You are on page 1of 12

Taiwan answers

( ) The 1ac outweighs and turns the DA _____. Ca: CA: extinction is inevitable if we
stay here on earth and colonization of mars is key to saving 10^29 future human lives
that outweighs every other impact. Even if the plan kills 99% of the world saving
future extinction events i.e. the impact of the negative outweighs and should be
viewed on a higher moral stance than their impact. The wolf amendment creates a
space race leading to a space war if we change the law the plan allows for cooperation
and can set a new standard for space conduct solving space debris, ASAT attacks, and
collapsing power projection which each have their own internal link to nuclear war.

( ) No Link: the link is not unique there is engagement between China and the US
every day
( ) No brink: No internal link why the generic link will cause the impact

( ) No timeframe: Extinction is inevitable and we must get off the rock before these
impact happens, ca Matheny 7 even if the impact of the da occurs and we kill 99% of
the world we must get some people to mars and this outweighs any impact the da
could have.
Nonunique China US just made deals in mar-A-lago. Should have
triggered DA.
Trump China engagement gives him success
Taiwan Nuclearization would be the ultimate deterrent they can build it long before
China has ability to successfully invade, thus stopping any likelihood of a Chinese
attack against Taiwan
Mearsheimer 14, (John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of
Political Science at the University of Chicago. He is on the advisory council of The National Interest, and
his most recent book, Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics, was published in
January 2011 by Oxford University Press, Say Goodbye to Taiwan, March April 2014, //VZ)

what happens to Taiwan in the face of

SO FAR, the discussion about Taiwans future has focused almost exclusively on how the United States is likely to act toward Taiwan. However,

Chinas rise also depends greatly on what policies Taiwans leaders and its people choose to pursue over
time. There is little doubt that Taiwans overriding goal in the years ahead will be to preserve its
independence from China. That aim should not be too difficult to achieve for the next decade, mainly because Taiwan is almost certain to
maintain close relations with the United States, which will have powerful incentives as well as the capability to protect Taiwan. But after that point Taiwans strategic situation is likely to deteriorate in significant ways, mainly
because China will be rapidly approaching the point where it can conquer Taiwan even if the American military helps defend the island. And, as noted, it is not clear that the United States will be there for Taiwan over the long term.

In the face of this grim future, Taiwan has three options. First, it can develop its own nuclear deterrent. Nuclear
weapons are the ultimate deterrent, and there is no question that a Taiwanese nuclear arsenal would
markedly reduce the likelihood of a Chinese attack against Taiwan. Taiwan pursued this option in the 1970s, when it feared American
abandonment in the wake of the Vietnam War. The United States, however, stopped Taiwans nuclear-weapons program in its tracks. And then Taiwan tried to develop a bomb secretly in the 1980s, but again the United States
found out and forced Taipei to shut the program down. It is unfortunate for Taiwan that it failed to build a bomb, because its prospects for maintaining its independence would be much improved if it had its own nuclear arsenal.

No doubt Taiwan still has time to acquire a nuclear deterrent before the balance of power in Asia shifts
decisively against it. But the problem with this suggestion is that both Beijing and Washington are sure to oppose Taiwan going nuclear. The United States would oppose Taiwanese nuclear weapons, not only
because they would encourage Japan and South Korea to follow suit, but also because American policy makers abhor the idea of an ally being in a position to start a nuclear war that might ultimately involve the United States. To
put it bluntly, no American wants to be in a situation where Taiwan can precipitate a conflict that might result in a massive nuclear attack on the United States.
Deterrence Checks
Taiwans defenses deter China
Michal Thim, a postgraduate research student in the Taiwan Studies Program at the China Policy
Institute (CPI), University of Nottingham, an Asia-Pacific Desk Contributing Analyst for Wikistrat, and a
Research Fellow at the Prague-based think-tank Association for International Affairs, 09-25-15, Online:, Article: China, Taiwan, and the
Challenge of Military Transformation Accessed on: 06-29-16//AWW

In terms of eyes and ears, Taiwan has an extraordinary early warning (and intelligence collection)
capability in the form of the new PAVE PAWS radar and it has developed a network of sensors making
Taiwans maritime domain awareness one of the best in the region. Taiwans domestic defense sector
provides some of the key capabilities needed for mounting a credible conventional deterrent, and
considerable effort has been put into moving some of the most critical infrastructure underground, thus
decreasing the PLAs ability to deliver a devastating first strike. It is perfectly natural that Taiwans
progress is being judged against that made by the PLA. However, it is also not an entirely fair position to
take. Taiwans military has been rather busy organization during last two decades, and while many
problems plague its armed forces, it also deserves credit for embracing civilian control while striving to
absorb all the technological innovations that came along and re-organize itself after several waves of
downsizing. The PLA has made some of those changes as well, but it certainly has not had to overcome
the hurdles of democratization.

China doesnt have the capabilities to invade and are afraid of US backing of Taiwan
John Grady 16, a former managing editor of Navy Times, retired as director of communications for the
Association of the United States Army, 02-10-16, Online:
council-panel-china-likely-doesnt-have-the-ability-to-invade-taiwan-yet, Article: Atlantic Council Panel:
China Likely Doesnt Have the Ability to Invade Taiwan, Yet Accessed on: 06-29-16//AWW

When viewed from the Chinese mainland, a hundred miles of water is a long way away and remains a big obstacle if Beijing intends to
take military action anytime soon against Taiwan following the islands election of a new president and a legislature controlled by pro-independence
parties, an international security expert said Tuesday. Speaking Tuesday at the Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C., Thomas L. McNaugher, a professor at Georgetown University, said, an

amphibious assault would be an extremely dicey operation for a military still dominated by its army
and having no recent experience in that kind of warfare. Right now, theyre capable of moving about
two divisions at a time over water, he said in answer to a question. But theyre working on overcoming those shortfalls. Roger Cliff, a fellow of the councils Brent
Scowcroft Center on International Security, said despite Chinas 600 percent increase in real-term defense spending over the past 20 years important weaknesses

remain in technology, logistics, training and organization. An example he used was maintaining
equipment in the field. It has to be sent back to the factory for maintenance and repair, making
sustained operations difficult. Cliff also cited shortfalls in underway replenishment and aerial refueling.
While China has changed its military doctrine from positional warfare since 1995when it launched missiles to intimidate Taiwanto one based on surprise, deception and indirection used
by the United States in Desert Storm, it still retains a centralized structure that does not encourage risk-taking or creativity, but loyalty and obedience. In response 20 years ago to Chinas

the United States sent two aircraft carrier battle groups into those
attempt to cow the island, which was holding its first presidential election,

waters and were not detected by the Chinese. Taiwan is not a treaty partner with the United States. After recognizing the Peoples Republic of China, the
Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act, which, in part, allows United States arms sales to the island. In a cross-straits conflict, however, Cliff said that Chinas numerical superiority could
make up for organizational shortcomings. The question is still out there for Beijing in whether to try to recover Taiwan, said Tiffany Ma, the centers director of political and security affairs.
One factor that could cause Chinese to move against Taiwan is that they no longer see time is on their side and/or inattention on the part of the United States. Inattention is really the
poison here. Taiwans incoming administration, led by Tsai Ing-wen, has not ratcheted up the rhetoric with the mainland but intends to continue its defense buildup, she said. McNaugher
added, based upon what is happening in Hong Kong since it reverted to Chinese control, the Taiwanese do not want to go back to China. Taiwans economy is booming. In fact, Chinas more
assertive stance in territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas may lead to more regional support for Taiwan, Ma said. McNaugher said that Taiwan needs to keep at improving its
defenses and the United States should look at its basing strategy in the Pacific to include hardening air bases in Japan. Cliff said Taiwanese defense investments should look to better protecting
itself against air and maritime blockade or invasion. In addition to corvettes, modern submarines and mines, Taiwan needs more platforms, more modern platforms, such as F-16s, and

Taiwan earlier announced plans to spend 3 percent of its gross domestic product on
mobile air-defense systems.

defense. Those plans included spending $4 billion for eight diesel-powered submarines, but contracts have not yet
been announced. If there were a blockade, Beijing needs to realize two can play that game, McNaugher said,

referring to the American Navys strong presence in the Pacific. If there were an invasion, Ma said the
Chinese should not underestimate a peoples will to fight.
No Conflict
War with China is impossible interdependence and US backing stops.
Scott L. Kastner, Associate Professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, 02-26-16, Online:, Article: How Stable Is the Taiwan
Strait? Accessed on: 06-29-16//AWW
The possibility that China-Taiwan relations could revert to their pre-2008 state is disquieting, given that many analysts at the time viewed armed conflict in the Taiwan Strait as a serious risk.

Nevertheless, although China-Taiwan relations will almost certainly deteriorate to some degree under a Tsai presidency, military conflict remains unlikely. To
understand why, it is important to first consider some of the major trends that have characterized the cross-strait relationship in recent years. A Changing China-Taiwan Relationship First,

economic integration across the strait has become deeper and more institutionalized. China-Taiwan
trade and investment flows have grown rapidly since the 1980s; by the mid-2000s, the PRC had replaced the United
States as Taiwans primary trading partner. China-Taiwan trade continued to grow after 2008 as the two sides took steps, such as lifting restrictions on
direct trade across the strait, to normalize bilateral economic ties. Second, the military balance of power in the Taiwan Strait has been

shifting rapidly in Chinas favor. Preparation for a conflict in the strait has been the primary driver of PRC military modernization efforts dating to the 1990s, and
Chinas booming economy has facilitated impressive advances in this regard. The PRC most likely does not (yet) possess the capacity to invade and

occupy Taiwan, particularly if the United States were to intervene in a cross-strait conflict. China certainly has an
increasing ability, however, to impose tremendous costs on Taiwan in the event of a cross-strait war. Third, Taiwanese public opinion on sovereignty

issues continues to evolve. To an increasing extent, most Taiwan citizens see themselves as Taiwanese
rather than Chinese, and they view political unification with the PRC as a nonstarter. Indeed, most Taiwanese today reject unification even under hypothetically favorable
conditions, such as the emergence of democracy in China. The recent dtente in cross-strait relations has not altered these trends; to the contrary, the percentage of Taiwans citizens self-

most Taiwanese remain pragmatic. A majority of Taiwanese,

identifying as Taiwanese grew especially rapidly during the Ma presidency. Still,

for instance, does not support formal independence if it were to trigger armed conflict with China.
Capitalism K Answers
Any transition is worse and causes worse forms of capitalism
Flood 04 [Andrew, Anarchist organizer and writer, Civilization, Primitivism, Anarchism,]

However it is worth doing a little mental exercise on this idea of the oil running out. If indeed there was no alternative
what might happen? Would a primitivist utopia emerge even at the bitter price of 5,900 million
people dying? No. The primitivists seem to forget that we live in a class society. The population of the earth
is divided into a few people with vast resources and power and the rest of us. It is not a case of equal access to
resources, rather of quite incredible unequal access. Those who fell victim to the mass die off
would not include Rubert Murdoch, Bill Gates or George Bush because these people
have the money and power to monopolise remaining supplies for themselves. Instead the
first to die in huge number would be the population of the poorer mega cities on the planet. Cairo and
Alexandria in Egypt have a population of around 20 million between them. Egypt is dependent both on food imports and on the very intensive agriculture of the Nile valley and
the oasis. Except for the tiny wealthy elite those 20 million urban dwellers would have nowhere to go and there is no more land to be worked. Current high yields are in part

The mass deaths of millions of people is not something that

dependent on high inputs of cheap energy.

destroys capitalism. Indeed at periods of history it has been seen as quite natural and even
desirable for the modernization of capital. The potato famine of the 1840's that reduced the population of Ireland by 30%
was seen as desirable by many advocates of free trade.(16) So was the 1943/4 famine in British ruled Bengal in which four million
died(17). For the capitalist class such mass deaths, particularly in colonies afford opportunities to restructure

the economy in ways that would otherwise be resisted. The real result of an 'end of energy'
crisis would see our rulers stock piling what energy sources remained and using them to
power the helicopter gunships that would be used to control those of us fortunate enough to be
selected to toil for them in the biofuel fields. The unlucky majority would just be kept where they are and
allowed to die off. More of the 'Matrix' then utopia in other words. The other point to be made here is that destruction

can serve to regenerate capitalism. Like it or not large scale destruction allows some capitalist to
make a lot of money. Think of the Iraq war. The destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure may be a disaster for the people of Iraq buts it's a
profit making bonanza for Halliburton and co[18]. Not coincidentally the Iraq war, is helping the US A, where the largest corporations are based, gain control of the parts of the
planet where much future and current oil production takes place.

Capitalism solves violence- peaceful venues

Fukuyama 98 [Francis, Hirst Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University, Foreign Affairs,
Women and the Evolution of World Politics,

Take the human and particularly male desire to dominate a status hierarchy, which people share with other primates. The advent of liberal democracy and
modern capitalism does not eliminate that desire, but it opens up many more peaceful channels for
satisfying it. Among the American Plains Indians or the Yanomam?, virtually the only way for a man to achieve social recognition was to be a warrior, which meant, of course,
excelling at killing. Other traditional societies might add a few occupations like the priesthood or the bureaucracy in which one could achieve recognition. A modern,

technological society, by contrast, offers thousands of arenas in which one can achieve social status, and in
most of them the quest for status leads not to violence but to socially productive activity. A professor receiving
tenure at a leading university, a politician winning an election, or a ceo increasing market share may satisfy the same underlying drive for status as being the alpha male in a chimp community.
But in the process, these individuals have written books, designed public policies, or brought new technologies to market that have improved human welfare. Of course, not everyone can
achieve high rank or dominance in any given status hierarchy, since these are by definition zero-sum games in which every winner produces a loser. But the advantage of a modern, complex,
fluid society is, as economist Robert Frank has pointed out, that small frogs in large ponds can move to smaller ponds in which they will loom larger. Seeking status by choosing the right pond
will not satisfy the ambitions of the greatest and noblest individuals, but itw ill bleed off much of the competitive energy that in hunter-gatherer or agricultural societies often has no outlet
market economies work well because, un like socialism, radical feminism, and other Utopian schemes, they do not
save war. Liberal democracy and

try to change human nature. Rather, they accept biologically grounded nature as a given and seek to
constrain it through institutions, laws, and norms. It does not always work, but it is better than living like animals.
Its the only moral system- it uniquely allows freedom of thought
Shadab 96 [Houman, philosopher, CAPITALISM: FAQS, 1996, p.]

In regards to morality, capitalism is the only moral (meaning pro-human-life) social

system because it safeguards a human's primary means of survival: his mind.
Through upholding individual rights, capitalism recognizes the fact the each and
every human being must use his own mind to grasp reality and act accordingly to
better his own life. Capitalism is the only political system that is based upon man's
true nature as a being who possesses the faculty of reason -- capitalism is the only
system that recognizes that human beings can think. Indeed, individual rights and
capitalism not only protect the individual person and property of each human
being, but most importantly, they protect the individual mind of every human
being. Historically speaking, capitalism has been claimed to be consistent with philosophies such as utilitarianism, social Darwinism, and even
fundamentalist Christianity. However, these philosophies are in fact antithecal to the true nature of capitalism because they subordinate the good of the
individual's life on earth to some "higher good." In fact, the only philosophy that is completely consistent with the theoretical requirements for
understanding and promoting capitalism is the philosophy of Objectivism.

Turn- the revolution is one of genocide, totalitarianism, and mass death

Lawrence Osborne, Contributor to NYT Magazine and The New York Observer, 1999 (Misadventures in
Marxism,, September 1, Available Online at, Accessed 10-15-2004)

But the left's bamboozling rhetoric, Courtois maintains, is but the least of Marxism's sins. The radical
tradition as a whole, he argues, has utterly failed to resolve the paradox of its own terrorism and
mass violence, leaving it wide open to its current loss of credibility. Academic Marxism hardly even
bothers to ask the question, except to play the usual good-cop, bad-cop routine: humane Lenin, evil Stalin, etc. But
the failure of Marxism-Leninism goes deeper than its accidental betrayals. It is the ideology itself ,
claims the darker of the present volumes, that contributed to the stupefying tally of 100 million violent
deaths under the hammer and sickle -- the largest ideology-driven genocide in history. Mass
murder, they point out with numbing archival thoroughness, was made the center of the revolutionary state
in 1918, not 1931, and by 1920 Lenin had killed more people than 90 years of czarism combined.
He was, of course, spectacularly outdone by subsequent "Marxist" dictators who thought history
was on their side. For his chapters on the Bolsheviks, Nicholas Werth of the Institute of Contemporary History draws on newly available sources from
the Soviet archives. According to Werth, the very idea of class warfare in the abstract -- such vague, antiseptic categories

as "bourgeoisie," "kulaks," "counterrevolutionaries," etc. -- provided the theoretical basis for extermination.
Indeed, Marx's notion of the evil "bourgeoisie" -- an amorphously vague entity Berman invokes on almost every
page -- is the foundation of the original pseudo-scientific hate theory in which an entire abstract
class of people is held responsible for all the ills of the race, according to putatively scientific and
discernible laws.
Consequences key to ethics
Issac 2002 (Jeffery, professor of political science @ Indiana University. Dissent, Spring 2002,
49: 2, p. 32)

Power is not a dirty word or an unfortunate feature of the world. It is the core of politics. Power is the ability to effect outcomes in
the world. Politics, in large part, involves contests over the distribution and use of power. To accomplish anything in the political
world, one must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it about. And to develop such means is to develop, and to exercise,
power. To say this is not to say that power is beyond morality. It is to say that power is not reducible to morality. As writers such as
an unyielding concern with
Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hannah Arendt have taught,
moral goodness undercuts political responsibility. The concern may be morally laudable,
reflecting a kind of personal integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1) It fails to see that
the purity of ones intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends. Abjuring
violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may seem like
the right thing; but if such tactics entail impotence, then it is hard to view them as serving any
moral good beyond the clean conscience of their supporters ; (2) it fails to see that in a world of
real violence and injustice, moral purity is not simply a form of powerlessness; it is often a form
of complicity in injustice. This is why, from the standpoint of politics as opposed to religion
pacifism is always a potentially immoral stand. In categorically repudiating violence, it refuses
in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect; and (3) it fails to see that
politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions; it is the effects of
action, rather than the motives of action, that is most significant. Just as the alignment with good may
engender impotence, it is often the pursuit of good that generates evil. This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century : it is not
enough that ones goals be sincere or idealistic; it is equally important, always, to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these
Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment. It alienates
effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways.
those who are not true believers. It promotes arrogance. And it undermines political
Capitalism is self-correcting- solves benevolently and is inevitable
Karshis 05 (Sean, Capitalism and the Self Correcting mechanism,

As a government infringes on personal rights, namely that to live, and dabbles into commerce in its inefficient and
expensive way, capitalism will be eager to correct it. The economic system can reinstate infringed personal
freedoms and direct government in a positive direction, reducing the costs inherent. There are six ways in which capitalism does this.
Competition-To keep competitive (and raise living standards) a country must increase production. As production
is increased profits also increase, increasing the incentive of capitalists to partake in the struggle for increased production. If this cycle
stagnates through poor resource expenditure, or bureaucratic red tape, productive jobs are lost to other nations, as foreign capitalists
compete for productive labor. The bureaucratic nation will economically decline and its citizens may demand
change, or other countries more suited to capitalism will advance and eventually dominate the statist nations. Devaluation If a government
has a record of poor economic policies, or managed it s business poorly, the capital markets of the world will penalize them by reducing
credit availability and devaluing the currency. This is not a conscious decision of one person, but a general capitalist reaction. Black Market
"One tell-tale sign of the excessive regulation of domestic markets is a thriving black economy." Jim Walker,
chief Asian economist at Credit Lyonnais, estimates that the "underground economy accounts for 30-50% of GDP in Indonesia, the Philippines
As government
and Thailand, and 20-30% in South Korea Malaysia and Taiwan". These economies are inundated with red tape.
extends its reach (increasing taxes or watering rights by inflation) people spend more of their time creating their
own market, as to avoid the governmentally dominated one. This lowers tax revenue, decreases the abilities of the
government, and if persistent, can lead to a serious weakening of the state, and prepare it for a revolution

and capitalist correction. Economic Revolution If the nation s people are not allowed jobs and an increasing
standard of living, and other nations are experiencing this, there will be an economic revolution. This begins
with a black market and later will spark into a political revolution that demands changes. If the nations that the civilians compared themselves
to are capitalist, these free ideals will be demanded. History may prove me wrong, as we are seeing in a rising (yet not dominant) power of
Communists and a disenchantment of capitalism in Russia, but the trend of the last 50 years has been toward economic liberalization and
capitalism. The Media Sinclair Lewis s book The Jungle is a perfect example of the market recognizing failings in the system (in this case, the
government oversight of the neighbor effect of poor meat packing), and the state was painfully informed as millions of Americans learned of it
through this novel. The
modern media networks are derived of capital and run for profit; they are a function
of a thriving capitalist economy. The more eyes looking for problems (because problems tend to promote sales for the
media) the more problems will be found. Noam Chomsky, a noted linguist and political commentator, believes that the media is a
direct reflection of the dominant power structures of a nation. I agree, yet he also maintains that there is news deemed by the economic elites
as not fit-to-print and insinuates that a sort of conspiracy is at work maintaining this. I disagree. Think of the popular media industry (TV,
newspapers, magazines, movies, and literature) as a loud sounding board of a population, so loud in fact that that it has the ability to alter the
original sounds of the population, when this happens it is called propaganda; Chomsky would agree. Yet the multitude of media services are
scrambling for market share, whatever people will buy, they will sell. If the populations want to hear something they will buy it (or watch it and
increase Nealson Ratings), increasing profits for the publisher, which could (assuming enough people also wanted to hear such information)
create a new market. This cycle has no room for a cultural editor, who if not directly in pulse with the desires of the population will produce the
wrong show, and some other media wit will fill the gap. Only if there were a monopoly over media could this be true. In 1989 twenty-five
companies produced nearly 50% of our nations news, this is not a monopolyz , these news servers are not in cahoots, in fact rivalry is fierce.
There are people who through the power of the dollar are able to pursue what they want to know far easier than those who do not have the
financial means. Bill Gates, Rupert Murdock, or Ted Turner all have extraordinary sway in public opinion, yet among the three of them there is
not collusion or a conspiracy to assemble world thought. Each is interested in their own self-interests, namely the pursuit of profits. Each
acquires profits by increasing market share of their respective product, if this does not suit the populations, profits are lost to a competitor, and
a more suiting idea or news is fashioned for the public. Economic Diversion Governments and other organized bureaucratic
institutions have been the developers of humanities worst atrocities. The harm caused by DDT or Long Island pale in
comparison to the horror of the Holocaust in Nazi Germany, or the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The importance of
commerce today diverts the attentions of nations from military aggression toward trade. The productive
benefits of capitalism can create a positive avenue for the meddling of governments. Through these
means the economic system of capitalism struggles for dominance against the pressures of
government. This is a just cause. Capitalists thrive on individual freedom, governmental bureaucrats thrive
from gathering as much freedom (through taxes and laws) to keep their department (and their job) growing and safe. Capitalism
allocates money cheaply and efficiently, government s pay more per dollar spent, and tend to allocate it inefficiently. Capitalism
increases long run productivity, growth, and standards of living, large governments don t. Through all of this bickering
there are two main points. If the government is acting beyond its purposeful role, capitalism will attempt to
gather this control. Second, if government is acting efficiently by allowing capitalism enough room to grow
and innovate, the nation and its citizens will prosper and realize increased freedom. In the words of Ayn Rand:
"Those that advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only advocates of a man s rights."

Turn- waiting on the revolution will backfire and their reps of an all-encompassing
capitalism marginalize real world solutions
Carole Biewener, Professor and Director of Gender/Cultural Studies at Simmons College, 1999 (A Postmodern Encounter:
Poststructuralist Feminism and the Decentering of Marxism, Socialist Review, Volume 27, Issue 1/2, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions
via ProQuest)

Marxism has produced a discourse of Capitalism that ostensibly identifies and defines an object of transformative class politics but that operates more powerfully to discourage and
marginalize projects of class transformation. In a sense, marxism has contributed to the socialist absence through the very way in which it has theorized the capitalist presence.33

. While this vision of Capitalism as ubiquitous,

Capitalism has generally been theorized as a unified, singular, and totalizing entity

penetrating, systemic, and hegemonic has enabled certain kinds of radical left political projects
and movements, it has also disabled and marginalized others. Gibson-Graham, along with others in the postmodern
materialist tradition, questions the inevitability of such a vision of "Capitalism" and has begun to investigate

the political possibilities that are enabled by an alternative notion of capitalist exploitation built upon the
thin notion of class discussed above. One exciting and fertile possibility is that of being able to envision class in a myriad of new sites and in a multitude of forms. Class processes are
recognized as occurring not only in capitalist industrial enterprises, but also in households and communities, in recreational facilities and religious institutions. Thus, by theorizing the
other-than-capitalist modalities of class processes, social formations are understood as having a multiple class character, rather than simply being "capitalist" or "noncapitalist"; and, the
other- than-capitalist class processes are not theorized as being subservient to, or shaped by capitalist class processes in any essential or dominant manner.34 This understanding of class
as local, plural, dispersed, and uncentered enables a radical politics in which class processes are always being negotiated, constituted, and contested. It allows a sense of being actively
involved in creating or constituting class processes in new ways in our immediate, daily lives. To the extent that we address the performance of surplus labor, our conversations,

explorations, positionings, and actions in our households, communities, and workplaces can now be understood as part of an active project of social transformation in a class

If "capitalism" is not conceived of as a systemic, totalizing entity, but rather as local, dispersed,
partial, and uncentered, then many spaces are opened up for creating and enacting noncapitalist
and even communal or communist class processes. Further, with such a fragmentation and multiplicity of class processes, Leftists do not have
to insist that effective class politics is linked to the agency of any one well-defined group, such as "the working class." Struggle over class is not seen, therefore, as the privileged domain

a variety of class modalities and sites can be used and struggled over to change class
of the proletariat. Rather,

relations and many different social actors may be understood as engaging in struggles over class.
Collective production and appropriation of surplus labor can be fostered and enacted in a factory
or office, in the production of a journal or in a household, without having to have wait for
cataclysmic, systemic, all encompassing, revolutionary change.