? Sustainable Technological Innovation in a Global Age Environmental Politics, Vol 11, N2. 2002. Available via JSTOR]

The first point is essentially negative. Notably, it draws attention to the fact that even if all the obstacles to a green industrial revolution posed by the structuring of the current political economy are addressed - ifthere are notforces to make things differently - the type of eco-technological and ecoindustrial reorganisation that triumphs could simply serve and reinforce the patterns of interest of dominant groups. A neo-liberal version of the 'green industrial revolution' could simply give rise to eco-technologies and forms of industrial reorganisation that arc perfectly compatible with extending social control, military power, worker surveillance and the broader repressive capacities of dominant groups and institutions. It might even be that a corporate dominated green industrial revolution would simply ensure that employers have 'smart' buildings which not only give energy back to the national grid but allow for new 'solar powered' employee surveillance technologies. What of a sustainable military-industrial complex that uses green warfare technologies that kill human beings without destroying ecosystems? To what extent might a 'nonhero' dominated green industrial revolution simply ensure that the South receives ecotechnologies that primarily express Northern interests (for example, embedding relations of dependency rather than of self management and autonomy?). In short then, a green industrial revolution could simply give rise to new forms of 'green governmentality' [Dorier et aI., 1999].

Plan-Specific Link: Oil Drilling [1/1]

( ) Oil exploration and development is capitalist exploitation, which risks environmental calamity.

Klaas 2014[Staff Writer. Capitalism, Peak Oil, and Endless Crisis. 1/17/14 http://anti-imperialism.com/2014/01/17/capitalism-peak-oil-and-endless-crisis]

Because of the abundance of oil in certain areas of the world, accompanied by a peculiar profitability of capital, the world oil sector presents a very high level of geographical centralization and concentration of capital, with approximately 100 fields producing 50% of the global supply, 25 producing 25% of it and a single field, the Ghawar field of Saudi Arabia, producing around 7%. Most of these fields are old and well past their peak, with the others likely to enter decline within the next decade. Miller argued that conditions are such that, despite volatility, prices can never return to pre-2004 levels, saying it is highly likely that when the US pays more than 4% of its GDP for oil, or more than 10% of GDP for primary energy, the economy declines as money is sucked into buying fuel instead of other goods and service. What can a Marxist conclude from this open admission of capitalist contradiction and desperation? This is the most important realization: capitalist crisis is now necessarily endless. There is a crossroad in front of humanity as a whole and its interest in survival: either end the capitalist mode of production, or accept the inevitability of a Malthusian nightmare of more hunger, more wars over resources, increasingly social Darwinist methods of population control, and whatever will be needed to maintain the rule of capital at the expense of everyone else. Without a steady and cheap supply of oil, there is no capitalism; oil is its blood. Capital accumulation requires an energy sources which tendentially increases its potential supply; no such energy source exists, and even if one was found, every part of the technological infrastructure of capitalist society, running on oil, would take a long time to be retooled or dismantled to give way to new infrastructure running on this new energy source. This kind of transition would never be feasible in a world where the rule is exploitation of man by man, and of nation by nation. There can be no painless solution to an ecological crisis that jeopardizes the future of humanity while world politics revolves around defending the profits of monopoly capital, and not the general interests of human survival. The whole point of capitalist production, production for the most immediate profit, stands in contradiction to the well being of humanity and the production of the conditions required by human life. On top of its own internal limit of capitalism, capital itself and its over-accumulative tendencies, capitalist production in the era of imperialism has entered into a conflict with an external limit, something never before seen for a mode of production on this scale: capitalism is exhausting non-reproducible resources. It is now necessary for every individual to take up the struggle to put production and distribution under social control.

Plan-Specific Link: Coral Reef Exploration [1/1]

( ) Conservation and protection efforts obscure capitalisms role in oceanic destruction this makes continued exploitation inevitable.

Brockington and Duffy 2010

[Dan Brockington is a professor in Conservation and Devlopment at the University of Manchester and has conducted research in South Africa, India, Tanzania, New Zealand, and Australia. Rosaleen Duffy is a professor at the University of London, "Capitalism and conservation: the production and reproduction of biodiversity conservation." Antipode 42.3 2010]

One of the central themes of this collection is that conservation is proving instrumental to capitalisms growth and reproduction. It provides an environmental fix (as Harvey might put it). As Igoe and colleagues observe (this issue), where Green Marxists have predicted environmental impediments that would threaten capitalisms prosperity (OConnor 1988), in fact these very impediments are the source of new forms of accumulation. Consumers thrive on scarcity, anxiety, fear (all help create demand), so perhaps the flourishing of capitalism in conservation, which deals in similar currency, should not be such a surprise. It is still important, however, to understand how this union is being achieved. Tackling that question is one of the main achievements of the essay by Igoe and colleagues. Following Sklair and others they propose the existence of hegemonic mainstream conservation interests composed of an alliance of corporate, philanthropic and NGO interests (Sklair 2001). Mainstream conservation (one part of Sklairs sustainable development historic bloc) proposes resolutions to environmental problems that hinge on heightened commodity production and consumption, particularly of newly commodified ecosystem services. Their views are promulgated through a mutually reinforcing collection of spectacularmedia productions circulated in advertisements and on the web. The power of these productions lies not in their robustness, logic or rigour, but rather because they are presented and consumed within societies dominated by spectacle (Debord 1995 [1967]). That is, these are societies where representations of, and connection to, places, people and causes have long been mediated through commodified images. In consuming these images people are given the romantic illusion that they are adventurously saving the world (p 502) while the deleterious ecological impacts of these very purchases, and the lifestyles they require, are neatly erased. By focusing consumers attention on distant and exotic locales, the spectacular productions . . . conceal the complex and proximate connections of peoples daily lives to environmental problems, while suggesting that the solutions to environmental problems lay in the consumption of the kinds of commodities that helped produce them in the first place (p 504).]

Capitalism Critique Affirmative 295Capitalism Critique Affirmative

2962AC Frontline: Capitalism Critique [1/5]






1. No link the plan is not part and parcel of capitalism. The ocean has been exploited and polluted as a result of the flawed environmental policies of the past. The plan moves to resolve these problems.

2. Capitalism is good it prevents extinction

Rockwell 2002[Lew. President of the Mises Institute. Why They Attack Capitalism 2002 http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=418 2002]

If you think about it, this hysteria is astonishing, even terrifying. The market economy has created unfathomable prosperity and, decade by decade, for centuries and centuries, miraculous feats of innovation, production, distribution, and social coordination. To the free market, we owe all material prosperity, all our leisure time, our health and longevity, our huge and growing population, nearly everything we call life itself. Capitalism and capitalism alone has rescued the human race from degrading poverty, rampant sickness, and early death. In the absence of the capitalist economy, and all its underlying institutions, the worlds population would, over time, shrink to a fraction of its current size, in a holocaust of unimaginable scale, and whatever remained of the human race would be systematically reduced to subsistence, eating only what can be hunted or gathered. And this is only to mention its economic benefits. Capitalism is also an expression of freedom. It is not so much a social system but the de facto result in a society where individual rights are respected, where businesses, families, and every form of association are permitted to flourish in the absence of coercion, theft, war, and aggression. Capitalism protects the weak against the strong, granting choice and opportunity to the masses who once had no choice but to live in a state of dependency on the politically connected and their enforcers. The high value placed on women, children, the disabled, and the aged unknown in the ancient worldowes so much to capitalisms productivity and distribution of power. Must we compare the record of capitalism with that of the state, which, looking at the sweep of this past century alone, has killed hundreds of millions of people in wars, famines, camps, and deliberate starvation campaigns? And the record of central planning of the type now being urged on American enterprise is perfectly abysmal.


3. Permutation: do both capitalism is inevitable, but the plan reforms it in ways that make it sustainable.

Wilson 2001[John. Progressive Author, Founder of the Institute for College Freedom. How the Left Can Win Arguments and Influence People: A Tactical Manual for Pragmatic Progressives, 2001. GoogleBooks, Pg 121-3]

Capitalism is far too ingrained in American life to eliminate. If you go into the most impoverished areas of America, you will find that the people who live there are not seeking government control over factories or even more social welfare programs; they're hoping, usually in vain, for a fair chance to share in the capitalist wealth. The poor do not pray for socialism-they strive to be a part of the capitalist system. They want jobs, they want to start businesses, and they want to make money and be successful. What's wrong with America is not capitalism as a system but capitalism as a religion. We worship the accumulation of wealth and treat the horrible inequality between rich and poor as if it were an act of God. Worst of all, we allow the government to exacerbate the financial divide by favoring the wealthy: go anywhere in America, and compare a rich suburb with a poor town-the city services, schools, parks, and practically everything else will be better financed in the place populated by rich people. The aim is not to overthrow capitalism but to overhaul it. Give it a social-justice tune-up, make it more efficient, get the economic engine to hit on all cylinders for everybody, and stop putting out so many environmentally hazardous substances. To some people, this goal means selling out leftist ideals for the sake of capitalism. But the right thrives on having an ineffective opposition. The Revolutionary Communist Party helps stabilize the "free market" capitalist system by making it seem as if the only alternative to free-market capitalism is a return to Stalinism. Prospective activists for change are instead channeled into pointless discussions about the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. Instead of working to persuade people to accept progressive ideas, the far left talks to itself (which may be a blessing, given the way it communicates) and tries to sell copies of the Socialist Worker to an uninterested public.


4. Capitalism is necessary to sustainable solutions to environmental degradation

Barry 2007[John. Professor of Politics at the University of Belfast. Towards a Model of Green Political Economy: from Ecological Modernization to Economic Security The International Journal of Green Economics, Vol 1 N4. 2007. Available via Ebscohost]

Economic analysis has been one of the weakest and least developed areas of broadly green/sustainable development thinking. For example, whatever analysis there is within the green political canon is largely utopian usually based on an argument for the complete transformation of modern society and economy as the only way to deal with ecological catastrophe, an often linked to a critique of the socioeconomic failings of capitalism that echoed a broadly radical Marxist/socialist or anarchist analysis; or underdeveloped due, in part, to the need to outline and develop other aspects of green political theory. However, this gap within green thinking has recently been filled by a number of scholars, activists, think tanks, and environmental NGOs who have outlined various models of green political economy to underpin sustainable development political aims, principles and objectives. The aim of this article is to offer a draft of a realistic, but critical, version of green political economy to underpin the economic dimensions of radical views about sustainable development. It is written explicitly with a view to encouraging others to think through this aspect of sustainable development in a collaborative manner. Combined realism and radicalism marks this article, which starts with the point that we cannot build or seek to create a sustainable economy ab nihlo, but must begin from where we are, with the structures, institutions, modes of production, laws and regulations that we already have. Of course, this does not mean simply accepting these as immutable or set in stone; after all, some of the current institutions, principles and structures underpinning the dominant economic model are the very causes of unsustainable development. We do need to recognise, however, that we must work with (and through in the terms of the original German Green Partys slogan of marching through the institutions) these existing structures, as well as change and reform and in some cases, abandon them as either unnecessary or positively harmful to the creation and maintenance of a sustainable economy and society. Equally, this article also recognises that an alternative economy and society must be based in the reality that most people (in the West) will not democratically vote for a completely different type of society and economy. That reality must also accept that a green economy is one that is recognisable to most people and that indeed safeguards and guarantees not just their basic needs but also aspirations (within limits). The realistic character of the thinking behind this article accepts that consumption and materialistic lifestyles are here to stay (so long as they do not transgress any of the critical thresholds of the triple bottom line) and indeed there is little to be gained by proposing alternative economic systems, which start from a complete rejection of consumption and materialism. The appeal to realism is in part an attempt to correct the common misperception (and self-perception) of green politics and economics requiring an excessive degree of self-denial and a puritanical asceticism (Goodin, 1992, p.18; Allison, 1991, p.170178). While rejecting the claim that green political theory calls for the complete disavowal of materialistic lifestyles, it is true that green politics does require the collective reassessment of such lifestyles, and does require a degree of shared sacrifice. It does not mean, however, that we necessarily require the complete and across-the-board rejection of materialistic lifestyles. There must be room and tolerance in a green economy for people to live ungreen lives so long as they do not harm others, threaten long-term ecological sustainability or create unjust levels of socioeconomic inequalities. Thus, realism in this context is in part another name for the acceptance of a broadly liberal or post-liberal (but certainly not anti-liberal) green perspective.1


5. The alternative fails simply rejecting capitalism results in greater oppression

Hanhnel 2007[Robin. Prof Economics at American. Eco-Localism: A Constructive Critique Capitalism Nature Socialism, Vol 18 N2. 2007. Ebsco//GBS-JV]

Some anti-capitalists advocate denouncing capitalism as the root source of many of today's problems. But when asked what kind of economy should replace capitalism, they answer in deliberately vague and general terms: ''a just and democratic economy'' or ''an economy that is not wasteful and destructive of the environment.'' There are understandable reasons to be concerned about the pitfalls of visionary thinking. But rejecting discussion and debate over how we can better organize our economic activities to achieve economic justice, economic democracy, and environmental sustainability is self-defeatingno more so than today, when the destruction wrought by capitalism to the natural world and the human community is becoming increasingly apparent and impossible to ignore. Some hesitate to spell out how a post-capitalist economy should be run for fear of putting people off. They worry that saying we are anti-capitalist risks alienating people we work with in reform movements, since most people working in reform movements assume the capitalist system is sound and only flawed in its application. However, it makes little sense to risk putting people off by saying we reject the capitalist system itself without trying to explain in concrete terms what we want instead. Others eschew debates about economic vision for fear it will lead to sectarianism that divides us unnecessarily and distracts us from focusing on more urgent tasks. Given the history of sectarianism on the Left, there is every reason to fear this dynamic. But we must guard against sectarianism on many issues, and the advice to table economic vision would only be sensible if it were true that deliberations on this issue were unnecessary. Still others claim that specifying how societies or communities can create economic systems that incorporate social justice, environmental health, and other democratic values is totalitarian, because it robs those who will live in post-capitalist economies of their democratic right to manage their economy as they see fit when the time comes. This argument is nonsense. Since when did discussing difficult and momentous issues in advance impede deliberative democracy rather than advance it? I can't see that this would be a problem unless those debating such matters attempt to impose their formulae on future generations. And nobody I know who discusses democratic post-capitalist possibilities has any such pretensions. Of course there is a time and place for everything. There are venues where pontificating on the inherent evils of the capitalist system is inappropriate and counterproductive. Similarly, there are venues where discussing arrangements for how those in worker councils could manage themselves or how different groups of workers and consumers might coordinate their interrelated activities fairly and efficiently is out of place. The question is not whether every commentary, speech, conference document, article, or book must explain how a problem today is linked to capitalism, or how it could be solved in an alternative economy. Rather, it is whether theorizing about economic vision and testing our convictions in the flesh, where possible, plays an important role in the movement to replace the economics of competition and greed with the economics of equitable cooperation. The simplest argument for the value of visionary thinking lies in the question: How can we know what steps to take unless we know where we want to go? For those of us who believe we are attempting to build a bridge from the economics of competition and greed to the economics of equitable cooperation, we must have some idea of where we want the bridge to end as well as where it must begin. But the strongest reason for embracing the issue of what we would do when capitalism falters is our track record of failure. This is not the first time people have been entreated to jettison capitalism for a better alternative. While communist economies were not failures for the reasons widely believed, they were colossal failures nonetheless. And they were certainly not the desirable alternative to capitalism that was promised. So people have every reason to be skeptical of those who claim there is a desirable alternative to capitalism. They also have every right to demand more than platitudes and generalities. Reasonable peoplenot only doubting Thomaseswant to know how our alternative to capitalism would differ from the last one and how it would work in concrete terms. Literally billions of people were misled by our anti-capitalist predecessors, with terrible consequences. We should not deceive ourselves that many today are willing to accept our assurances on faith that we have it right this time. We avoid contentious issues about the alternative to capitalism only at our own peril. 2AC Frontline: Capitalism Critique [5/5]

Hanhnel continues, no text deleted

It may be that God has given 21st-century capitalism the rainbow sign, but salvation from doomsday will be no faith-based initiative. We must show an overwhelming majority of the victims of capitalism how a better system can work. We must provide convincing answers to hard questions about why our procedures will not break down, get hijacked by new elites, or prove incapable of protecting our natural environment. If we cannot do these things, the economics of equitable cooperation will remain little more than a prayer on the lips of the victims of competition and greed. The time has passed for excuses and intellectual laziness. Critics of capitalism must think through and explain to others how we propose to do things differently and why outcomes will be significantly betterespecially since the sacrifices people must make on the road to replacing capitalism will often be great. Therefore, there must be good reasons for people to believe the benefits will be great as wellif not for themselves, then at least for their children. This does not mean we must agree right now on what the best alternative to capitalism looks likewhich is fortunate, because at this point there is no agreement on whether the best alternative is some form of market socialism, community-based economics, or democratic planning. The debate about alternatives to capitalism in the wake of the collapse of communism is still in its infancy. Nevertheless, the quality of the debate over economic vision must inspire confidence that the movement for equitable cooperation is busy tackling this crucial task effectively. How best to organize a system of equitable cooperation is not a trivial intellectual problem, and [end page 64] the answers will not be obvious without a great deal of deliberation, which must take place before the answers are needed.

cap kritique

Documents

nr extensions

planspecific link

capitalism good

link ocean exploration

ability of marine ecosystems

marine life

marine ecology

ability of marine environments