This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
CAPITALISM/DEVELOPMENT K’S........................................................................................................1 CAPITALISM SHELL................................................................................................................................4 CAPITALISM SHELL................................................................................................................................5 CAPITALISM SHELL................................................................................................................................6 1NC SHELL.................................................................................................................................................7 DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSE 1NC........................................................................................................9 DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSE 1NC......................................................................................................10 2NC OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................................11 *****LINKS*****....................................................................................................................................12 AFRICAN AIDS........................................................................................................................................12 AMERICORPS..........................................................................................................................................13 AMERICORPS: URBAN DEVELOPMENT MODULE.........................................................................14 ASSISTANCE............................................................................................................................................15 Assistance(LANGUAGE)..........................................................................................................................16 BORDERS/IMMIGRATION AFF............................................................................................................17 CITIZEN CORPS: NATIONAL SECURITY MODULE..........................................................................18 CITIZEN CORPS: IMMIGRATION MODULE.......................................................................................19 CITIZEN CORPS......................................................................................................................................20 DEVELOPMENT......................................................................................................................................21 DEVELOP(LANGUAGE)........................................................................................................................22 DEVELOPMENT(LANGUAGE).............................................................................................................23 EDUCATION(LANGUAGE)....................................................................................................................24 GAY/LESBIAN.........................................................................................................................................25 GAY/LESBIAN.........................................................................................................................................26 GLOBALIZATION....................................................................................................................................27 LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA/EDUCATION: INTERNAL LINKS TO EDUCATION...................28 LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA............................................................................................................29 LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA/EDUCATION....................................................................................30 LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA/EDUCATION....................................................................................31 MILITARY................................................................................................................................................32 MILITARY................................................................................................................................................33 MILITARY................................................................................................................................................34 NATIONAL SECURITY...........................................................................................................................35 NATIONAL SERVICE..............................................................................................................................35 PEACE CORPS.........................................................................................................................................36 PEACE CORPS.........................................................................................................................................37 PEACE CORPS.........................................................................................................................................38 PEACE CORPS: DEVELOPMENT MODULE.......................................................................................39 ...................................................................................................................................................................39 POVERTY(LANGUAGE)........................................................................................................................40 SENIOR CORPS.......................................................................................................................................41 SENIOR CORPS: AGEISM......................................................................................................................42 SENIOR CORPS: AGEISM .....................................................................................................................43 THIRD WORLD RHETORIC ..................................................................................................................44 THIRD WORLD RHETORIC ..................................................................................................................45 WOMEN IN THE MILITARY: MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS MODULE...........................................46
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK
WOMEN IN COMBAT INCREASE MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS.....................................................48 WOMEN IN COMBAT INCREASE MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS.....................................................49 *****IMPACTS*****...............................................................................................................................51 AIDS..........................................................................................................................................................51 BIOSPHERE..............................................................................................................................................51 BLACK MARKET MODULE..................................................................................................................52 <INSERT TERRORISM IMPACT>..........................................................................................................52 DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION...............................................................................................................53 DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION...............................................................................................................54 GAY/LESBIAN DISCRIMINATION.......................................................................................................55 TURN: LGBT LEGISLATION IS COMMODIFIED ....................................................................................................................................................................56 GLOBAL WARMING...............................................................................................................................57 GENDER/RACIAL INEQUALITY AND NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION...............................................58 NUCLEAR EXTINCTION.......................................................................................................................58 RACISM....................................................................................................................................................59 WOMEN....................................................................................................................................................60 WOMEN....................................................................................................................................................62 *****ALTERNATIVE*****.....................................................................................................................63 DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE..........................................................................................................63 GAY/LESBIAN.........................................................................................................................................64 ALTERNATIVE SOLVENCY: GAY/LESBIAN.......................................................................................64 ALTERNATIVE SOLVENCY: MOVEMENTS SOLVE INEQUALITY.................................................65 SOCIALISM SOLVES .............................................................................................................................66 ******AT******.......................................................................................................................................67 AT: DEVELOPMENT HELP THIRD WORLD NATIONS......................................................................67 AT: CAPITALISM BRINGS PEACE........................................................................................................67 AT: THIRD WORLD OVERPOPULATION CAUSES POVERTY.........................................................68 AT: CAPITALISM IS INEVITABLE........................................................................................................68 AT: TRICKLE DOWN..............................................................................................................................68 AT: REAPROPRIATION OF LANGUAGE.............................................................................................70 AT: REAPROPRIATION OF LANGUAGE.............................................................................................71 AT: PERMUTATION(DEVELOPMENT).................................................................................................72 AT: THEY WANT DEVELOPMENT.......................................................................................................73 AT: AGENCY............................................................................................................................................74 AT: AGENCY............................................................................................................................................75 AT: SOCIALIST TRANSFORMATION= VIOLENCE............................................................................76 *****AFF RESPONSES****...................................................................................................................77 DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSE ANSWERS...........................................................................................77 MUST CRITIQUE WITHIN.....................................................................................................................77 MUST CRITIQUE WITHIN.....................................................................................................................78 CRITIQUE FAILS.....................................................................................................................................79 CRITIQUE FAILS.....................................................................................................................................80 PERMUTATION........................................................................................................................................81 THE COUNTRIES CHOOSE...................................................................................................................82 NO STATIC DEFINITION........................................................................................................................83 AT: THIRD WORLD DISCOURSE..........................................................................................................84 AGENCY...................................................................................................................................................85 RE-APPROPRIATION..............................................................................................................................86
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK
WE NEED DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................................................87 DEVELOPMENT ETHIC GOOD.............................................................................................................88 AT: POVERTY DISCOURSE...................................................................................................................89 *****AT: K OR CAP*****......................................................................................................................90 PERM.........................................................................................................................................................90 CAP WON’T COLLAPSE........................................................................................................................90 TRANSITION WARS...............................................................................................................................91 CAP KEY TO STOP NUCLEAR WAR....................................................................................................92 DEMOCRACY..........................................................................................................................................93 CAP SOLVES POVERTY.........................................................................................................................94 AT: CAP HURTS ENVIRO.......................................................................................................................95 AT: CAP IS IMPERIALIST.......................................................................................................................96 AT: YOU SUPPORT A BAD MILITARY.................................................................................................97 CAP IS INEVITABLE...............................................................................................................................98 ....................................................................................................................................................................98 AFFIRMATIVE: PERMUTATION-GAY/LESBIAN...............................................................................99 EDUCATION IS A CAPITALIST IDEA...................................................................................................99
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK CAPITALISM SHELL
A. THE LINKS 1. THE AFFIRMATIVES AFFIRMATION OF THE LAW AND NATIONAL SERVICE BUYS INTO SOCIAL AND LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP THAT ACT AS SERVANTS TO THE RULING CLASS, JUSTIFYING THE EXISTING ORDER Richard Quinney, professor emeritus at Northern Illinois University, 1974 (Critique of Legal Order: Crime Control in Capitalist Society, p. 22)
In the name of knowledge the existing order is being rationalized and supported by the social theorists and legal scholars. The role of social theory in a capitalist society is to legitimize existing authority thereby securing the dominant social and economic arrangements. Such knowledge is actually an ideology for the existing order; and those who engage in this kind of knowledge are the ideologies and servants of the ruling class . Certainly the existing economic basis of society is not called into question , although there may be occasional debates within the capitalist framework. By excluding other possibilities of existence, these men(sic) of knowledge not only support capitalist society but also prevent the emergence of an alternative consciousness. A socialist alternative to the existing social and economic
order is not found in the dominant theories of our time. 2. <INSERT SPECIFIC LINK>
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK CAPITALISM SHELL B. THE IMPACTS
1- THE 1AC’S ATTEMPT TO REFOM THE LEGAL SYSTEM OR TO STRENGTHEN IT IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF REFORMIST POLITIC- THESE REFORMS PRODUCE MORE REPRESSION CAUSING A BACKLASH AGAINST THE STATE, FORCING IT TO ADOPT WORSE AUTHORITARIAN ALTERNATIVES- THIS TURNS THE CASE Richard Quinney, professor emeritus at Northern Illinois University, 1974 (Critique of Legal Order: Crime Control in Capitalist Society, p. 22) The crime control program of the last ten years have been constructed within the framework of “reform.” This is to be expected, since reform is no more than the existing society’s way of adjusting the system so that it will survive according to its own terms. Many of the crime control programs have been an intergral part of
the programs confronting poverty, racial inequalities, and campus disorders. Under the guise of working toward “new frontiers,” “the great society,” and the like, measures have been instituted to preserve the existing social and economic arrangements. At the same time, measures have been developed to control resistance to the reforms and to prevent chages that go beyond them. The state reforms and to prevent changes that go beyond them. The state thus activates the option that must accompany reform, namely repression. Reform and repression are not alternative options for the state but complementary ones. However, as reform reveals itself incapable of subduing pressure and protest, so does the emphasis shift towards repfression, coercion, police power, law and order, the struggle against subversion, ect. Faced as they are with intractable problems, those who control
the levers of power find it increasingly necessary further to erode those features of “bourgeois democracy” through which popular pressure is exercised. The power of representative institutions must be further reduced and the executive more effectively insulated against them. The independence of trade unions must be whittled away, and trade union rights, notably the right to strike, must be further surrounded by new and more stringent inhibitions.
The state must arm instelf with more extensive and more efficient means of repression, seek to define more stringently the area of “lefitimate” dissent and opposition, and strike fear in those awho seek to go beyond it. The process of repression is cumulative. Further repression can only engender more protest, and further protest necessitates more repression by the state. The transition is to a new kind of control, on that transforms crime control into an expression of a larger system of state authoritarianism. This transition need not assume a dramatic character, or require a violent change in institutions. Neither its profession not its end result need be identical with the Facism of
the inter-war years. It is indeed most unlikely to assume the latter’s particular forms, because of the discredit which has not ceased to be attached to them, and of the loathing which Fascism has not ceased to evoke. In fact, the usage of Fascism as a reference point tends dangerously to obscure the less extreme alternatives to it, which do not require the wholesale dismantling of all democratic institutions, the total subversion of all liverties, nor certainly the abandonement of a democratic rhetoric. It is easily possible to conceive of forms of
conservative authoritarianism which would not be “Facist,” in the old sense, which would be claimed to be “democratic” precisely because they were not “Fascist,” and whose establishment would be defended as in the best interests of “democracy” itself. Nor is all this a
distant projection into an improbable future: it describes a process which is already in train, and which is also, in the condition of advanced capitalism, more likely to be accentuated than reversed. The gradual transition
of capitalism into socialism may be a myth: but the gradual transition of “bourgeois democracy” into more or less pronounced forms of authoritarianism is not.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK CAPITALISM SHELL
2- CAPITALISM’S GROWTH CREATES LARGE-SCALE POVERTY, GENDER AND RACIAL INEQUALITY, AND RISKS NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION Webb ’04 [Sam, Chairperson of communist party USA, “War, capitalism, and George W. Bush,” March 20]
Capitalism was never a warm, cuddly, stable social system. It came into the world dripping with blood from
every pore, as Marx described it, laying waste to old forms of production and ways of life in favor of new, more efficient manufacturing. Since then it has combined nearly uninterrupted transformation of the
instruments of production with immense wealth for a few and unrelieved exploitation, insecurity, misery, and racial and gender inequality for the many, along with periodic wars, and a vast zone of countries imprisoned in a seemingly inescapable web of abject poverty. Yet as bad as that record is, its most destructive effects on our world could still be ahead. Why do I say that? Because capitalism, with its imperatives of capital accumulation, profit maximization and competition, is the cause of new global problems that threaten the prospects and lives of billions of people worldwide, and, more importantly, it is also a formidable barrier to humankind’s ability to solve these problems. Foremost among these, in addition to ecological degradation, economic crises, population pressures, and endemic diseases, is the threat of nuclear mass annihilation.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK 1NC SHELL
C. IS THE ALTERNATIVE 1- VOTING NEGATIVE WILL REVEAL THE NATURE OF THE SCOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITION OF THE
PROLETARIAT AS OBJECTS AND COMMODITIES, WHICH LIBERATES US TO TEAR DOWN THE SYTEM THAT DEGRADES US John Kane, Prof. @ Grifith University, 1995 ( Theory, Practice, and the “Realistic Outlook” of Karl Marx, Theory and Practice: NOMOS XXXVII 1995, p. 414) The principal way in which theory was to “grip” the proletariat was by revealing to it the true
nature of its socio-economic position. This meant exposing the reality that underlay the illusory appearances of capitalist production and exchage, and showing, as well, how these appearances were necessary to the legitimation of the whole system and existed precisely for that purpose. We might note with respect to Marx’s epistemolofy here, that though the proof
of the analysis might be held to rest in its effect on workers, their enlightenment presumably depended on their identifying the analysis as independently true. At any rate, in coming to appreciate that the free exchange of commodities conceals the reality of labor exploitation, that the free selling of labor power for wages masks a condition of semi-slavery, that the eternal truths of morality and the rational commands of law conceal the coercive hand of the dominant class, workers come in a new consciousness of themselves as
having being degraded to the status of objects or commodities, and in this very act of understanding they constitute themselves as active subjects who in their practice may abolish the system that degrades them.
2- AND THEY WILL SAY WE DON’T HAVE AN IMMEDIATE ALTERNATIVE, BUT CRITICISM AND REJECTION OPENS THE DOOR. WE MUST FIRST DIAGNOSE THE DISEASE TO FIND THE REMEDY Michael Parenti, Ph.D. from Yale noted lecturer and professor, 1995 ( Democracy for the Few, ST, Marin’s Press, p. 5)
Sometimes the complaint is made: “You’re good at criticizing the system, but what would you put in its place?” the implication being that unless you have a finished blueprint for a better society, you should refrain from pointing out existing deficiencies and injustices. But this book is predicated on the notion that it is desirable and necessary for human beings to examine the society in which they live, possibly as a step toward making fundamental improvements. It is unreasonable to deman that we refrain from making a diagnosis of an illness until we have perfected a cure. For how can we hope to find solutions unless we really understand the problem. (In any case, suggestions for fundamental
changes are offered in the closing chapter and in other pars of the book)
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSE 1NC
A. ‘DEVELOPMENT’ IS A LOADED WORD WHICH IS INSEPARABLE FROM THE WEB OF MEANING IT IMPARTS. INCANTING THE TERM ENSLAVES TWO THIRDS OF THE EARTH’S INHABITANTS BY IMPLYING FAVORABLE CHANGE. Gustavo Esteva, former chair of ANADEGES, The Development Dictionary, p.9, 1993 Development cannot delink itself from the words with which it was formed – growth, evolution, maturation. Just the same, those who now use the word cannot free themselves from a web of meanings that impart a specific blindness to their language, thought and action. No matter the context in which it is used, or the precise connotation that the person using it wants to give it, the expression becomes qualified and coloured by meanings perhaps unwanted. The word always implies a favourable change, a step from the simple to the complex, from the inferior to the superior, from the worse to the better. The word indicates that one is doing well because one is advancing in the sense of a necessary, ineluctable, universal law and toward a desirable goal. The word retains to this day the meaning given to it a century ago by the creator of ecology, Haeckel: `Development is, from this moment on, the magic word with which we will solve all the mysteries that surround us or, at least, that which will guide us toward their solution. But for two-thirds of the people on earth, this positive meaning of the word `development' - profoundly rooted after two centuries of its social construction - is a reminder of what they are not. It is a reminder of an undesirable, undignified condition. To escape from it, they need to be enslaved to others' experiences and dreams.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSE 1NC
B. OUR ALTERNATIVE IS TO REJECT THE LABEL “DEVELOPMENT.” VOTE NEGATIVE TO AVOID THE PITFALLS INHERENT IN CALLING THEIR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT. Serge Latouche, Professor of Economics at University of Paris XI, In the Wake of the Affluent Society: An exploration of Post-Development, 1993, p.158-161 The opposition between 'alternative development' and alternative to development is radical, irreconcilable and one of essence, both in the abstract and in theoretical analysis. To say this is not Manicheeism or dogmatism, rather it follows as a consequence of employing minimal rigour so as to avoid confusion and the dangers that may arise. It is a case of avoiding falling into the traps that one has denounced. Since both pathways can start off together, with a common trunk as it were, and since historically these matters have been very muddled in the discourses of NGOs, welfare agencies and alternative movements, it is far from easy - although undoubtedly necessary - to show clearly where the two paths diverge.' Under the heading of 'alternative development', a wide range of 'antiproductivist' and anti-capitalist platforms are put forward, all of which aim at eliminating the sore spots of underdevelopment and the excesses of mal-development. However, these visions of a society truly convivial for its members - for all men and women and the entire man or woman - often have no more relationship with development than did the Age of Abundance of primitive societies," or the remarkable human and aesthetic achievements of some pre-industrial societies which knew nothing of development, not even the word itself. The debate over the word 'development' is not merely a question of words. Whether one likes it or not, one can't make development different from what it has been. Development has been and still is the Westernisation of the world. Words are rooted in history; they are linked to ways of seeing and entire cosmologies which very often escape the speaker's consciousness, but which have a hold over our feelings. There are gentle words, words which act as balm to the heart and soul, and words which hurt. There are words which move a whole people and turn everything upside down. Words like liberty and democracy have been such, and still are. And then there are poisonous words which infiltrate into the blood like a drug, perverting desire and blurring judgement. Development is one of these toxic words. One can of course proclaim that from now on, development means the opposite of what it used to. The papal encyclical Populorum Progressio tried to do just this, by appropriating development into a theology which was traditionally hostile to the ideology of Enlightenment and progress. Similarly, if one proclaims that 'good development is primarily putting value on what one's forebears did and being rooted in a culture','8 it amounts to defining a word by its opposite. Development has been and still is primarily an uprooting. One might, similarly, decree that the bloodiest dictatorship be called a democracy, even a popular democracy. This wouldn't prevent the people from clamouring for the reality of a democracy. By the same token, enunciating 'good development' will unfortunately not prevent the techno-economic dynamism relayed by the national authorities and by most NGOs from uprooting people and plunging them into the dereliction of shantytowns. The authentic alternative to underdevelopment is, possibly, in the process of being invented by Third World civil societies, but it certainly is not initiated by development ministries even if the latter, like the road to hell, are paved with good intentions. By placing itself under the banner of development, the alternative movement dons the opposition's colours, hoping perhaps to seduce rather than combat it - but more likely to fall into the abyss itself. In order to avoid misunderstandings and show the oppositions between 'alternative development' and alternatives to development at the level of concrete practice, it is necessary to deal one by one with the main issues and highlight their ambiguities.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK
DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSE 1NC C. IMPLICATIONS OUR ARGUMENT TURNS THE CASE. NAMING ACTIONS DEVELOPMENT IS ALWAYS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. OUR ALTERNATIVE IS THE ONLY ESCAPE Harry M. Cleaver, Jr., professor of economics at UT-Austin, May 3, 1995 http://www.cs.unb.ca/~alopez-o/politics/NAFTAmail/msg00023.html I agree that, at least at level of the choice of language, there is a real problem with using the word "development". The problem is above all its heavy, historically accumulated, load of ambiguity. The word has meant so many things to so many different people, that when we use the word we wind up talking about the word instead of what we want to be talking about, namely how peoples lives can be made better, or what is preventing them from achieving such improvement (however defined). There is a very nice essay by Gustavo Esteva on the problems associated with this word "development" in a book I have refered to before: Wolfgang Sachs (ed) THE DEVELOPMENT DICTIONARY, London:Zed, 1992. Among other points, Gustavo make one which you do: that the concept development has increasinly been associated with movement toward some ideal model. He traces the evolution from its biological origins through its application to the social sphere in the 18th Century to the present. His primary concern, however, is the use of the term in the Post WWII era as "development" became the goal and "underdevelopment" the scourge of humankind. In a paper I wrote for a conference in Mexico some years back (1985, just after the earthquake), I discussed another of your points, namely that part of the Cold War involved a struggle between "two models of development", i.e., capitalist and socialist, but argued, as I have been doing in this thread, that the two models were really only variations on a common core and neither led anywhere beyond the current morass of exploitation, brutality and suffering with which we are all too familiar. You ask "Can we escape from this logic?" I think the answer is yes, we can, that increasing numbers of people are finding/creating paths out of the morass that open into other kinds of relationships. If we take seriously the idea that concepts not only do, but must, evolve with the evolution (and revolutions) of history, then we should also see that WE can be involved in engineering that conceptual evolution. And the best way to do that is often not to look for some new adjective to hang onto an old concept (e.g., nowadays people want to hang "sustainable" rather than "capitalist" or "socialist" onto "development") but to scrap the old concept and look for new ones. Forget the jargon and return to the vernacular and find new ways of expressing new desires. This is less likely to be a good idea when you are analysing new variations of old processes and relationships than it is when you are striking out for something new. For example "neoliberal capitalism" is not a bad name for contemporary capitalist policy because it still IS capitalism, just with a new twist. But when we want to think about avoiding being twisted, we often do well to scrap jetison the old jargon and start fresh.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK 2NC OVERVIEW
VOTE NEGATIVE BECAUSE “DEVELOPMENT” CAN’T BE JUSTIFIED. BY ASKING YOU TO VOTE AFFIRMATIVE THEY ACCEPT AN EXPLICIT ENDORSEMENT OF THE CONCEPT OF DEVELOPMENT, WHICH ESTEVA SAYS ENSLAVES TWO THIRDS OF THE EARTH’S INHABITANTS BY IMPLYING FAVORABLE CHANGE. EVEN WITH THE BEST INTENTIONS, THE WORD WILL ALWAYS BE TIED TO THEIR CULTURAL PLACE AND A HISTORY OF OPPRESSION. LATOUCHE SAYS SOME WORDS ARE SIMPLY TOXIC AND THE MEANINGS CANNOT BE ALTERED, WHICH TURNS THE CASE NAMING ACTIONS DEVELOPMENT IS ALWAYS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE Majid Rahnema, UC Berkeley, ReVision, Spring, 1997 There are, indeed, development projects that fall on their sites like spring rains on parched fields. Some are attractive enough to legitimize the presence of so-called technical assistance agencies. When I headed the UNDP program in Mall, I knew some that were good, among them a quite useful project for exploration of the country's underground waters. Many other projects continue to act as tranquilizers for suffering bodies, and the "good" they produce is often proudly "evaluated" by their initiators as "having obtained their objectives." Many others are irrelevant to the needs of grassroots populations but are planned to support the priorities of development plans defined by the government or to reinforce local bureaucracies and other state apparatuses. Both kinds of project serve, in different ways, state or para-statal institutions that are often more interested in justifying their need for arms or means of repression, ostensibly to ensure order and security for their development policies. Yet the major danger of all these projects, be they big or small, temporarily useful or irrelevant, lies elsewhere. It is found in the ideology, the philosophy of change, and the hidden messages that the projects carry with them: namely, that the "target populations" are unable to solve their problems unless they accept the "reality" of their "underdevelopment" and that, because of the obvious superiority that the "developed" countries have gained, the best and only choice for the poor is to ask for foreign assistance. The Hegemony of a New Presence Thus, it ultimately matters little whether a particular, one-time development project is useful or not. The immeasurable harm done by development as a whole is in the totality of the apparatuses (dispositifs in the Foucaldian sense) composing the intrusive, intimidating, and often arrogant presence of alien people, equipped with gadgetries like tractors, bulldozers, telephones, and computers, all acting as proof of the natives' "backwardness." It is this pervasive presence that has actually turned the dangers, mentioned at the beginning of this article, into realities.
OUR ALTERNATIVE IS TO EMBRACE THE ACTION THEY TAKE WITHOUT CALLING IT “DEVELOPMENT.” THE LATOUCHE EVIDENCE IN THE 1NC PROVES THAT OUR CRITIQUE FUNCTIONS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO DEVELOPMENT. THAT ALLOWS A GENEALOGICAL INVESTIGATION AND REJECTION OF THE TERM ‘DEVELOPMENT,’ WHICH PROVES IT ISN’T INTRINSIC TO THE ACTION THEY TAKE. IT PROVES THAT ENDORSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE IS UNNECESSARY AND UNJUSTIFIABLE.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK *****LINKS***** AFRICAN AIDS
US INVOLVEMENT IN AFRICA TO COMBAT AIDS IS MERELY ANOTHER VENTURE INTO DEVELOMENTALIST IMPERIALISM, ALLOWING GENOCIDE TO FLOURISH IN AFRICA Torrant ’02 [Julie, noted socialist writer, “Global AIDS and the Imperialist State: The Ends of Bourgeois Moralism,”] As Zeitz suggests, the governments of the "rich" nations have in fact known about the pandemic and its proportions for some time. Contrary to the dominant, subjectivist perspective represented by Zeitz, however, the role of the imperialist state is not determined by the attitudes of the particular politicians in power but is structurally necessary to sustain the imperialist economic system. Theories of the state as "contingent", open to re-articulation or "negotiation", etc. ideologically obscure the role of the state, and particularly the imperialist state, in providing the political arm of the ruling class. Zeitz himself, in fact, points to the economics of "will" when he points out that the CIA has reported that countries heavily impacted by AIDS are susceptible to "political instability" (a bourgeois code for social struggles over the social wealth and resources) and that this report "provides a clear link [from AIDS] to the war on terror" ("With Convert's Zeal", The New York Times, 5/12/02). The framing of AIDS (and the response to AIDS by the imperialist state) as a matter of "morality" is, in fact, a cover story; it is necessary because it works to hide the actual, historical role of the state in supporting ruling class interests. Gephardt's comments are exemplary here. For Gephardt, AIDS became significant only when it had exceeded the crude materiality of economics: he expected while in Africa to confront "economic and political issues" but instead found the surprisingly urgent "morality" of AIDS. In other words, it was not the structural relations of the world economy that position Africa as the most brutally underdeveloped continent which interested him. Rather, it was the spiritual experience of others' pain that turned him into an AIDS crusader. That is, it is not the causes of AIDS (and by extension not its solution) that counts, but "moving" people with narratives about the terrible suffering he witnessed. While such conversion narratives have become very popular on the left and right as a sign of one's deep commitment to social issues, it is precisely because they convert economic issues into subjective ones that they actually prevent serious analysis and forestall structural change. AIDS however is a class issue: the rich have access to the available cures as well as the means of prevention, while the poor are denied both and forced to live under intolerable circumstances. Gephardt's arguments violently obscure the economics of AIDS—the relation between access to social resources and health—and the role of the US in producing genocidal health crises in Africa and throughout the world. In doing so he justifies, on behalf of corporate interests, denying millions of people the funds and conditions necessary to obtain medical treatment and ensure the eradication of AIDS. It is moral support, he suggests, that is the real, even honorable role of the state and concerned state officials. "Morality" renders objective, structural relations a matter of individual, subjective relations in order to distract attention from the structural relations of imperialism that (re)produce global AIDS as a social crisis. Contrary to the endless repetition of clichés about the new "post-class" economy that constitute the dominant "globalization" theory and which are almost comical when one looks at the actual historical record of the widening gap between rich and poor, the state provides crucial support to global, monopoly capital by backing (if necessary by military force) the economic aggressions of imperialism in its endless quest for expanding profits in the face of the tendency towards a falling rate of profit. Given this directly economic role, the imperialist state must also provide ideological (and if necessary repressive) containment of the struggles that such economic aggressions produce.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK AMERICORPS
AMERICORPS TEACHES ALLEIGIANCE AND SERVICE TO THE U.S. Eisner ’05 [David, Chief officer for Corporation for national and community service, “Building democracy through service,” May, pg. 3]
The early findings of an important longitudinal study of the civic attitudes and behaviors of AmeriCorps national service members clearly shows that the AmeriCorps service experience strengthens members’ civic attitudes and behaviors, including their connection to their community, knowledge about problems facing their community, and neighborhood obligations. AmeriCorps graduates also were more likely than a scientifically controlled comparison group to choose public service careers, such as teaching, social work, and military service.
AMERICORPS FUNDS TEACHERS TO INSTRUCT AMERICAN EDUCATION TO URBAN YOUTH US Fed News, June 2006 “AMERICORPS BOOSTS DISASTER RESPONSE, YOUTH SERVICE WITH $139 MILLION IN NEW FUNDS TO SUPPORT NEARLY 18,000 MEMBERS” The disaster relief support - $49.6 million in new funds to support 5,400 AmeriCorps members - is part of the annual announcement of $139 million in new AmeriCorps grants made today by the Corporation for National and Community Service, AmeriCorps' parent agency. Helping youth succeed is another key thrust
of the new grants, which will support more than 7,700 new AmeriCorps members as teachers, tutors, mentors, and afterschool and service-learning coordinators for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK AMERICORPS: URBAN DEVELOPMENT MODULE
A) AMERICORPS’S GOAL IS TO DEVELOP URBAN COMMUNITIES AND CREATE NEW BUSINESS US Fed News, April 2006 NATIONAL SERVICE AGENCY ANNOUNCES GRANTS TO 128 ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORT SERVICE OPPORTUNITIES FOR 9,682 AMERICORPS MEMBERS In addition to the AmeriCorps*State and National grant program, AmeriCorps also includes: AmeriCorps*NCCC, a 10-month, full-time residential program for men and women between the ages of 18 and 24 who carry out projects in public safety, public health, and disaster relief; and AmeriCorps*VISTA, whose members
help bring individuals and communities out of poverty by serving full-time to fight illiteracy, improve health services, create businesses, increase housing opportunities, or bridge the digital divide.
B) NEW YORK DEMONSTRATES DANGERS OF CAPITALISM DEVELOPING URBAN AREAS- IT CREATES EMPIRE OF CAPITALIST DOMINATION Kim M. Gruenwald, Writer, 2003 "The Culture of Capitalism in Nineteenth-Century New York", http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/reviews_in_american_history/v031/31.3gruenwald.html Entrepreneurs in Manhattan used the buying and selling of real estate as a way to accumulate capital. In colonial times, the process of transferring land from person to person had been designed to take time, for land ownership conferred power and independence. But if Manhattan was to make the successful leap from commercial port to center of industrial development, new ways of financing real estate transactions had to be developed so that land could be liquidated quickly and easily. As
they bought and sold land at a furious pace, entrepreneurs created a business center in lower Manhattan by financing the construction of monumental buildings and specialized districts that included wholesale, financial, and retail sectors. One residential district for the well-to-do and others for the working classes dominated upper Manhattan.The city developed unevenly, however. The waterfront and streets of the lower part of town suffered from a sanitation crisis and other byproducts of unregulated land use. Draft riots and other mob actions disrupted city life. Such disorder "challenged the most cherished material and moral ambitions of the metropolitan bourgeoisie," Scobey writes. "They responded by reimagining how New York should look and how they should build and rule it". With that, Scobey next turns to the cultural discourse that led to new urban ideals: he analyzes how elite New Yorkers attempted to create a true "Empire City."
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK ASSISTANCE
THE AFFIRMATIVE'S 'ASSISTANCE' GIFT-WRAPS A COMPREHENSIVE ASSERTION OF POWER OVER THE RECIPIENT Marianne Gronemeyer, German University Professor, In Sachs ed, The Development Dictionary, 1992 p. 53 The times in which helping still helped, certainly in the form of `development assistance' as we shall see, are irrevocably past. The very notion of help has become enfeebled and robbed of public confidence in its saving power. These days help can usually only be accepted if accompanied with threats; and whoever is threatened with it had better be on their guard. Already more than a hundred years ago, after he had withdrawn into the woods to live for a while outside the turmoil of the world, Henry David Thoreau wrote: If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life . . . for fear that I should get some of his good done to me.' Help as a threat, as the precursor of danger? What a paradox! The yoking together of help and threat is contrary to common sense, however, only because, despite manifold historical instances to the contrary, the welcome ring of the idea of helping has survived in the consciousness of ordinary people. Help thus appears to them as innocent as ever, although it has long since changed its colours and become an instrument of the perfect - that is, elegant - exercise of power. The defining characteristic of elegant power is that it is unrecognizable, concealed, supremely inconspicuous. Power is truly elegant when, captivated by the delusion of freedom, those subject to it stubbornly deny its existence. `Help', as will be shown, is very similar. It is a means of keeping the bit in the mouths of subordinates without letting them feel the power that is guiding them. In short, elegant power does not force, it does not resort either to the cudgel or to chains; it helps. Imperceptibly the state monopoly on violence transforms itself, along the path of increasing inconspicuousness into a state monopoly on solicitude, whereby it becomes, not less powerful, but more comprehensively powerful.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK ASSISTANCE(LANGUAGE)
THE TERM 'ASSISTANCE' RE-INSCRIBES COLONIAL POWER RELATIONS Marianne Gronemeyer, German University Professor, In Sachs ed, The Development Dictionary, 1992 p. 53-55 Now, if help has become hypocritical, distorted to the point of unrecognizability, what should be its actual meaning? What advantageous euphony in the word has been inherited? The positive image of help that is firmly seated in people's heads originates in old stories - the good Samaritan binding up the wounds of the man who fell victim to robbers; or the legend of St Martin sharing his coat with a beggar. Naturally, or perhaps strangely, such stories - despite the modern disfiguration of the very idea of help - still appear today, stories in which, often at great cost, the life of some unknown person in danger is saved. Common to all of these stories is their characterization of help as unconditional - given without regard to the person in need, the situation, the probability of success, or even the possibility of injury to the person offering aid. Misericordia, the 'rueful sympathy' that comes from the heart,' pity in the face of the need of another, is what simply prompts the act of helping. The helper is literally overwhelmed by the sight of need. The help provided in these circumstances is - like the compassion itself - much more an event than a deliberate act; it is `an experience that occasionally flashes out'.' It is the anomalous, momentary instance - spontaneous, unplanned. Modern help has transgressed all the components of this traditional conception of help. Far from being unconditional, modern assistance is frankly calculating. It is much more likely to be guided by a careful calculation of one's own advantage than by a concerned consideration for the other's need. Nor is help any longer, in fact, help to someone in need; rather it is assistance in overcoming some kind of deficit. The obvious affliction, the cry for help of a person in need, is rarely any longer the occasion for help. Help is much more often the indispensable, compulsory consequence of a need for help that has been diagnosed from without. Whether someone needs help is no longer decided by the cry, but by some external standard of normality. The person who cries out for help is thereby robbed of his or her autonomy as a crier. Even the appropriateness of a cry for help is determined according to this standard of normality. That help might be furnished without first thinking carefully about the person in need hardly exists any more in the modern peson's mind, such is the extent to which help has been transformed into an instrument through which one can impose upon others the obligation of good conduct. Help as a means to discipline has a long tradition. Whoever desires help is `voluntarily' made subject to the watchful gaze of the helper. This gaze has nowadays assumed the place of the compassionate. And finally, it is no longer true that help is the unpredictable, anomalous instance. Instead it has become institutionalized and professionalized. It is neither an event nor an act; it is a strategy. Help should no longer be left to chance. The idea of help, now, is charged with the aura of justification. A universal claim to help is derived from the right to equality, as is an allencompassing obligation to help. Nowadays the idea and practice of help have become boundless in their expansionist drive. Their blessings have made their way into the most distant corners of the world, and no sector of social or individual life is any longer proof against the diagnosis of a need for help. In the area of development aid, the perversion of the idea of help has gone to particular extremes. Even the highly expensive installation of what amounts to the machinery for genocide on foreign terrain - which is ruinous economically, politically and morally for the recipient countries - is now called aid: military aid. And recently it has even been possible to subsume the convenient dumping of contaminated, highly poisonous industrial waste under the general rubric of economic help. The `good' garbage remains at home in local authority dumps and recycling centres: the `bad' garbage, on the other hand, is shipped to the Third World to be incinerated or stored there. Even what is called rural development or food aid, in reality, holds out the prospect of an apocalypse of hunger. It prepares the way for the global domination of a handful of giant corporations wielding their control through seed grain. For `seed grain is the first link in the nutrition chain. Whoever controls seed grain controls food supplies and thereby the world." However obviously fraudulent use of the word `help' to describe development aid may be, the word continues to be taken as the gospel truth, not least by those upon whom the fraud is committed. The concept of help appears to have forfeited scarcely any of its moral self -justification. Its suggestive power remains unbroken. Evidently the mere gesture of giving is sufficient these days for it to be characterized as help- irrespective of the intention of the giver, the type of gift, or its usefulness to the recipient. The metamorphosis from a colonialism that `takes' to one that supposedly `gives' has been completed under the protection of this euphonious word, help.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK BORDERS/IMMIGRATION AFF BORDER DICHOTOMIES OF RICH AND POOR ARE CREATED BY CAPITALISM, RESULTING IN GENOCIDE. Robin ’04 [Corey, Washington Post writer, “Grand Designs,” May 2]
The reality of migration is one that reveals the asymmetrical relations between “rich” and “poor,” and between North and South, where the effects of colonialism and corporate globalization have created political economies that compel people to move. Such forces are the same forces that have perpetuated genocide and dispossession of indigenous peoples within the colonial project of "North America." A salient example of the impact of capitalism and neocolonialism on migration trends is the US-Mexico border. As part of its inclusion in NAFTA in 1994, Mexico was forced to adjust its constitution’s Article 27, which guaranteed rights to communal lands (ejidos). An emblematic illustration of NAFTA’s effects is the fate of Mexican corn: the Mexican government was forced to eliminate subsidies to corn, meanwhile corn produced in the US remained subsidized, thus making it cheaper to buy US corn inside Mexico than Mexican corn. Over 1.5 million Mexican farmers who subsequently lost their farms migrated North to work in low-paying sectors and maquila factories. Wages among California’s 700,000 farm workers, half of whom are undocumented, is approximately $6.75 an hour. Furthermore, the nature of the refugee determination system is far from being a simple exercise in humanitarianism. It can more accurately be labeled as a manifestation of Canada’s aggressive foreign policy. For example, Canada towed the ideological line of the US by being slow to react to the admission of Chilean refugees who were supporters of Salvador Allende after the violent US-backed coup of Allende's socialist government in 1973. By comparison, Canada was far more “humanitarian” in accepting approximately 60,000 refugees from South-East Asian, Vietnam and Laos who fled Communist regimes in the wake of Saigon's fall in 1975. IMMIGRANTS ARE CAPITALIST REFUGEES, THAT EXIST BECAUSE OF CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Michael Parenti, Against Empire pg. 57-58, 1995 Nor do these overseas investments bring any great benefits to the peoples of the Third World. Foreign investment created the "Brazil Miracle," a dramatic growth in that country's gross national
product in the 1960s. At the same time it created a food shortage and increased poverty, as Brazil's land and labor were used increasingly for production of cash export crops, and less for the needs of the Brazilian people. In Central America, land that once yielded corn and beans to feed the people has been converted to cattle ranches that raise the beef consumed in North America and Europe. We have heard much about
the "refugees from communism"; we might think a moment about the refugees from capitalism. Driven off their lands, large numbers of impoverished Latinos and other Third Worlders have been compelled to flee into economic exile, coming to the United States, many of them illegally, to compete with U.S. workers for entry-level jobs. Because of their illegal status and vulnerability to deportation, undocumented workers are least likely to unionize and least able to fight for improvements in work conditions.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK CITIZEN CORPS: NATIONAL SECURITY MODULE
A) CITIZEN CORPS IS A KEY COMPONENT TO NATIONAL SECURITY Sutkus ’05 [Adam, Director of California Citizen Corps, “2005 Citizen Corps: Updates and Clarifications,” Febrauary 15]
Citizens are a critical component of homeland security . To have a fully prepared community,
citizens must be fully aware, trained, and practiced on how to detect, deter, prepare for, and respond to emergency situations. Recent surveys indicate that citizens are concerned about the threats facing the nation and are willing to participate to make their communities safer, yet most Americans have low awareness of federal, state, and local emergency preparedness plans, are not involved in local emergency drills, and are not adequately prepared at home. Informed and engaged citizens are an essential component of homeland security and the mission of Citizen Corps is to have everyone in America participate in making their community safer, stronger, and better prepared. To achieve this, state, county, local, and tribal
Citizen Corps Councils have formed nationwide to help educate and train the public, and to develop citizen/volunteer resources to support local emergency responders, community safety, and
disaster relief. B) NATIONAL SECURITY USED AS A TOOL FOR PROTECTING CAPITALISM Terrie Albano, former National Coordinator of the Young Communist League, March 2006, Capitalism’s ruthless vanguard party, http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/88 53/1/315/ The Bush agenda is capitalism on steroids. It is carrying out a forced march of global corporate capitalism through the barrel of the gun. Bush’s new national security strategy offers platitudes about democracy and freedom. But the basic “freedom” that it is concerned about is the freedom to exploit, otherwise known as free enterprise, “free trade” and “free markets.” This is their definition of “democracy.”
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK CITIZEN CORPS: IMMIGRATION MODULE
A) CITIZEN CORPS WILL BE USED IN NATIONAL SECURITY AND SECURING THE BORDERS Chertoff ’06 [Michael, Secretary of homeland security, “President Bush Addresses U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Immigration,” June 1]
The president has put forward a comprehensive vision for immigration reform that will secure our borders, strengthen interior enforcement and create a temporary worker program to meet the growing demands of our global economy. And through bold new homeland security programs, including community-based efforts like Citizen Corps, he has helped to prepare our citizens and our nation to confront our future challenges while ensuring our freedom and our prosperity.
B) THE U.S. POLICY ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER CONTROL IS BASED ON THE IDEOLOGY OF CAPITALISM AND IS USED TO CONSTRUCT AND CEMENT HIERARCHIES AND OBTAIN CHEAP LABOR Walia ’06 [Harsha, activist writer from Vancouver, “Colonialism, Capitalism and the Making of the Apartheid System of Migration in Canada: Part II,” March 27]
Therefore the efforts to achieve a borderless capitalist global economy depends on securing territorial borders against undesirable outsiders while creating a pool of noncitizens upon whose hyper-exploitable labour free markets depend. The notion of “illegals” is a constructed one that allows for the maintenance of social hierarchies based on race and class. The term “illegal” does not conjure up images of American students who have illegally overstayed their tourist visas. As Nandita Sharma argues, “Categories of legality and illegality are … deeply ideological. They help to conceal the fact that both those represented as foreigners and those seen as Canadian work within the same labour market and live within the same society.”
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK CITIZEN CORPS
THE CITIZEN CORPS IS CREATED TO BOLSTER NATIONAL SECURITY- IT WILL BE INEFFECTIVE AND MERELY CREATE A NEW BEAURACRACY Magee and Nider ’02 [Marc and Steven, PhD in sociology from Duke and director of PPI defense working group, “Protecting the Homeland through National Service,” June 24] The White House plan assigns the task of expanding service in homeland security projects to an as-yet-to-becreated alternative infrastructure called Citizens Corps. The design of this program is similar to
AmeriCorps, with the plan calling for the creation of a national office to organize and provide support for homeland security service projects, and the development of a network of
Citizen Corps Councils to distribute the grants. The decision to create a new service program would likely result in significant penalties both in time and cost of implementation. Under the White House plan, the national office for the Citizen Corps would be located in the Community Coordination Branch, within the Program Coordination Division of the Office of National Projects at Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This small office of seven is considerably understaffed to take on large new management and oversight responsibilities and thus would likely require both additional funding and a significant expansion period. The network of Citizen Corps Councils required to distribute these grants to homeland security projects currently does not exist. Creating a new system for distributing grants to community groups is an expensive undertaking. As a result, the White
House plan spends $144 million just to build this new bureaucracy, on top of the program cost of $230 million.2 In addition, the time required to develop this network is considerable. Creating this network of 10- to 15-member Citizen Corps Councils in each city or town in America (as the White House plan envisions) would likely take a decade or more to be fully implemented.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT RAVAGES MANY LANDS AND CAUSES MASS SLAUGHTER, MERCILESS OPPRESSION AND WILL END IN EXTINCTION Michael Parenti, Against Empire pg. 208-209, 1995 The "global economy" is another name for imperialism, and imperialism is a transnational form of capitalism. The essence of capitalism is to turn nature into commodities and commodities into capital. The live green earth is transformed into dead, gold bricks, with luxury items for the few and toxic slag heaps for the many. The glittering mansion overlooks a vast sprawl of shanty towns, wherein a desperate, demoralized humanity is kept in line with drugs, television, and armed force. But every empire, triumphant in that heartless way, plants the seeds of its own destruction. The more successful its ruling class in devouring the wealth and resources of this and other lands, the more it undermines the base upon which it depends. Like some mythological beast that devours itself, the empire devours the republic, its human labor, and its natural environment . Alas, in this epoch, the selfravagement is of such a magnitude that when the collapse comes, it may take down the entire ecosphere and all of us with it. The history of imperialism is a history of unspeakable atrocities, mass slaughters, horrors, deceits, treacheries, and merciless oppres sion. It is enough to make one give up hope for the human race, both for its victims and victimizers. Today, the purveyors of capitalism ring the welkin with victorious pronouncements about a New World Order. Some of their faithful ideologues pontificate about "the end of history," concluding that the ageold struggle between haves and have-nots is being replaced by a monocentric, consensual, economic globalization. Yet peasants rise up in Mexico; masses mobilize in South Africa; workers and indigenous peoples organize in scores of countries to protect their lands and better their lives.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK DEVELOP(LANGUAGE)
DEFINING ISSUES AS “DEVELOPMENT” IS INHERENTLY DEHUMANIZING Marc DuBois, adaptation of a master’s thesis presented to the Institute of Social Studies, Alternatives, 16, 1991, p. 23 A minority within this broad alternative movement, however, has gone further than the rest—defying the economistic essentialism of development thinking and, perhaps most importantly, challenging the preeminence of the development expert. The core of arguments in this vein is that the theoretical models underlying development efforts stray dramatically far from being as value-free as they are presented. Critical of a development based upon Western experience, this sort of alternative program emphasizes self-reliance, local participation, endogenous patterns of development, and satisfying basic needs. These features outline an interesting approach to development, but their most important contribution lies elsewhere—in the establishment of opposition to the venerated external aid/technical transfer approach to problems of underdevelopment. In other words, this alternative program gives birth to a competing paradigm of policy formulation, which in turn weakens the authority of the prevailing paradigm. Unfortunately, there is very little force behind this competing notion so that the apparent "crisis" notwithstanding, development is doing just fine, even flourishing—not the process of development of Third World societies, of course, but the business of its promotion. The effectiveness of radical criticism is diminished because even such alternative frameworks of policy formulation fail to penetrate deep enough to confront the most fundamental assumptions embodied in the dominant development paradigm. To put it more bluntly, strategies have been changed, but the foundations of contemporary development ideology are being reinforced. Above the polemics and disagreements over policy, which appear to distinguish the sundry schools of thought in development studies, there exists a profound unity. The locus of this unity is to be found not in the perception of the causes of underdevelopment or the approaches to solving problems therein, but in the definition and identification of these problems of underdevelopment in the first place. Underdevelopment is defined as a lack —a lack that stands out in relief against the backdrop of a "complete" Western society. The existence of "underdeveloped" (or "developing" or "undeveloped" or "less developed") and "developed" as categories into which human societies are classified is the sine qua non of the development paradigm. The manifold critiques of development leave intact the illusion that development comprises a natural category. Although a myriad of strategies for development has appeared and then fallen from grace, development itself still retains its original moral luster. It is this self-evident naturalness and law-like necessity of development that constitute the base of the development paradigm. Development is therein transformed (revalued) into something much more than just a desideratum: as Skolimowski laments, 'To be primitive is to be backward, almost half- human; to join the West in its quest for progress is an imperative, an advancement, an almost necessary condition of being human."' THE WORD IMPLIES BACKWARDNESS AND IMPLICITLY ENDORSES DESTRUCTIVE ACTIVITIES Howard Richards, University of Baroda, Gujarat State, Education for Constructive Development, Summer, 1995 http://www.earlham.edu/~pags/faculty/hr/Lec1.html I have some misgivings, as I am sure Ms. Muttreja does, about using the word "development" at all, even when it is qualified by the adjective "constructive." The use of the word has been justly criticized. For example, Gustavo Gutierrez of Peru advocates ceasing to speak of "development" because the very idea implies that poor societies are backward and that they should "repeat more or less faithfully the historical experience of the developed countries in their journey towards modern society." Others find that the very concept of "development" implicitly endorses human practices that exhaust the physical resources of the planet; for example, "development" is associated with ever-greater numbers of automobiles and airplanes, which use huge quantities of irreplaceable fossil fuel.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK DEVELOPMENT(LANGUAGE)
THE WORD CAUSES INTERNALIZATION OF NEGATIVE SELF-IMAGES. IT OBSTRUCTS ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTIONS. Md Anisur Rahman, People’s Self-Development: Perspectives on Participatory Action Research, economist who headed the ILO’s Programme on Participatory Organizations for the Rural Poor, 1993, p. 213
It was observed that the idea of 'development' was born as part of the 'Truman design' of 1949 in response to the emerging cold war between the two great rival ideologies. The threat of the Bolshevik Revolution inspiring social revolutions in the so-called Third World was to be countered by a promise of 'development' and 'development assistance' to help 'under- developed' societies catch up with the 'developed'. Development was defined exclusively as 'economic development', reducing the degree of progress and maturity of a society to the level of its production. Development was considered possible only by emulating the ways of 'developed' nations, their aspirations, values, culture and technology. And financial and technical assistance were offered with a patronising assumption of superiority in the march to civilisation. The attraction of massive external finance and exciting technology generated client states in the 'underdeveloped' world where oligarchies able to capture the organ of the state could enrich and empower themselves as a class relative to the wider society to whom successive 'development plans' at the national level, and, subsequently, 'development decades' at the global level, were offered as a perpetual hope for prosperity. The result: the economic benefits of such development have not even trickled down to the vast majority of the people in most countries honourably referred to as 'developing'. But the most fundamental problem as identified by the Cartigny seminar has been the obstruction of the evolution of indigenous alternatives for societal self-expression and authentic progress. The vast majority of the people were classified as 'poor', and therefore as objects of sympathy, paternalistic intervention and assistance. Many of these peoples, under the blinding light of compassionate observation which was flashed upon them, have internalised this negative selfimage. Perceiving themselves as 'inferior', they have sought to be 'developed' by the 'superiors', surrendering their own values, cultures and their own accumulated knowledge and wisdom. Others have been forced to do so by the sheer power of the 'development' effort which itself has concentrated power, privileges and wealth in a few hands with the ability to subjugate and exploit the broader masses and which has often uprooted vast masses of people from their traditional life to become inferior citizens in alien environments. Thus they have suffered not only economic impoverishment but also a loss of identity and ability to develop endogenously and authentically with their indigenous culture and capabilities: a deeper human misery which as economists we were not trained to recognise. THE WORD IS PEJORATIVE Thierry Verhelst, senior project officer with the Belgian development agency, No Life Without Roots: Culture and Development, 1990, p. 12 Whether its origins are state-funded, multilateral or private, aid organized according to the 'catching-up' theory revolves around concepts of modernization and technical and material development. In the specialized literature of Latin America, this desarrollismo (from desarrollo, development: therefore literally 'developmentalism') has become a pejorative term. The results of so much financial and human effort are in fact disappointing. Few countries or local communities have succeeded in breaking the circle of poverty because of such interventions. Certain projects have even had harmful effects, in some cases due to their creating a 'mentality of dependence', in others because they have reinforced the concentration of money and power in the hands of a privileged few. What is more, many projects have exacerbated cultural alienation. This is the subject of the present study. Aid has often increased dependence on the exterior. 'From aid to recolonisation, the lessons-of failure'; such was the conclusion rightly drawn by a highly placed United Nations official after the first Development Decade.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK EDUCATION(LANGUAGE)
EDUCATION, TRAINING, ETC. ARE DIRTY WORDS Md Anisur Rahman, People’s Self-Development: Perspectives on Participatory Action Research, economist who headed the ILO’s Programme on Participatory Organizations for the Rural Poor, 1993, p. 222 This brings us to the question of what is conventionally called 'education' and 'training', and to the idea of 'transfer of knowledge'. There is need in every individual to improve his or her intellectual capacity, breadth of knowledge and specific skills. The conventional methods of 'teaching' and 'training' administered in a hierarchical relation and aimed at a 'transfer of knowledge' are a dull and depressing approach. The 'student' and 'trainee' go through the processes mainly because the dominating structures require them to do so for entry into the job market. The processes have very little to do with real learning, and actually invite the recipients of knowledge to seek ways of acquiring certificates without necessarily putting in even the prescribed efforts. Knowledge cannot be transferred; it can be memorised for mechanical application, but learning is always an act of self-search and discovery. In this search and discovery one may be stimulated and assisted but one cannot be 'taught'. Nor can one be 'trained' to perform tasks which are not mechanical but creative. Institutions of teaching and training which seek to transfer knowledge and skills serve mainly to disorient the capacity that is in every healthy individual to search and discover knowledge creatively. It indoctrinates them, furthermore, in the value of hierarchy which they then tend to pursue with a vengeance, the humiliation of being subordinated is passed on to their subordinates. For some time in recent years I have been looking for language to replace words like teaching and training. I got it in March this year from a workshop of African and Caribbean grassroots activists held in Zimbabwe on the training of field animators to promote participatory development. In this workshop I raised my question on the notion of training which, I said, is a hierarchical notion that creates hierarchy in both personal relations and institutions for 'training' with no organic relation with, and standing above, practical life. I asked the participants in the workshop to see whether in the vernacular language of the people with whom they had been working there was any word which expressed an alternative, non-hierarchical concept of learning. The participants searched, and came up with two words in one of the southern African languages: uakana meaning 'building each other', and uglolana meaning 'sharpening each other'. I invite you all to reflect deeply on the power and richness these words have in expressing both the concept and practice of non-hierarchical learning in which no one teaches or trains anybody, but instead knowledge is sought and created through mutual dialogue and collective inquiry. I would also invite you to reflect upon the power and richness of such popular conceptualisation as an organic part of their urge for collective selfdevelopment in a non-hierarchical framework: a power and richness which we are trying to destroy by imposing upon them concepts of education and training derived from an altogether alien scheme of values, i.e. the values of structural domination.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK GAY/LESBIAN
CAPITALISM IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF HETEROSEXISM- IT PERPETUATES HIERARCHIES AND SPECIFICALLY TARGETS HOMOSEXUAL AND TRANGENDERED PEOPLE’S FOR DISCRIMINATION QUEER COMMISSION OF THE usa.org/queer/queercom.html) SOCIALIST PARTY, WEBSITE UPDATED, 2006 (http://www.sp-
The problem of homophobia in this country is both real and critical. Daily, we, as queer people, are beaten and killed simply because of our love. Harassment in our public and private lives, from our employers and families, from service agencies and co-workers, is epidemic in our society. The
discriminatory laws are voluminous, ranging from solidly conservative Georgia, where there is no protection against violence (for example, a "safe-school/anti-bullying" statute) to "liberal" Massachusetts, where violence toward transgender persons is not
Although the expressions of this hatred are varied, there is an important and common underlying cause: the attitudes fostered by a capitalist system. Under capitalism, the economic system is patriarchal, where the bosses make the decisions for the majority, and the people have little power over their own lives. Dominance and control are the rules of conduct, and are nurturing behavior is suspect and derided. This patriarchal system is not only the cause of traditional sex
recognized as a hate crime . roles; it is also dependent upon their exploitation. Homosexuality is a threat to those roles because it provides a nurturing bond between members of the same sex, rather than the domination of one sex by another. Therefore, as gay men, we are not living up to our "masculine potential," and as lesbian women, we are guilty of transgressing the "inferiority" of our femininity.Furthermore, persons who are bisexual, transgender, intersex or don't identify with any of these categories, are also left at the whims of hatred and discrimination.Also,
a capitalist economy functions best when there is a labor surplus forcing to many workers to compete for too few jobs, thus lowering wages: without children we fail to support this economy, and to the capitalists, we can be seen as a threat . The early liberationists at
stonewall recognized the danger that this system posed to the free expression of our lives and formed anti-patriarchal, mass democratic organizations, such as the Gay Liberation Front. Eventually, they were replaced by a new generation of more centralized groups dominated by upper middle class white males for whom acceptance by the mainstream population replaced liberation as the goal of their struggle. The result of this was the growth of a theory that might be called liberation through accumulation. In short, we would secure our freedom by emulating the successful people of the capitalist society, thus demonstrating that we are just the same as them, except for the way we love; any political action would be subtle and address the legalities instead of realities of a situation.
is ultimately self-defeating because it is egocentric and anti-democratic, and seeks to gain freedom from oppression by supporting a system that is inherently oppressive. It may be personally enhancing, but it is in no way liberating, because it doesn't address society's negative views toward homosexuality: instead, it creates a token acceptance based upon material accumulation. Furthermore, this conservative view is both racist and sexist, in that those excluded from success
However, this philosophy under the capitalist system are by default excluded from this so-called liberation.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK GAY/LESBIAN
CAPITALISM PREVENTS LIBERATION OF YOUNG LGBT’S SEXUALITY- IT PROMOTES GENDER RULES IN THE CAPITALIST FAMILY AND ECONOMICALLY PREVENTS YOUTH FROM ACCESSING SOCIAL PROGRAMS- THESE HAVE LED TO SUICIDE
15th World Congress 2003 ( February, “On Lesbain/Gay Liberation”, http://www.marxsite.com/lESBIAN%20AND%20gAYLIBERATION.htm) 6 Since the 1970s young people's relationship to their sexuality
has changed in many countries, in contradictory ways. Youth sexuality has become less of an absolute taboo; young people's bodies and sexuality have become more visible in the media, and commercial publicity increasingly uses and abuses them to sell products. The setbacks caused by AIDS and the rise of a new moralism have not stopped this trend. But young people's sexuality is still repressed, particularly young women's and young LGBTs' sexuality. Children and teenagers are still pressured at home and in school to conform to approved gender roles; prejudice, being ashamed of their bodies, and fear of transgression are essential parts of the lesson that is taught. And as much or more than ever, young people lack the material conditions to live their sexuality freely. Young people's economic dependence on their families has increased with attacks on social programmes. Lesbian/ gay gathering places are often strictly commercial, thus excluding many young people who have little money.
There are also still limits on young people's access to information about sexuality and to their access to contraceptives and information about them. Lack of access to condoms and to information about sexuality is a particular issue in terms of the transmission of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. While images of
homosexuality are more common in the media in many countries, the images are often distorted or stereotyped. While young people are often more open-minded and less homophobic than in earlier generations, coming out is still a painful process for many young people even in ostensibly tolerant cultures, as is shown in the very high suicide rates among young lesbians and gay men.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK GLOBALIZATION GLOBALIZATION SPREADS THE WORST FORMS OF CAPITALISM
“Nonviolence Versus Capitalism” by Brian Martin. WAR RESISTERS’ INTERNATIONAL LONDON 2001. Published in 2001 by War Resisters’ International. http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/01nvc/. http://www.wri-irg.org/
The increasing power of multinational corporations and the increasing pervasiveness of the capitalist system around the world is commonly called “globalisation.” Properly speaking, this should be called capitalist globalisation, since there can be other types of globalisation, such as of science and nonviolence. Capitalist globalisation includes increasing trade, rapid movement of investment capital, freely adjustable exchange rates, movement of production to low wage regions of the world, agreements on tariffs and other trade issues, global communication systems, increasing size of multinational corporations, and greater homogeneity in markets. Globalisation involves a shift in power from local communities and small-country governments to multinational corporations and the governments of the most powerful economies. Global marketing means that local products and tastes are challenged by products and tastes from multinational corporations, such as Coca-Cola, Hollywood movies, synthetic pesticides, Toyota vehicles and professional golf. Along with products comes the attraction of a consumer lifestyle. Critics of globalisation have argued that it largely benefits the rich while impoverishing the poor within both developing and developed countries, undermines local traditions and reduces cultural diversity, fosters wants that cannot all be satisfied, imposes unsustainable burdens on the environment and reduces public accountability. In short, globalisation intensifies and spreads some of the worst aspects of capitalism without doing much to foster the social infrastructure and habits that mitigate capitalism’s excesses. There is globalization of corporate power but relatively little globalisation of philanthropy, civil liberties, occupational health and safety or humanisation of work.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA/EDUCATION: INTERNAL LINKS TO EDUCATION
LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA SUPPORTS THE PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM US Fed News, June 2006 (“LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA GRANTS TO SUPPORT ONE MILLION STUDENTS IN SERVICELEARNING” http://www.plp.org/pamphlets/education/teachers.html)
In total, 109 grants were announced in four categories: competitive grants to institutions of higher education; competitive grants to K-12 schools; competitive grants to community-based organizations; and formula grants to state education agencies. All are "new"
grants, meaning that they are for the first year of a three-year grant cycle and are renewable annually pending compliance with grant provisions and availability of funds. For a full list of grants, please click here.
LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA PROPS UP CAPITALIST EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND INTEGRATES PEOPLE INTO IT. learnandserve.org, no date given, no author given http://www.learnandserve.org/for_organizations/how/index.asp
Learn and Serve America provides direct and indirect support to K-12 schools, community groups and higher education institutions to facilitate service-learning projects. By integrating
community service projects with classroom curriculum, service-learning projects offer students a unique opportunity to use what they learn in the classroom to solve real-life problems. In the process, they develop academic
and practical skills, self-esteem, and a sense of civic responsibility while meeting community needs. Here are a few examples of service-learning projects: * Designing neighborhood playgrounds or building
wheelchair ramps while building math, research methods and leadership skills; * Teaching younger children to read or creating a tutoring program for adults with limited English-language skills as a Language Arts class project; * Developing urban community gardens or preserving native plants as part of the biology and history curriculum; * Starting school recycling programs or testing water quality as part of the math, science and social studies curriculum. Learn and Serve America facilitates service-learning projects by: * Providing grant support for school-community partnerships and higher education institutions; * Providing training and technical assistance resources to teachers, administrators, parents, schools and community groups; * Collecting and disseminating research, effective practices, curricula, and program models; and * Recognizing outstanding youth service through the Presidential Freedom Scholarship, President’s Volunteer Service awards and other programs.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA TEACHES DEMOCRACY AND HOW TO BE A GOOD CITIZEN Learn and Serve America, 2006
America’s young people – from kindergartners to university students – have the desire, energy and ability to make a real difference in their communities. Service-learning offers a unique opportunity for them to get involved in a tangible way by integrating community service projects with classroom learning. Service-learning engages
students in the educational process, using what they learn in the classroom to solve reallife problems. Students not only learn about democracy and citizenship, they become actively contributing citizens and community members through the service they perform
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA/EDUCATION EDUCATION IS JUST A WAY FOR THE RULING CLASSES OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROFIT Progressive Labor Party, 2002 (“ Capitalism and Education a Communist View”, http://www.plp.org/pamphlets/education/teachers.html)
Why do we have public schools? We have been taught, probably in those self-same schools, that we have free public schools to educate Americans so that they can exercise their rights as citizens, to provide equality of opportunity, and because people have to compete so that they can make a living. But what we hope to show you is that these are not the only, or even the main reasons why widespread public education exists in the U.S. In fact, mass public education was created by the ruling classes of the US because of these needs to maintain their profits and power, and has evolved to meet the needs of the ruling class far more than the needs of the working class. If you look at a timeline of the history of public education you will see that there was
very little of public education, or education of any kind, early in colonial history. This was not unique in that period, and, in fact, there are still relatively few countries in which the majority of children attend school. In agricultural societies the church and family carried out most, if not, all training and education. In early America and elsewhere, kindergarten consisted of so-called "dame" schools—children educated in homes by women. This was often the only education for girls. Town schools were the equivalent of elementary schools. In New England, education was seen as important to teach religion, and obedience to the laws of the colony. While Massachusetts passed laws as early as 1642 and 1647 requiring some schooling in townships of at least 50 households the history of education shows little organized education through the 17th and 18th centuries. The first high school to be founded, Boston Latin School, while public, was founded to educate the children of the Puritan leaders, who were then destined to attend Harvard College, which was founded in 1636. Otherwise, education continued to be the province of the family. While the government encouraged more education, it wasn’t required, and it certainly wasn’t public and mass. SCHOOLS WERE FOUNDED BASED ON CAPITALIST FEARS- HISTORY PROVES Progressive Labor Party, 2002 “ Capitalism and Education a Communist View”, http://www.plp.org/pamphlets/education/teachers.html However, it wasn’t the workers demands that caused the development of public education. Instead, it was
the fears of the capitalists that drove the states to establish schools. The ruling class was haunted by memories of uprisings of poor and disgruntled citizens. The Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts, the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania, the Dorr War in Rhode Island, and many other fights for free land, often led by Revolutionary War veterans really frightened ruling class. We can see this fear if we look at the opposing trends in both the
North and the South. Industrialization first began in Rhode Island, and in Lowell and Lawrence, Massachusetts. The beginning of general public education was in Lowell. And, as we’ve seen, in the South, where chattel slavery was the dominant economic system, there was little public schooling. From 1840-1860 attendance in
school was positively correlated with the number of workers involved in manufacturing, and negatively correlated to the importance of slavery in the economy.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA/EDUCATION
TURN: SCHOOL REFORMS ARE TARGETED TO SERVE THE CLASS IN POWER, WHICH CEMENTS FURTHER INEQUALITIES- ONLY THE ALTERNATIVE SOLVES Progressive Labor Party, 2002 (“Capitalism and Education a Communist View”, http://www.plp.org/pamphlets/education/teachers.html)
Right from the horses’ mouths! Capitalism needs public education to teach workers discipline. To teach workers obedience, patriotism, passivity. But, even while it struggled to control the working class, public education has never been a system of equality . The earliest
proposals for education, such as Thomas Jefferson’s in 1779, called for a two-track system for the "laboring and the learned"…which would allow a very few of the laboring classes to advance by "raking a few geniuses from the rubbish." Education for the working class has a history of racism; many members of the
working class, such as Native Americans at points weren’t even included. We still see the inequities today in working class schools, especially in so-called minority schools, and well
documented by investigators such as Jonathan Kozol. In 1983 the National Commission on Excellence in Education, sponsored by the Federal Department of Education, issued a report "A Nation at Risk" deploring the state of education in this country because "Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world." How will the US continue as the capitalist superpower that it is if its working class is so poorly trained? In fact, as the TIMSS has shown, it isn’t just the working class that isn’t trained well, but we’re only looking at the use of education as an instrument of class rule. That this trend has only continued and
intensified can be seen in many of today’s "new" initiatives in education: a movement for national standards in a field previously left to the states, national testing mandates, and federal funding targeted to such goals.As teachers, students, parents, and other workers, we need to understand these issues clearly. We need to look closely at the goals or hidden agendas of school "reforms" and initiatives that fly at us day after day, always remembering that the main goal of the schools is to serve the class in power, and that the real needs of our students will never be the main goal of the schools until our class, the working class, is able to take power and build a new society.
THE CAPITALIST STATE USES EDUCATIONAL TESTS AS A WAY TO ESTABLISH A CLASS OF UNEDUCATED INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LESS LIKELY TO REBEL AND MORE LIKELY TO BE EXPLOITED Progressive Labor Party, 2002 (“Capitalism and Education a Communist View”, http://www.plp.org/pamphlets/education/teachers.html”)
The capitalist system cannot survive with only completely ignorant workers. It must have some workers who can read and do math and perform other skills. But the same system needs the rest of the mass of workers to be less educated so that they cannot demand the higher paid jobs given to the educated and so that they will be less likely to analyze their exploitation and rebel. This mass of unemployed and underpaid are also used as a threat against the better paid workers: "Look what could have happened to you. Aren't you lucky." High standards and testing serve as a means to control this. Funding to different schools and districts is now being determined by scores on tests. Schools that have high test scores get more money. Schools with low test scores are stuck with high class size and worse conditions. And remember that flaw about the bell curve: some schools will always be below the 50th percentile. But in some states, schools with low scores are being given monetary support to improve scores, so this can't be the only use of testing for the ruling class.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK MILITARY
THE SUPPORT OF THE MILITARY IS AN ATTEMPT TO LOCK IN CAPITALIST CONTROL OF THE WORLDIT KILLS DEVELOPMENT OF OTHER COUNTRIES AND TAKES UP MOST OF U.S. RESOURCE EXPENDITURE Parenti ’95 [Michael, noted author and received Ph.D. in political science from Yale, “Against Empire,” P. 36-37]
The exercise of U.S. power is intended to preserve not only the international capitalist system but U.S. hegemony of that system. The Pentagon's "Defense Planning Guidance" draft (1992) urges the United States to continue to dominate the international system by "discouraging the advanced industrialized nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger global or regional role.' By maintaining this dominance, the Pentagon analysts assert, the United States can ensure "a market-oriented zone of peace and prosperity that encompasses more than two-thirds of the world's economy". This global power is immensely costly. Today, the United States spends more on military arms and other forms of "national security" than the rest of the world combined. U.S. leaders preside over a
global military apparatus of a magnitude never before seen in human history. In 1993 it included almost a halfmillion troops stationed at over 395 major military bases and hundreds of minor installations in thirty-five foreign countries, and a fleet larger in total tonnage and firepower than all the other navies of the world combined, consisting of missile cruisers, nuclear submarines, nuclear aircraft carriers, destroyers, and spy ships that sail every ocean and make port on every continent. U.S. bomber squadrons and long-range missiles can reach any target, carrying enough explosive force to destroy entire countries with an overkill capacity of more than 8,000 strategic nuclear weapons and 22,000 tactical ones. U.S. rapid deployment forces have a firepower in conventional weaponry vastly superior to any other nation's, with an ability to slaughter with impunity, as the massacre of Iraq demonstrated in 1990-91. US CAPITALISM HAS INFLUENCED A MILITARY BUDGET THAT TAKES ONE HALF OF ALL INCOME TAX Seligman ’99 [Carole, National committee member of Socialist action, “Capitalism and War,” August 9] The U.S. military budget, supposedly a peacetime budget, shows this very clearly . For the year 2000, the Clinton administration is seeking $554.9 billion for the military budget. This is an increase of $12.6 billion more than this year's allocation. The budget projections for the next five years include billions for Star Wars, now called the National Missile Defense. It includes $64 billion for the F-22 fighter jets at $200 million each. (This is five times the amount to provide health insurance for 11 million uninsured children, or eight times the amount to provide Head Start early childhood education for 1.2 million eligible but unserved pre-schoolers, or six times the amount to repair and modernize our schools.) The United States has spent $14 trillion
since World War II and currently spends 17 times the combined military spending of its six so-called enemies. It spends almost double the combined spending of the next five most heavily-armed nations after the United States. Fully one-half of the taxes collected each year go for military expenditures. This includes the 80 percent portion of the national debt that pays for past military expenditures.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK MILITARY
BUSH USING MILITARY TO PROMOTE CAPITALISM, NOT DEMOCRACY Charles Sullivan, Writer, 6/20/2006 "The Strange Language of Capitalism", http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13707.htm 06/20/06 "Information Clearing House" --- When George Bush and other capitalists speak of bringing freedom to the world you must understand that they do not mean freedom in the sense that most of us understand it. We must realize that they are speaking from the perverted, oddly-skewed language of capitalism. By freedom they do not mean the spread of democracy or the liberation of oppressed peoples. They mean the unfettered access to markets through the use of coercive military and economic force. The majority of the world conceives of freedom in human terms. Capitalists conceive of freedom in terms of corporate personhood, access to markets by any necessary means and absolute dictatorial rule. This is the face of free markets and fair trade as it relates to human beings. Not only did capitalism give birth to the idea of corporations, it endowed them, by very questionable means, with all of the rights of personhood and none of the social responsibility of real persons. The idea of corporate personhood has to be one of the most twisted and bizarre creations ever produced by the human imagination. Like Frankenstein’s fictional monster, it is sociopathic and evil, and it has wrecked havoc wherever its monstrous tread has touched the earth. By freedom Bush and company mean corporate freedom. They are speaking about the freedom of corporations to operate with impunity in all parts of the world without regulation of any kind. Simply stated, they are talking about corporations ruling the world backed by the strong arm of the U.S. military. They are covertly advocating the oppression of the world’s people’s, the plunder of the earth, the destruction of culture and language, the exportation of jobs to the cheapest, least regulated and most exploitable pools of labor. That is what they mean by freedom—the freedom for Plutocrats to rule the world; Poppy Bush’s New World Order; the global domination of the working class by the ruling Plutocrats. AMERICAN RULE SEEKS TO SPREAD THE AMERICAN WAY OF DEMOCRACY AND CAPITALISM, FORCING OTHER GOVERNMENTS TO EMULATE OUR MODEL Ferguson '04 (Niall Ferguson, Professor of History at Harvard University, 2004, "Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire, pg. 10) To the majority of Americans, it would appear, there is not contradiction between the ends of global democratization and the means of American military power. As defined by their president, the democratizing mission of the United States is both altruistic and distinct from the ambitions of past empires, which (so it is generally assumed) aimed to impose their own rule on foreign peoples. The difficulty is that President Bush's ideal of freedom as a universal desideratum rather closely resembles the Victorian ideal of "civilization." "Freedom" means, on close inspection, the American model of democracy and capitalism; when Americans speak of "nation building" they actually mean "state replicating," in the sense that they want to build political and economic institutions that are fundamentally similar, though not identical, to their own. They may not aspire to rule, but they do aspire to have others rule themselves in the American way. Yet the very act of imposing "freedom" simultaneously subverts it. Just as the Victorians seemed hypocrites when they spread "civilization" with the Maxim gun, so there is something fishy about those who would democratize Fallujah with the Abrams tank. President Bush's distinction between conquest and liberation would have been entirely familiar to the liberal imperialists of the early 1900s, who likewise saw Britain's far-flung legions as agents of emancipation (not least in the Middle East during and after WWI.)
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK MILITARY
IN SPITE OF DENIAL, AMERICA IS AN EMPIRE, SIMILAR TO PAST EMPIRES IN WORLD HISTORY. Ferguson '04 (Niall Ferguson, Professor of History at Harvard University, 2004, "Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" pg. 9) Of all the misconceptions that need to be dispelled here, this is perhaps the most obvious: That simply because Americans say they do not "do" empire, there cannot be such as thing as American imperialism. As I write, American troops are engaged in defending governments forcibly installed by the United States in two distant countries, Afghanistan and Iraq. They are likely to be there for some time to come; even President Bush's Democratic rival John Kerry implied in the first of last year's presidential debates that, if he were elected, he would only "begin to draw the troops down in six months." Iraq, however, is only the front line of an American imperium which, like all the other great world empires of history, aspires to much more than just military dominance along a vast and varied strategic frontier. Empire also means economic, cultural, and political predominance within (and sometimes also without) that frontier. On November 6, 2003, in his speech to mark the twentieth anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, President Bush set out a vision of American foreign policy that, for all its Wilsonian language, strongly implied the kind of universal civilizing mission that has been a feature of all the great empires. MILITARY IS AN IMPERIAL STATE THROUGH COERCIVE AGENCIES James F. Petras, Morris H. Morley, Peter Dewitt, A. Eugene Havens, renowned editor and author, 1981 Class, State and Power In the Third World, pg#20 The second major component of the imperial state, the coercive agen cies, includes (1) the military (Defense Department); and (2) intelligence (Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, and the specialized groups within each branch of the military). The military operates in two capacities: (a) to promote and cultivate close relations within the military of target areas, through training schools, aid pro grams, overseas missions;39 and (b) to intervene directly to forestall social revolution, through military invasions and occupations when their collaborative counterparts are incapable or unwilling to act in concert with U.S. interests. The intelligence agencies usually are heavily involved in recruiting liaisons (contacts for information within regimes and leaders within key organizations of a society) and organizing client groups to manipulate social forces for overt and covert action." The activities of both groups usually are coordinated through agency heads, and their activities usually complement each, although jurisdictional disputes and conflicts over loyalties occasionally emerge.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK NATIONAL SECURITY
NATIONAL SECURITY USED AS A TOOL FOR PROTECTING CAPITALISM Terrie Albano, former National Coordinator of the Young Communist League, March 2006, Capitalism’s ruthless vanguard party, http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/88 53/1/315/ The Bush agenda is capitalism on steroids. It is carrying out a forced march of global corporate capitalism through the barrel of the gun. Bush’s new national security strategy offers platitudes about democracy and freedom. But the basic “freedom” that it is concerned about is the freedom to exploit, otherwise known as free enterprise, “free trade” and “free markets.” This is their definition of “democracy.” NATIONAL SERVICE VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS DONATE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND ARE CRUCIAL TO THE US ECONOMY Corporation for national and community service ’06 [press release, major national volunteer program, “New Federal Report Outlines Economic Benefit of Volunteering in America,” June 12]
a new study released today by the Corporation for National and Community Service, America’s 65.4 million volunteers donate the economic equivalent of almost $150 billion dollars in services each year. Volunteer activity can be assigned an economic value and yields significant benefits to
(WASHINGTON D.C.) - According to “Volunteering in America: State Trends and Rankings,” non-profit groups that use volunteers. Using Independent Sector’s estimate of $18.04 an hour, a standard measurement for the value of a volunteer’s time, the value of the 8.2 billion hours annually donated
by Americans equates to $147.6 billion, a powerful economic impact of volunteering to the entire nation.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK PEACE CORPS
THE PEACE CORPS’ “DEVELOPMENT” OF “THIRD WORLD” NATIONS IS NOTHING BUT MASKED WESTERN IMPERIALISM WHICH TEACHES THE COUNTRIES TO RELY HEAVILY INTERNATIONAL CAPITALISM AND CRUSHES THEIR ECONOMIES, STEALING THEIR LAND AND THEIR CULTURES
Michael Parenti, author, Against Empire pg. 14, May 1995 According to the development scenario, with the introduction of Western investments, the backward economic sectors of the poor nations will release their workers, who then will find more productive employment in the modern sector at higher wages. As capital accumulates, business will reinvest its profits, thus creating still more products, jobs, buying power, and markets. Eventually a more prosperous economy evolves.This "development theory" or "modernization theory," as it is sometimes called, bears little relation to reality. What has emerged in the Third World is an intensely exploitive form of dependent capitalism. Economic conditions have worsened drastically with the growth of transnational corporate investment. The problem is not poor lands or unproductive populations but foreign exploitation and class inequality. Investors go into a country not to uplift it but to enrich themselves. People in these countries do not need to be taught how to farm. They need the land and the implements to farm. They do not need to be taught how to fish. They
need the boats and the nets and access to shore frontage, bays, and oceans. They need industrial plants to cease dumping toxic effusions into the waters. They do not need to be convinced that they should use
hygienic standards. They do not need a Peace Corps Volunteer to tell them to boil their water, especially when they cannot afford fuel or have no access to firewood. They need the conditions that will allow them to have clean drinking water and clean clothes and homes. They do not need advice about balanced diets from North Americans. They usually know what foods best serve their nutritional requirements. They need to be given back their land and labor so that they might work for themselves and grow food for their own consumption.The legacy of imperial domination is not only misery and strife, but an economic structure dominated by a network of international corporations which themselves are beholden to parent companies based in North America, Europe and Japan. If there is any harmonization or integration, it occurs among the global investor classes, not among the indigenous economies of these countries. Third World economies remain fragmented and unintegrated both between each other and within themselves, both in the flow of capital and goods and in technology and organization. In sum, what we have is a world economy that has little to do with the economic needs of the world's people.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK PEACE CORPS PEACE CORPS IS SENT INTO COLONIZE AND DEVELOP
Tyson Volkmann, staff writer, 8/23/02
“The Exploitation of South America” http://www.bootsnall.com/articles/02-08/the-exploitation-and-contradiction-ofsouth-america-para-why-volume-5.html More topically, the Department of Defense, including the Peace Corps, is just a misnomer for the act of
colonization. A slow misdirection of society by the US, leading to the cultural, then inevitably, financial subservience of a populous and government of a country. Do I sound bitter? Good. Here is
my solace: In effect, the Peace Corps is meaningless and worthless. Not one volunteer is properly trained to colonize. The endless bureaucracy surrounding the programs creates enough red tape to tape back together the Kyoto Treaty. THE PEACE CORPS EXISTS TO SPREAD CAPITALISM AND QUELCH COMMUNIST UPRISINGS
RAIL, Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism League, Winter ‘92
“Peace Corps is a tool of U.S. Imperialism” http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/ma/file.php?railfile=peace_corps.html
The Peace Corps recruits well intentioned people to "help people help themselves", but it's actually a program that helps to bolster Third World dependence on and subservience to the United States. "The toughest job you'll ever love" has also included direct and indirect spying for the CIA and other intelligence services. There is a direct correlation between Peace Corps volunteers (PCV) deployments and U.S. military interests. "National Security Action Memorandum No.132--signed by Kennedy on February 12, 1962 and sent to CIA, USAID and Peace Corps Directors-instructed those agencies to 'give utmost attention and emphasis to programs designed to counter Communist indirect aggression [through] ... support of local police forces for internal security and
counter-insurgency purposes.'" "In 1985, for example, the Philippines, home to the largest U.S. military bases outside U.S. borders, also ranked first in the number of PCVs with 399. Following close behind that same year with 379 was Honduras, a country-turned-military base in the U.S. war against Nicaragua." Peace Corps propaganda doesn't tell you why they left Bolivia in 1971 or Peru in 1974. The truth is that "the Bolivian government expelled the Peace Corps for its alleged activities in sterilizing peasant women without their knowledge. The Peruvian government expelled the Peace Corps for similar reasons in 1974." Laying the ground for further economic
domination The Peace Corps exists to help make Third World countries more conducive to super-exploitation by U.S. interests. Former Peace Corps director Loret Ruppe refers to the Peace Corps, the World Bank and USAID all in the same sentence. The World Bank and USAID provide "aid" in the form of loans to Third World governments on the condition that the country is opened up to further imperialist penetration. The Peace Corps provides valuable, on-the-ground public relations as well as helps to guide this political economic transformation.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK PEACE CORPS
THE WAY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS THAT THE PEACE CORPS WANTS TO SOLVE IS TO WORK FOR REVOLUTION, AND NOT JOIN THE PIG OPPRESSORS
RAIL, Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism League, Winter ‘92
“Peace Corps is a tool of U.S. Imperialism” http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/ma/file.php?railfile=peace_corps.html A major point behind the Peace Corps' existence is as a public relations ploy for the U.S. Former director Ruppe called the work of the PCVs "a valuable source of real aid to U.S. foreign policy." The political flexibility of PCVs is limited: volunteers have been fired for opposing the U.S. war in Vietnam, visiting an offlimits Salvadoran refugee camp in Honduras, and a volunteer in Honduras was reprimanded for writing her Congressperson that "Honduras needs jobs, education, [and] health care ... not military aid." PCVs have been "required to collect and pass on information which, in the context of death squad politics, could result in the killing of the people whom they were supposed to assist." The CIA has been known to use Peace Corps
cover to infiltrate areas. One PCV couple in Honduras "came under heavy pressure to turn over names of 'the communists' after their language classes became a vehicle for genuine community organizing." "It was clear," the couple said, "that the teachers [we trained] were interested not only in teaching skills but also addressing the real reasons their students could not learn: hunger, and the fact that young people have to work ." This
principled couple quit rather than talk. Other volunteers no doubt provide more subtle information to their superiors without realizing that they are serving as spies. People who really want to help the world's
oppressed lead better lives should work with RAIL, not with the pig oppressors.
PEACE CORPS MASKS CAPITALIST INVASION AND ALLOWS THE U.S. TO CARY OUT IT’S IMPERIALIST GOALS James F. Petras, Morris H. Morley, Peter Dewitt, A. Eugene Havens, renowned editor and author, 1981 Class, State and Power In the Third World, pg#20 The third component agency of the imperial state, the ideological, has two aspects: (1) the institutional activities directly tied to the state, and (2) the "subcontracted" activities related to the practices of unofficial groups drawn from imperial society and among collaborator groups. The U.S. Information Agency and the related propaganda arms of the state (Peace Corps, Fulbright-Hayes Program) create favorable images of U.S. imperial activity and denigrate revolutionary action; psychological warfare, including the creation of false consciousness, is a principal activity. In the postcolonial period, however, special importance in the ideological task of defending imperialism is taken on by societal forces-cultural, religious, educational, and so forth. Ideological use is made of their public image of possessing nonofficial status to give them the aura of "objectivity" and "independence," thus increasing the credibility of the propaganda message. These societal auxiliaries of the imperial state are usually "contracted" covertly by the intelligence agencies or overtly through other agencies, ostensibly for some apolitical purpose, i.e., "to promote cultural exchanges."" This illusory disjuncture between "state" and "society" obscures the convergence of purpose
and allows the imperial state to pursue its ideological goals through a plurali ty of mutually compatible instrumentalities.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK PEACE CORPS: DEVELOPMENT MODULE
A)THE SPREAD OF IMPERIALISM VIA THE PEACE CORPS IS INHERENTLY NEVER ENDING. ONCE IT IMPOVERISHES ONE COUNTRY IT MUST MOVE ONTO THE NEXT; THE CAPITALIST MACHINE IS ALWAYS HUNGRY. Ted Grant and Alan Woods, “Marxism and the Struggle Against Imperialism”, 25 June 1998 http://www.marxist.com/marxism-imperialism-colonial-revolution250698.htm
The crushing domination of imperialism in the world arena, which was strengthened after the fall of Stalinism, has meant an increased exploitation of the Third World as a whole. The domination of the metropolitan countries is, if anything, still greater than in the past. The only difference is that the old direct military-bureaucratic control by individual colonial masters has been substituted by the collective domination of the colonial world by a handful of wealthy exploiter states through the mechanism of the world market. Under the banner of "globalisation" and "opening up of the markets" imperialism has forced through a policy of lowering the tariff barriers and privatisation of the utilities throughout the Third World. These policies are a result of the crisis of capitalism in the West which forces it to constantly look for new markets and fields of investment. But they spell bankruptcy for the local industries of the countries affected which cannot compete unaided against the big multinationals. This situation has produced the most ruinous consequences, and has produced results not foreseen by President Bush.
<INSERT DEVELOPMENT LINK>
PEACE CORPS MISSIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES ARE COERCIVE ATEMPTS TO SOW THE SEEDS OF CAPITALISM AND UNDERMINE POSITIVE ALTERNATIVES Michael Parenti, Against Empire pg. 119, 1995 Contrary to popular belief, the United States is no different from most other countries in that it does not have a particularly impressive humanitarian record. True, many nations, including our own, have sent relief abroad in response to particular crises. But these actions do not represent essential foreign policy commitments. They occur sporadically, are limited in scope, and obscure the many occa sions when governments choose to do absolutely nothing for other countries in desperate straits. Most U.S. aid missions serve as pretexts for hidden political goals, namely, to bolster conservative regimes, build infrastructures that assist big investors, lend an aura of legitimacy to counterinsurgency programs, and undermine local agrarian self-sufficiency while promoting U.S. agribusiness.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK POVERTY(LANGUAGE)
POVERTY IS A LOADED WORD. IT IMPLIES MATERIAL GOODS ARE ALL THAT IS RELEVANT Md Anisur Rahman, People’s Self-Development: Perspectives on Participatory Action Research, economist who headed the ILO’s Programme on Participatory Organizations for the Rural Poor, 1993, p. 136 One might even say that the very notion of 'poverty', conventionally conceived in consumeristic terms, distracts from the human need to be fulfilled by creative acts. The first man, or woman, or the first human community, was not 'poor' for not having any clothes to put on or shelter to house the body: it was the beginning of life, to move forward from there, by creating and constructing with one's own priorities, i.e. with self- determination. People become poor when their resources are appropriated by others, thereby denying them not only the basic material means of survival but more fundamentally, through dependence on others for survival, their self-determination. The communities whose efforts at authentic development are reported in this chapter may be 'poor' by the material standards of the so-called 'rich', but are immensely rich themselves in the culture and values they are showing in the way they are moving forward as part of a self-determined collective endeavour. THEY DENY AGENCY BY APPROPRIATING THE WORD POVERTY TO IMPLY A LACK. THAT MASKS LIBERATORY VISIONS OF DOING WITHOUT Jan Nederveen Pieterse, Hague Institute of Social Studies, Third World Quarterly, v21, n2, 2000 Poverty is in the eye of the beholder. Sachs (1989) distinguishes between frugality, as in subsistence economies; destitution, which can arise when subsistence economies are weakened through the interference of growth strategies; and scarcity, which arises when the logic of growth and accumulation has taken over and commoditybased need becomes the overriding logic. In this early work, Sachs's policy recommendation is to implement growth strategies with caution and to build on frugal life styles. This matches the recommendations made all along by `ecological developers' such as the agronomist Rene Dumont (1965, 1974), to follow growth strategies in parallel with appropriate technology and maximum use of local resources. But the rejection of either growth or development does not follow. `Poverty' is not simply a deficit, for that would assume simply adopting the commodity-based perspective of the North; `poverty' can also be a resource. Attributing agency to the poor is a common principle in alternative approaches such as `conscientisation' a la Paulo Freire, human-scale development (Max-Neef, 1982, 1991; Chambers, 1983), participatory action research and the actor-orientated approach. According to Rahnema, while poverty is real enough, it is also a culturally and historically variable notion. `The way planners, development actomaniacs and politicians living off global poverty alleviation campaigns are presenting their case, gives the uninformed public a distorted impression of how the world's impoverished are living their deprivations. Not only are these people presented as incapable of doing anything intelligent by themselves, but also as preventing the modern do-gooders from helping them.' (1992: 169) This is a different issue: it concerns the representation of poverty. By way of counterpoint, Rahnema draws attention to `vernacular universes' that provide hope and strength; to the spiritual dimension (`Most contemporary grassroots movements have a strong spiritual dimension', p 171); and to `convivial poverty', `that is, voluntary or moral poverty' (p 171). This suggests affinity with the lineage of the Franciscans, liberation theology and Gandhian politics. In this view, it is the economics of development that is truly pauperising.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK SENIOR CORPS THE SENIOR CORPS WORKS TO INCREASE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agingadultvcs.org ’04 [informational site about senior community involvement, September 1]
The National Senior Service Corps is a network of more than a half million seniors who are making a difference through Foster Grandparents, Senior Companions and the Retired and Senior
Volunteer Program (RSVP). These programs tap the experience, skills, talents, interests and creativity of seniors age 55 and over.Volunteers in each of the Senior Corp programs are committed to sharing their life experience in order to solve critical local problems in the areas of Health and Nutrition, Human Needs Services, Community/Economic Development, Education, Environment, and Public Safety. Some help just a few hours a week. Senior Corps volunteers serve in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK SENIOR CORPS: AGEISM
CAPITALISM IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF AGEISM Deri ’01 [Jillian, Writer for Simon Fraser University’s independent student newspaper, “Capitalism's dependence on racism,” October 1, http://22.214.171.124/search?q=cache:XTnJv6p2VwgJ:www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2001-3/issue5/fecaprace.html+Ageism+Capitalism&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=14]
It is widely believed that capitalism depends on the perpetuation of racist beliefs and practices.
The forces of hierarchy, domination and oppression are often said to be driving the capitalist pursuit of higher profits. It is also said that profits benefit from the persistence of racism. Within this line of thinking, questions are often raised about how racism justifies exploitation, how it keeps groups at the socially constructed and hierarchical bottom powerless, allowing the dominant classes to thrive. It is arguable that other forms of oppression, such as gender oppression, sexism, ableism, ageism, etc., are
also produced by capitalism. Each group experiences unique particularities while sharing common experiences under the oppression umbrella of capitalism.
A SOCIALIST SOCIETY WILL SOLVE ALL INEQUALITIES, INCLUDING AGEISM- WE MUST PARTICIPATE IN THE REVOLUTION NOW AND IT WILL HAPPEN Cornish ’02 [Megan, noted feminist author, “Strong Medicine: Toxic Capitalism and the Socialist Cure,” Novemberhttp://126.96.36.199/search?q=cache:8084f5WYs4wJ:www.socialism.com/whatsocialism.html+Ageism+Cap italism&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=26]
In becoming whole people, and a whole society, we will naturally get rid of all the hateful divisions that mark society today. There are those who argue that the bigotries of racism, sexism,
homophobia, and national and religious antagonisms are so deep-seated that it is naïve to think socialism can get rid of them easily. But all of these things are driven by poverty and under-privilege. Those
who say it will take eons to create equality don’t take into account how revolutions are made. Those who get the least out of this system are in the forefront of the movement to change it. And just as
what started with the Civil Rights movement of the ‘50s developed into the revolutionary politics and struggles of Malcolm X and the Black Panther Party in the ‘70s, people of color will be at the heart of the struggle for socialism. Likewise, any revolution without women in the forefront, ain’t happening—that is a lesson history has already taught us. We will also smash homophobia, the oppression of children, ageism, and all
other forms of discrimination, because those of us who suffer these blights will demand it. And because we have been in the thick of the fight, we will carry the weight to say so . There
are many other divisions that will naturally be abolished. Marx believed we will get rid of urban blight by decentralizing society so that everyone can live in the country, while having access to the cultural advantages of the town. And that the distinction between intellectual and manual labor, and between artists and the rest of us will disappear, too. Since socialism in the US can only happen when we make a revolution, people
will determine what society will look like. They will demand democracy, freedom, rich individual choices, and the truly equal opportunity and equal benefits that will turn racism, sexism, and all that old garbage into anachronisms practically overnight . But all of
this is just the beginning. In just a few years, society will be ahead of what we can even imagine today!
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK SENIOR CORPS: AGEISM
THE CAPITALIST MACHING IS MAKING A PUSH TO DEVALUE SENIOR CITIZENSHIP AND PERPETUATE AGEISM Gullette ’04 [Margaret, resident scholar at the Women’s Studies Research Center at Brandeis University, “Trapped in Decline Culture,” October 2, http://188.8.131.52/search?q=cache:b1vsOJaxiKQJ:www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1121/+Ageism+Capitalis m+Employment+economy&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=28]
The real truth is that we are aged by culture. In our American case, the dominant culture reflects the needs and viewpoints of international capitalism in an era of globalization and inequality. The economy downsizes people at midlife; “anti-aging” ads and surgeries address people in their 40s and 30s; businesses outsource not just manufacturing, but white-collar jobs held by educated middle-class people. All of these cultural phenomena superannuate us prematurely, long before old age or retirement. Seniority systems—which provide the economic basis for respecting midlife workers—are eroding as labor unions weaken. Patriarchy used to protect midlife men in the middle and upper classes, but now—if we follow male midlife economic stagnation over the last 30 years—patriarchy seems weak in the face of capitalism’s race to the bottom.Age is politicized to explain history: growing inequality, rising displacement, high unemployment, job scarcity. Baby Boomers allegedly war
against Generation X because they are jealous of their youth, while younger people are told that aging Boomers hold the good jobs and only as they retire will they be available to the young. People aging into their middle
years are told they are under-skilled, overpaid, narcissistic and over-entitled. Age is doing the same kinds of dirty work as gender, race and sexuality.Despite the American Dream, decades of feminist anti-ageism and the much-touted power of the Boomers, American age culture uglifies time and passes off its squint as truth. Now we are telling our underlying national narrative of decline to people under 15. Economically and psychologically, we are losing the progress narrative of aging to which our national wealth, improved health and longevity should entitle us. Children are being prepared for decline as their future.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK THIRD WORLD RHETORIC
THEIR RHETORIC OF THE “POOR THIRD WORLD” WHICH IS BACKWARD AND CAN ONLY BE “DEVELOPED” BY THE PLACEMENT OF A FEW GOOD AMERICANS VIA PEACE CORPS IS RACIST, MASKS WESTERN CAPITALIST IMPERIALISM, AND LEGITIMIZES COLONIZATION AND SLAVERY. Michael Parenti, author and lecturer, Against Empire pg. 14, May 1995 http://www.michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html
The impoverished lands of Asia, Africa, and Latin America are known to us as the "Third World," to distinguish them from the "First World" of industrialized Europe and North America and the now largely defunct "Second World" of communist states. Third World poverty, called "underdevelopment," is treated by most Western observers as an original historic condition. We are asked to believe that it always existed, that poor countries are poor because their lands have always been infertile or their people unproductive.In fact, the
lands of Asia, Africa, and Latin America have long produced great treasures of foods, minerals and other natural resources. That is why the Europeans went through all the trouble to steal and plunder them. One does not go to poor places for self-enrichment. The Third World is rich. Only its people are poor--and it is because of the pillage they have endured.
The process of expropriating the natural resources of the Third World began centuries ago and continues to this day. First, the colonizers
extracted gold, silver, furs, silks, and spices, then flax, hemp, timber, molasses, sugar, rum, rubber, tobacco, calico, cocoa, coffee, cotton, copper, coal, palm oil, tin, iron, ivory, ebony, and later on, oil, zinc, manganese, mercury, platinum, cobalt, bauxite, aluminum, and uranium .
Not to be overlooked is that most hellish of all expropriations: the abduction of millions of human beings into slave labor.Through the centuries of colonization, many self-serving imperialist theories have been spun. I was taught in school that people in tropical lands are slothful and do not work as
hard as we denizens of the temperate zone. In fact, the inhabitants of warm climates have performed remarkably productive feats, building magnificent civilizations well before Europe emerged from the Dark Ages. And today they often work long, hard hours for meager sums .
Yet the early stereotype of the "lazy native" is still with us. In every capitalist society, the poor--both domestic and overseas--regularly are blamed for their own condition.We hear that Third World peoples are culturally retarded in their attitudes, customs, and technical abilities. It is a convenient notion embraced by those who want to depict Western investments as a rescue operation designed to help backward peoples help themselves. This myth of "cultural backwardness" goes back to ancient times, when conquerors used it to justify enslaving indigenous peoples. It was used by European colonizers over the last five centuries for the same purpose.
“THIRD WORLD” IS A LOADED TERM Thierry Verhelst, senior project officer with the Belgian development agency, No Life Without Roots: Culture and Development, 1990, p. In these pages, the reader will come upon the expression 'Third World'. The term has, justifiably, been frequently criticized. In the first place, one ought to speak of 'Third Worlds', so diverse are the countries of the southern hemisphere in terms of geographic location, economic conditions and specific socio-cultural characters. To this diversity between countries must be added the fundamental difference that exists between their citizens. Depending on their social class, they find themselves very differently affected by problems, from which some benefit rather than suffer. In actual fact, lumping together everything that is different from ourselves is a particularly Eurocentric trait. (Moreover, the term 'Third World' refers not only to the three great continents of Africa. America and Asia, but also to a fourth area whose economic and strategic importance is enormous, namely Australasia, which is frequently overlooked.) The term Third World' must also be questioned on the grounds that it will soon be three quarters of humanity whom we continue to diminish by means of this misleading mathematical term.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK THIRD WORLD RHETORIC
THE THIRD WORLD NAME DESIGNATES A PEOPLE AS SAVAGE, DESPITE BEING MANY SOCIETIES BEING HEALTHIER AND HAPPIER BEFORE BEING COLONIZED Michael Parenti, author and lecturer, Against Empire pg. 14, May 1995 http://www.michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html
It was said that colonized peoples were biologically backward and less evolved than their colonizers. Their "savagery" and "lower" level of cultural evolution were emblematic of their inferior genetic evolution. But were they culturally inferior? In many parts of what is now considered the Third World, people developed impressive skills in architecture, horticulture, crafts, hunting, fishing, midwifery, medicine, and other such things. Their social customs were often far more gracious and humane and less autocratic and repressive than anything found in Europe at that time. Of course we must not romanticize these indigenous societies, some of which had a number of cruel and unusual practices of their own. But generally, their peoples enjoyed healthier, happier lives, with more leisure time, than did most of Europe's inhabitants.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK WOMEN IN THE MILITARY: MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS MODULE
A) WOMEN IN COMBAT INCREASE MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS Shirley Sagawa and Nancy Duff Campbell, former Deputy Chief of Staff for Hillary Clinton and National Women’s Law Center founder, October 30, 1992 Women in Combat, National Women’s Law Center, P. 4-5 Women are capable of performing assignments in combat units. Top military officials acknowledge that women are qualified to serve on combat aircraft. Lieutenant General Thomas Hickey, deputy chief of staff for personnel of the Air Force, told the House Armed Services Committee that “the one thing I am sure of is there is probably not a combat job the in the United States Air Force that women cannot do. They can fly fighters, they can pull Gs, they can do all those things.” The Air Force’s own study, Women in the Military Cockpit, concluded that women can be excellent pilots, and during Senate hearings, General McPeak agreed, stating that he is “confident that women can physically meet the physical demands of flying bombers.” Women now train men to fly combat aircraft, serve as test pilots for combat planes, and experience the stress of flying into enemy territory in slower, more vulnerable aircraft. Women are qualified for other types of combat assignments, in addition to those onaircraft. Although opponents of increased assignment of women focus on women’s ability to perform specific jobs, such as hand-tohand combat involving significant physical strength, many positions currently closed to women do not fall into this category. As discussed earlier, many assignments currently closed are functionally identical to jobs women now perform successfully. While one might attempt to differentiate open and closed positions based on the additional stress of a combat environment, it is important to note that women successfully performed as past of combat support units during Desert Storm and received combat pay. According to the Department of Defense, the 40,000 women deployed during the war performed admirably and without substantial friction or special considerations. In fact, the United States Army Research Institute study of Desert Storm found no significant gender differences in job performance, readiness, effectiveness, morale, personal and family coping, emotional well-being, or retention. Assigning women to combat positions could increase military effectiveness. Legal restrictions on assignability create confusion in times of war, as in Grenada and Panama when commanders did not know if women in their units could legally be deployed; units leaving women behind were short-handed. Opening all positions to qualified individuals regardless or gender would by definition mean that no woman would hold a job for which she was not qualified. There would be no need to lower standards. Rather, removing artificial barriers to assignability will increase flexibility for the military to ensure that every job is filled with the best person. Today, if the best person for a combat assignment is a woman, the best person won’t get the job. <INSERT MILITARY LINK>
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK EXTENSION: WOMEN IN THE MILITARY INCREASE MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS WOMEN IN THE MILITARY WOULD INCREASE MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS Shirley Sagawa and Nancy Duff Campbell, Military Analysts, 10/30/1992, http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/Combat.pdf Arguments in Favor of Repeal of Combat Women in Laws
Women are capable of performing assignments in combat units. Top military officials acknowledge that women are qualified to serve on combat aircraft. Lieutenant General Thomas Hickey, deputy chief of staff for personnel of the Air Force, told the House Armed Services Committee that “the one thing I am sure of is there is probably not a combat job the in the United States Air Force that women cannot do. They can fly fighters, they can pull Gs, they can do all those things.” The Air Force’s own study, Women in the Military Cockpit, concluded that women can be excellent pilots, and during Senate hearings, General McPeak agreed, stating that he is “confident that women can physically meet the physical demands of flying bombers.” Women now train men to fly combat aircraft, serve as test pilots for combat planes, and experience the stress of flying into enemy territory in slower, more vulnerable aircraft. Women are qualified for other types of combat assignments, in addition to those on aircraft. Although opponents of increased assignment of women focus on women’s ability to perform specific jobs, such as hand-to-hand combat involving significant physical strength, many positions currently closed to women do not fall into this category. As discussed earlier, many assignments currently closed are functionally identical to jobs women now perform successfully. While one might attempt to differentiate open and closed positions based on the additional stressof a combat environment, it is important to note that women successfully performed as past of combat support units during Desert Storm and received combat pay. According to the Department of Defense, the 40,000 women deployed during the war performed admirably and without substantial friction or special considerations. In fact, the United States Army Research Institute study of Desert Storm found no significant gender differences in job performance, readiness, effectiveness, morale, personal and family coping, emotional well-being, or retention. Assigning women to combat positions could increase military effectiveness. Legal restrictions on assignability create confusion in times of war, as in Grenada and Panama when commanders did not know if women in their units could legally be deployed; units leaving women behind were short-handed. Opening all positions to qualified individuals regardless or gender would by definition mean that no woman would hold a job for which she was not qualified. There would be no need to lower standards. Rather, removing artificial barriers to assignability will increase flexibility for the military to ensure that every job is filled with the best person. Today, if the best person for a combat assignment is a woman, the best person won’t get the job. In addition, restrictions create an unfair barrier to women’s advancement. In the Persian Gulf War, 13 women were killed, two were taken prisoner of war, and many more were injured. But when women who serves in the Gulf come up for promotions, they may be passed over because current policies deny women the experience that provides a route to higherlevel jobs. This is as true for women health care personnel who cannot serve on aircraft carriers as it is for women fighter pilots who are barred from flying bombers. The General Accounting Office concluded that the combat exclusion is the greatest impediment to women’s attaining higher ranks. Until qualified women are given access to assignments that are central to the military’s mission, they will be marginalized. Pervasive sexual harassment has been another negative result of combat restrictions. Studies show that sexual harassment is most common in nontraditional jobs with low numbers of women. In the military, barriers to assignability have lead to a quota system limiting the number of women at all levels including senior positions. They also have created a climate in which it is acceptable to treat women as inferior. A Navy report found that both men and women believe a causal relationship exists between the perception that women are not equal members of the Navy and sexual harassment. Making assignments based on ability rather than gender would go a long way toward ending second-class status and abuse of women in the military. <CONTINUED>
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK WOMEN IN COMBAT INCREASE MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS
<CONITNUED> The incorrect perception that military women lose a disproportionate share of work time, primarily due to pregnancy, has also been used to justify unequal treatment. However, the military has not found pregnancy to be a major problem and in fact, studies show that women have lower absenteeism than do men, even when lost time due to pregnancy is included. Men are more likely to lose time due to discipline problems – drug or alcohol use, fighting, etc. As for concerns about parenting responsibilities, the great majority of single parents in the military are fathers, and more male personnel than women have children at home. Despite perceptions to the contrary, less than one-half of one percent of deployed or activated personnel requested deferments for family reasons, and, according to the Pentagon, deployability of personnel with family responsibilities was not a significant problem during Desert Storm. Opposition to a hypothetical draft of women should not be used to justify continuation of combat restrictions. Even though restrictions remain in the law, Congress has the power to draft women today. Of course, a draft of combat troops of either men or women is unlikely at this time. If legal restrictions on assignability were repealed, Congress might nonetheless choose to draft only men for ground combat troops. If, as opponents claim, few women are qualified to serve in ground combat, a court applying the reasoning of Rotsker v. Goldberg could defer to the will of Congress if Congress determined that men and women were not similarly situated and it was not “worth the added burdens” of registering and drafting large numbers of women to find a few who were qualified. Courts have long granted great deference to Congress in military matters. Concern that women would be placed in danger if they were allowed in combat should not be used to justify continued restrictions on women’s assignability. As Maj. Rhonda Cornum’s experience illustrates, current policy does not ensure that women will not be injured or captured in the line of duty. Cornum, who was taken prisoner of war during the Gulf War conflict, herself believes that she was treated no worse than the male prisoners of war. Military officials concur that women “can adapt and survive captivity,” as Col. John D. Graham, director of the Joint Services Survival, Resistance, and Escape Agency, the executive agency responsible for overseeing captivity training testified. In fact, Graham believes, “In some cases, they have shown to do this better than men.” The priority should be to minimize danger to both military men and women during times of war. The presence of women in a unit does not undermine cohesion. Experience and research has demonstrated that cohesion is found in mixed-gender units as well as male-only units in the military. With good leadership, a group of dissimilar individuals can bond based on their commonality of experience, regardless of the gender make-up of the group. In fact, evidence suggests that mixed-gender units may actually communicate and work better than single gender units performing similar tasks.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK WOMEN IN COMBAT INCREASE MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS Shirley Sagawa, former Deputy Chief of Staff for Hillary Clinton, July 7, 1991 The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, P: D1
Major Cornum was not the only woman whose Gulf War duties walked a fine line between combat and noncombat. Among the 35,000 women who served in Desert Storm were women who flew planes into enemy territory, fired defensive weapons, commanded units of men, ferried troops into the combat zone and carried them fuel and supplies. By all indications, according to the Pentagon, the women who served in the gulf performed these duties magnificently. Yet when they come up for top positions, these soldiers may be passed over because they lack the combat experience they need to prove they are fit for higher-level jobs.The House of Representatives took a first step toward ending outmoded restrictions on military women by voting in May to abolish rules barring women pilots from combat positions. But Congress and the Department of Defense should go further and revise military policy to base all job assignments on ability to do the job, rather than on the sex of the soldier. That is what civilian employers are required to do, and the U.S. military should do no less.; Offer better educated .
Opening combat jobs to all qualified individuals without regard to gender will not only enable women to serve their country on an equal basis, but will improve our military effectiveness as well. With today's sophisticated new equipment, education is increasingly important at all
levels of the military. Military women recruits generally have higher education levels than male recruits, and are well- qualified to carry out many combat assignments. But under current policy, if the best-qualified person for a job in a combat unit is a woman, the best-qualified person won't get the job. WOMEN IN COMBAT INCREASE MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS Shirley Sagawa and Nancy Duff Campbell, former Deputy Chief of Staff for Hillary Clinton and National Women’s Law Center founder, October 30, 1992 Women in Combat, National Women’s Law Center, P. 4-5
Women are capable of performing assignments in combat units. Top military officials acknowledge that
women are qualified to serve on combat aircraft. Lieutenant General Thomas Hickey, deputy chief of staff for personnel of the Air Force, told the House Armed Services Committee that “the one thing I am sure of is there is probably not a combat job the in the United States Air Force that women cannot do. They can fly fighters, they can pull Gs, they can do all those things.” The Air Force’s own study, Women in the Military Cockpit, concluded that women can be excellent pilots, and during Senate hearings, General McPeak agreed, stating that he is “confident that women can physically meet the physical demands of flying bombers.” Women now train men to fly combat aircraft, serve as test pilots for combat planes, and experience the stress of flying into enemy territory in slower, more vulnerable aircraft.Women are qualified for other types of combat assignments, in addition to those on aircraft. Although opponents of increased assignment of women focus on women’s ability to perform specific jobs, such as hand-to-hand combat involving significant physical strength, many positions currently closed to women do not fall into this category. As discussed earlier, many assignments currently closed are functionally identical to jobs women now perform successfully. While one might attempt to differentiate open and closed positions based on the additional stress of a combat environment, it is important to note that women successfully performed as past of combat support units during Desert Storm and received combat pay. According to the Department of Defense, the 40,000 women deployed during the war performed admirably and without substantial friction or special considerations. In fact, the United States Army Research Institute study of Desert Storm found no significant gender differences in job performance, readiness, effectiveness, morale, personal and family coping, emotional well-being, or retention.
Assigning women to
combat positions could increase military effectiveness. Legal restrictions on assignability create confusion in
times of war, as in Grenada and Panama when commanders did not know if women in their units could legally be deployed; units leaving women behind were short-handed. Opening all positions to qualified individuals regardless or gender would by definition mean that no woman
removing artificial barriers to assignability will increase flexibility for the military to ensure that every job is filled with the best person. Today, if the best person for a combat assignment is a woman, the best person won’t get the job.
would hold a job for which she was not qualified. There would be no need to lower standards. Rather ,
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK I/L: IMPERIALISM IS CAUSED BY CAPITALISM
IMPERIALISM IS MAJORLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SPREAD OF CAPITALISM, EVEN IF IT ISN’T A PRECONDITION.
Michael Parenti, author and lecturer, Against Empire pg. 14, May 1995
Some writers question whether imperialism is a necessary condition for capitalism, pointing out that most Western capital is invested in Western nations, not in the Third World. If corporations lost all their Third World investments, they argue, many of them could still survive on their European and North American markets. In response, one should note that capitalism might be able to survive without imperialism--but it shows no inclination to do so. It manifests no desire to discard its enormously profitable Third World enterprises. Imperialism may not be a necessary condition for investor survival but it seems to be an inherent tendency and a natural outgrowth of advanced capitalism. Imperial relations may not be the only way to pursue profits, but they are the most lucrative way. Whether imperialism is necessary for capitalism is really not the question. Many things that are not absolutely necessary are still highly desirable, therefore strongly preferred and vigorously pursued. Overseas investors find the Third World's cheap labor, vital natural resources, and various other highly profitable conditions to be compellingly attractive. Superprofits may not be necessary for capitalism's survival but survival is not all that capitalists are interested in. Superprofits are strongly preferred to more modest earnings. That there may be no necessity between capitalism and imperialism does not mean there is no compelling linkage.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK *****IMPACTS***** AIDS
ONLY IN A STRUGGLE FOR SOCIALISM CAN THE AIDS EPIDEMIC EVER BE SOLVED Torrant ’02 [Julie, noted socialist writer, “Global AIDS and the Imperialist State: The Ends of Bourgeois Moralism,”] Thus, it is, as various progressive organizations of citizens and health professionals have argued, necessary to struggle for reforms in order to make it possible for all nations and citizens to gain access to effective AIDS education and medications. What is necessary for such access is to contest the monopoly ownership and
control of life-saving drugs and reproductive and other healthcare. Global citizens must insist, for instance, that all nation-states and all companies follow and expand the existing international policies which allow for licensing of production of generic drugs in cases where lives are at stake—in other words in virtually all third world countries for all the drugs to combat aids and aids-related illnesses, tuberculosis, malaria, etc.—and for immediate, unconditional cancellation of Third World debt (the principle of which has already been repaid many
times over) so that the resources of these nations can be used to provide the necessary healthcare and not for (further) lining the pockets of finance capital. However, the only way to ensure a world in which suffering and
disease are not produced for the sake of profit and then commodified in order to reap further profits for the few at the expense of the many is to engage in all struggles, including struggles for reforms, as part of the struggle for international socialism—a world where production and its socially produced wealth is for needs not profit.
BIOSPHERE INTERNATIONAL CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT DESTROYS THE ENVIRONMENT AND WILL INEVITABLY LEAD TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE BIOSPHERE Michael Parenti, Against Empire pg. 59, 1995 The search for cheap farmland to raise cattle induces companies to cut down rain forests throughout Central America, South America, and Southeast Asia. This depletion of the global ecologi¬cal base is a
threat to all the earth's inhabitants.The tropical rain forests in Central America and the larger ones in the Amazon basin may be totally obliterated within the next two decades .
Over 25 per¬cent of our prescription drugs are derived from rain forest plants. Rain forests are the winter home for millions of migratory North American songbirds--of which declining numbers are returning from Central America. Many of these birds are essential to pest and rodent control. Over half the world's forests are gone
compared to earlier cen¬turies. The forests are nature's main means of removing carbon diox¬ide from the atmosphere. Today, the carbon dioxide buildup is transforming the chemical composition of the earth's atmosphere, accelerating the "greenhouse effect," melting the earth's polar ice caps, and causing a variety of other climatic destabilizations. The dumping of industrial effusions and radioactive wastes also may be killing our oceans. If the oceans die, so do we, since they produce most of the earth's oxygen. While the imperialists are free to roam the world and defile it at will, we are left to suffer the potentially irreversible consequences.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK BLACK MARKET MODULE
THE NATIONS ARE SO IMPOVERISHED THAT THEY MUST RESORT TO BLACK MARKETS SO THAT THEY CAN AFFORD TO LIVE Ted Grant and Alan Woods, “Marxism and the Struggle Against Imperialism”, 25 June 1998 http://www.marxist.com/marxism-imperialism-colonial-revolution250698.htm
Increased impoverishment of the population in most of the colonial world has given rise to an increase in criminality, black market and the "informal economy". In some cases the black market represents a bigger share of the economy than the official market and infiltrates all sections of the state apparatus. They try to protect their interests in the political arena through fundamentalist and "populist" forces. These are powerful economic forces which in many cases have interests which enter into conflict with those of imperialism. Thus, at all levels, the decay of capitalism undermines the very basis of civilised human existence for two-thirds of the planet. As Lenin warned, the prolonged existence of capitalism signifies "horror without end."
INTERNATIONAL BLACK MARKETS SPONSOR TERRORISM Tom O'Connor, Professor at North Carolina Wesleyan College, “ETHNO-NATIONALISTIC TERRORISM”, last updated 03/02/06 http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/429/429lect12.htm, [tables omitted]
There are critical links between corruption, crime, and terrorism. First comes the corruption, which establishes a multiplicity of crimes, including the criminal trafficking networks and black markets that enable gun and drug smuggling, for example. Many of the
citizens in such drug transit zones become addicts, but many of them also come to hate what they regard as exacerbating factors -- such as foreign investors allowed to profit through bribes -- and they come to blame not only their own government, but the governments of these foreign investors for the vast poverty and injustice in their land. The irony is that these foreign investors are not even sending the money they make back home, as many of them are engaged in money laundering, or safe off-shore investment banking. Money laundering is also the most common way terrorist groups are financed. Here's a 2003 list that the FATF (Financial Action Task Force) put out that they call Non-Cooperative Countries and Territories, or places where banking regulations are not very strict and tougher regulations have been resisted: The financial incentive to make money from terrorism is not new. Worldwide violence has always been driven by the arms market. The international trade in weapons doesn't leave the clearest paper trail, but it's commonly known that you can buy anything from anybody in this business. Bolivia is a major conduit and transshipment center in arms trading. The remains of the Soviet Union's arsenal is for sale to anyone with hard currency. The French have historically demonstrated a willingness to sell to anybody, and so have the Belgians, at least in small arms, a specialty of theirs. Two economic forces in the arms market are hybridization and customization. Both involve combining parts of weapons systems from one manufacturer or national entity with parts from another manufacturer or entity. French computers combined with Russian radar are a hot hybrid item, and MiG fighters, of course, are customizable. Increasingly sophisticated weaponry is finding its way into the hands of terrorists and subnational organizations. Here's a table of the biggest exporters and importers on the arms market: <INSERT TERRORISM IMPACT>
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION
LIBERATION FROM DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSE IS CRITICAL TO THE IMAGINING OF NEW ALTERNATIVES AS BOTH A RESEARCH QUESTION AND A SOCIAL PRACTICE. KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS PERPETUATING DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSE HAVE ALREADY RIGGED THE GAME IN DEVELOPMENT’S FAVOR. Arturo Escobar, assoc prof of anthropology at University of Mass, Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, 1995, p. Another deconstructionist approach (Sachs 1992) analyzes the central constructs or key words of the development discourse, such as market, planning, population, environment, production, equality, participation, needs, poverty, and the like. After briefly tracing the origin of each concept in European civilization, each chapter examines the uses and transformation of the concept in the development discourse from the 1950s to the present. The intent of the book is to expose the arbitrary character of the concepts, their cultural and historical specificity, and the dangers that their use represents in the context of the Third World. A related, group project is conceived in terms of a "systems of knowledge" approach. Cultures, this group believes, are characterized not only by rules and values but also by ways of knowing. Development has relied exclusively on one knowledge system, namely, the modern Western one. The dominance of this knowledge system has dictated the marginalization and disqualification of non-Western knowledge systems. In these latter knowledge systems, the authors conclude, researchers and activists might
find alternative rationalities to guide social action away from economistic and reductionistic ways of thinking. In the 1970s, women were discovered to have been "bypassed" by development interventions. This "discovery" resulted in the growth during the late 1970s and 1980s of a whole new field, women in development (WID), which has been analyzed by several feminist researchers as a regime of representation, most notably Adele Mueller (1986, 1987a, 1991) and Chandra Mohanty. At the core of these works is an insightful analysis of the practices of dominant development institutions in creating and managing their client populations. Similar analyses of particular development subfields—such as economics and the environment, for example —are a needed contribution to the understanding of the function of development as a discourse and will continue to appear. A group of Swedish anthropologists focus their work on how the concepts of development and modernity are used, interpreted, questioned, and re- produced in various social contexts in different parts of the world. An entire constellation of usages, modes of operation, and effects associated with these terms, which are profoundly local, is beginning to surface. Whether in a Papua New Guinean village or in a small town of Kenya or Ethiopia, local versions of development and modernity are formulated according to com- plex processes that include traditional cultural practices, histories of colonialism, and contemporary location within the global economy of goods and symbols (Dahl and Rabo 1992). These much-needed local ethnographies of development and modernity are also being pioneered by Pigg (1992) in her work on the introduction of health practices in Nepal. More on these works in the next chapter. Finally, it is important to mention a few works that focus on the role of conventional disciplines within the development discourse. Irene Gendzier (1985) examines the role political science played in the conformation of theories of modernization, particularly in the 1950s, and its relation to issues of the moment such as national security and economic imperatives. Also within political science, Kathryn Sikkink (1991) has more recently taken on the emergence of developmentalism in Brazil and Argentina in the 1950s and 1960s. Her chief interest is the role of ideas in the adoption, implementation, and consolidation of developmentalism as an economic development model. The Chilean Pedro Morande (1984) analyzes how the adoption and dominance of North American sociology in the 1950s and 1960s in Latin America set the stage for a purely functional conception of development, conceived of as the transformation of "traditional" into a "modern" society and devoid of any cultural considerations. Kate Manzo (1991) makes a some- what similar case in her analysis of the shortcomings of modernist approaches to development, such as dependency theory, and in her call for paying attention to "counter-modernist" alternatives that are grounded in the practices of Third World grassroots actors. The call for a
return of culture in the critical analysis of development, particularly local cultures, is also central to this book. As this short review shows, there are already a small but relatively coherent number of works that contribute to articulating a discursive critique of development. The present work makes the most general case in this regard; it seeks to provide a general view of the historical construction of development and the Third World as a whole and exemplifies the way the discourse functions in one particular case. The goal of the analysis is to contribute to the liberation of the discursive field so that the task of imagining alternatives can be commenced (or perceived by researchers in a new light) in those spaces where the production of scholarly and expert knowledge for development purposes continues to take place. The local-level ethnographies of development mentioned earlier provide useful elements toward this end. In the conclusion, I extend the insights these works afford and attempt to elaborate a view of “the alternative” as a research question and a social practice.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION THE CASE IS A RIGGED GAME David Gow, George Washington University, Anthropological Quarterly, July 1996
These ideas are further developed by Escobar in Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the Third World, an ambitious, intellectually challenging, sometimes brilliant, sometimes frustrating, sometimes perverse, but always provocative project in which he directly addresses one of the major paradoxes of our times: the relationship between the discourse of development and the practice of development. Instead of reducing the incidence of underdevelopment, there has been an increase. Is this just mere coincidence, or is there a direct relationship between the two--increasing resources for development on the one hand, and continuing, perhaps perpetuating underdevelopment on the other? To answer this question, Escobar, like Ferguson, adopts a Foucauldian perspective in which he proposes to examine development as a discursive formation that systematically relates forms of knowledge and techniques of power. To understand development discourse, we must examine the relations among the various elements that constitute the discourse, rather than the elements per se, since it is this system that determines what can be thought and what can be said: In sum, the system of relations establishes a discursive practice that sets the rules of the game: who can speak, from what points of view, with what authority, and according to what criteria of expertise; it sets the rules that must be followed for this or that problem, theory or object to emerge and be named, analyzed, and eventually transformed into a policy or plan (p. 41). To answer his basic question, Escobar spins a series of tales, drawing upon a variety of disciplines and sources, as well as his own ethnographic experience working in development bureaucracies in his own country, Colombia, all viewed through the filter of an educated Latin American who, although he has chosen to make his home in the United States, still identifies very strongly with those in the Third World who have been classified as "underdeveloped." While the tales themselves deal with both theory and practice, they are generally highly critical of the ways in which the developed world, often in collaboration with national elites, has created the world of "underdevelopment" and devised self-serving solutions to address the problems identified. The first tale deals with the problematization of poverty: the equation of poverty with underdevelopment, in which the poor are associated with a whole series of undesirable characteristics, ranging from laziness to promiscuity, and which can only be addressed through direct intervention by the state. Since the basic problem is viewed as social rather than political, it is amenable to a technical solution. Inspired by the example of the New Deal and the case for public intervention in the economy, the years following the Second World War saw not only the emergence of theories of development and the creation of development institutions, both national and international, but also the emergence of the "development business." One of the basic objectives of these institutions has been the production of knowledge about various aspects of the Third World. But knowledge for whom and for what? While Escobar agrees that such institutions may have contributed to human betterment, their efforts have not been completely selfless. The justification for this knowledge generation, echoing both Foucault and Ferguson, is the need to control, to create a type of underdevelopment that is politically and technically manageable. THE LANGUAGE OF DEVELOPMENT PRODUCES COLONIALISM Drucilla Barker, Hollins University Women’s Studies Chair, Hypatia, Summer, 1998 The language of development economics reads like a chapter in the Enlightenment dream, a dream that promised an orderly progress from poverty and ignorance to prosperity and modernity. It is a discourse infused with the Enlightenment ideal of innocent knowledge, an ideal that masks the instrumental role that development has played in maintaining global structures of neocolonialism and dependency. Instead of progress and prosperity, much of the world has experienced profound poverty, growing income inequality, high debt burdens, and environmental degradation. By the 1980s, even the proponents of development had agreed that their policies had been largely unsuccessful. Policy interventions designed to foster economic growth and alleviate poverty were abandoned in favor of neoliberal orthodoxies (Escobar 1995, 73-94). Privatization, trade liberalization, and fiscal austerity were the new strategies that would enable free-market capitalism to work its magic. Missing from this analysis, however, was any awareness of the role that development rhetoric and policies played in producing underdevelopment, exploitation, and oppression.(1)
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK GAY/LESBIAN DISCRIMINATION
CAPITALISM LEADS TO THE PRISONING, RAPE, TORTURE AND MURDER OF TRANSGENDERED PERSONS 15th World Congress 2003 ( February, “On Lesbain/Gay Liberation”, http://www.marxsite.com/lESBIAN%20AND%20gAYLIBERATION.htm
For millions of people around the world today, particularly but far from exclusively in dependent countries, same-sex eroticism can only be lived out episodically, in the margins of their family lives, often concealed from parents they still live with or spouses of the other sex. Millions of women marry in order to survive, given the extremely limited social and economic options available to them; these pressures also operate to a lesser extent on men. For many thousands of men and women, failure to conform to the heterosexual norm goes together with
3 blatant failure to conform to norms of masculinity and femininity, which makes playing heterosexual roles difficult or impossible. Thousands of transgendered people unable or unwilling to fit into socially
recognized families, unable or unwilling to live as 'proper men' or 'proper women', are banished to the furthest reaches of the labour market and of society, often supporting themselves in the sex trade or other stigmatized occupations, faced with general contempt and even violent attacks. Many LGBT people around the world contend with repression as a daily reality: prison, rape, torture and murder.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK TURN: LGBT LEGISLATION IS COMMODIFIED
YOUR PLAN WILL BE COMMODIFIED- LGBT LEGISLATION THAT IS NOT PUT IN THE FIGHT FOR BROADER SOCIAL ISSUES WILL BE SEXUALIZED AND SOLD
15th World Congress 2003 ( February, “On Lesbain/Gay Liberation”, http://www.marxsite.com/lESBIAN%20AND%20gAYLIBERATION.htm) There is a further issue in that the scene itself is very limited in the way in permits people to relate, even though it has become more diverse as it has expanded. In general it remains male-dominated, and
perpetuates images of sexual attractiveness that are ageist and racist - in short it projects sex as a commodity and does not provide an environment in which people can relate very easily as full human beings. Informal networks, clubs, community centres and activist groups that are the result of LGBT self-organization provide some alternatives to the alienation of the commercial scene, but often lack the visibility, glitz and resources that the commercial scene has.
Lesbian/gay communities, which include all women and men of all classes who identify as lesbian or gay, along with the identities and subcultures that have grown up within them, have been the basis on which lesbian/gay movements have arisen. Much of the lesbian/gay subculture has been attacked on the basis that
it is very alienated, but when this criticism comes from the media or the right it ignores the fact that all sexuality is increasingly presented as a commodity under capitalism. Lesbian/gay movements have mostly been directed against specific laws or policies repressing same-sex sexuality or LGBT people; towards laws that would ban various forms of social discrimination; and towards laws granting same-sex relationships equal recognition and treatment under existing laws and policies.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK GLOBAL WARMING US CAPITALISM DESTROYS THE ENVIRONMENT AND CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING Siegel No Date Given [Paul, noted socialist, “socialism versus capitalism”]
How capitalism stands in the way of the solution of the environmental crisis can perhaps be most clearly seen in what many regard as the most pressing environment issue, that of global warming. The 2500 leading climate scientists of the world, brought together by the United Nations in a
body called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, announced in a series of reports beginning in 1990 that the earth is heating up at a faster rate than at any time in the last 10,000 years. This, it said, was primarily as a result of the "greenhouse" effect caused by the trapping of the sun's heat by the emissions from coal and oil burning. The panel stated that, unless in very short order fossil fuel emissions are reduced
by from 50 percent to 70 percent from 1990 levels, there will be "extreme high temperature events, floods [caused by melting glaciers and ice caps], and drought, with resultant consequences for fire, pest outbreaks, and ecosystem[s]." These would be "likely to cause widespread economic, social, and environmental dislocation." In response to these warnings,
governments engaged in negotiations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, each seeking agreements that would be advantageous to them as against their competitors. However, despite all the palaver and bickering, carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 to 1999 went up, not down. Japan's emissions increased by 14 percent, the U.S. emissions increased by 12 percent, and the European Union emissions increased by 1 percent
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK GENDER/RACIAL INEQUALITY AND NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION
CAPITALISM’S GROWTH CREATES LARGE-SCALE POVERTY, GENDER AND RACIAL INEQUALITY, AND RISKS NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION Webb ’04 [Sam, Chairperson of communist party USA, “War, capitalism, and George W. Bush,” March 20]
Capitalism was never a warm, cuddly, stable social system. It came into the world dripping with blood from
every pore, as Marx described it, laying waste to old forms of production and ways of life in favor of new, more efficient manufacturing. Since then it has combined nearly uninterrupted transformation of the
instruments of production with immense wealth for a few and unrelieved exploitation, insecurity, misery, and racial and gender inequality for the many, along with periodic wars, and a vast zone of countries imprisoned in a seemingly inescapable web of abject poverty. Yet as bad as that record is, its most destructive effects on our world could still be ahead. Why do I say that? Because capitalism, with its imperatives of capital accumulation, profit maximization and competition, is the cause of new global problems that threaten the prospects and lives of billions of people worldwide, and, more importantly, it is also a formidable barrier to humankind’s ability to solve these problems. Foremost among these, in addition to ecological degradation, economic crises, population pressures, and endemic diseases, is the threat of nuclear mass annihilation.
NUCLEAR EXTINCTION CAPITALISM CREATES NUCLEAR BUILD UP THAT WILL LEAD TO EXTINCTION Siegel No Date Given [Paul, noted socialist, “socialism versus capitalism”]
With more than one power possessing an atomic arsenal and the atomic bomb itself being vastly more powerful than the ones that wrought such havoc in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the next war would bring the threat of nuclear annihilation. The high anxiety concerning this threat that existed at the height of the
Cold War has receded. Yet not only is an atomic arsenal still retained by the major powers; it is being acquired by more and more countries. The danger of a nuclear disaster by accident or by war is stronger
than ever. The annihilation of humanity would be the ultimate conclusion of the destructiveness of contemporary capitalism.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK RACISM
Capitalism inspires racism
Puryear no date [Eugene, noted socialist, “Capitalism, racism devastate Black communities in U.S,”] Racism means big profits. National oppression of the Black community under U.S. capitalism has several driving factors. It serves to divide the multinational U.S. working class, infecting the white working class in particular with racist chauvinism to prevent class-consciousness against their common exploiters. It also serves to extract greater profits from the Black working class, close to 40 million strong. This happens most directly on the job, where wages are lower and benefits fewer than among the working class as a whole. But it also happens in more insidious ways. One way of extracting greater profits that is relevant to the conditions facing Black men is the prison-industrial complex—the multi-billion-dollar for-profit prison system. Corporations like IBM, Dell, Macy’s and hundreds of others have contracts with state governments to use prisoners for labor. In addition, prison labor is used directly by the federal government to make all U.S. military uniforms, for example. Prison business went from $392 million in 1984 to $1.3 billion dollars in 1994. Prisoners are paid no more than $2 an hour in public prisons; in many private prisons, they are making as little as 17 cents an hour.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK WOMEN
CAPITALIST REFORM FOR WOMEN’S RIGHTS EMPIRICALLY FAILS- WOMEN WILL ALWAYS BE CONSIDERED SECOND RATE CITIZENS Ana Muoz and Alan Woods, “Marxism and the emancipation of women”, 08 March 2000 http://www.marxist.com/marxism-feminism-emancipation-women080300.htm
But the capitalist system regards women merely as a convenient source of cheap labour and part of the "reserve army of labour" to be drawn on when there is a shortage of labour in certain areas of production, and discarded again when the need disappears. We saw this in both world wars, when women were drafted into the factories to replace men who had been called up into the army and then sent back to the home when the war ended. Women were again encouraged to enter the workplaces during the period of capitalist upswing of the 1950s and 1960s, when their role was analogous to that of the immigrant workers--as a reservoir of cheap labour. In the more recent period, the number of women workers has increased to fill gaps in the productive process. But, despite all the talk about a "woman's world" and "girl power", and despite all the laws that supposedly guarantee equality, women workers remain the most exploited and oppressed section of the proletariat.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN THE MILITARY IS INCREASING WITH IMPUNITY Donna Goodman, Writer for Socialism Liberation, July 2005 (“Capitalism breeds violence against women”, Socialism Liberation)
The same patterns of victimization of women can be seen in the military—another instrument of state repression. Despite a growing number of women in the military, there is a pervasive culture of hostility toward women that is promoted from the highest ranks of the officer corps. Widely publicized incidents like the 1991 Tailhook incident tell only part of the story. A recent Pentagon report noted a 25 percent increase in the number of reported sexual assault cases with service member victims from 2003 to 2004, as well as a 41 percent increase from 2002 to 2004. Domestic violence rates in the military are two to three times higher than in the civilian population, with only a small proportion of violators prosecuted or disciplined. These crimes are most common among the elite special forces, including the four widely publicized 2002 murders of military wives at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. This violence is above and beyond the violence against women civilians that occurs wherever U.S. armed forces are stationed, whether in U.S.-occupied Iraq or near U.S. military bases in Japan.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK
OPPRESSION AGAINST WOMEN IS ROOTED IN CAPITALISM- CAPITALIST STATE REFORM FOR WOMEN WILL BE ROLLED BACK Donna Goodman, Writer for Socialism Liberation, July 2005 “Capitalism breeds violence against women”, Socialism Liberation)
But in a world economy dominated by capitalism—production for private profit—special oppression against women has an economic basis. Having whole groups of people subject to terror and insecurity in their personal lives erodes the possibilities for organizing for better living conditions—and, consequently, lower rates of profit. So every legal gain made by women under capitalism is under constant attack. For every success, there is a setback. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development now requires detailed information on
battered women to be collected from domestic violence shelters that receive HUD funding. This information is computerized and available to other government agencies. Over 40,000 women each year use shelters financed by HUD. The Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2005, now in the Senate, will spend $1.6 billion to “promote marriage” and force poor women to accept low-wage, dead-end jobs, leaving their children in inadequate childcare. The government is already spending over $100 million on marriage promotion, taking funds from other social programs. These “marriage promotion” laws do nothing to provide the foundation for providing families with adequate wages, health care or childcare. Rather, they provide incentives for women to enter into relationships that may be abusive or unstable.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK WOMEN
Capitalism undermines Feminism
Donna Goodman, Writer for Socialism Liberation, July 2005 “Capitalism breeds violence against women”, Socialism Liberation The sheer magnitude of the problem of violence against women around the world, including in the most advanced capitalist countries, shows that it is not a random or an individual crime. It is a tool of oppression that keeps women subordinate. Ideologically, sexist violence in the United States—the most advanced capitalist state in the world—is a symbol of the glorification of war, violence and the male “hero” that pervades U.S. culture. Imperialist expansion and war have intensified the exploitation and suffering of women here and in other countries. The women’s movement has won important reforms in the political, economic and social spheres. Every victory was won because women and their allies took to the streets and lit a fire under legislatures, courts and police. The causes of women’s oppression are rooted in class society. The ongoing struggle for women’s equality and freedom from violence is an international one, integral to the struggle against imperialism and war. The renewal of activism in response to the Iraq war and capitalist globalization presents an excellent opportunity to unite in fighting women’s oppression, capitalist exploitation and militarism.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK *****ALTERNATIVE***** DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
ONLY COOPERATION AVOIDS ASSERTING POWER OVER THE RECIPIENT Eamon M. Kelly, Chairman, National Science Board Caring Communities For The 21st Century, February 10, 1999 http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/1999/speeches/kelly.txt First, the political realities should be acknowledged-that the traditional development assistance approach to infrastructure building and technology transfer is no longer appropriate. Being largely donor-driven, it is too costly in terms of both human and financial resources. And many developing countries now have increasing resources of their own which they are committing to the development process. As a consequence, developing countries are becoming a dominant force in determining how international health and development should proceed. Key factors in this trend include: * The failure of most donors to recognize that partnering--not development assistance-is what most countries seek * The need for technology transfer, whether equipment or skills, to be culturally and socially appropriate and reflect the capability of developing countries to effectively utilize it * Recognition that the magnitude of the training and service needs in many countries far exceed the capacity of higher education institutions, which, until recently, have not received sufficient attention from donors. COOPERATION FORGES PARTNERSHIP Xinhua News Agency, SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 jacques-mederic chevrot, vice president of the chamber of regions of the congress of local and regional authorities of europe, said at the meeting that economic imbalance threatens political stability and democracy in the region. he stressed the problem should be solved through cooperation in the form of partnership between rich and poor and not of assistance offered by the former to the latter.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK GAY/LESBIAN ALTERNATIVE SOLVENCY: GAY/LESBIAN
AND THE ALT. SOLVES THE CASE- SOCIALISM SOLVES HOMOPHOBIA AND HETEROSEXISM QUEER COMMISSION OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY, WEBSITE UPDATED, 2006 (http://www.spusa.org/queer/queercom.html)
democratic socialists reject this view. We support the empowerment and liberation of all oppressed people, and we cannot accept the exclusion of anyone; as such, we also condemn the discrimination against members of our own community by other queer people. The Socialist Party supports specific legal
We as actions to reinforce the rights of queer people, for example: Federal Queer Bill of Rights, guaranteeing full parental rights, including the right to adoption or provide foster care; equal treatment in housing, employment and the provision of social services; and legal recognition of same-sex marriages. Repeal of Discriminatory Laws, such as employment discrimination statutes and immigration
laws may be to making our lives more tolerable, they still only address the effects of homophobia and not the cause; as such, they can only be part of the solution. As with combating racism and sexism, the struggle must be to change people's attitudes, and this must start with education. Specifically, we call for: 1. Educating Children in our schools on queer concerns and on the equal validity of same sex
restrictions. However, no matter how important these and opposite sex attractions; let the cycle of homophobia be broken with this generation. 2. Supporting and defending our queer youth. We strongly endorse social services specifically designed to help queer adolescents, such as queer youth support groups and gay/straight alliances within schools. We have to encourage the realization of their self worth and remove the barriers to their selfexpression. If their families reject them, we must provide them with love as well as support. 3. Removing the shroud of secrecy that has for too long hidden the achievements of both historical and contemporary queer people. 4. Including positive role models in mass
Socialism is the logical and necessary route for smashing the death-grip that homophobia and heterosexism has over our daily lives.
media. We should be as visible on prime time as we are on Pride Day. Unfortunately, many who use the name, Socialist, do not or will not accept the responsibility for combating homophobia and heterosexism and fighting for queer civil rights; the Socialist Party, USA, the democratic socialist party of Eugene Debs, does.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK ALTERNATIVE SOLVENCY: MOVEMENTS SOLVE INEQUALITY
QUEER RIGHTS MOVEMENT FAIL BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY BROAD- QUEER SOCIALISM WILL SOLVE RACE, GENDER AND CLASS INEQUALITIES Buckmire 1993 (“This Way Out Magazine”, Staff writer, Speech by Mab Segrest, Washington-DC based entity, year’s annual conference from North Carolina, http://www.qrd.org/qrd/orgs/NGLTF/1993/creating.change.transcript-THIS.WAY.OUT_)
With regards to NAFTA and race, class and gender, noted Southern organizer and author Mab Segrest at the first keynote plenary speech made a powerful argument for the Task Force to take an official stand against NAFTA as part of a change of direction of the gay/lesbian/bisexual
We don't need a queer nationalism-- we need a queer socialism; that is by necessity anti-racist and feminist; a politic that does not cut us off from other people, but that unites us with them in the broadest possible movement. #2 We gay people bring the knowledge that we humans are not only 'means of production,'
movement:(Mab Segrest sound feed:)#1 I would argue we have opted for the wrong model. however much capitalism seeks to define us that way. Our needs include not only the survival needs of food, shelter, health care and clothing, but also dignity pleasure and love.#3 A Queer Socialism would not be provincially urban. It would recognize that the most crucial battles for gay/lesbian politics in the next decade will not be in the cities where we have our power base, where most of our people are concentrated. The Right has finally figured out to take us on their turf, not ours. These battles will be in areas more rural and historically more conservative. In
A Queer Socialism will create broad-based movements against homophobia rather than movements only for gay and lesbian rights. It will hold heterosexuals accountable for heterosexism, generating heterosexual allies then trusting them to do their work. #4 In my vision of a reinvigorated movement, the Nationa; Gay & Lesbian Task Force would take a stand on major issues such as NAFTA in solidarity with working people.#5 My movement wouldn't avoid these stands for fear it would divide our constituency -- we are already divided; it would take them to unite us around broader principles. In My movement, we see the opportunity in the crisis – to do what we should have done 25 years ago, put the determination to keep faith with one another by not tolerating racism, sexism and class divisions in ourselves or in our organizations.#6In our momvement we seize the opportunity to face our own fears and isolations in the messages of the Right and stare them down. As Creek poet Joy Harjo wrote:Oh you have
these areas, we will develop new models, not dependent on a critical gay mass and gay infrastructure. choked me, but I gave you the leash You have gutted me, but I gave you the knife, You have devoured me, but I gave you the heated thing. I take myself back, fear.#7 This re-energized movement will be, in Suzanne Pharr's eloquent terms, "not a wedge but a bridge"; not a point of division, but of expansion and connection. A bridge, not a wedge. A bridge, not a wedge. It has a nice rhythm to it. We can say it like a mantra when we feel the right getting too hot. #8 *Applause*#9 Thank you #10 As Audre Lord would say " Don't clap for me if you don't intend to do it!"[end Mab Segrest]
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK SOCIALISM SOLVES SOCIALISM SOLVES UNITED STATES CRIME RATES McMullen ’06 [David, writer for the socialism website, “Isn't capitalism more efficient and dynamic?,”April 30]
The debate between liberals and conservatives about the cause of crime has no bearing on the fact that crime is associated with capitalism and will be virtually eliminated by socialism. If the liberals are right, crime is due to unemployment, in which case socialism solves the problem by offering guaranteed work. If the conservatives are right then crime is due to a self-perpetuating under-class which is encouraged in its illicit and slothful habits by welfare programs. In this case socialism also solves the problem. Firstly welfare is replaced by a guarantee of rewarding work and secure income. Secondly, socialism would be in a better position to deal with the lumpen element. It can mobilise the best elements in problem neighbourhoods to combat their influence. And it can claim a mandate to implement emergency measures if necessary. For example, being a hoodlum or associating with hoodlums could be an offence. Such a mandate could be claimed because it is one-off and effective - those convicted are not simply replaced by a fresh crop - and it is not excessively punitive. Conviction, except for die hards, would lead to retraining and guaranteed work. SOCIALISM PROTECTS THE ENVIRONMENT AND PREVENTS CAPITALISTIC DESTRUCTION World Socialist ’96 [major socialist organization, winter] This movement already exists as the movement for world socialism. It is vital that those who see the need for world co-operation in dealing with the problems facing all of humanity should join its ranks to swell its voice of sanity and thereby contribute to the work of preparing practical programmes of action which could be implemented once the socialist political objective is achieved. This political objective is one of democratically gaining political control with a view to taking the means of production and the earth's resources out of the hands of the world's capitalist class and placing them at the free disposal of the whole world's community. How could world socialism set about the work of establishing a world energy system which would be adequate for the material needs of the world community but which could also work within the natural systems of the environment in a nondestructive way? Two factors have to be accepted. First, the overall amount of energy supply required in socialism as part of its general strategy of productive development would be immense, arguably greater than the amount which capitalism currently produces. SOCIALISM FOCUSES ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT NPQ ’87 The buildup of weapons, in particular nuclear weapons between the superpowers, is not the result of just a bad president or secretary general but part and parcel of the system. Elaborating on this point, I think Gorbachev realizes the problem from his side. His peace initiative is part and parcel of the internal reforms. He knows he cannot improve the Soviet standard of living without the reduction of spending on nuclear arms and the military in general. It is not only a question of Gorbachev being a man of peace. Believe me, Gorbachev is a man of peace. But for him, arms reductions are also a matter of dire necessity for the socialist system. Technological revolutions go hand in hand with periods of crisis. While I don't think the problems I've noted will be solved in the near future, capitalism's perennial crises tend to resolve themselves and move on. My emphasis in the course of things is primarily on the dangers of survival. Environmentalism, peace and citizen participation in all processes of managing the crises are the values which socialists share. That is our role. In Greece, we place key emphasis on empowering our citizens through a structure of decentralized planning.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK ******AT****** AT: DEVELOPMENT HELP THIRD WORLD NATIONS
THE IMPERIALIST DEVELOPMENT OF OTHER NATIONS USES MORE EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGY AND FEWER WORKERS, ONLY MAGNIFYING THE SUPEREXPLOITATION OF THE PEOPLE
Seligman ’99 [Carole, National committee member of Socialist action, “Capitalism and War,” August 9]
The capitalist economy produces things for the market as long as a there is a profit to be made. Profit is invested in further production. But no national capitalist state can have a self-contained economy because natural resources are unevenly distributed around the world. Also, the consumer market for the things produced cannot absorb the total, so markets for these things must be sought outside the national boundaries. Capital investment outlets must be sought outside the national boundaries as well. The difficulties of finding markets for over-produced goods, and new sources for capital investment of profits, are magnified in the imperialist stage of capitalist development-where technology creates more efficient production using fewer workers, leading to a tendency for the rate of profits to decline (even while the gross amount of profits increase). So the imperialist countries try to solve their problems (of increasing their profits by finding markets for their goods and investments) by lowering their costs for raw materials; by gaining, or holding control over sources of these raw materials and extending the range of the available commodity market; by getting new outlets for capital investment; and by the super-exploitation of peoples in the less developed areas of the world.
AT: CAPITALISM BRINGS PEACE EVEN DURING PEACE TIME, A CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD TO BE PREPARING FOR COVERT AND OVERT WARS Seligman ’99 [Carole, National committee member of Socialist action, “Capitalism and War,” August 9] On Aug. 11, 1999, an article appeared in The New York Times titled, "Archives Unearthed in Paraguay Expose U.S. Allies' Abuses." The archives expose Operation Condor, a 1970s secret plan among the police and military forces of six Latin American countries-dictatorships with close alliances and allegiances to the United States-to crush left-wing political dissent. All six countries' military forces were trained at the U.S.-run School of the Americas and all received U.S. military funding. All were at war against their own people. Between the hot
class wars U.S. imperialism engages in with soldiers and military equipment, are class wars the U.S. ruling class wages against workers and peasants and poor people here at home and throughout the world. Operation Condor was anything but peaceful, but the U.S. sent no
soldiers into combat in these six countries-only CIA operatives, military trainers, weapons, and money.
Peacetime, in the time of capitalism, can only be understood as the preparatory interval between wars. That idea is intrinsic to understanding the socialist perspective on war and peace.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK AT: THIRD WORLD OVERPOPULATION CAUSES POVERTY
THESE “THIRD WORLD” COUNTRIES ARE NO MORE OVERPOPULATED THEN MANY “FIRST WORLD” COUNTRIES, JUST MORE EMPOVERISHED. Michael Parenti, author and lecturer, Against Empire pg. 14, May 1995 http://www.michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html
Other theories enjoy wide currency. We hear that Third World poverty is due to overpopulation, too many people having too many children to feed. Actually, over the last several centuries, many Third World lands have been less densely populated than certain parts of Europe. India has fewer people per acre--but more poverty--than Holland, Wales, England, Japan, Italy, and a few other industrial countries. Furthermore, it is the industrialized nations of the First World, not the poor ones of the Third, that devour some 80 percent of the world's resources and pose the greatest threat to the planet's ecology.
AT: CAPITALISM IS INEVITABLE “CAPITALISM IS INEVITABLE” IS AN EXCUSE FOR AVOIDING ALTERNATIVES
“Nonviolence Versus Capitalism” by
Brian Martin. WAR RESISTERS’ INTERNATIONAL
by War Resisters’ International. http://www.wri-irg.org/ URL:
LONDON 2001. Published in 2001 http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/01nvc/.
to say that capitalism is inevitable. This is really just an excuse for doing nothing to examine and promote improvements and alternatives. The way society is organised is due to the actions of people, and these actions can change. History shows a tremendous range of possibilities for human patterns of interaction. Furthermore, technological development is creating new options for the structuring of work, communication and interaction. Considering that capitalism is only a few hundred years old and continues to change, and that there is nothing approaching agreement that the current system is ideal, the assumption of inevitability is very weak indeed. Defenders of
Actually, it is absurd capitalism assume that there are only two basic options: either capitalism or some sort of system based on authoritarian government, either state socialism or some other sort of dictatorship. (Capitalism is assumed to go hand in hand with representative government, but this ignores those countries with capitalist economies and authoritarian politics, including fascism and military dictatorship.) AT: TRICKLE DOWN THE PROFITS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS DO NOT FIX THE PROBLEMS THAT IT CREATES IN THE U.S. ECONOMY
Michael Parenti, Against Empire pg. 57, 1995 Nor do the benefits of this empire trickle down to the American consumer in any appreciable way. Generally the goods made abroad by superexploited labor are sold at as high a price as possible on U.S. markets. Corporations move to Asia and Africa not to produce lower-priced goods that will save money for U.S. consumers but to maximize their profits. They pay as little as possible in wages abroad but still charge as much as possible when they sell the goods at home. Shoes that cost Nike $7 to make in Indonesia-where the company or
its subcontractors pay women workers about 18 cents an hour-are then sold in this country for $130 or more. Baseballs produced in Haiti at a labor cost of two cents a ball are sold in the USA for $10 and up. The General Electric household appliances made by young women in South Korea, who work for bare subsistence wages, and the Admiral International color television sets assembled by low-paid workers in Taiwan, do not cost us any less than when they were made in North America. As the president of Admiral noted, the shift to Taiwan "won't affect
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK
pricing state-side but it should improve the company's profit structure, otherwise we wouldn't be making the move."
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK AT: REAPROPRIATION OF LANGUAGE
1. RE-APPROPRIATION FAILS- EXTEND ESTEVA - EVEN WITH THE BEST INTENTIONS, THEIR ATTEMPT TO RE-APPROPRIATE WILL BE TIED TO THEIR HISTORY OF OPPRESSION. LATOUCHE SAYS THE TOXICITY OF THE WORD DEVELOPMENT MEANS THE WORD CAN’T BE ALTERED. EVEN IF IN THE FUTURE “DEVELOPMENT” IS GOOD, HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF RACISM WILL ALWAYS BE ATTACHED 2. USING A DIFFERENT WORD IS BETTER- CLEAVER SAYS RE-APPROPRIATION IS A DEAD-END. EVEN IF IT “WORKS,” IT ONLY FORCES MORE DEBATES ABOUT THE OLD WORD. 3. “RE-APPROPRIATION” IS JUST ANOTHER WAY TO RE-ENFORCE THE DOMINANT NOTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT. THE WORD ITSELF IN ANY FORM IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE KRITIK Serge Latouche, University Of Paris XI Professor of Economics, In The Wake of the Affluent Society: An exploration of post development, 1993, p. 149 The most dangerous solicitations, the sirens with the most insidious song, are not those of ‘true blue’ and ‘hard’ development, but rather those of what is called ‘alternative’ development. This term can in effect encompass any hope or ideal that one might wish to project into the harsh realities of existence. The fact that it presents a friendly exterior makes ‘alternative’ development all the more dangerous. It hides fatal traps and ambushes which are made even harder to sniff out and bring to light by the fact that those involved in ‘alternative’ development happily adopt all the criticisms made about non-alternative development, so-called ‘mal-development.’ So the analyst has to be very much on guard to avoid all the booby traps; good intentions are, unfortunately, not enough. As Ivan Illich notes, redefining development serves only to ‘reinforce the Western economic domination of the shape of formal economics by the professional colonization of the informal sector, domestic and foreign’.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK AT: REAPROPRIATION OF LANGUAGE
DEVELOPMENT CAN’T BE RE-APPROPRIATED. SCRAPPING THE OLD CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK IS ALWAYS BETTER Harry M. Cleaver, Jr., professor of economics at UT-Austin, May 3, 1995 http://www.cs.unb.ca/~alopez-o/politics/NAFTAmail/msg00023.html I agree that, at least at level of the choice of language, there is a real problem with using the word "development". The problem is above all its heavy, historically accumulated, load of ambiguity. The word has meant so many things to so many different people, that when we use the word we wind up talking about the word instead of what we want to be talking about, namely how peoples lives can be made better, or what is preventing them from achieving such improvement (however defined). There is a very nice essay by Gustavo Esteva on the problems associated with this word "development" in a book I have refered to before: Wolfgang Sachs (ed) THE DEVELOPMENT DICTIONARY, London:Zed, 1992. Among other points, Gustavo make one which you do: that the concept development has increasinly been associated with movement toward some ideal model. He traces the evolution from its biological origins through its application to the social sphere in the 18th Century to the present. His primary concern, however, is the use of the term in the Post WWII era as "development" became the goal and "underdevelopment" the scourge of humankind. In a paper I wrote for a conference in Mexico some years back (1985, just after the earthquake), I discussed another of your points, namely that part of the Cold War involved a struggle between "two models of development", i.e., capitalist and socialist, but argued, as I have been doing in this thread, that the two models were really only variations on a common core and neither led anywhere beyond the current morass of exploitation, brutality and suffering with which we are all too familiar. You ask "Can we escape from this logic?" I think the answer is yes, we can, that increasing numbers of people are finding/creating paths out of the morass that open into other kinds of relationships. If we take seriously the idea that concepts not only do, but must, evolve with the evolution (and revolutions) of history, then we should also see that WE can be involved in engineering that conceptual evolution. And the best way to do that is often not to look for some new adjective to hang onto an old concept (e.g., nowadays people want to hang "sustainable" rather than "capitalist" or "socialist" onto "development") but to scrap the old concept and look for new ones. Forget the jargon and return to the vernacular and find new ways of expressing new desires. This is less likely to be a good idea when you are analysing new variations of old processes and relationships than it is when you are striking out for something new. For example "neoliberal capitalism" is not a bad name for contemporary capitalist policy because it still IS capitalism, just with a new twist. But when we want to think about avoiding being twisted, we often do well to scrap jetison the old jargon and start fresh.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK AT: PERMUTATION(DEVELOPMENT)
1. TURN: THE PERMUTATION MASKS CRITICISM. IT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT CRITICAL INQUIRY IS PURSUED, YET EMBRACES THE VERY ASSUMPTIONS WE’RE CRITICIZING, MAKING US COMPLACENT TO THE DANGERS OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT ADVOCACY. OUR 1NC LATOUCHE EV IS TOO GOOD: PLACING THE AFF UNDER THE BANNER OF DEVELOPMENT CAN ONLY BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE 2. ONLY OUR ALTERNATIVE ALONE CAN SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGE THE IDEOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT. THE PERMUTATION STILL LINKS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO ADVOCATE CALLING IT DEVELOPMENT. 3. THE PERMUTATION JUST PERPETUATES ENSLAVEMENT BY THE WEST. ONLY OUR ALTERNATIVE CAN SOLVE. Serge Latouche, University Of Paris XI Professor of Economics, In The Wake of the Affluent Society: An exploration of post development, 1993, p. 149 The most dangerous solicitations, the sirens with the most insidious song, are not those of ‘true blue’ and ‘hard’ development, but rather those of what is called ‘alternative’ development. This term can in effect encompass any hope or ideal that one might wish to project into the harsh realities of existence. The fact that it presents a friendly exterior makes ‘alternative’ development all the more dangerous. It hides fatal traps and ambushes which are made even harder to sniff out and bring to light by the fact that those involved in ‘alternative’ development happily adopt all the criticisms made about non-alternative development, so-called ‘mal-development.’ So the analyst has to be very much on guard to avoid all the booby traps; good intentions are, unfortunately, not enough. As Ivan Illich notes, redefining development serves only to ‘reinforce the Western economic domination of the shape of formal economics by the professional colonization of the informal sector, domestic and foreign’. 4. THE PERM SEVERS THEIR SOLVENCY MECHANISM – DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE- AND THAT’S A MOVING TARGET. “DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE” IS THE ONLY LIMITING TERM TO THE TOPIC BESIDES “US” AND “GREATER HORN.” THE NEGATIVE HAS NO GROUND IF THEY CAN JUST DO A 180 AND SAY “DON’T INCREASE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE. IT’S AN INDEPENDENT VOTING ISSUE FOR FAIRNESS AND GROUND. 5. THE PERM STILL LINKS TO THE CRITIQUE. ESTEVA SAYS DEVELOPMENT RHETORIC MAY SHIFT TO TRY TO CHANGE ITSELF, BUT IT ULTIMATELY CREATES THE OTHER AS AN INFERIOR TO BE IMPROVED THROUGH WESTERN SLAVERY. 6. ALSO THE RESOLUTION STILL LINKS, SO YOU CAN’T VOTE AFF EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT THE PLAN SEVERANCE. THE PERM DE-JUSTIFIES THE RESOLUTION. IT PROVES THAT “DEVELOPMENT” ISN’T NECESSARY OR DESIREABLE. WE WIN BECAUSE WE NEGATE THE RESOLUTION. WE’VE PROVED THAT YOU SHOULDN’T INCREASE “DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE” 7. OUR CRITIQUE IS JUST LIKE AN EXCLUSION CP: ANY PERMUTATION EITHER LINKS OR SEVERS WHAT THEY ADVOCATED. WE NEVER ADVOCATED ADDING ANYTHING TO THE AFFIRMATIVE. SEVERING IS ILLEGITIMATE BECAUSE IT KILLS ALL NEGATIVE CRITIQUE AND CP GROUND CRITIQUE PERMUTATIONS ARE ILLEGITIMATE BECAUSE A - THE CRITIQUE ISN’T ADVOCACY LIKE A COUNTERPLAN, IT IS A REASON TO DISCURSIVELY REJECT THE AFFIRMATIVE, LIKE AN IMPACT TURN. B – THERE IS NO TEXT TO PERMUTE. THERE IS NOTHING ADVOCATED BY THE NEGATIVE THAT THE AFFIRMATIVE CAN ADD TO THEIR PLAN TO TAKE OUT THE LINK. C – THE PERM DOESN’T TAKE OUT THE LINK. THEY CAN’T COOPT THE 1NC ADVOCACY AND RHETORIC. IT WOULD JUSTIFY THE AFF KICKING OUT OF ALL OF THE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE 1AC. THAT’S A VOTER BECAUSE IT DESTROYS ALL NEG CRITIQUE AND DISAD GROUND, AND IT PROMOTES ARGUMENT IRRESPONSIBILITY.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK AT: THEY WANT DEVELOPMENT
ONLY COOPERATION AVOIDS ASSERTING POWER OVER THE RECIPIENT Eamon M. Kelly, Chairman, National Science Board Caring Communities For The 21st Century, February 10, 1999 http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/1999/speeches/kelly.txt First, the political realities should be acknowledged-that the traditional development assistance approach to infrastructure building and technology transfer is no longer appropriate. Being largely donor-driven, it is too costly in terms of both human and financial resources. And many developing countries now have increasing resources of their own which they are committing to the development process. As a consequence, developing countries are becoming a dominant force in determining how international health and development should proceed. Key factors in this trend include: * The failure of most donors to recognize that partnering--not development assistance-is what most countries seek * The need for technology transfer, whether equipment or skills, to be culturally and socially appropriate and reflect the capability of developing countries to effectively utilize it * Recognition that the magnitude of the training and service needs in many countries far exceed the capacity of higher education institutions, which, until recently, have not received sufficient attention from donors. COOPERATION FORGES PARTNERSHIP Xinhua News Agency, SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 jacques-mederic chevrot, vice president of the chamber of regions of the congress of local and regional authorities of europe, said at the meeting that economic imbalance threatens political stability and democracy in the region. he stressed the problem should be solved through cooperation in the form of partnership between rich and poor and not of assistance offered by the former to the latter. WHATEVER
Japan Economic Newswire, May 4, 2000
North Korea has urged South Korea to soften the image of 'assistance' when the leaders of the two countries discuss about economic cooperation during their historic summit in Pyongyang in June, a senior South Korean official said Thursday. South Korea's news agency Yonhap said Unification Minister Park Jae Kyu disclosed the North Korean position in briefing officials of the ruling Millennium Democratic Party (MDP) on the state of preparation for the June 12-14 summit. Negotiators from North and South Korea wound up a third round of talks at the Panmunjom truce village Wednesday, with both sides reporting progress in setting up the agenda for the summit. Park told the MDP officials that North Korea wants the South to minimize the connotation of assistance in describing economic cooperation -- a major item in the summit agenda, Yonhap said.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK AT: AGENCY
NO LINK – THEIR EV SAYS WE SHOULDN’T DENY THE PLAN TO THE SOUTH, WHICH ISN’T COMPETITIVE WITH OUR CRITICISM. WE JUST SAY YOU SHOULDN’T FRAME IT AS DEVELOPMENT. LATOUCHE ONLY SAYS THE WORD HAS A POISONED HISTORY – NONE OF THEIR AUTHORS ASK FOR US TO IMPLY INFERIORITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PLAN WE DON’T DENY THE POTENTIAL FOR PEOPLE TO REBEL AGAINST IMPERIALISM, WE JUST SAY THEY SHOULDN’T HAVE TO. TURN - WE SAY THAT WE THINK THEIR FRAMING IS OPPRESSIVE, BUT THEIR CLAIM THAT “AFRICANS WANT THE PLAN” IS AN ATTEMPT TO SPEAK FOR THOSE OTHERS Arturo Escobar, assoc prof of anthropology at University of Mass, Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, 1995, p.153 As Michael Taussig (1987, 135) said, “From the represented shall come that which overturns the representation.” He continues, commenting on the absence of the narratives of South American indigenous peoples from most representations about them, “It is the ultimate anthropological conceit, anthropology in its highest, indeed redemptive, moment, rescuing the ‘voice’ of the Indian from the obscurity of pain and time” (135). This is to say that as much as the plain exclusion of the peasant’s voice in rural development discourse, this conceit to “speak for the others,” perhaps even to rescue their voice, as Taussig says, must be avoided. The fact that violence is a cultural manifestation of hunger applies not only to hunger’s physical aspects but to the violence of representation. The development discourse has turned its representations of hunger into an act of consumption of images and feelings by the well nourished, an act of cannibalism, as Cinema Novo artists would have it. This consumption is a feature of modernity, we are reminded by Foucault (1975, 84) (“It is just that the illness of some should be transformed into the experience of others”). But the regimes of representation that produce this violence are not easily neutralized, as the next chapter will show. DEVELOPMENT KILLS IMAGINING OF ALTERNATIVES AND ENSLAVES PEOPLE; IT REDUCES PEOPLE INTO NUMBERS IN AN EQUATION AND DESTROYS THEIR AGENCY Arturo Escobar, assoc prof of anthropology at University of Mass, Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, 1995, p.44 The most important exclusion, however, was and continues to be what development was supposed to be all about: people. Development was- and continues to be for the most part- a top-down, ethnocentric, and technocratic approach, which treated people and cultures as abstract concepts, statistical figures to be moved up and down in the charts of “progress.” Development was conceived not as a cultural process (culture was a residual variable, to disappear with the advance of modernization) but instead as a system of more or less universally applicable technical interventions intended to deliver some “badly needed” goods to a “target” population. It comes as no surprise that development became a force so destructive to Third World cultures, ironically in the name of people’s interests.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK AT: AGENCY
DEVELOPMENT CAN NEVER ALLOW AGENCY: THE DISCOURSE CHOOSES WHO CAN SPEAK AND WHAT CAN BE SAID BEFORE THE CONVERSATION STARTS Arturo Escobar, assoc prof of anthropology at University of Mass, Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, 1995, p.40-1 Development was not merely the result of the combination, study, or gradual elaboration of these elements (some of these topics had existed for some time); nor the product of the introduction of new ideas (some of which were already appearing or perhaps were bound to appear); nor the effect of the new international organizations or financial institutions (which had some predecessors, such as the League of Nations). It was rather the result of the establishment of a set of relations among these elements, institutions, and practices and of the systematization of these relations to form a whole. The development discourse was constituted not by the array of possible objects under its domain but by the way in which, thanks to this set of relations, it was able to form systematically the objects of which it spoke, to group them and arrange them in certain ways, and to give them a unity of their own. To understand development as a discourse, one must look not at the elements themselves but at the system of relations established among them. It is this system that allows the systematic creation of objects, concepts, and strategies it determines what can be thought and said. These relations established between institutions, socioeconomic processes, forms of knowledge, technological factors, and so on- define the conditions under which objects, concepts, theories, and strategies can be incorporated into the discourse. In sum, the system of relations establishes a discursive practice that sets the rules of the game: who can speak, from what points of view, with what authority, and according to what criteria of expertise; it sets the rules that must be followed for this or that problem, theory or object to emerge and be named, analyzed, and eventually transformed into a policy or a plan. WE DON’T DENY AGENCY, THE DISCOURSE IS TOO FLUID Jonathan Crush, Professor of Geography at Queens University, The Power of Development, 1995, p. 8 Development, for all its power to speak and to control the terms of speaking, has never been impervious to challenge and resistance, nor, in response, to reformulation and change. In a startling reversal, Fanon (1968) once argued that 'Europe is literally the creation of the Third World.' There is a great deal about the form and content of development that suggests that it is reactive as well as formative. As a set of ideas about the way the world works and should be ordered, understood and governed, development should also be glimpsed if not as 'the creation of the Third World,' then certainly as reflecting the responses, reactions and resistance of the people who are its object. Without the possibility of reaction and resistance, there is no place for the agents and victims of development to exert their explicit and implicit influence on the ways in which it is constructed, thought, planned and implemented. Put simply, we simply do not yet know enough about the global, regional and especially local historical geographies of development - as an idea, discipline, strategy or site of resistance - to say much with any certainty about its complex past.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK AT: SOCIALIST TRANSFORMATION= VIOLENCE
SOCIALIST CONCEPTS ARE INHERENTLY PACIFIST Rees ’67 [John, noted socialist, “International Socialism,” spring] Many people who are anti-war and who are utterly dismayed at the jingoism of the Labour Party leaders believe that pacifism is the best way to prevent war. Many more, who are not pacifists out of principle, will argue that once war starts the best we can hope for is a ceasefire and the opening of negotiations between those in the conflict. Any socialist will welcome such opposition to war when it comes from workers and students who are sickened by the barbarity of the society in which they live. Such outrage has always been a powerful motivating force in every anti-war movement. We should, however, be much more sceptical of the same sentiments when they tumble from the lips of politicians and trade union leaders. The great powers do not always oppress others by armed force--sometimes the "peaceful" threat to wreck another nation's economy is enough. We cannot assume that simply because the shooting has stopped the great powers have not resorted to other, more subtle, forms of violence or that the exploitation and oppression in whose name they fight wars is not being continued by other means. "Peace" has also always been the favourite cry of the politician or union leader who has their back to the wall. Facing defeat, either at home or abroad, the wily warmonger will always try to salvage what they can by becoming a sudden convert to a "just and negotiated peace". This was just the reaction of many European govemments during the First World War as anti-war sentiment swept through the continent's working classes. It was a reaction mirrored many years later by Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War. Usually such protestations are combined, as in these two cases, with demands that we must continue fighting until the other side agrees to a "just" peace. But there is a more fundamental reason why socialists reject the pacifist argument. It is because such a strategy leaves the causes of war untouched. So long as we simply aim at putting a halt to the latest barbarity in which our rulers are engaged we will always leave them free to prepare another war. We have seen that such a drive to war is inherent in the way capitalism works.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK *****AFF RESPONSES**** DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSE ANSWERS MUST CRITIQUE WITHIN DEVELOPMENT HAS TO BE CRITIQUED FROM WITHIN Katy Gardner, University Of Sussex, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute v. 2 (Mar. '96) p. 171
In this book Arturo Escobar reformulates the 'development as neo-colonialism stance in terms of discourse theory. This, he argues: 'gives us the possibility of singling out "development" as an encompassing social space and at the same time of separating ourselves from it by perceiving it in a totally new form (p. 6). Drawing upon Foucault's work on representation, knowledge and power, Escobar argues that development should be understood as a historically specific representation of social reality which permits particular modes of thinking and doing, whilst
disqualifying others. This involves specific forms of knowledge, systems of power which regulate practice, and subjectivities by which people recognize themselves as developed or undeveloped. It also consists of particular perceptual domains of inquiry, registration of problems and forms of intervention. A key example is the 'discovery of poverty after the second world war. The management of this required interventions in the newly labelled 'developing countries in health, employment, morality and so forth, as well as new fields of empirical study and theory (for example development economics). Such is the hegemonic power of development discourse that it can only ever be criticized from within; those opposed to it can only propose modifications or improvements, for 'development (has) achieved the status of a certainty in the social imaginary (p. 5).Encountering development is an important contribution to the anthropology of development. Whilst Escobar is not alone in deconstructing development discourse (e.g. Ferguson 1990; Esteva 1992) this book, which summarizes and builds upon articles published over the last decade, is likely to become a definitive statement. Escobar makes his case bodly: he is not afraid of sweeping claims, nor of vivid -- and sometimes polemical -- prose. Whilst his argument is largely convincing, this, plus his tendency to generalize, at times undermines it. Throughout the text 'development is largely spoken of as if it were a homogeneous, unitary set of representations and practices, epitomized and led by the World Bank. Whilst undoubtedly extremely powerful, the World Bank however only represents a certain type of developmental institution; many northern and southern non-governmental organizations utilize significantly different knowledges and practices. Groups and individuals within institutions are also rarely in agreement over what 'development should involve. Thus whilst at one level reports can be read as discursive representations which organize their subjects in certain ways, at another they can be analysed in terms of the internal dynamics of agencies, the results of complex processes and negotiations. This more subtle and nuanced understanding of how power works within the aid industry, and how the discourse is contested from within is largely ignored. Escobar's view of hegemony is also somewhat slippery. At one level he argues that whilst new objects of development such as 'women and 'the environment may have been introduced in recent years, or particular projects modified, the system of relations remains essentially the same, allowing the discourse to adapt to new conditions without being fundamentally challenged. Yet later in the text (for example in a rather disappointing discussion of 'Women in development ) he [Escobar]acknowledges that changes from within might be possible, that relations of power can
shift. Indeed, to maintain that nothing has ever changed is to remain blinkered to the highly complex ways in which meanings and practices are negotiated within development: the growth in power of social advisors, who challenge the discourses of economists within Britain's Overseas Development Administration is just one small example. ONLY CRITIQUE FROM WITHIN CO-OPTS "DEVELOPMENT" Arun Agrawal, assistant professor of political science at Yale University, Peace & Change, Oct p464, 14p.
96, Vol. 21 Issue 4,
The stance of this reviewer may be summarized as "I will engage, I must critique"--in contrast to the poststructuralist position of "I will critique, I will reject." Throughout this essay, I have tried to highlight the two dilemmas inherent in adopting a poststructuralist stance. One is led either to a position that repeats one's initial assumptions, or one is forced into contradictions that result from questioning metanarratives. In response, I suggest two small strategic shifts for poststructuralist scholars, the first of which can already be witnessed in the work of Stacy Leigh Pigg. Instead of avowing an explicit commitment to poststructuralism and calling for a repudiation of "development," it
might be far more fruitful to examine the ways in which attempts by the state to foster development are often used as instruments of legitimation and extension of political control, yet also often engender resistance and protest. It was Foucault, after all, who pointed to the positive as well as the negative aspects of power.[ 10] A second productive move might be to accept the impossibility of
questioning all metanarratives and instead to rethink how development can be profitably contested from within as well as from outside. Persistent criticisms of "development" are indispensable; calls to go beyond it make sense primarily as signifiers of romantic utopian thinking. In posing the dualisms of local and global, indigenous and Western,
traditional and scientific, society and state--and locating the possibility of change only in one of these opposed pairs--one is forced to draw lines that are potentially ridiculous, and ultimately indefensible. Development, like progress, rationality, or modernity, may be
impossible to give up. Harboring the seeds of its own transformation, it may be far more suited to co-optation than disavowal. Rather than fearing the co-optation by "development" of each new strategy of change, it may be time to think about how to co-opt "development." "[R]eversing, displacing, and seizing the apparatus of value-coding" is not just the task of the postcolonial position; it is the impossible task of all critical positions.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK MUST CRITIQUE WITHIN
THEIR INVENTION OF AN ILLUSORY ALTERNATIVE TO DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS UNTAINTED BY THE HISTORICAL BAGGAGE DOES WORSE VIOLENCE. THE TERM CAN ONLY BE CRITICIZED FROM WITHIN Jonathan Crush, Professor of Geography at Queens University, The Power of Development, 1995, p. 19-20 Deploying Derrida's concept of logocentrism, Manzo proceeds to argue that romantic images of indigenous societies and their authentic knowledges do not push beyond modern relations of domination and threaten to reinscribe them in their most violent form. Hence, 'efforts in the post-colonial world to reinvent a pre-colonial Eden that never existed in fact, have been no less violent in their scripting of identity than those that practise domination in the name of development.' This trap - the reinscription of modernist dualisms - is also inherent in any claim that there can be pristine counter- hegemonic discourses of anti-development which are implacably opposed and totally untainted by the language of development itself. Here Foucault's notion or the 'tactical polyvalence of discourses' seems particularly useful. He argues (Foucault 1990: 100-1) that we should not imagine a world of dominant and dominated, or accepted and excluded, discourses. We should think instead of a 'complex and unstable process whereby discourse can be both an instrument and an effect of power, but also a hindrance, a stumbling- block, a point of resistance and a starting point for an opposing strategy.'
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK CRITIQUE FAILS PURE CRITIQUE CEDES POWER TO DEVELOPMENT Arun Agrawal, assistant professor of political science at Yale University, Peace & Change, Oct p464, 14p.
96, Vol. 21 Issue 4,
In a preliminary, by now well-known, statement, Lyotard characterizes postmodernity as "incredulity toward metanarratives." If the The notion of "development," according to poststructuralist critics, has become so deeply rooted that it has successfully divided the world into those who are developed and those who are not. It has made the transition to the developed state, misleadingly measured in quantitative terms, the overriding priority of social policy (Escobar, p. 213). And it has cast the Western world as possessing the basic material and scientific means, and technical and human expertise, needed to achieve the developed state. Instead of pursuing development, poststructuralist critics suggest, the apparatuses, institutions, and mechanisms that create the discourse of development must be discredited and dismantled. Pursuit of development in Lesotho, as Ferguson documents, only led to the creation of a larger bureaucracy and the intrusion and entrenchment of state presence in the Thaba-Tseka district. The story repeats itself in countless locations throughout the world. This poststructuralist
critique, I want to emphasize, is productive. It points, at the very least, to what might be interpreted as the unintended consequences of
development projects, especially as they have been implemented in different parts of the world. The critique also goes further. It highlights the importance of greater attention to politics. It questions the necessity of the involvement of a range of bureaucratic institutions in the promotion of development. It shows the integral relationship between the production of particular types of discourses and the selection of specific countries and peoples as needing a particular trajectory of change. Poststructuralist approaches, then, have uncovered
previously neglected facets of "development" that require more insistent and systematic analysis. Beyond this point, however, problems quickly arise. If poststructuralist scholars stop with critique here, they have offered no program of constructive engagement. There are two implications to advancing only a critique: what I call the problems of (a) the "empty critique," and (b) "overdetermination." Yet, if poststructuralists attempt to move beyond simply attacking established notions, they are liable to contradict the epistemological imperative of their stance. Empty Critique The arguments are rather well rehearsed. Opponents of the poststructuralists can ask, "While many of your criticisms are valid, what are your alternatives?" Poststructuralist theorists can answer, "We only aim to critique." The questioning has a special force, however, because as long as one accepts the real-world existence of the problems to which "development" is posed as a solution, academic critiques become insufficient. You cannot replace something with nothing. Constructive engagements with the development project are necessary because the trenchant critiques of development from poststructuralist scholars arrive at a time when the apparatus of development is simultaneously in disarray and has gained greater strength. For instance, theorists have
pointed to the need to consider more sympathetically the needs and contributions of indigenous populations, to pay greater attention to local communities' strategies for managing dwindling resources and contesting state power, to involve and empower marginalized groups, to focus on issues of resistance and domination, or to question bureaucratic control. One can find these statements even in reports from the World Bank and national planning documents from developing countries--and certainly in the writings of scholars who see themselves as part of the "development discourse." The bubbling up of such issues has helped disrupt the logic of standard strategies of development. But we also see emergent themes of a different kind at precisely the same time. The collapse of the socialist economies and the triumph of the philosophy of the market has lent weight to the hegemonic belief in "getting the prices right" and in the privatization of resources. There is now greater rhetorical valence to assertions that push markets and property as the basic prerequisites of development. Development discourse thus demonstrates a remarkable flexibility by incorporating the need to consider the interests of indigenous and marginalized communities as well as issues related to resistance, empowerment, and ecological stress. Considering the absorptive capacities of the development discourse, Ferguson's theoretically reflective refusal to develop any alternatives to development becomes problematic. His analysis avoids the problem of internal contradiction but falls prey to becoming an "empty critique." Calling for a disengagement from "development," he suggests that those who are constituted as underdeveloped, can, and do, fight their own battles (p. 281). But his call to disengage is troubling. If Ferguson means disengaging from the discourse of development, his advocacy rests upon a belief in the productive logic of critique and counter-critique. That is to say, if one stops engaging development discourses, they would wither away, various subject populations would find their own ways to contest development and marginalization, and development through state intrusion would lose its legitimacy. But such a vision is ultimately
founded upon the confusion of a purist. It is far more than patterns of criticism that sustain development processes and the discourses of development. However, if Ferguson is advocating working with counter-hegemonic forces alone, and agrees that hegemony is defined locally (p. 287), there is no compelling reason to disengage from the state or international development agencies. Given the enormous power and resources [development agencies] they wield, and the possibilities of discontinuities within them, giving up on them as lost causes would be to yield too much--just as focusing only on reforming them through critique would be to hope for too much. Overdetermination The second, more fundamental implication of relying merely on a critique is what I call the problem of overdetermination or tautological restatement. As already suggested,
poststructuralism begins with the assumption that universalist notions of progress, truth, and rationality are not persuasive. The crisis of representation that is the hallmark of postmodernity is a function precisely of the denial of reality and its replacement by text and discourse. All universalist themes thus become problematic and contested, their validity depending simply on their location in specific discursive formations. The poststructuralist critique of "development," when it seeks to disengage, stops precisely at this point--reiterating its initial assumptions. "Development" becomes simply a flawed vision of progress. There is nothing in terms of evidence that might lead poststructuralist scholars to a different conclusion. But if this is the point at which one wished to stop, there was little need to have gone through the arguments questioning development: one could simply have asserted the complicity of development with power, as an article of faith. One
could, then, simply have stopped at the beginning. Recognition of the twin problems of "empty critique" and "overdetermination" compels poststructuralist scholars of development to pose solutions.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK CRITIQUE FAILS
THEIR ALTERNATIVE REPLICATES DOMINATION. POSTING A NEW FRAMING ONLY ASSERTS THEIR STATUS AS ALL-KNOWING CREATORS OF TRUTH AND JUSTICE Jonathan Crush, Professor of Geography at Queens University, The Power of Development, 1995, p. 18-19 Is there a way of writing (speaking or thinking) beyond the language of development? Can its hold on the imagination of both the powerful and the powerless be transcended? Can we get round, what Watts calls, the 'develop- ment gridlock'? Can, as Escobar puts it, the idea of 'catching up' with the West be drained of its appeal? Any contemporary volume of development- related essays can no longer afford to ignore these questions. One of the most damaging criticisms levelled against Said's (1978) notion of Orientalism is that it provides no basis for understanding how that discourse can be overcome. This book also, by definition, cannot stand outside the phenomenon being analysed. The text itself is made possible by the languages of development and, in a sense, it contributes to their perpetuation. To imagine that the Western scholar can gaze on development from above as a distanced and impartial observer, and formulate alternative ways of thinking and writing, is simply a conceit. To claim or adopt such a position is simply to replicate a basic rhetorical strategy of development itself. What we can do, as a first step, is to examine critically the rival claims of those who say that the language of development can, or is, being transcended. To assert, like Esteva (1987: 135), that 'development stinks' is all very well, but it is not that helpful if we have no idea about how the odour will be erased.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK PERMUTATION
PERMUTATION: DO BOTH-WE MUST EMBRACE THE PROGRESSIVE CRITICISMS OF DEVELOPMENT, WHILE MOVING AHEAD TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE Arun Agrawal, assistant professor of political science at Yale University, Peace & Change, Oct 96, Vol. 21 Issue 4, p464, 14p.
Internal Contradiction: Giving in to the seduction experienced by Karl Marx when he asserted that scholars have only interpreted the world when the point was to change it, writers such as Escobar shy away from an empty critique. They prefer, instead, to advance their own vision of what might replace "development." Citing Homi Bhabha and Chandra Mohanty, Escobar asserts that there are limits to the Western project of deconstruction and self-critique. "[T]he process of deconstructing and dismantling has to be accompanied by that of constructing new ways of seeing and acting. . . . This aspect is crucial in discussions about development because people's survival is at stake." Deconstruction and other critiques "cannot, of themselves, unreconstructed, represent otherness" (p. 17). Even Ferguson, who questions the need to advance an alternative, feels compelled, ultimately, to use his epilogue to present some cursory, possible alternatives. Poststructuralist writers offer
several options as possibilities beyond development. Escobar turns to grass-roots movements, local knowledge, indigenous peoples, and the power of popular protests in his search for a postdevelopment era. He would like to
move away from "Western modes of knowing" to make room for other types of knowledge and experience. He approvingly quotes D. L. Sheth to talk about the actions of NGOs as symbolizing "alternative political practice." He focuses on hybridity as the metaphor to denote the kinds of political responses that are necessary to replace development. He talks, finally, about cultural difference, popular culture, and cyberculture as the sources from which alternatives to development might well. Ferguson, who also uses Foucault as the wellspring of his theoretical approach, is far more circumspect than Escobar. Yet, in the end, he also voices a limited optimism: "The more interesting possibility is to seek out the typically non-state forces and organizations that challenge the existing dominant order and see if links can be found between our expertise and their practical needs as they determine them. Such counter-hegemonic alternative points of engagement might be found in labor unions, opposition political parties and movements, cooperatives, peasants' unions, churches and religious organizations and so on" (p. 287). Of the contributors to the Dictionary, Majid Rahnema points to the importance of "very sensitive 'animators' "in grass-roots social movements, "traditional and vernacular ways of interaction and leadership," and the freedom from "any fear or predefined conclusion" as characterizing a move beyond the rhetoric of participation (p. 127). Esteva, talking about development, suggests that there is a "new commons" where the laws of economics and scarcity do not operate and that "common men on the margins" are likely to lead the way out of "development" (pp. 20-22). Claude Alvares, writing against science, finds the answer to lie in the fact that "people, groups and villages have openly rejected modernizing development and stubbornly insisted on maintaining their ways of life, their ambient interactions with nature, and the arts of subsistence" (p. 231). The solutions from poststructuralist scholars are founded on the recognition that the problems of development
are "real." Their solutions are intended to alter the conditions that existing development regimes have failed to change. But whether such strategies will be more effective in transforming the lives of those who have borne the brunt of the adverse impacts
of social change is open to argument. Apart from the dubious status of the distinctions to which one must resort in attempting to draw the lines that favor indigenous knowledges and communities, local peoples, nonparty politics, or NGOs, it is not even very clear that these social formations and concepts possess the kind of transformative capacities that poststructuralist writers suspect. But let me focus on a different problem that is integral to the poststructuralist attempt to discredit development. Ultimately, as Frederic Jameson points out in his thoughtful foreword to Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition, and in the opening pages of his Postmodernism: The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, one can question metanarratives only by resorting to other metanarratives. In the subconscious of every attempt to interrogate a grand theme lurk the foundations of another grand theme. As one might expect, the texts of the poststructuralist scholars are rife with appeals to
localism, to hybridity, to better life prospects, to cultural difference, to the indigenous, to cyberculture--take your pick(s)--which are supposed to provide the tools for fostering alternatives to "development." But these appeals are
themselves subject to precisely the same critiques that scholars like Escobar and Ferguson level against "development." Part of the tension, of course, stems from the treatment of multiple discourses around development as unitary and undifferentiated. Poststructuralist critics, especially Escobar, wield a broad brush that leaves tainted all aspects of whatever is connected with development. Little room remains for constructive engagement. This is quite ironic since much of what Ferguson, Escobar, and the contributors to Sachs suggest as possibilities for moving beyond "development" has been explored by those who believe in development and by precisely those actors in whom Escobar locates the possibility of an alternative strategy: indigenous peoples' collectives, grass-roots organizations, popular movements, and so forth . In this
sense, the calls to move beyond "development" or repudiate it may themselves be a submission to an illusion that there is something beyond development.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK THE COUNTRIES CHOOSE
WE GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO OWN DEVELOPMENT. INDIGENOUS PEOPLE DON’T REJECT THE CONCEPT – THEY DEMAND FREEDOM TO PURSUE IT ON THEIR OWN Kathy Seton, graduate of Queensland University in Brisbane, Center for World Indigenous Studies, 1999, “Fourth World Nations in the Era of Globalisation An Introduction to Contemporary theorizing Posed by Indigenous Nations,” Fourth World Journal, http://www.cwis.org/fwj/41/fworld.html Much of the political activism of indigenous nations is directed towards the rhetorical issues that underpin their on-going marginalisation. Their demand for inclusion in "global civic discourse" (Wilmer 1993:36) directly challenges and deconstructs the meaning of normative international assumptions and values surrounding the concepts of modernisation, progress and development advanced by the imperialist culture of States: In confronting and challenging the legitimacy of policies resulting in forced assimilation, relocation, the introduction of deadly alien epidemics, and the sanctioning of private violence by settlers, indigenous peoples have targeted the source the meaning of development itself. For instance, representatives of the indigenous Yanomamo people in Brazil travelled to the World Bank in the 1980s and argued before Bank officials that "development can have many meanings. Your interpretation of development is material. Ours is spiritual. Spiritual development is as legitimate as material development." (Wilmer 1993:37; see also Dallam 1991). Indigenous nations do not simply oppose modernization or progress. Instead, they assert the right to define and pursue development and progress in a manner compatible with their own cultural contexts. They champion the right to choose the scale and terms of their interaction with other cultures. In order to achieve and secure cultural, political and economic rights, sovereignty and self-determination have become some of the most important values sought by the international movement of indigenous nations. The rise of Fourth World theory offers one of the greatest challenges theorist will have to contend with this century.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK NO STATIC DEFINITION
THEIR CONSTRUCTION OF DEVELOPMENT AS MONOLITHIC DESTROYS AGENCY. DEVELOPMENT MEANS DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE R.D. Grillo, School of African and Asian Studies, University of Sussex, 1997, Discourses of Development, p. 20-22 While not denying the validity of the idea of a 'development gaze', we should note its limits. Mosse (this volume, p. 280) says, I am not suggesting that development institutions (irrigation bureaucracies or donor agencies) are the creators of social theory, merely that they constrain and select theory [and] nudge the thinking of their members in particular directions -...' There is a tendency - illustrated, for example, by Hobart, Escobar and to a lesser degree Ferguson - to see development as a monolithic enterprise, heavily controlled from the top, convinced of the superiority of its own wisdom and impervious to local knowledge, or indeed common-sense experience, a single gaze or voice which is all-powerful and beyond influence. This underpins what I would call the 'myth of development' which pervades much critical writing in this field. It might also be called the Development Dictionary perspective, as echoed throughout the book of that name (Sachs ed. 1992). The perspective is shared by Escobar, and to a lesser extent Ferguson and in a different way Hobart. Like most myths it is based on poor or partial history, betraying a lack of knowledge of both colonialism and decolonization, and throughout it reflects a surprising ethnocentrism: it is very much the view from North America. Ill-informed about the history of government, it has a Jacobinist conviction of the state's power to achieve miraculous things: the title of Ferguson's book. The Anti- Politics Machine, is an eloquent expression of this. It is also grounded in the 'victim culture'. Rather as those engaged in anti- racist training sometimes argued that there are 'racists' and there are 'victims of racism' (Donald and Rattansi eds 1992; Gilroy 1993), the development myth proposes that there are 'developers' and 'victims of development' (see the unfortunate souls portrayed on the dust-cover of Crush's edited collection, 1995). Escobar adds 'resisters of development', but there is no other way. Thus the myth would, for example, have great difficulty in encompassing the wide range of responses and agendas found among Indian women working in and for development whose work is documented in this volume in the paper by Unnithan and Srivastava. Drinkwater (1992: 169) points to the 'danger of oversimplifying and setting up a dominant position as an easy target'. Although development is sometimes guided by authoritative, monocular visions, Unnithan and Srivastava's paper (this volume), along with Gardner's discussion of a major project in a country in South Asia, underline the point that development knowledge is not usually a single set of ideas and assumptions. Gardner observes correctly (this volume, p. 134) that while our understanding of 'indigenous knowledge' is growing increasingly sophisticated, that of developmental knowledge often remains frustratingly simplistic. This is generally presented as homogeneous and rooted in 'scientific rationalism' . . . [but there is a] need to understand how development knowledge is not one single set of ideas and assumptions. While . . . it may function hegemonically, it is also created and recreated by multiple agents, who often have very different understandings of their work. To think of the discourse of development is far too limiting. To that extent, Hobart is correct to refer to 'several co-existent discourses of development' (1993: 12). But there is as much diversity within the community of 'professional developers' (one of the parties identified by Hobart), as between them and other stakeholders or 'players' (in Hobart's account, local people' and 'national government'). Within development there is and has always been a multiplicity of voices, 'a multiplicity of "knowledges"' (Cohen 1993: 32), even if some are more powerful than others: as Pettier, this volume, points out, 'a simple recording of the plurality of voices' is never enough. Preston, who has written extensively on development, provides an interesting way into this subject. Discourses of Development: State, Market and Polity in the Analysis of Complex Change (1994) is an exercise in political theory written largely from outside anthropology which places the study of discourse less in the work of Foucault than in a wider hermeneutic-critical tradition. However, in broader agreement with Foucauldian perspectives than he might allow, Preston argues that development discourse is both 'institutionally extensive [and] comprises a stock of ideas that informs the praxis of many groups' (ibid.: 4). It is not, however, singular. He identifies three discourses of development, each located in the changing political economy of the second half of the twentieth century. Each 'find their vehicles in particular institutional locations, and of course are disposed to particular political projects' (ibid.: 222).
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK AT: THIRD WORLD DISCOURSE
CALLING IT THIRD WORLD IS ESSENTIAL TO MAKING IT A POLITICAL ISSUE Jacques Gelinas, Canadian University Service Overseas Quebec Board Chair, Freedom From Debt: The Reappropriation of Development Through Financial Self-Reliance, 1998 p 18-19. A geopolitical concept: the Third World The expression `Third World' is a useful geopolitical term, hitherto the only one suitable for designating a heterogeneous group of underdeveloped, misdeveloped and developing countries, regardless of their socio-political system and their degree of socio-economic progress. It was coined by Alfred Sauvy, a renowned French demographer, in an article entitled `Trois mondes, une planete' (`Three Worlds, One Earth'), published on 14 August 1952 in L'Observateur. We readily speak of the two worlds, the possible war between them, their coexistence, and so on, all too often forgetting that a third world also exists, the most important one and, after all, the first to appear. It consists of all those countries that, in United Nations style, are called underdeveloped. [...] And should it cast its bright glow over the first world, perhaps the latter, apart from any human solidarity, would not remain insensitive to its slow and irresistible, humble and fierce thrust towards life. After all, ignored, exploited and despised, just as the Third Estate was, this Third World also wants to become something. This ingenious play on words, likening the situation of the underdeveloped countries to the condition of the excluded classes of France's ancien regime, has the merit of putting the underdevelopment problem in the right context: the political field. It positions the underdeveloped countries geopolitically in relation to the two hegemonic camps that emerged from the Second World War: the club of industrialized capitalist countries and the bloc of Central and Eastern European socialist regimes. On the fringes of these two worlds is the Third World which, it is true, has never succeeded in forming a bloc. Despite the collapse of communism, the term is still valid. First of all, its main connotations remain: exclusion, dependence, exploitation. The term's inherent meaning still fits the reality of underdeveloped countries. Second, most of the Eastern European countries, formerly grouped under the socialist banner, continue to form a separate category in the official nomenclatures of the United Nations and international financial institutions. They still constitute a Second World between the First, which refuses to integrate them on an equal footing, and the Third, whose stigmata they refuse.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK AGENCY
THEY DENY THE AGENCY OF THE SOUTH. TO THEM, THOSE OUTSIDE OF THE WEST COULD NEVER CONCEIVE OF THE PLAN Nederveen Pieterse, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, Jan 21, Third World Quarterly, 2 p. 175 According to Escobar (1992), the problem with ‘development’ is that it is external, based on the model of the industrialized world, and what is needed instead are ‘more endogenous discourses.’ The assertion of ‘endogenous development’ calls to mind dependency theory and the ‘foreign bad, local good’ position (Kiely, 1999). According to Rajni Kothari, ‘where colonialism left off, development took over’ (1988: 143). This view is as old as the critique of modernisation theory. It calls to mind the momentum and pathos of decolonisation and the familiar cultural homogenisation thesis, according to which Western media, advertising and consumerism induce cultural uniformity. All this may be satisfying as the sound of a familiar tune, but it is also one-sided and old-hat. In effect, it denies the agency of the Third World. It denies the extent to which the South also owns development. Several recent development perspectives—such as dependency theory, alternative development and human development— have originated to a considerable extent in the South. Furthermore, what about ‘Easternisation,’ as in the East Asian model, touted by the World Bank as a development miracle? What about Japanisation, as in the ‘Japanese challenge,’ the influence of Japanese management technique and Toyotism (Kaplinsky, 1994)? At any rate, ‘Westernisation’ is a catch all concept that ignores diverse historical currents. Latouche and others use the bulky category ‘the West’ which, given the sharp historical differences between Europe and North America is not really meaningful. This argument also overlooks more complex assessments of globalisation (eg Nederveen Pieterse, 1995). A more appropriate analytics is polycentrism. Here the rejoinder to Eurocentrism is not Third Worldism but a recognition that multiple centres, also in the South, now shape development discourse (e.g. Amin, 1989; Nederveen Pieterse 1991).
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK RE-APPROPRIATION TURN. WE RE-APPROPRIATE “DEVELOPMENT.” THE KRITIK IS MYOPIC Jan Nederveen Pieterse, Hague Institute of Social Studies, Third World Quarterly, v21, n2, 2000
Post-development thinking is fundamentally uneven. For all the concern with discourse analysis, the actual use of language is sloppy and indulgent. Escobar plays games of rhetoric: in referring to development as `Development' and thus suggesting its homogeneity and consistency, he essentialises `development'. The same applies to Sachs and his call to do away with development: `in the very call for banishment, Sachs implicitly suggests that it is possible to arrive at an unequivocal definition' (Crush, 1996: 3). Apparently this kind of essentialising of `development' is necessary in order to arrive at the radical repudiation of development, and without this antidevelopment pathos, the post-development perspective loses its foundation. At times one has the impression that post-development turns on a language game rather than an analysis. Attending a conference entitled `Towards a post-development age', Anisur Rahman reacted as follows: `I was struck by the intensity with which the very notion of "development" was attacked . . . I submitted that I found the word "development" to be a very powerful means of expressing the conception of societal progress as the flowering of people's creativity. Must we abandon valuable words because they are abused? What to do then with words like democracy, cooperation, socialism, all of which are abused?' (1993: 213-214) “DEVELOPMENT” MUST BE USED TO EXTRACT ITS POSITIVE CONNOTATIONS WHILE DECONSTRUCTING ITS NEGATIVE ONES Howard Richards, University of Baroda, Gujarat State, Education for Constructive Development, Summer, 1995 http://www.earlham.edu/~pags/faculty/hr/Lec1.html Denis Goulet has written an extensive series of books and articles in which he holds that the word "development" should be used, but only as a "hinge" to promote an "authentic development" based on normative values. In a sense these lectures are a contribution to Goulet's philosophy, because they are about how to make operational a "creative incrementalism" that builds steps toward structural change and a culture of solidarity into every development project. In another sense these lectures try to cope with economic issues I find that Goulet and many liberation theologians cannot cope with effectively, because they are too grounded in a liberal ethics that shares too many premises with liberal economics. See e.g. Denis Goulet, Mexico: Development Strategies for the Future. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983; "`Development' ...or Liberation?" International Development Review vol. 13, no. 3 (September, 1971). For a critical review of attempts to rescue the word "development" by qualifying it as "sustainable development," see S. Lele, "Sustainable Development: A Critical Review," World Development, volume 19 (1991), pp. 607-621. See generally the International Journal of Sustainable Development. On the other hand, the term "development" is often given a positive and constructive meaning. For example, "`Development' is taken here to mean the general improvement in human living conditions, including access to more consumption goods, better health care, greater job security, and better working hours and conditions." Clive Hamilton, "Can the Rest of Asia Emulate the NICs?" The Third World Quarterly, volume 87 (1987), pp. 1225-1256. "Development" has generally been associated with finding ways to mobilize and put to use the energies of the unemployed and underemployed. See Amartya Sen, "Development: Which Way Now?," Economic Journal. vol. 93 (December 1983), pp. 745-62. "Development" has as a connotation creating "linkages" and "complementarities" so that a major social investment is not just an isolated event, but part of a related series which opens up new possibilities and opportunities. See A. O. Hirschman, The Strategy of Economic Development. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958. "Development" has been associated with policies that make efforts to redistribute wealth in order to increase the purchasing power of consumers. See Lance Taylor, Varieties of Stabilization Experience. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. A wise development policy has been said to include the principle of "shared growth," so that whatever benefits accrue to a nation are shared even with the poorest of its people. See John Page et al, The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Part of the purpose of the grassroots empowerment of the poor that I am advocating is to create a cultural and political environment favorable for "sharing" (and for "growth" too if "growth" is defined as Joan Robinson proposed to define it, i.e. in such a way that nothing undesirable counts as "growth"). The widespread use of the term "development" today stems from Josef Schumpeter's use of it to distinguish structural economic change, which was "development," and which required deliberate collective action, from the normal successful operation of a market economy, which leads merely to "growth." See Josef Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1934. Similarly Hirschman wrote of "development" as "punctuated disequilibria," i.e. as transitions from one structure to another.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK WE NEED DEVELOPMENT
CONSTRUCTIVE DEVELOPMENT RE-ASSEMBLES THE WORD INTO A TECHNIQUE FOR RESISTANCE Howard Richards, University of Baroda, Gujarat State, Education for Constructive Development, Summer, 1995 http://www.earlham.edu/~pags/faculty/hr/Lec1.html I have some misgivings, as I am sure Ms. Muttreja does, about using the word "development" at all, even when it is qualified by the adjective "constructive." The use of the word has been justly criticized. For example, Gustavo Gutierrez of Peru advocates ceasing to speak of "development" because the very idea implies that poor societies are backward and that they should "repeat more or less faithfully the historical experience of the developed countries in their journey towards modern society." Others find that the very concept of "development" implicitly endorses human practices that exhaust the physical resources of the planet; for example, "development" is associated with ever-greater numbers of automobiles and airplanes, which use huge quantities of irreplaceable fossil fuel. I use the word "development" in spite of its drawbacks because it is the word commonly and officially used worldwide to describe efforts to end poverty. I use the term because I want to stay in touch with the mainstream while trying to change its direction. I use it, too, because whatever else development may be about, it is about economics. Today social and educational issues are economic issues, and vice-versa. Although there may have been a time when religious and cultural values determined educational and social philosophy, I do not believe I exaggerate when I say that today the practical and effective educational and social philosophies are increasingly driven by what is taken to be economic reality; and inspired by economic theories that prescribe what is to be done about that reality. The term "development," which in turn is associated with the idea of a "development model," helps us to remember that wherever we go in our contemporary world we are never far from the pervasive influence of economics. I will support the view that, because of the basic structure of modern society, economics must be dealt with in order to deal successfully with literacy, child care, gender, race, caste, ethnic conflict, environment or other issues. I add the word "constructive" partly to cancel some of the usual meanings of "development." Similarly, some people speak of "sustainable development" when they believe that one of the main consequences of development as it is ordinarily understood is ecological ruin, which is unsustainable. Thus the qualifying adjective subtracts from as well as adds to the meaning of the noun qualified. For me "development" is only tolerable when it is transformed by a qualifying term like "sustainable" or "constructive." The word "constructive" redeems the word "development" in two ways. First, it connotes, "the social construction of reality," as in Berger and Luckmann's book with that title. Thus it reminds us that humans create and recreate multiple social worlds that are constructed, that can be deconstructed, and that - to the extent that they are nonfunctional - should be reconstructed. This connotation balances the tendency of the word "development" to suggest that history is a series of parallel one-way streets, leading every country in the world in the same direction from being an undeveloped area, through being a developing country, to being a fully developed modern nation. The word "constructive" helps to remind us that cultures create many realities, and we human beings, versatile mammals that we are, live in them. Secondly, the word "constructive" connotes what is positive and desirable, as in the binary polarity, "constructive, not destructive." Thus it implies a critical and selective attitude toward development; it implies that since there is constructive development there must also be development that is not constructive. I do not hesitate to say that constructive development requires a restructuring of the global economy. In thus introducing the word "restructuring" I add to what I have already said about "the social construction of reality" and "being constructive." I am afraid, however, that I am at the same time posing a task that appears to be far beyond our powers. I am suggesting that the global economy, the master and mother of us all, can be changed and made more cooperative, more humane, and more ecologically sustainable, by what we do in the classroom, as parents, as grassroots organizers, and as research workers.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK
DEVELOPMENT ETHIC GOOD DEVELOPMENT ETHICS ARE ESSENTIAL TO OVER-COMING THE MISTAKES WHICH DEVELOPMENT ITSELF HAS CREATED Denis Goulet, O'Neill Professor in Education for Justice and Department of Economics Faculty at Notre Dame, Fellow at the Kellogg Institute for International Studies, “Development Ethics: A New Discipline,” International Journal of Social Economics, v24 n11, Nov 1997, p. 1160-71 More fundamentally, however, the primary mission of development ethics is to keep hope alive, for by any purely rational calculus of future probabilities, the development enterprise of most countries is doomed to fail. The probable future scenario is that technological and resource gaps will continue to widen, and that vast resources will continue to be devoted to destructive armaments and wasteful consumption. By any reasonable projection over the next 50 years, development will remain the privilege of a relative few, while underdevelopment will continue to be the lot of the vast majority. Only some trans-rational calculus of hope, situated beyond apparent realms of possibility, can elicit the creative energies and vision which authentic development for all requires. This calculus of hope must be ratified by development ethics, which summons human persons and societies to become their best selves, to create structures of justice to replace exploitation and aggressive competition. A basis for hope is suggested by Dubos and other sociobiologists, who remind us that only a tiny fragment of human brain-power has been utilized up till the present (Dubos, 1978). This means that Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans can invent new, more authentic models of development. In The Coming Dark Age Vacca (1973) gloomily forecasts a world with no future. Development ethics corrects this view by reminding us that futures are not foreordained. Indeed the most important banner development ethics must raise high is that of hope, hope in the possibility of creating new possibilities. Development ethics pleads normatively for a certain reading of history, one in which human agents are makers of history even as they bear witness to values of transcendence (Goulet, 1974b).
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK AT: POVERTY DISCOURSE
THEY PROVIDE COVER FOR THE WEST TO ALLOW FURTHER DESTRUCTION. ONLY CALLING IT POVERTY REVEALS THE FAILURE OF THE WESTERN MODEL Bjørn Hvinden, Poverty, Exclusion and Agency, Professor of Sociology and Political Science at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Research in Community Sociology, vol 5, 1995 http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iss/Bjorn.Hvinden/Simmel_om_marginalitet_og_fattigdom.htm Moreover, the word 'poverty' does not only have a literal meaning, a denotation, but also strong emotional and symbolic overtones, 'connotations'. This can be seen most clearly in countries like the Scandinavian which have officially been defined as egalitarian and solidaristic. In the official political discourse to adopt the word 'poverty' have almost been a taboo, as the mere use of the word to describe existing social conditions imply that consensual efforts over a long period have been a failure. Given these strong connotative elements it makes a major difference whether one says that many people have low incomes and that the distribution of benefits is still unequitable, or one maintains that a substantial minority still lives in poverty. The larger this minority is claimed to be, the stronger interest representatives of the dominating elite will have in denying the validity of the claim. “POVERTY” IS BAD WHEN FRAMED IN TERMS OF CONSUMPTION. WE ENABLE RWANDA TO CHOOSE WHAT AND HOW MUCH IT WILL PRODUCE Md Anisur Rahman, People’s Self-Development: Perspectives on Participatory Action Research, economist who headed the ILO’s Programme on Participatory Organizations for the Rural Poor, 1993, p. 186 The notion of 'poverty' follows the same viewpoint. The concern here is whether a person has the necessary income or access or 'entitlement' to the bundle of goods and services postulated to be the needs of human beings as consumers. 'Poverty' in terms of lack of an 'entitlement' to develop as a creative being is, again, not expressed as a concern .The problem of 'poverty' in this sense is a consumer's rather than a creator's problem, focused on the 'poor' not being able to consume the things desired (or biologically needed) rather than not having the opportunity to produce (or command) them through their creative acts.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK *****AT: K OR CAP***** PERM PERM: DO THE PLAN, AND SOLVE FOR THE ALTERNATIVE OF THE KRITIK
RESISTANCE IS POSSIBLE FROM WITHIN CAPITALISM Monthly Review, Feb 2002 v53 i9 p1(14) The future is open because for all its coherence, capitalism is itself not a closed system. It allows for private and public spaces that can nurture resistance (and are the results of prior resistance). It includes its own ideological and material contradictions that can be, and have been, used to create further openings. Struggles, as heightened moments with openings to new experiences and awareness, are themselves ways of standing outside of the system, even if only partially and temporarily, to create a measure of liberated space. CAP WON’T COLLAPSE CAPITALISM IS TOO ENTRENCHED IN THE US – IT WILL NEVER COLLAPSE Martin Lewis, 1992 , Professor at Duke University School of the Environment, “Green Delusions” p. 170 Yet a successful Marxian transformation, be it evolutionary or revolutionary, hardly seems likely within the United States. The evolutionary path is moribund; socialist parties never achieve more than a percentage point or two in any election, except in a few errant university towns like Berkely and Santa Cruz, California – or in Vermont. So too the chances of a revolution in the near future, as most Marxists fully recognize, are nil.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK TRANSITION WARS TRANSITION WARS RESULTING FROM COLLAPSE OF CAPITALISM CAUSE OMNICIDE Kothari, Professor of political science at University of Delhi, 1982 [“Towards a Just Social Order”, p. 571]
Attempts at global economic reform could also lead to a world racked by increasing turbulence, a greater sense of insecurity among the major centres of power -- and hence to a further tightening of the structures of domination and domestic repression – producing in their wake an intensification of the old arms race and militarization of regimes, encouraging regional conflagrations and setting the stage for eventual global holocaust. CRISIS WITHIN CAPITALISM DOESN’T CAUSE IT TO COLLAPSE, JUST CAUSES MAJOR WAR Africa News Service, Dec 10, 2002 IN the late 19th Century, the chief author of the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx, argued that the contradictions of capitalism would one day destroy the capitalist system. His predictions were followed by two world wars in the first half of the 20th Century. The 1914-1918 First World War was followed by a Marxist-Leninist revolution in Russia in 1917 and the 1939-1945 Second World War was followed by a Maoist Revolution in China in 1949. The Great Depression in the West in the 1930s seemed to indicate that Karl Marx had been right. But there is something paradoxical about an economic system which is based on the law of the jungle, euphemistically referred to as "the market forces of supply and demand". It goes through periodical crises, in which it leaves behind a lot of casualties, but the basic pillars of the system always remain intact. Because of the attraction of human greed, the system is also always able to spawn up demagogic disciples who revive its fortunes by telling us that any economic system which does not take into account human selfishness and individual flair and creativity in its objectives is bound to fail.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK CAP KEY TO STOP NUCLEAR WAR
CAPITALISM IS ESSENTIAL TO WEALTH GENERATION AND POVERTY REDUCTION; THAT SOLVES DISEASE, TERRORISM, AND REGIONAL CONFLICTS THAT GO NUCLEAR Bill Emmott, Editor-in-Chief of The Economist, 2003, 20:21 Vision, pp. 265-266, 277-278 There are other self-serving reasons to be worried about inequality and its handmaiden, poverty. One is that a poorer country is more likely to have weak political and social institutions, which are then more likely to collapse into chaos or civil war. That is especially likely when the country is poor in terms of the direct economic activity of its citizenry but is nevertheless home to some valuable natural resources, such as the diamonds of Sierra Leone. Forces within, and forces from outside, are liable to fight to get their hands on those resources. Chaos and civil war are essentially local troubles that need not affect the rest of the world, but they are liable to draw in neighbors, risking a wider regional conflict as countries or factions vie to exploit the vacuum left in the collapsing state. Poorer, unstable countries are also likely to harbor and to foster two other ills: disease and terrorism. Disease may well contribute to poverty rather than being a consequence of it, but it is also the case that a poor country is likely to lack the infrastructure as well as money to be able to deal with epidemic diseases such as the human irumunodeficiency virus that causes AIDS, or Ebola, and those diseases might then be able to spread across other borders. The danger of terrorism is more obvious: discontented, otherwise hopeless people may wish to take out their sense of grievance on the luckier rich, and will be likely to find plenty of willing recruits for dangerous or even suicidal terrorist missions. The terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 confirm this only indirectly, since the terrorists concerned were neither poor nor hopeless. But
they and their followers did, it seems, feel that Islamic countries in general were poor and lacking in hope, following centuries of humiliation at the hands of the West. And the argument applies directly to Afghanistan: if that country had not been dirt-poor, it would have been unlikely to have acted as a host to the al-Qaeda terrorists. Rich countries can give rise to terrorism too, even without the separatist movements found in the Basque Country and Northern Ireland; Germany had its Baader-Meinhof gang in the 1970s, Italy its Red Brigades, and even America
Poverty and despair act as a more powerful recruiting sergeant for terrorists than do mere alienation or beliefs in anarchism. Other people worry about inequality because of a fear of war: the fear that countries which feel that they are unable to advance their living standards and sense of power by conventional economic means may be tempted to use military methods as a shortcut. As a general proposition, this argument is unconvincing, for a poorer country is also often militarily weak, though that still made the Soviet-led Warsaw
had the Symbionese Liberation Front. But they have not been numerous enough to pose a danger to their governments or to any other country. Pact countries a formidable enemy to NATO during the cold war. By and large, however, the rich will always be able to defeat poor countries in anything other than a guerrilla war—and such fighting methods may be common in civil wars or m wars of liberation, but they do not put other countries themselves in physical danger, except from terrorism. But in some circumstances this argument may hold good. North Korea, for example, has long used the threat of military attack either on its southern compatriot, or on Japan or the United States, as a means by which to
Inequality, in other words, may lead to an increase in the number of unpredictable dictators— slightly euphemistically known as rogue states (even more euphemistically known, by America’s State Department, as “states of concern”). These rogues have become more dangerous as technology has advanced sufficiently to make long-range missiles cheap enough to buy and develop, and to use as a threat. They could become extremely deadly if any obtain the means to develop and deploy nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. The findings of history are quite simple, even if it is not becoming any easier to implement them. To believe them, however, one must first believe in capitalism and in the fact that it has been the only successful generator of sustained improvements in human welfare that has so far been discovered . The next thing is to work out what it is that makes capitalism tick. Or, put another way, one must find out what is different about the places where it ticks and the places where it doesn’t. That is what an international study, Economic Freedom of the World, has sought to do every year since it was first published, in 1996, by eleven economic think tanks around the world led by the Fraser Institute in Canada. The correlations it finds between sustained economic success and aspects of capitalist circumstances suggest that most of the explanations lie in how poor countries are governed, rather than in natural disadvantages or unfairness by the rich. Those suspicious of free-marketeers should note that conclusion: it is government, or the lack of it, that makes the crucial difference. The aim of the study was to see whether countries in which people had more economic freedom were also
blackmail the rich. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 in order to grab its oil as well as merely to make a territorial point.
richer and grew more rapidly. But the study also sought to define economic freedom, in the hope of capturing and measuring the things that matter in making capitalism work. Broadly, economic freedom means the ability to do what you want with whatever
property you have legally acquired, as long as your actions do not violate other people’s rights to do the same. Goods and services do not, alas, fall like manna from heaven; their arrival depends on property rights and the incentives to use and create them. So the issues surrounding those are what matter: Are property rights legally protected? Are people hemmed in by government regulations and trade barriers, or fearful of confiscation? Are their savings under attack from inflation, or can they do what they want with their money? Is it economically viable for parents to send their kids to school? The study’s authors initially found seventeen measures of these things, expanded in the 2001 update to twenty-one, and rated 102 (now 123) countries on each of them, going back, if possible, to 1975. They then had to find ways to weight the measures according to their importance, and used a panel of economists to do so. The conclusion was abundantly clear: the freer the economy, the higher the growth and the richer the people. This was especially so for countries that maintained a fairly free economy for many years, since before individuals and companies will respond to such freedom they need to feel confident that it will last.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK DEMOCRACY
DEMOCRACY A. CAPITALISM IS A PREREQUISITE TO DEMOCRACY Daniel T. Griswold is associate director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at Cato Institute. His study is available at www.freetrade.org. , Fox News, February 18, 2004 Political scientists have long noted the connection between economic development, political reform and democracy. Increased trade and economic integration promote civil and political freedoms directly by opening a society to new technology, communications and democratic ideas. Economic liberalization provides a counterweight to governmental power and creates space for civil society. And by promoting faster growth, trade promotes political freedom indirectly by creating an economically independent and politically aware middle class. In an April 2002 speech urging Congress to grant him trade promotion authority, President Bush argued, "Societies that are open to commerce across their borders are more open to democracy within their borders." In a new study for the Cato Institute, "Trading Tyranny for Freedom: How Open Markets Till the Soil for Democracy," I conclude that that those assumptions rest on solid ground. Around the globe, the recent trend towards globalization has been accompanied by a trend toward greater political and civil liberty . In the past 30 years, cross-border flows of trade, investment and currency have increased dramatically, and far faster than output itself. During that same period, political and civil liberties have been spreading around the world. Every year, the New York-based human rights think tank Freedom House (search) rates every country in the world according to its political and civil freedom. It classifies countries as either "Free"--where governments are freely elected and civil liberties are fully protected; "Partly Free"--where there is limited respect for political rights and civil liberties; and "Not Free"-where basic political rights are absent and basic civil liberties were widely and systematically denied. According to Freedom House, the share of the world's population living in countries that are "Free" has jumped from 35 percent to 44 percent.
B. DEMOCRACY SOLVES WMD WARFARE Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, December, 1995; Promoting Democracy in the 1990s, http://www.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/diam_rpt.html // Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty and openness The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK CAP SOLVES POVERTY CRISIS WITHIN CAPITALISM DOESN’T CAUSE IT TO COLLAPSE, JUST CAUSES MAJOR WAR
Africa News Service, Dec 10, 2002
IN the late 19th Century, the chief author of the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx, argued that the contradictions of capitalism would one day destroy the capitalist system. His predictions were followed by two world wars in the first half of the 20th Century. The 1914-1918 First World War was followed by a Marxist-Leninist revolution in Russia in 1917 and the 1939-1945 Second World War was followed by a Maoist Revolution in China in 1949. The Great Depression in the West in the 1930s seemed to indicate that Karl Marx had been right. But there is something paradoxical about an economic system which is based on the law of the jungle, euphemistically referred to as "the market forces of supply and demand". It goes through periodical crises, in which it leaves behind a lot of casualties, but the basic pillars of the system always remain intact. Because of the attraction of human greed, the system is also always able to spawn up demagogic disciples who revive its fortunes by telling us that any economic system which does not take into account human selfishness and individual flair and creativity in its objectives is bound to fail.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK AT: CAP HURTS ENVIRO WE CONTROL UNIQUENESS, ENVIRONMENT IS GETTING BETTER BECAUSE OF CAPITALISM Goldberg, National Review, 4/24 2000 [Jonah, http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg042400.html]
First, the environment is getting better. The air is cleaner, the water too. Species extinctions are declining and we haven't lost any really cute animals in a very long time. There are more trees in the US than there were in the 1920s. Vital resources are all getting cheaper. Food is abundant — despite the fact that people like Paul Ehrlich predicted that most surviving Americans would be eating human-foot stew by now. Capitalism is the fastest route to a clean environment. Remember: Rich people pass child-labor laws, Clean Air Acts, Clean Water Acts, Endangered Species Acts — because they can afford to. It is a fact that a person faced with the choice of not killing a rhino versus feeding his family will almost always choose feeding his family. Liberals believe that laws can trump necessity. This is very rarely the case. That's why America passed anti-child labor laws only after we got prosperous enough to be able to afford to send our kids to school rather than work. We control uniqueness, environment is getting better BECAUSE of capitalism Goldberg, National Review, 4/24 2000 [Jonah, http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg042400.html] First, the environment is getting better. The air is cleaner, the water too. Species extinctions are declining and we haven't lost any really cute animals in a very long time. There are more trees in the US than there were in the 1920s. Vital resources are all getting cheaper. Food is abundant — despite the fact that people like Paul Ehrlich predicted that most surviving Americans would be eating human-foot stew by now. Capitalism is the fastest route to a clean environment. Remember: Rich people pass child-labor laws, Clean Air Acts, Clean Water Acts, Endangered Species Acts — because they can afford to. It is a fact that a person faced with the choice of not killing a rhino versus feeding his family will almost always choose feeding his family. Liberals believe that laws can trump necessity. This is very rarely the case. That's why America passed anti-child labor laws only after we got prosperous enough to be able to afford to send our kids to school rather than work.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK AT: CAP IS IMPERIALIST
CAPITALISM DOESN’T CAUSE WAR FOR MARKETS, RECENT WARS WERE ACTUALLY CAUSED BY STATIST LOGIC Ayn Rand, philosopher, as quoted by Harry Binswanger, THE AYN RAND LEXICON: OBJECTIVISM FROM A TO Z, 1986, p. 60-1 Let those who are actually concerned with peace observe that capitalism gave mankind [sic] the longest period of peace in history – a period during which there were no wars involving the entire civilized world – from the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 to the outbreak of World war I in 1914. It must be remembered that the political systems of the nineteenth century were not pure capitalism, but mixed economies. The element of freedom, however, was dominant; it was as close to a century of capitalism as mankind has come. But the element of statism kept growing throughout the nineteenth century, and by the time it blasted the world in 1914, the governments involved were dominated by statist policies. Just as, in domestic affairs, all the evils caused by statism and government controls were blamed on capitalism and the free market – so, in foreign affairs, all the evils of statist policies were blamed on capitalism and ascribed to capitalism. Such myths as “capitalistic imperialism,” “warprofiteering,” or the notion that capitalism has to win “markets” by military conquest are examples of the superficiality or the unscrupulousness of statist commentators and historians.
HISTORY PROVES CAPITALISM DOESN’T CAUSE IMPERIALISM D.W. MacKenzie, graduate student in economics at George Mason University, LUDWIG VON MISES INSTITUTE: DAILY ARTICLES, April 10, 2003, http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1201. History is rife with examples of imperialism. The Romans, Alexander, and many others of the ancient world waged imperialistic wars. The Incan Empire and the empire of Ancient China stand as examples of the universal character of imperialism. Who could possibly claim that imperialism grew out of the prosperity of these ancient civilizations? Imperialism precedes modern industrial capitalism by many centuries. Uneven wealth distribution or underconsumption under capitalism obviously did not cause these instances of imperialism. Capitalism neither requires nor promotes imperialist expansion. Capitalism did not create imperialism or warfare. Warlike societies predate societies with secure private property. The idea that inequity or underspending give rise to militarism lacks any rational basis. Imperialistic tendencies exist due to ethnic and nationalistic bigotries, and the want for power. Prosperity depends upon our ability to prevent destructive acts. The dogma of destructive creation fails as a silver lining to the cloud of warfare. Destructive acts entail real costs that diminish available opportunities.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK AT: YOU SUPPORT A BAD MILITARY
ALTERNATIVES TO CAPITALISM RESULT IN MORE WAR AND ENTRENCH VIOLENT STATE STRUCTURES Brian Martin, Associate Professor in Science, Technology, and Society at University of Wollongong, “Uprooting War”, 1984 Some revolutionary groups, such as some Marxist parties in Western countries, consider that abolition of war is something that will happen after 'the revolution.' But even the victory of revolutionary parties in countries throughout the world would be no guarantee of a world without war. Every variety of state socialism so far, including the Soviet, Chinese, Cuban and Vietnamese models, has resulted in an increased role for the military. Military confrontations, occupations and wars between socialist states are quite common, including Soviet UnionHungary, Soviet Union-China, Soviet Union-Czechoslovakia and China-Vietnam. The proponents of socialist revolution led by vanguard parties have no programme for abolishing war. Far from achieving this end, their revolutionary success would more likely mean an even greater militarisation of society. arx and particularly Engels took a keen interest in military matters, but they did not seriously address the problem of eliminating war. Marxist theorists since then have continued to avoid this topic. Marxists focus on class relations in capitalist societies as the source of the world's major problems. But class dynamics are not the primary driving force behind many social problems, including sexism, racism and environmental degradation. Those following a strict class analysis are hard pressed to say something useful about such problems, much less formulate a strategy for eliminating them. or example, by focussing on the role of the economic mode of production, there is a downgrading of the role of the state as a structure in its own right rather than as just a tool of the capitalist class or a site for class struggle. This downgrading is related to the failure of basic assumptions in the Marxist perspective for socialist revolution, such as the assumptions of the international character of the capitalist working class and of the withering away of the state after socialist revolution. Rather than exhibiting transnational solidarity, working class groups in particular countries have more often supported the policies of their own state, especially military policy. Rather than socialist revolution and the abolition of capitalist ownership being followed by the withering away of the state, the power of the state and especially of the military has become even greater.
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK CAP IS INEVITABLE
1. Comparatively the benefits of Growth outweigh the disadvantages – capitalist forces are inevitable and necessary to prevent extinction
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK AFFIRMATIVE: PERMUTATION-GAY/LESBIAN
PERM: FIGHTING FOR STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE LAW DURING THE CHANGE TO SOCIALISM IS NEEDED TO PREVENT A NEW HETEROSEXIST GOVERNMENT
15th World Congress 2003 ( February, “On Lesbain/Gay Liberation”, http://www.marxsite.com/lESBIAN%20AND%20gAYLIBERATION.htm)
In a time when 'LGBT markets' are putting new normalizing and divisive pressures on LGBT communities, and when most LGBT political currents internationally have focussed increasingly on institutional and lobbying work, it is essential that LGBT movements be part of the wider social debate and contribute to mobilizations against neoliberal globalization.They must introduce LGBT perspectives into different struggles for political, social and economical change, rejecting pressures to postpone specific LGBT struggles in the name of any 'structural issue'. No structural change will be complete if the structures of sexual oppression, which affect all human beings, are left untouched.
EDUCATION IS A CAPITALIST IDEA Capitalism.org, 2003 http://www.capitalism.org/faq/ Capitalism supports freedom in education as opposed to the tax funded "free" education run by the state. Under capitalism, the indoctrination of the young by the officials of the state is illegal. Under capitalism, education, like food, computers, and medicine, is taken on as a private profit making enterprise, not because education is unimportant, but because it is so important (like all private enterprise this leaves room for private charity, but this is a secondary issue). The only "free" education under capitalism is provided by private individuals, i.e., parents paying for their child's education, i.e., individuals acting as a group, e.g., church groups and non-religious groups.
AMERICORPS PROMOTES CAPITALIST VENTURES
Michelle Malkin , graduate of Oberlin College and staff writer at CAPITALIST MAGAZINE, January 20, 2001 Or the AmeriCorps foot soldiers who pressed for rent control, expanded federal housing subsidies, and enrollment of more women in the Women, Infants, and Children welfare program. Or the AmeriCorps enrollees who distributed low-flush toilets as part of a government campaign. What about the millions of dollars that were wasted during the program's first three years, when nearly 3,000 recruits were sent to do busy work for bureaucrats at the Department of Justice, the Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Legal Services Corporation, and the National Endowment for the Arts?
“Look Who Supports Americorps”, Capitalist Magazine
CAP/DEV K MALUMPHY/CLARK
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.