the aff brands themselves as zaps, and that branding makes zaps intelligible to power

revs aren't inevitable if the rev was inevitable you wouldn't need the aff either proves they're non-inherent or they don't need you to do your ballot shit only a risk that first world solidarity is shitty because of the el kilombo galactico evidence also, even if rev is inevitable, it's invisible and anonymous they render it visible which makes rev failure inevitable

Jean Baudrillard 1976 (Symbolic Exchange and Death pg. 36) We will not destroy the system by a direct, dialectical revolution of the economic or political infrastructure. Everything produced by contradiction, by the relation of forces, or by energy in general, will only feed back into the mechanism and give it impetus, following a circular distortion similar to a Moebius strip. the only solution is to turn the principle of its power back against the system itself: the impossibility of responding or retorting. To defy the system with a gift to which it cannot respond save by its own collapse and death. Nothing, not even the system, can avoid the symbolic obligation, and it is in this trap that the only chance of a catastrophe for capital remains. The system turns on itself, as a scorpion does when encircled by the challenge of death. For it is summoned to answer, if it is not to lose face, to what can only be death. The system must itself commit suicide in response to the multiplied challenge of death and suicide. So hostages are taken. On the symbolic or sacrificial plane, from which every moral consideration of the innocence of the victims is ruled out, the hostage is the substitute, the alter-ego of the 'terrorist' - the hostage's death for the terrorist's. Hostage and terrorist may thereafter become confused in the same sacrificial act. The stakes are death without any possibility of negotiation, and therefore return to an inevitable overbidding. Of course, they attempt to deploy the whole system of negotiation, and the terrorists themselves often enter into this exchange scenario in terms of this calculated equivalence (the hostages' lives against some ransom or liberation, or indeed for the prestige of the operation alone). From this perspective, taking hostages is not original at all, it simply creates an unforeseen and selective relation of forces which can be resolved either by traditional violence or by negotiation. It is a tactical action. There is something else at stake, however, as we clearly saw at The Hague over the course of ten days of incredible negotiations: no-one knew what could be negotiated, nor could they agree on terms, nor on the possible equivalences of the exchange. Or again, even if they were formulated, the 'terrorists' demands' amounted to a radical denial of negotiation. It is precisely here that everything is played out, for with the impossibility of all negotiation we pass into the symbolic order, which is ignorant of this type of calculation and exchange (the system itself lives solely by negotiation, even if this takes place in the equilibrium of violence). The system can only respond to this irruption of the symbolic (the most serious thing to befall it, basically the only 'revolution') by the real, physical death of the terrorists. This, however, is its defea.t, since their death was their stake, so that by bringing about their deaths the system has merely impaled itself on its own violence without really responding to the challenge that was thrown to it. Because the system can easily compute every death, even war atrocities, but cannot

compute the death-challenge or symbolic death, since this death has no calculable equivalent, it opens up an inexpiable overbidding by other means than a death in exchange. Nothing corresponds to death except death. Which is precisely what happens in this case: the system itself is driven to suicide in return, which suicide is manife-st in its disarray and defeat. However infinitesimal in terms of relations of forces it might be, the colossal apparatus of power is eliminated in this situation where (the very excess of its) derision is turned back against itself. The police and the army, all the institutions and mobilised violence of power whether individually or massed together, can do nothing against this lowly but symbolic death. For this death draws it onto a plane where there is no longer any response possible for it (hence the sudden structural liquefaction of power in '68, not because it was less strong, but because of the simple symbolic displacement operated by the students' practices). The system can only die in exchange, defeat itself to lift the challenge. Its death at this instant is a symbolic response, but a death which wears it out. The challenge has the efficiency of a murderer Every society apart from ours knows that, or used to know it. Ours is in the process of rediscovering it. The routes of symbolic effectiveness are those of an alternative politics. Thus the dying ascetic challenges God ever to give
him the equivalent of this death. God does all he can to give him this equivalent 'a hundred times over', in the form of prestige, of spiritual power, indeed of global hegemony But the ascetic's secret dream is to attain such an extent of mortification that even

God would be unable either to take up the challenge, or to absorb the debt. He will then have triumphed over God, and become God himself. That is why the ascetic is always close to heresy and sacrilege,
and as such condemned by the Church, whose function it is merely to preserve God from this symbolic face-to-face, to protect Him from this mortal challenge where He is summoned to die, to sacrifice Himself in order to take up the challenge of the mortified ascetic. The Church will have had this role for all time, avoiding this type of catastrophic confrontation (catastrophic primarily for the Church) and substituting a rule-bound exchange of penitences and gratifications, the impressario of a system of equivalences between God and men. The same situation exists in our relation to the system of power All these institutions, all these social, economic, political and psychological mediations, are there so that no-one ever has the opportunity to issue this symbolic challenge, this challenge to the death, the irreversible gift which, like the absolute mortification of the ascetic, brings about a victory over all power, however powerful its authority may be. It is no longer necessary that the possibility of this direct symbolic confrontation ever takes place. And this is the source of our profound boredom. This is why taking

hostages and other similar acts rekindle some fascination: they are at once an exorbitant mirror for the system of its own repressive violence, and the model of a symbolic violence which is always forbidden it, the only violence it cannot exert: its own death. Bifo 11 (Franco Bifo Berardi, After the Future pg 106-108 [NN]) Nothing, not even the system, can avoid the symbolic obligation, and it is in this trap that the only chance of a catastrophe for capital remains. The system turns on itself, as a scorpion does when encircled by the challenge of death. For it is summoned to answer, if it is not to lose face, to what can only be death . The system must itself commit suicide t exhaustion could also become the beginning of a slow wu wei civilization, based on the withdrawal, and frugal expectations of life and consumption. Radicalism could abandon the mode of activism, and adopt the mode of passivity . A
movement towards a

definitely threaten the ethos of relentless productivity that neoliberal politics has imposed. The mother of all the bubbles, the work bubble, would finally deflate . We have been working too much during the last three or four centuries, and outrageously too much during the last thirty years. The current depression could be the beginning of a massive abandonment of competition, consumerist drive, and of dependence on work. Actually, if we think of the geopolitical struggle of the first decade the struggle between Western domination and jihadist Islam we recognize that the most powerful weapon has been suicide. 9/11 is the most impressive act of this suicidal war, but
radical passivity would thousands of people have killed themselves in order to destroy American military hegemony. And they won, forcing the western world into the bunker of paranoid security , and defeating the hyper-technological

armies of the West both in Iraq, and in Afghanistan. The suicidal implosion has not been confined to the Islamists. Suicide has became a form of political action everywhere. Against neoliberal
politics, Indian farmers have killed themselves. Against exploitation hundreds of workers and employees have killed themselves in the French factories of Peugeot, and in the offices of France Telecom. In Italy,

when the 2009 recession destroyed one million jobs, many workers, haunted by the fear of unemployment, climbed on the roofs of the factories, threatening to kill themselves. Is it possible to divert this implosive trend from the direction of death , murder, and suicide, towards a new kind of autonomy, social creativity and of life? I think that it is possible only if we start from exhaustion , if we emphasize the creative side of withdrawal. The exchange between life and money could be deserted, and exhaustion could give way to a huge wave of withdrawal from the sphere of economic exchange. A new refrain could emerge in that moment, and wipe out the law of economic
growth. The self-organization of the general intellect could abandon the law of accumulation and growth, and start a new concatenation, where collective intelligence is only subjected to the common good.

Solidarity DA: Identifying with Zapatismo inspiration in the US is white guilt par excellanceit produces us as voyuers to suffering others and breeds interpassivity we can prance around in the rhetoric of subcomandantes while maintaining political action at a distance from our daily livesturns case El Kilombo Intergalactico 7 [Collective in Durham NC that interviewed Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos, Beyond Resistance:
Everything p. 1-2//shree] In our efforts to forge a new path, we found that an old friendthe Ejrcito Zapatista de Liberacin Nacional (Zapatista Arm of National Liberation, EZLN)was already taking enormous strides to move toward a politics adequate to our time, and that it was thus necessary to attempt an evaluation of Zapatismo that would in turn be adequate to the real event of their appearance. That is, despite the fresh air that the Zapatista uprising had blown into the US political scene since 1994, we began to feel that even the

inspiration of Zapatismo had been quickly contained through its insertion into a well-worn and untenable narrative: Zapatismo was another of many faceless and indifferent third world movements that demanded and deserved solidarity from leftists in the global north. From our position as an organization composed in large part by people of color in the United States, we viewed this focus on solidarity as the foreign policy equivalent of white guilt, quite distinct from any authentic impulse toward, or recognition of, the necessity for radical social change. The notion of solidarity that still pervades much of the Left in the U.S. has continually served an intensely conservative political agenda that dresses itself in the radical rhetoric of the latest rebellion in the darker nations while carefully maintaining political action at a distance from our own daily lives, thus producing a political subject (the solidarity provider) that more closely resembles a spectator or voyeur (to the suffering others) than a participant or active agent, while simultaneously working to reduce the solidarity recipient to a mere object (of our pity and mismatched socks). At both ends of this relationship, the process of solidarity ensures that subjects and political action never meet; in this way it serves to make change an a priori impossibility. In other words, this practice of solidarity urges us to participate in its perverse logic by
accepting the narrative that power tells us about itself: that those who could make change dont need it and that those who need change cant make it. To the extent that human solidarity has a future, this logic and practice do not!

The masks of the Zapatistas prevent the development of a cult of personality around any particular leader in their movement and preserve their cause from marginalization and commodification by the system against which they fight presencing of zaps is comparatively worse Pitawanakwat 2k (Brock,University of Victoria, "The Mirror of Dignity: Zapatista
Communications and Indigenous Resistance" pp. 10-11)
Perhaps the most visible and well-known Zapatista symbol is the ski mask, balaclava, or pasamontaas in Spanish. During the first day of the uprising, Subcommandante Marcos explained to surprised witnesses of the rebellion in San Cristbal that until indigenous peoples put on their masks, no one saw them. Various interpretations exist for their use by the rebels. For example, they: 1) maintain equality amongst the leadership and dispute the idea that it was led by any single rebel 2) show solidarity between the indigenous and the mestizo within the EZLN 3) constitute a unifying form of self-identification analogous to the beards of the Cuban rebels during that countrys 1959 revolution 4) function as a symbol of Mexicos refusal to recognize its indigenous peoples 5) shield the identities of the r ebels in order to prevent reprisals against their communities and families; and 6) perhaps more practically, protect against the cold weather. Marcos has stated that he will remove his own mask only when Mexican society takes off its own mask, the one it uses to cover up the real Mexico. In his first appearance in the media spotlight, Marcos

explained to reporters that the rebels were masked in order to prevent any particular commandante from becoming a figurehead and therefore a target for government cooptation or corruption. But in preventing the figurehead syndrome, the mask also helps to maintain a collective and diffused leadership that prevents protagonism and supports the movements leading by obeying principle. The mask has been symbolically tied to Mexicos attempt to hide the third world conditions in
which its indigenous peoples live while its government attempts to secure first world status with trade deals such as NAFTA.

Power operates through the imposition of life Robinson 2012 /Andrew, Political Theorist, Activist Based in the UK and research fellow affiliated to the Centre for the Study of Social and Global Justice (CSSGJ), University of Nottingham, Jean Baudrillard: The Rise of Capitalism & the Exclusion of Death, March 30, http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-baudrillard-2/ . Gift-exchange is radically subversive of the system. This is not because it is rebellious. Baudrillard thinks the system can survive defections or exodus. It is because it counterposes a different principle of sociality to that of the dominant system. According to Baudrillard, the mediations of capitalism exist so that nobody has the opportunity to offer a symbolic challenge or an irreversible gift. They exist to keep the symbolic at bay. The affective charge of death remains present among the oppressed, but not with the properly symbolic rhythm of the wests
idea of a biological, material death is actually an idealist illusion, ignoring the sociality of death. Poststructuralists generally maintain that the problems of the present are rooted in the splitting of life into binary oppositions. For Baudrillard, the division between life and death is the original, founding opposition on which the others are founded. After this first split, a whole series of others have been created,
confining particular groups the mad, prisoners, children, the old, sexual minorities, women and so on to particular segregated situations. The definition of the normal human has been narrowed over time. Today, nearly everyone belongs to one or

original exclusion was of the dead it is defined as abnormal to be dead. first split and exclusion forms the basis, or archetype, for all the other splits and exclusions along lines of gender, disability, species, class, and so on. This discrimination against the
another marked or deviant category. The You livies hate us deadies. This dead brings into being the modern experience of death. Baudrillard suggests that death as we know it does not exist outside of this separation between living and dead. The

modern view of death is constructed on the model of the machine and the function. A machine either functions or it does not. The human body is treated as a machine which similarly, either functions or does not. For Baudrillard, this misunderstands the nature of life and death. The modern view

of death is also necessitated by the rise of subjectivity. The subject needs a beginning and an end, so as to be reducible to the story it tells. This requires an idea of death as an end. It is counterposed to the immortality of social institutions. In relation to individuals, ideas of religious immortality is simply an ideological cover for the real exclusion of the dead. But institutions try to remain truly immortal. Modern systems, especially bureaucracies, no longer know how to die or how to do anything but keep reproducing themselves. The internalisation of the idea of the subject or the soul alienates us from our bodies, voices and so on. It creates a split, as Stirner would say, between the category of man and the un-man, the real self irreducible to such categories. It also individualises people, by destroying their actual connections to others. The symbolic haunts the code as the threat of its own death. The society of the code works constantly to ward off the danger of irruptions of the symbolic. The mortal body is actually an effect of the split introduced by the foreclosure of death. The split never actually stops exchanges across the categories. In the case of death, we still exchange with the dead through our own deaths and our anxiety about death. We no longer have living, mortal relationships with objects either. They are reduced to the instrumental. It is as if we have a transparent veil between us. Symbolic exchange is based on a game, with game-like rules. When this disappears, laws and the state are invented to take their place. It is the process of excluding, marking, or barring which allows concentrated or transcendental power to come into existence. Through splits, people turn the other into their imaginary. For instance, westerners invest the Third World with racist fantasies and revolutionary aspirations; the Third World invests the west with aspirational fantasies of development. In separation, the other exists only as an imaginary object. resultant purity is illusory. For Baudrillard, any such marking or barring of the other brings the other to the core of society. We all become dead, or mad, or prisoners, and so on, through their exclusion.
Yet the