You are on page 1of 4

Will Malson

LD: Capitalism Bad K-NC

Page 1 of 4

LD: Capitalism Bad K-NC
We’ve come here today to provide an answer to the great question: to compete, or to cooperate? As such, my philosophy is that cooperation is superior to competition as a means of achieving excellence. What is the heart of the clash between competition and cooperation? In its truest and purest form, it is the conflict between capitalism and socialism, the ultimate competition, and the ultimate cooperation. When it comes down to it, do we want to be competing, or do we want to be cooperating? I’ll give you the answer in 6 steps.

Here’s why: The focus on competitiveness is founded on the geo-economic aspects of capitalism. Timothy W. Luke [Department of Political Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA], “The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of
Nature: Environmentalism as Globalized Consumerism?” Published by The Center for Digital Discourse and Culture (CDDC) [began as college-level center at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University during 1998 in the College of Arts and Sciences. The CDDC provides one of the world's first university based digital points-of-publication for new forms of scholarly communication, academic research, and cultural analysis], Presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, March 18-22, 1997, (HEG) Discourses of "geo-economics," as they have been expounded more recently by voices as diverse as Robert Reich, Lester Thurow, or Edward Luttwak, as well as rearticulations of "geo- politics" in an ecological register, as they have been developed by President Bill Clinton or Vice President Al Gore, both express new understandings of the earth's economic and political importance as a site for the orderly maximization of many material resources.6 Geoeconomics, for example, often transforms through military metaphors and strategic analogies what hitherto were regarded as purely economic concerns into national security issues of wise resource use and sovereign property rights. Government manipulation of trade policy, state support of major corporations, or

The relative success or failure of national economies in head-to-head global competitions typically are taken by geo-economics as the definitive register of any one nation-state's waxing or waning international power as well as its rising or falling industrial competitiveness, technological vitality, and economic prowess. In this context, many believe that
public aid for retraining labor all become vital instruments for "the continuation of the ancient rivalry of the nations by new industrial means."7 ecological considerations can be ignored, or given at best only meaningless symbolic responses, in the quest to mobilize as private property as many of the earth's material resources as possible. This hard-nosed response is the essence of "wise use." In the on-going struggle over economic competitiveness, environmental resistance even can be recast by "wise use" advocates as a type of civil disobedience, which endangers national security, expresses unpatriotic sentiments, or embodies treasonous acts. Geo-economics takes hold in the natural resource crises of the 1970s. Arguing, for example, that "whoever controls world resources controls the world in a way that mere occupation of territory cannot match," Barnet in 1979 asked, first, if natural resource scarcities were real and, second, if economic control over natural resources was changing the global balance of power.8 After surveying the struggles to manipulate access to geo-powerassets, like oil, minerals, water, and food resources, he did see a new geo-economic challenge as nation-states were being forced to satisfy the rising material expectations of their populations in a much more interdependent world system.9 Ironically, the rhetorical pitch of Reich, Thurow and Luttwak in the geo- economics debate of the 1990s mostly adheres to similar terms of analysis. Partly a response to global economic competition, and partly a response to global ecological scarcities, today's geo- economic reading of the earth's political economy constructs the attainment of national economic growth, security, and prosperity as a zero-sum game. Having more material wealth or economic growth in one place, like the U.S.A., means not having it in other places, namely, rival foreign nations. It also assumes material scarcity is a continual constraint; hence, all resources, everywhere and at any time, are private property whose productive potentials must be subject ultimately to economic exploitation.

Geo-economics accepts the prevailing

form of mass market consumerism as it presently exists, defines its many material benefits as the public ends that advanced economies ought to seek, and then affirms the need for hard discipline in elaborate programs of productivism, only now couched within rhetorics of highly politicized national competition, as the means for sustaining mass market consumer lifestyles in advanced nations like the United States. Creating economic growth, and producing more of it than other equally
aggressive developed and developing countries, is the sine qua non of "national security" in the 1990s. As Richard Darman, President Bush's chief of OMB declared after Earth Day in 1990, "Americans did not fight and win the wars of the twentieth century to make the world safe for green vegetables."10 However, not everyone sees environmentalism in this age of geo-economics as tantamount to subversion of an entire way of life tied to using increased levels of natural resources to accelerate economic growth.

Will Malson

LD: Capitalism Bad K-NC

Page 2 of 4

Capitalism is structurally incapable of addressing poverty—the argument that free markets help the poor is a self-serving myth. Istivan Meszaros, professor emeritus at the University of Sussex, “Beyond Capital”, pg. xiii, 1995 (HEG) The attempt at divorcing effects from their causes goes hand in hand with the equally fallacious practice of claiming the status of a rule for the exception. This is how it can be pretended that the misery and chronic underdevelopment that necessarily arise from the neo-colonial domination and exploitation of the overwhelming majority of humankind by a mere handful of capitalistically developed countries— hardly more than the G7—do not matter at all. For, as the self-serving legend goes, thanks to the (never realized) ‘modernization’ of the rest of the world, the population of every country will one fine day enjoy the great benefits of the ‘free enterprise system.’ The fact that the rapacious exploitation of the human and material resources of our planet for the benefit of a few capitalist countries happens to be a non-generalizable condition is wantonly disregarded. Instead, the universal viability of emulating the development of the ‘advanced capitalist’ countries is
predicated, ignoring that neither the advantages of the imperialist past, or the immense profits derived on a continuing basis from keeping the ‘Third World’ in a structural dependency can be ‘universally diffused,’ so as to produce the anticipated happy results through ‘modernization’ and ‘free-marketization.’ Not

even if the history of imperialism could be re-written if a sense diametrically opposed to the way it actually unfolded, coupled with the fictitious reversal of the existing power relations of domination and dependency in favour of the underdeveloped countries, the general adoption of the rapacious utilization of our plant’s limited resources— enormously damaging already, although at present practiced only be the privileged tiny minority— would make the whole system instantly collapse.
to mention the fact that

Capitalism enables elites to dominate politics—it does not foster real democracy. Robert B. Reich, former Harvard University professor, “How capitalism is killing democracy,” Foreign Policy, September-October 2007 (HEG) Capitalism and democracy, we've long been told, are the twin ideological pillars capable of bringing unprecedented prosperity and freedom to the world. In recent decades,
It was supposed to be a match made in heaven. the duo has shared a common ascent. By almost any measure, global capitalism is triumphant. Most nations around the world are today part of a single,

Three decades ago, a third of the world's nations held free elections; today, nearly two thirds do. Conventional wisdom holds that where either capitalism or democracy flourishes, the other must soon follow. Yet today, their fortunes are beginning to diverge. Capitalism, long sold as the yin to democracy's yang, is thriving, while democracy is struggling to keep up. China, poised to become the world's third largest capitalist nation this year after the United States and Japan, has embraced market freedom, but not political freedom. Many economically successful nations-from Russia to Mexico--are democracies in name only. They are encumbered by the same problems that have hobbled American democracy in recent years, allowing corporations and elites buoyed by runaway economic success to undermine the government's capacity to respond to citizens' concerns.Of course,
integrated, and turbocharged global market. Democracy has enjoyed a similar renaissance. democracy means much more than the process of free and fair elections. It is a system for accomplishing what can only be achieved by citizens joining together to further the common good. But though free markets have brought unprecedented prosperity to many, they have been accompanied by widening inequalities of income and wealth, heightened job insecurity, and environmental hazards such as global warming.

Will Malson

LD: Capitalism Bad K-NC

Page 3 of 4

Socialism is key to democracy; it is committed to the causes of the poor. Ralph Miliband 94
RALPH MILIBAND [Marxist political theorist and sociologist], “THE PLAUSIBILITY OF SOCIALISM”, New Left Review I/206, July-August 1994 (HEG)

Socialism itself must be viewed as part of a democratic movement which long antedates it, but to which socialism alone can give its full meaning. [1] The idea of democracy has been drastically narrowed in scope and substance in capitalist
societies so as to reduce the threat it posed to established power and privilege: socialism on the contrary is committed to a great widening of its compass.

The unenthusiastic prophet of democracy in the nineteenth century was Alexis de Tocqueville. In his introduction to Democracy in America, published in 1835, de Tocqueville said that democracy, which he equated with the ‘equality of condition’ he thought he had found in the United States, was also making its way in Europe. ‘A great democratic revolution,’ he wrote, ‘is taking place in our midst; everybody sees it, but by no means everybody judges it in the
same way. Some think it a new thing and, supposing it an accident, hope that they can still check it; others think it irresistible, because it seems to them the most continuous, ancient, and permanent tendency known to history’; [2] and in a preface to the twelfth edition of the book, written in 1848, he also asked:

‘Does anyone imagine that Democracy, which has destroyed the feudal system and vanquished kings, will fall back before the middle classes and the rich?’ [3] Dominant classes in all capitalist countries have ever since the
nineteenth century fought hard and with a considerable measure of success to falsify de Tocqueville’s prediction: socialism is the name of the struggle to

Thus conceived, socialism is part of the struggle for the deepening extension of democracy in all areas of life. Its advance is not inscribed in some preordained historical process, but is the result of a constant pressure from below for the enlargement of democratic rights; and this pressure is itself based on the fact that the
make it come true.
vase majority located at the lower ends of the social pyramid needs these rights if those who compose it are to resist and limit the power to which they are subjected.

Socialism: “a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” (Oxford American Dictionaries, 2010)

Ontological questions precede questions of policy because without understanding who we are in the world, we cannot make meaningful use of the information available to us. Bert Olivier [Professor of Philosophy at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. He holds an MA and Doctor of
Philosophy in philosophy, has held postdoctoral fellowships in philosophy at Yale University in the US on more than one occasion, and has held a research fellowship at the University of Wales, Cardiff. At NMMU he teaches various sub-disciplines of philosophy, as well as film studies, media and architectural theory, and psychoanalytic theory. He has published widely in the philosophy of culture, art and architecture, cinema, music and literature, as well as the philosophy of science, epistemology, psychoanalytic, social, media and discourse theory. In 2004 he was awarded the Stals Prize for Philosophy by the South African Academy for Arts and Sciences, in 2005 he received the award of Top Researcher at NMMU for the period 1999 to 2004, in 2006 the award for Top Researcher in the Faculty of Arts at NMMU, and in 2008 and 2009 he was both Faculty of Arts Researcher of the Year, and NMMU Researcher of the Year], “Nature as 'abject', critical psychology, and 'revolt' : the pertinence of Kristeva”, South African Journal of Psychology, Volume 37, Issue 3, Publication Date: 2007, ISSN: 00812463, (HEG)

any responsible human being who has taken note of the current state of affairs cannot and should not avoid making use of every possible medium to create and expand an informed awareness of the situation, as well as a sense of urgency and the need to act, among as many people as possible. In my
In the light of this, experience, mere ‘factual knowledge’ is not sufficient to have the desired effect of galvanising people into action— in the present ‘information age’, people with access to media (that is, the vast majority of people on the planet) are ‘better informed’ than in any previous era, but arguably just as apathetic as

by placing ‘information’ about the precarious state of the earth in the context of not only a philosophical-theoretical but also, crucially, a
‘informed’, judging by the deteriorating condition of natural resources.3 Rather, therefore,

Will Malson

LD: Capitalism Bad K-NC

Page 4 of 4

critical-psychological interpretation, people are afforded the intellectual, psychological, and ethical4 means to appreciate what all this information means for them and for other creatures on the planet. In conclusion, the choice before you today is thus: to embrace capitalism or socialism as an individual ontology. With capitalism comes the continuation of poverty and the suppression of democracy – with socialism comes the very heart of the democratic movement and the help to the poor that capitalism inherently lacks. Thank you.