Neoliberalism K—UMich 2013 neg 1NCs 1NC: Generic
Download 1.47 Mb.
|
1NC: MexicoUS economic involvement in Mexico is profit-driven and hurts the Mexican people and economyCooney, environmental and economic research at the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, Queens College, City University of New York, 01 (Paul, “The Mexican Crisis and the Maquiladora Boom A Paradox of Development or the Logic of Neoliberalism?”, Latin American Perspectives 28:55, 2001, Sage Publications)//AS Supporters of the maquiladora industry argue that transnational corpora- tion expansion is beneficial and will continue to be so, providing more employment for Mexican workers and increasing Mexico's competitiveness in the global economy. However, the fundamental problem is that, despite improvement in its export position, Mexico is not in control of the wealth generated within the country. The question remains, therefore, whether maquiladora development can be counted on to provide growth in the long run. If, for example, maquiladora workers were to demand higher wages (perhaps something closer to a quarter of their U.S. counterparts) or insist that health and safety standards be enforced or request that working overtime be optional, it is probable that the capital accumulated by many of these trans- national corporations would continue its circuit elsewhere. In other words, although surplus-value is generated in Mexico, it can relocate at the time of reinvestment if the conditions for capital do not remain sufficiently propi- tious. This is not mere conjecture about a worst-case scenario; we need only consider what took place when maquiladora workers started to demand higher wages and become more organized in the mid- 19705: there was a sig- nificant cutback of investment by the transnational corporations operating in the northern border region (see Pena, 1997) Neoliberalism causes poverty, social exclusion, societal disintegration, violence and environmental destruction—threatens humanityDe La Barra, Chilean political activist, international consultant and former UNICEF Latin America Public Policy Advisor 07-- (Ximena, “THE DUAL DEBT OF NEOLIBERALISM”, Imperialism, Neoliberalism and Social Struggles in Latin America”, 9/1/09, edited by Dello Bueno and Lara, Brill Online)//AS The currently prevailing neoliberal development model has brought with it various technological advances and economic and commercial growth. However, these results ultimately benefit fewer and fewer people while augmenting social inequality, injustices, and promoting serious social and ethical setbacks. It is definitely not eradicating poverty On the contrary, it creates conditions for a growing tendency towards political,economic and social exclusion for the majority of the world’s population.The model exacerbates poverty, social disparities, ecological degradation,violence and social disintegration. Loss of governability flows from its systematic logic of emphasising an ever cheaper labour force, the reduction ofsocial benefits, the disarticulation and destruction of labourorganisations,and the elimination of labour and ecological regulation (de la Barra 1997). Inthis way, it consolidates a kind of cannibalism known as social dumping thatseeks to lower costs below the value of social reproduction rather than organising a process of progressive social accumulation. For most of Latin Americaand the Caribbean, the present minimum wage levels only allow for a portionof the basic consumption package needed by working people (Bossio 2002).At present, the global income gap between the 10% poorest portion of theworld’s population and the wealthiest 10% has grown to be 1 to 103 (UNDP2005). According to this same source, around 2.5 billion people, almost halfof humanity, lives on less than US$ 2. per day (considered the poverty level),while 1.2 billion of these people live on less than US$ 1. per day (consideredthe level of extreme poverty).Given its neoliberal character, globalisation failed to produce the benefitsthat were touted. Indeed, the process has greatly harmed the most vulnerable social sectors produced by the previous phase of capitalist development.The lack of social and ethical objectives in the current globalisation processhas resulted in benefits only in those countries where a robust physical andhuman infrastructure exists, where redistributive social policies are the norm,and where fair access to markets and strong regulatory entities are in place.Where such conditions do not exist, globalisation has led to stagnation andmarginalisation, with declining health and educational levels of its children,especially among the poor. Some regions, including Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Sub-Saharan Africa, and more recently, Latin America andthe Caribbean, as well as some countries within regions and some personswithin countries (poor children and adolescents, rural inhabitants and urbanslum dwellers, indigenous peoples, children of illiterate women, illegal immigrants, etc.) have remained mostly excluded (UNICEF 2001). Neoliberalism is creating its own downfall—movements gathering political steam against it—alt is to reject the neoliberal policies of the aff and allow it to fallLafer, political economist and is an Associate Professor at the University of Oregon's Labor Education and Research Center 04 (Gordon, “Neoliberalism by other means: the “war on terror” at home and abroad”, New Political Science 26:3, 2004, Taylor and Francis)//AS Finally, the “global justice” movement that came together in the Seattle 1999 protests against the WTO marked the potential birth of a massive and powerful new movement challenging corporate prerogatives. It is easy to overestimate the importance of the Seattle protests.The few days of unity did not undo the many differences between the various protest groups. And the months following Seattle were filled with “where do we go from here?” discussions that never achieved a satisfactory answer. It is not clear that the coalition that assembled in Seattle deserves to be called a “movement.” However, even as a first step with an uncertain future, the import of these protests was potentially earth-shaking. Essentially, the anti-WTO protests undid fissures that had fractured progressive organizations for at least four decades. At least since the Vietnam war, the history of whatever might be called the American “left” has been primarily characterized by fragmentation. In place of the Old Left’s unity around class, the New Left led to multiple and often conflicting agendas organized around various forms of identity politics. While feminist, civil rights and labor organizations might come together around specific political issues, the alliances were generally short-lived and superficial. Most important from an economic point of view, the labor movement throughout the 1970s and 1980s was largely alienated from the most energetic social change movements. The incredible accomplishment of Seattle was to forge a coalition that overcame these differences in opposition to a common enemy. For union members, Seattle was possible because 20 years of jobs going overseas and management invoking the threat to relocate as a strategy for slashing wages had made “globalization” a gut-level rank and file issue. Thus the process of neoliberalism finally created its own antithesis in a labor movement that was ready to join with youth, environmentalists and immigrant organizations in fighting the power. From a corporate viewpoint, the divisions that for 30 years had so effectively kept the various parts of the “left” from coming together were threatening to dissolve. Download 1.47 Mb. Share with your friends:
|