Tournament: Harvard aff | Round: 1 | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA
When one wills, one posits that one ought to permit to will – this makes volition a pre-requisite. Subjectivity and morality can’t be just a matter of passion, because whether a person identifies with their passion depends on volition.
Rahel Jaeggi (August 2014). "Alienation." Columbia University Press. Translated by Frederick Neuhouser and Alan E. Smith. Edited by Frederick Neuhouser. Rahel Jaeggi is professor of social and political philosophy at the Humboldt University in Berlin. Her research focuses on ethics, social philosophy, political philosophy, philosophical anthropology, social ontology, and critical theory.
On the one hand, self-alienation can be understood, with Frankfurt,
AND
, fails to solve the problem raised in our initial example.
Wartenburg 82 ~Thomas E. Wartenberg, (Department of Philosophy @ Duke) "’Species-Being’ And ‘Human Nature’ In Marx" Human Studies Vol. 5, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1982), Pp. 77-95, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20008832, DOA:6-29-2018 WWBW~
When viewed against philosophic defenses of the contemplative life, Marx's claims about a human
AND
that "free conscious activity" can take, namely that of contemplation.
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Karl Marx "Estranged Labour" Edited for gendered language
All these consequences are implied in the statement that the worker is related to the
AND
summarized the estrangement, the alienation, in the activity of labor itself.
Thus The role of the ballot is to engage in Orthodox Marxism – a focus on the materiality of labor as a revolutionary praxis to deconstruct exploitative capitalism. You, as a judge, should evaluate this debate as a historical materialist concerned with the nature of labor and why the aff is necessary for liberation. Only a recognition of capitalism as the fundamental contradiction from which all other social antagonisms follow can explain modern violence. Tumino 01
~"What is Orthodox Marxism and Why it Matters Now More Than Ever Before", Stephen Tumino. Spring 2001. The Red Critique. http://redcritique.org/spring2001/whatisorthodoxmarxism.htm~~ LHPSS
Orthodox Marxism has become a test-case of the "radical" today.
AND
the exploitation of labor under capitalism giving it an acceptable "human face."
You should not be asking how but why - the aff is an abolitionist approach to freedom towards larger paradigm shifts away from the system of capitalism and towards justice.
Lim, 18: "The Ideology of Fossil Fuels" Dissent Magazine
Ghosh is troubled that there is no popular climate mobilization in India or China,
AND
a while now I’ve been getting used to imagining the future without flinching."
2- Racism and sexism are explicitly linked to class domination – the aff is a prerequisite to solve
Marsh ’95 (James L., Professor of Philosophy at Fordham University, "Critique, Action, and Liberation p. 282-283)
Next, we must consider the question concerning the relationship among racism, sexism,
AND
sell products indicates, capitalized sexism is not the same as precapitalist sexism.
Private companies plan to go to space with the purpose of mining materials from space and extracting resources
Skibba 16 Skibba, Ramin. (Skibba is an astrophysicist turned science writer and freelance journalist based in San Diego. Ph.D. in Physics and Astronomy at the University of Pittsburgh in 2006, and I earned a B.S. in Physics and B.A. in Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame.) "Mining in Space Could Lead to Conflicts on Earth - Facts so Romantic." Nautilus, 19 Apr. 2016, https://nautil.us/blog/mining-in-space-could-lead-to-conflicts-on-earth. js69
Space mining is no longer science fiction. By the 2020s, Planetary Resources and
AND
It’s an exciting prospect, to be sure, but also a troubling one
Companies are going to space solely for the purpose of extracting materials and space mining for profit
Tosar 20 ~(Borja Tosar, reporter) "Asteroid Mining: A New Space Race," OpenMind BBVA, May 18, 2020, https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/asteroid-mining-a-new-space-race/~~ TDI
This is not science fiction. There are now space mining companies, such as
AND
deGrasse argues that the planet’s first trillionaire will undoubtedly be a space miner.
Movahed 16 Movahed, Masoud. (Researcher in development economics at New York University. He contributes to, among others, Harvard Economics Review, Yale Journal of International Affairs and Al Jazeera English.) "Does Capitalism Have to Be Bad for the Environment?" World Economic Forum, 15 Feb. 2016, www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/02/does-capitalism-have-to-be-bad-for-the-environment/.
So what is the problem? After all, if capitalism has been very successful in projecting itself as the engine of productivity and growth, why should it be blamed for environmental disasters? It is herein that the very core dynamics of capitalism that generate its virtues, also cause its maladies. Capitalism requires endless growth of production in order to remain stable, raise the standards of living, and produce ample employment for the young and increasing world population. Production itself is contingent on consumption. Without sufficient consumption, which creates more demands for production, the production cycle would be paralyzed. Consumption is thus the flip side of the coin of a thriving production cycle. But while capitalism stimulates tremendous productivity rates, it biases productivity towards more consumption to ensure that the production process is not impeded. Therefore, mass consumption - or consumerism - is not merely a cultural phenomenon. It is embedded in the core tenets of capitalism as an economic system. The higher consumption, the higher production, the higher production, the higher sales, and with higher sales, higher profits are generated, which are largely re-invested in the sustainability of the firm or the business-unit. But if we live in a finite planet with limited ecological and natural resources that ought to be preserved for sustainability purposes, how than, can we resolve this contradiction? If the carrying capacity of the world cannot sustain endless consumption and production, there is clearly a contradiction at stake here. This contradiction naturally raises the more important question: how to reconcile the quandary of maintaining a capitalist system that meets necessary growth rates to remain stable on the one hand, and simultaneously contain the environmental hazards that threaten our planet on the other? - https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/02/does-capitalism-have-to-be-bad-for-the-environment/
Growth fetishism primarily represents an ideological frame that can be systematically denaturalized through small cascading acts in order to create an ethical society – else we risk environmental destruction and extinction.
Kallis 11
~2011, Giorgos Kallis is an environmental scientist working on ecological economics and political ecology. He is a Leverhulme visiting professor at SOAS and an ICREA professor at ICTA, Autonomous University of Barcelona. Before that he was a Marie Curie International Fellow at the Energy and Resources Group of the University of California at Berkeley. He holds a PhD in Environmental Policy and Planning from the University of the Aegean in Greece, a Masters in Economics from Universitat Pompeu Fabra, and a Masters in Environmental Engineering and a Bachelors in Chemistry from Imperial College, London, "In defence of degrowth." Ecological Economics 70.5 (2011): 873-880.~
A degrowth agenda would face even more resistance from the same quarters. But degrowth is not a "policy"; it is framed as a political alternative that seeks a popular mandate for radical changes (including caps and environmental taxes). The question then is whether such an alternative could ever become popular. To this question I now turn. 7. Social and Political Change Sustainable degrowth is a multi-faceted political project that aspires to mobilise support for a change of direction, at the macrolevel of economic and political institutions and at the micro level of personal values and aspirations. Income and material comfort is to be reduced for many along the way, but the goal is that this is not experienced as welfare loss. van den Bergh is sceptical about the political feasibility of this proposal. Beyond arguments and opinions, both of us, an economist and an environmental scientist, have to read and learn from historians and social scientists that have studied big social and political changes. But let me discern our differences on how we see social change happening, and hence clarify the debate over the feasibility of the degrowth proposal. In van den Bergh's implicit mental model of political change there are scientists, politicians, and the people. The role of scientists is to convince politicians and people about what needs to be done. Ideas such as degrowth that are unlikely to be accepted by "mainstream" scientists and hence politicians should be avoided, since they are likely to remain a marginal rearguard. There are two problems with this. First, van den Bergh sees scientists and their proposals ("policies") in isolation from the political-economic system of politicians and vested interests within which such proposals come to operate, and of which scientists themselves are part of. Economists are not unbiased observers or developers of metrics; they are key players in the perpetuation of the growth economy and imaginary. Second, in van den Bergh's implicit model, it is to powerful politicians we should all, scientists and civil society, appeal to. From such a perspective, which takes the current distribution of power as granted, there is little hope for a degrowth proposal. However, there is an alternative viewpoint, according to which big social change never appeals to the "kings" and "priests" of the time. Revolutionary changes, in society or science, are often punctuations after big periods of stasis or development locked in a paradigm (Kuhn, 1962). Crises and quick reversals of what was perceived as the normal direction of things (Davies, 1962) open windows of opportunity for change. As Wallerstein (2010, 141) puts it: "when the system is far from equilibrium … small social mobilizations can have very great repercussions". According to Korten (2008) mobilisations start with a "new cultural story" initially a conversation among a few, that gradually comes to challenge an established paradigm that seemed previously unmovable. In the gap and loss of meaning created by a crisis, such new stories may be seen to offer more convincing explanations and directions for action. Small, but accumulating, actions stemming from the initial conversations create gradually a new reality and give a concrete expression to the benefits of a different way of doing things. The new cultural story and the alternative, liberated social spaces and practices that embody it connect disparate people across interests and generate a social movement of thought and practice. As liberated spaces expand people lead and leaders (old and new ones coming in power) follow and respond (Korten, 2008). The movement for degrowth is much more in accordance with Korten's model of revolutionary social change (Fournier, 2008; Baykan, 2007), than the more technocratic model underlying van den Bergh's view. Scientists working on degrowth counter a false cultural story (growth as progress) and work to construct a new even if imperfect one (sustainable degrowth). Scientists are in conversation with practitioners and activists "escaping the economy" – (Cattaneo and Gavalda, 2010) – who embody degrowth ideas in new material spaces. Scientists and practitioners network to experiment, creating new spaces, intellectually and physically.7 A movement may grow which will extend this new alternative cultural story, build alliances with other similar cultural stories and movements, and in the void opened by the current crisis, create a convincing and popular alternative. In my view, climate change and the creation of a low-carbon society require such a revolutionary social change (not in the sense of violent, but in the sense of fast and dramatically different), rather than the marginal one – politically speaking – implied in van den Bergh's model. van den Bergh proposes an ambitious policy agenda, but offers no associated ambitious political proposal on how could this become possible (or an explanation why the same proposals have been on the table for so many years without being effectively implemented). 8. Feasibility and Acceptance A State that institutes salary caps, sets strict emission caps, increases taxes to the rich or bans advertising will need somemuscle. But there are currently strong and intensifying interdependencies between politicians and private interests, not least through the funding of political parties, which themselves depend on a growing economy. For some the control of governments by vested private interests marks the end of democracy and the dawn of an era of oligarchy (Kempf, 2010). The degrowth proposal is at odds with such tendencies, as it insists in the possibility to bring radical – ecological and redistributive – change through parliamentary democracy (see Latouche, 2009). We cannot surrender a priori the possibility of a non-totalitarian, popularly elected government with a mandate to redistribute and plan in the direction of sustainable degrowth. In the past we have had reasonable democratic planned economies that boldly redistributed surpluses from private consumption to public goods. Mike Davis (2007) documents how the U. S. economy was refashioned in a stroke to fight fascism: as investments were shifted from private consumption to the public war machine, cars were shared, hitchhiking became a popular way of transport, bicycles made a comeback, urban food gardens multiplied and recycling and thrift reached unprecedented levels. As a voluntary communal spirit reigned, conspicuous consumption became socially ostracised (exhibiting publicly that you are rich remained unpopular well into the 1970s). It is a manifestation of the colonization of our imaginary that we now consider infeasible any bold collective attempt to plan our way out of the ecological catastrophe. As philosopher Slavoj Zizek puts it, it is much easier for us to imagine the end of the world than serious social change. van den Bergh is sceptical also of the prospect of individuals opting voluntarily for living a simpler and more frugal life (much less to fight politically to demand it). In his view, the image of the hunter–gatherer cannot appeal to a society of locked-in shopping mall consumers, more so given the biological – evolutionary – roots of selfish, conspicuous consumption. First, since this is a common – and easy – criticism, let me make clear that the hunter–gatherer or the caveman are not the ideal human subjects of degrowth. In my view, it is the convivial yet simple and content, enlightened human (my own preference goes for Kazantzakis' fictional hero "Alexis Zorbas"). Degrowth does not imagine turning back the clock to an idealized past that may have never existed, but using the capacities we have developed to create a mature future of being content with little material, but abundant relational, goods (Latouche, 2009). The desire for a simpler, secure and more communal life resonates with a large part of the population, well beyond radical environmentalists. Whereas social positioning and the desire for differentiation might as well be programmed in our genes, this does not need to take necessarily the shape of an endless rivalry for material accumulation. Ceremonial sport competitions are a much nobler and cleaner way to channel rivalry and status differentiation for testosterone-filled males. Anthropologists document the multiple forms rivalry has taken in human societies from gift-giving to self-sacrifice as the ultimate honour. Conditioned by genes, cultures still decide. Our capitalist culture does select for material possession, but the driving force is the structural imperative of the system to grow or die, not the genes of the people. The positional quest for wealth in our "affluent society" is linked to state policies that have shifted investments from public to private goods (Galbraith, 1998), in order to maintain at all costs private accumulation. Precisely because there are "complex factors of lock-in" (van den Bergh, 2011), we need to plan systemic change. People were alright without shopping malls and televisions a few decades back, and rest sure they will so be if they have to live without them in the future. 9. A Common Ground In this article I argued that in these times of crisis we need a new story-line and vision; a new political project, not individual environmental policies, increasingly rejected because of their "cost on the economy". Sustainable degrowth does away with economism and growth and offers such a promising vision which is cohesive enough for the purpose. The vision is one of a society with a stable and leaner metabolism, where well-being stems from equality, relation and simplicity, and not material wealth. The hypothesis is that this vision, and the transition to it, is doable. And the research challenge is to study the conditions under which this hypothesis may turn out true. A central difference with van den Bergh originates in our assessment of the relationship between throughput, growth and welfare. A key question is whether the past correlation between throughput and GDP, and the failure of absolute decoupling suggest a more structural correlation between the two. This is a fertile area for theoretical and empirical research. Even if we disagree in much with van den Bergh, we share a defiant optimism in the face of generalized pessimism, if not despair. And we share some common remedies (e.g. international climate change agreement, reduced working hours, and controls on advertising). Although in my view such policies require radical political change of the sort explained above if they are ever to be seriously implemented, I do not suggest waiting for this before we start researching or promoting them. Numerous interesting questions emerge including for example, the effectiveness of reduced working hours schemes and their implications for social security; the feasibility of reduced working hours in a context of peak-oil; the effects of possible income and resource tax reforms; policy packages to account for the distributive consequences of environmental taxes or resource caps; modelling of the conditions under which international cooperation might emerge and the attributes of workable governance schemes; effective tools for regulating advertising, while allowing free communication, etc. Our exchange raises also the need for an ecological macro-economics linking environmental and sustainability issues to the "big" themes of the economy: inflation, debt, finance, banks and currencies. What sort of financial or monetary institutions do we need for a de- or non-growing economy? Such fundamental questions about the core institutions of capitalist economies were not addressed under the framework of "sustainable development". Even if degrowth wanes as a scientific or political project and the truths and desires it represents find expression in a new keyword, its long-lasting legacy will be that it brought important questions back on the table
- Parker 09 Parker, Martin.( Martin Parker is Professor of Organization and Culture at the University of Leicester School of Management, and author or editor of sixteen other books) "Capitalists in Space." The Sociological Review, vol. 57, no. 1'suppl, May 2009, pp. 83–97, doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2009.01818.x.
Uninvited or not, business interests will continue to find their way into space. A year before the Armstrongs were watching TV, Stanley Kubrick had placed a rotating Hilton hotel and a Pam Am shuttle plane in 2001: A Space Odyssey. The brands may change, and the future will not happen as quickly as we think, but unless we imagine massive state interventionism on a Soviet scale, capitalism will go into space. Dickens and Ormrod claim that it already has, at least in terms of near earth orbit, and that the key issue is to engineer ‘a relationship with the universe that does not further empower the already powerful’ (2007: 190). In other words, a Marxist political economy of space would suggest that the militaryindustrial complex has already empowered the powerful, but would presumably be equally sceptical about the space libertarians’ claims to be representing the ordinary citizen. Of course we might conclude from this that the answer is simply to turn away from space. The whole programme has not been without its critics, whether of capitalism, imperialism, patriarchy, techno-fetishism, bad science, bad policy making or even new world order conspiracy (Etzioni, 1964; DeGroot, 2007). Even at the height of space euphoria, in the summer of 1969, we find dissenting voices. ‘The moon is an escape from our earthy responsibilities, and like other escapes, it leaves a troubled conscience’ said Anthony Lewis in the New York Times. An Ebony opinion leader, asking what we will say to extra-terrestrials, suggested ‘We have millions of people starving to death back home so we thought we’d drop by to see how you’re faring’. Kurt Vonnegut, in the New York Times Magazine, put it with characteristic élan.
1~ Aff gets 1ar theory to deter infinite abuse. 1ar theory comes first a) the time allocation is heavier for the 1ar b) time skew – neg can do 13-7 on theory and aff can never engage.