Neoliberalism K—UMich 2013 neg 1NCs 1NC: Generic

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 fall

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.

The revolution is an inevitable and essential part of political change in Latin America—otherwise political oppression and societal collapse will occur

LaFeber, Marie Underhill Noll Professor Emeritus of History and a Stephen H. Weiss Presidential Fellow in the Department of History at Cornell University, one of the United States' most distinguished historians 93 -- (Walter, “Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America”, 1/17/93, http://books.google.com/books/about/Inevitable_Revolutions.html?id=RqMp5TsWCqkC)//AS

From at least the early nineteenth century, \Washington officials havebelieved they had to "win" such revolutions. Otherwise, they feared, anexhausted and unwary revolutionary government might be susceptible todangerous outside influences. By its nature a revolution is unpredictable.lt "can't be bound be th' niles iv th' game," humorist Finley PeterDunne (alias "Mr. Dooley") tried to tell Theodore Roosevelt's genera-tion, "because it's again' th' rules iv th' game." Resembling loose cannonrolling across the deck on an out-of-control ship, revolutions in an area assea-tossed as Central America could threaten interests that North Amer-icans have historically considered essential to their safety.For the United States, capitalism and military security went hand-in- hand. They have, since the nineteenth century, formed two sides of the same policy in Central America. Early on, the enemy was Great Britain.After 1900 it became Germany. Only after \World War I were thosedangers replaced by a Soviet menace. Fencing out Communists (or Brit-ish, or Germans) preserved the area for North American strategic inter-ests and profits. That goal was not argued. The problem arose whenWashington officials repeatedly had to choose which tactic best pre-served power and profits: siding with the status quo for at least the shortterm, or taking a chance on radical change that might (or might not)lead to long-term stability. Given the political and economic pressures,that choice was predetermined. As former Secretary of State DeanAchmon observed, there is nothing wrong with short-term stability."When you step on a banana peel you have to keep from falling on yourtail, you don't want to be lurching all over the place all the time. Short-term stability is all right, isn't it? Under the circumstances." The "cir-cumstances" Achcson alluded to were the revolutions that began toappear in the newly emerging countries during the l9§O$.llWhen applied to Central America, Acheson's view missed a central tenet of the region's history: revolutions have served the functions of elections in the United States; that is, they became virtually the only method of transferring power and bringing about needed change."/\cheson'sshort-term stability too often tumcd out to be Washington's method for ensuring that Central American oligarehs did not have to answer to their fellow citizens.The revolutionaries of the 17705 thus had less and less to say to therevolutionaries of the 19705 and 19805. The latter were more anticapital-ist, pro-statist, and concerned much less with social stability than werethe former. These differences appeared as the upheavals increased innumber and intensity. "The real issue facing American foreign policy_ .Hans Morgenthau remarked in the early |97os, "is not how topreserve stability in the face of revolution, but how to create stability outof revolution."" Morgenthau had rephrased Lodgc's point. Revolutions in such areas as Central America were inevitable. The only choice was whether North Americans would work with those revolutionaries to achieve a more orderly and equitable society, or whether-as occurred inGuatemala and Nicaragua-Washington officials would try to cap the upheavals until the pressure built again to blow the societies apart with even greater force.

Ethical Obligation

***There is an ethical obligation to speak out against the violence neoliberalism inflicts on the Other—critical to transformative politics

Springer,assistant Professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Victoria12 (Simon, “Neoliberalising violence: of the exceptional and the exemplary in coalescing moments”, Area 44:2, Royal Geographical Society, 2012, Wiley Online)//AS

‘Neoliberalising violence’ signifies the increasingly fantastic character of violence as our political imaginaries knowingly and unknowingly come to embrace the anomie and social disarticulation of neoliberalism's dystopia of individualism. Within neoliberalism's imaginative geographies of a global village, what is not spoken is the desire for a particular homogeneity, an impulse to remake the ‘Other’ in ‘our’ image, whereby the space of ‘the peculiar’, ‘the exotic’, ‘the bizarre’ is continually (re)produced through the relation of the ban. As an ascendant form of sovereignty that attempts to (re)constitute class power (Harvey 2005) and maintain hegemony through the production of a series of ongoing crises or ‘shocks’ used to pry national economies open to global markets (Klein 2007), neoliberalism exaggerates the abandonment that calls the state of exception into being. To Agamben (2005), the state of exception relies on conditions of crises, wherein individual rights may be diminished, superseded and rejected in the process of extending existing governmental power structures. Insofar as neoliberalism is a praxis of socio-spatial transformation that proceeds as both a quantitative destruction and discreditation entailing the ‘roll-back’ of certain state functions, and a qualitative construction and consolidation, which sees the ‘roll-out’ of reconfigured economic management systems and an invasive social agenda centred on urban order, surveillance and policing, the very logic behind neoliberalism's exigent modalities melds with the state of exception. Indeed, the state of exception ‘marks a threshold at which logic and praxis blur with each other and a pure violence’ is realised (Agamben 2005, 40). The abandonment of ‘Others’ that forms the state of exception is a relation where ‘outside and inside . . . become indistinguishable’ (Agamben 1998, 21), and thus, as with all fantasies and desires, at the heart of neoliberalism's chimera of strength and confidence lurks a deep sense of anxiety. This is not a disquiet without consequence, but one that licenses particular violent geographies in ensuring that the ‘tableau of queerness’ (Said 1978) never disrupts its visions of global sovereignty. And it is here that we find another sense of the fantastic, one of heightened intensity and extraordinary degree, where the sheer volume of violence that pervades our contemporary world signals the looming spectre of the ‘banality of evil’. This is a clichéd and mundane force, an evil whose potential resides within each and every one of us, and whose belligerence is cultivated, harvested and consumed under the premises of neoliberalism. Fantasy and reality collide under neoliberalisation, and our participation in this process allows for the normative entrenchment of violence against the marginalised and disaffected ‘Other’ to signify a moment of abandonment. Yet this thanatogeography of fantastic violence is not the conclusion of neoliberalism's violent fantasy; rather, it is its genesis. To the question of ‘where does neoliberalism's exceptional violence end and its exemplary violence begin?’, the terrifying answer is to be found in Martin Niemöller's celebrated poem ‘First they came. . .’: /First they came for the Socialists,/ and I did not speak out,/ because I was not a Socialist./ Then they came for the Trade Unionists,/ and I did not speak out,/ because I was not a Trade Unionist./ Then they came for the Jews,/ and I did not speak out,/ because I was not a Jew./ Then they came for me,/ and there was no one left/ to speak for me./ In this somber realisation, and in echoing Marx, radical human geography must not merely seek to interpret the world; it must seek to change it by aligning its theory and practice on all occasions and in all instances to the service of social justice (Springer forthcoming b). By seeking to illuminate how processes of neoliberalisation are suffused with both exceptional and exemplary violence, we open our geographical imaginations to the possibility of (re)producing space in ways that make possible a transformative and emancipatory politics. This ‘age of resurgent imperialism’ (Hart 2006) demands such courage of our scholarship. As members of the human collectivity, geographers have an ethical obligation to speak out, not only for fear that any single one of us might be ‘next’, but more importantly, as an act of solidarity with those who the violence of neoliberalism has already come for, and those who have been silenced by the complacency of a stifled collective imagination that views neoliberalism as a monolithic and inexorable force.

Debate Space Key

***We must recognize that we have a choice in order to dismantle neoliberalism—public debate is a critical arena

Hay, Professor of Political Analysis at the University of Sheffield04 (Colin, “The normalizing role of rationalist assumptions in the institutional embedding of neoliberalism”, Economy and Society 33:4, 2004, Taylor and Francis)//AS

Accordingly, however depoliticized and normalized neoliberalism has become, it remains a political and economic choice, not a simple necessity. This brings us naturally to the question of alternatives. A number of points might here be made which follow fairly directly from the above analysis. First, our ability to offer alternatives to neoliberalism rests now on our ability to identify that there is a choice in such matters and, in so doing, to demystify and deconstruct the rationalist premises upon which its public legitimation has been predicated. This, it would seem, is a condition of the return of a more normative and engaging form of politics in which more is at stake than the personnel to administer a largely agreed and ostensibly technical neoliberal reform agenda. Second, the present custodians of neoliberalism are, in many cases, reluctant converts, whose accommodation to neoliberalism is essentially borne of perceived pragmatism and necessity rather than out of any deep 522 Economy and Society Downloaded by [Emory University] at 12:12 28 June 2013 normative commitment to the sanctity of the market. Thus, rather than defend neoliberalism publicly and in its own terms, they have sought instead to appeal to the absence of a choice which might be defended in such terms. Consequently, political discourse is technocratic rather than political. Furthermore, as Peter Burnham has recently noted, neoliberalism is itself a deeply depoliticizing paradigm (2001), whose effect is to subordinate social and political priorities, such as might arise from a more dialogic, responsive and democratic politics, to perceived economic imperatives and to the ruthless efficiency of the market. As I have sought to demonstrate, this antipathy to ‘politics’ is a direct correlate of public choice theory’s projection of its most cherished assumption of instrumental rationality onto public officials. This is an important point, for it suggests the crucial role played by stylized rationalist assumptions, particularly (as in the overload thesis, public choice theory more generally and even the time-inconsistency thesis) those which relate to the rational conduct of public officials, in contributing to the depoliticizing dynamics now reflected in political disaffection and disengagement. As this perhaps serves to indicate, seemingly innocent assumptions may have alarmingly cumulative consequences. Indeed, the internalization of a neoliberalism predicated on rationalist assumptions may well serve to render the so-called ‘rational voter paradox’ something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.12 The rational voter paradox _/ that in a democratic polity in which parties behave in a ‘rational’ manner it is irrational for citizens to vote (since the chances of the vote they cast proving decisive are negligible) _/ has always been seen as the central weakness of rational choice theory as a set of analytical techniques for exploring electoral competition. Yet, as the above analysis suggests, in a world constructed in the image of rationalist assumptions, it may become depressingly accurate. Political parties behaving in a narrowly ‘rational’ manner, assuming others (electors and market participants) to behave in a similarly ‘rational’ fashion will contribute to a dynamic which sees real electors (rational or otherwise) disengage in increasing numbers from the facade of electoral competition. That this is so is only reinforced by a final factor. The institutionalization and normalization of neoliberalism in many advanced liberal democracies in recent years have been defended in largely technical and rationalist terms and in a manner almost entirely inaccessible to public political scrutiny, contestation and debate. The electorate, in recent years, has not been invited to choose between competing programmatic mandates to be delivered in office, but to pass a judgement on the credibility and competence of the respective candidates for high office to behave in the appropriate (technical) manner in response to contingent external stimuli. Is it any wonder that they have chosen, in increa increasing numbers, not to exercise any such judgement at all at the ballot box?

Political space for resistance must be created through discussion

Jenson, chair of the political science department at the University of Montreal, 10 (Jane, “Diffusing Ideas for After Neoliberalism”, Global Social Policy 10:59, 2010, Sage Publications)//AS

The first mechanism that supported the emergence of a social investment perspective is an environmental one. Political space is an essential ingredient in policy learning (Murphy, 2006: 210). Even while neoliberalism still held sway, this mechanism worked to expand the political space for discussions of alternatives to standard neoliberalism whose proponents had made TINA – there is no alternative – their mantra. Initially the two regions remained quite separate, one space being created within the world of the agencies of development and a second in Europe. In the world of development agencies, criticism targeted the structural adjustment paradigm, promoted by the Bretton Woods institutions and by ‘institutions and networks of opinion leaders … including “think tanks, politically sophisticated investment bankers, and world finance ministers, all those who meet each other in Washington and collectively define the conventional wisdom of the moment”’ (Murphy, 2006: 221, citing Paul Krugman). Opposition to the TINA mantra appeared in organizations less committed to this Washington Consensus. The UN agency that many thought could – and should – confront the World Bank’s structural adjustment template was the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), but it chose not to do so. ‘UNDP’s low profile left the job of directing the public battle of ideas to UNICEF’ (Murphy, 2006: 227, see also 223ff.).

Social Economy

Reject the neoliberal policies to realize the value of life instead of the aff’s quantifiable relationship designed to make a profit

Golob, Podnar, &Lah, They are Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2009 (Ursa, Klement, Marko, “Social economy and social responsibility: Alternatives to global anarchy of neoliberalism?”International Journal of Social Economics Emerald Group Publishing Found on ABI Inform)

The essence of social economy is, indisputably, a synergy between economic and social which distinguishes social economy from neoliberalism that focuses on quantifiable things rather than on a person. "Sociality" of social economy is reflected in the notion of balance on the market - an agreement between buyers and vendors, whereasneoliberalism is occupied with a balance between supply and demand on the abstract level ([30] O'Boyle, 1999). A motivation for economy within the framework of social economy is care for common good, whereas neoliberalismadvocates the allocation of wealth through the process of satisfying individual interests. Social economy defines an individual as a social being, whereas neoliberalism defines an individual as an individual who follows his/her personal interests ([29] O'Boyle, 1994). A social state is typical of socially oriented economy, whilst neoliberalism defines the state as an accelerator of economy liberalisation and as a protector of free market. The two also differ in their views of a company as a cell in economy. According to the prevalent and in this field especially deep-rooted belief ofneoliberalism, a company's role is to maximise its profit and to primarily care for the shareholders' interests. The alternative social-economic view, on the other hand, stresses the role of a company as an actor in solving social issues and protecting the rights of various stakeholders (Table I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]).

The social economy needs the support of all key factors of the neoliberal economy to start a policy of interdependence rather than stabilizing tensions

Golob, Podnar, &Lah, They are Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2009(Ursa, Klement, Marko, “Social economy and social responsibility: Alternatives to global anarchy of neoliberalism?” International Journal of Social Economics Emerald Group Publishing Found on ABI Inform)//JS

Modern global society is surrounded by new circumstances that require the creation of new meanings and new activities. In this paper, we argued that a so-called commercial or for-profit economy should not emerge as an opposite pole that cannot be integrated into the notion of social economy. However, it should understand broadly the fact of the interrelation between the for-profit sector and society to be able to advance its social elements in an evolutional way.Hence, the solution to this is the new model of social economy which can be put in force only by simultaneous cooperation of all key actors in a society, especially a driving force behind the existing economic system - the for-profit sector. Lately it seems that its actors have, indeed, more actively take over their role within social economy, especially since the beginnings of socially responsible behaviour.While most of the businesses are aware of the constant public pressures and risks, they are not quite certain what to do with them. As argued by [32] Porter and Kramer (2006) most changes until now have been rather cosmetic not substantial - glossy CSR reports, media campaigns and isolated actions. To overcome this and the fact that corporations mainly focus their actions on the tensions between business and society rather than on their interdependence they suggest a strategic approach to CSR to pursue policies of shared value that would be beneficial for both sides ([32] Porter and Kramer, 2006).

Social Democracy

Thus the alternative is to engage in the politics of a social democracy – one that pursues export-oriented industrialization while taking into account social inclusion and environmental sustainability resulting in the economic growth of all social groups and classes

Otero, Ph.D in Sociology @ University of Wisconsin-Madison, Professor of Sociology at Simon Fraser University, 1996

(Gerardo, “Mexico's Economic and Political Futures,” NEOLIBERALISM REVISITED – Economic Restructuring and Mexico's Political Future, edited by Gerardo Otero, Westview Press, pg 242-43)//SG

Social DemocracyIn this scenariosome alliance around the PRD or a new centrist party would hold the main posts in the national government, including the presidency and at least a coalition majority in Congress. Governatorial posts would be distrib- uted among the three main parties, PR!, PAN, and PRD, and all posts would be fillednot as the result of negotiations among the parties but of voters' choice.This government would still pursue an export-oriented industrialization, butthere would be a clear social charterand an industrial policy designed in conjunction with the organizations of the entrepreneurial class and a strength- ened and democratized labor union movement.The overall logic prevailing in this scenario would relfect a central concern: that all social groups and classes benefit from economic growth. That is, there would be concerted efforts to achieve an equitable distribution of income so that firms' profits would be based partly on the expanded consumption of the working masses.With regard to the maquiladora sector, policies would be developed to ensure that Mexico would move fast along the path leading from the old model of export process- ing to the stages of integration that involve higher technological contents and higher skills in the labor force. Training programs to upgrade the labor force would also be instituted, andenvironmental sustainability targeted.Although TNCs and international finance capital would clearly have an important place in this outcome,it would be indispensable that Canadian and U.S. civil soci- eties steer development away from neoliberalism in their countries and toward social democracy with a social-economy approach. From the point of view of all subordinate groups and classes in North America, this would clearly be the most desirable outcome.

A social democracy assumes a government holding all interests equally – this has the greatest capability for growth and sustainability whilst also being compatible with US economic integration

Otero, Ph.D in Sociology @ University of Wisconsin-Madison, Professor of Sociology at Simon Fraser University, 1996

(Gerardo, “Mexico's Economic and Political Futures,” NEOLIBERALISM REVISITED – Economic Restructuring and Mexico's Political Future, edited by Gerardo Otero, Westview Press, pg 244)//SG

Each of the last three scenarios presumes different relations of class forces in Mexican society. Liberal democracy would be premised on an increased cultural hegemony of middle-class values. Conversely, nationalist democracy (depicted as unviable in Table 12.1) would presuppose a much greater and autonomous strength of the working class and other subordinate groups and classes. Finally, thesocial-democratic scenario assumes a complex society in which the govern- ment represents the multiplicity of social interests with no clear domination by. any sector. This would be a truly pluralistic society—with a societal democracy, in Semo's terms—that may lie far ahead in Mexico's future. Nevertheless,the social-democratic scenario would have the greatest capa- bilities for long-term stability and growth. Similarly, it would be the most com- patible with the possibility that North American integration results in higher standards of living for the majority of the population in the three NAFTA countriesrather than in a downward pressure in the U.S. and Canadian stan- dards of living toward Mexican levels. One critical variable that could help this scenario develop would be the adoption in the United States of a type of capi- talism more similar to that of the northern European and Japanese variants. If this happened, workers and social-democratic entrepreneurs would have a greater influence in U.S. policymaking.A strong solidarity presence of NGOs and other organizations of civil societies around the world would also be crit- ical in order for Mexico to achieve and maintain a democratic political regime with a social-economy orientation.

It is necessary to democratize democracy in order to rid society of neoliberalism; therefore, we must use the alternative of participative democracy.

Brand and Sekler,professor of International Politics at Vienna University and junior researcher in the area of international politics in the Department of Political Science at Vienna University , 2009 (Ulrich and Nicola, “Postneoliberalism – A beginning debate,” Development Dialogue, no. 51, page 6, January 2009,http://rosalux-europa.info/userfiles/file/DD51.pdf#page=173 )//CS

The decisive condition for the emergence of a new economic order and way of life is the struggle for the democratisation of democracy.Today, democracy, this great achievement of the 20th century, has been debased to a mere facade of imperial claims to power, of the implementation of the imperative of an unleashed capital valorization and of the protection of egotistical property claims. It has been transformed into an oligarchy of globally acting elites. The alternative to this is participatory democracy, in particular as it is developed in the context of the World Social Forum.The main features of a new participatory democracy are above all four directions of development: first, it involves the production of a universal public sphere, the assurance that all decisions are accessible to those who are affected by them, that there is the obligationto listen to them, to confront their criteria and their critiques. Second, democracy is only possible if it contributes to the development of the other in a way based on solidarity. This is the case above all for those who today have been touched by war, environmental destruction, failure of the state and lack of fundamental conditions for a self-determined life. Third, democracy requires immediately communal, regional and firm-based codetermination with a right to veto if one’s own essential needs are at stake. Fourth, democracy is only possible when people are not threatened by a lack of jobs, poverty in old age, lack of basic goods for a self-determined life, or war. Only when these four conditions are met is the delegation of power to others in any way responsible, for it is only then that it is not transformed into one’s own lack of power.Many elements of this new solidarity development have emerged in the existing society dominated by capital. The old welfare state and all the other attempts to control capitalism since the latter half of the19th century have already contributed to this. These kinds of postneoliberalism approaches based on solidarity have also emerged in confrontation with neoliberalism. The social and political struggles against capitalist globalisation on the local as well as the global level have also helped the nuclei of a participatory democracy to emerge. People have begun once again to engage politically; against all forms of resistance, they have developed elements for a mode of life based on solidarity.

Altermundism

Thus our alternative is to reject the affirmative’s neoliberal approach and to endorse a new society without neoliberalism; The 1AC’s involvement of the elite traps us in a cycle of exploitation and repression. Freedom can only be realized through a break in the status quo.

Spring, Professor and researcher at the National University of Mexico, 2008

(Ursula Oswald, “Globalization from Below: Social Movements and Altermundism — Reconceptualizing Security from a Latin American Perspective,” Globalization and Environmental Challenges - Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace, 2008, Vol 3, 386-87. SpringerLink.)//SG

So far, for socially discriminated and marginalized groups, the response to extreme poverty, environmental destruction, and social anomie has created a bot- tom-up approach for realizing social alternatives or an- other world, named Altermundism.Globally, new so- cial movementswere created and existing ones were reinforced. They have evolved and are now collec- tively mobilizing against the neoliberal imposition. They come from the traditional movements for peace, gender equality, indigenous and Afro-American dig- nity, religious movements, transnational peasant or- ganizations, unemployed, impoverished middle classes, and critical intellectuals. The new set of values in this global space is equity, justice, sustainability, equality, dignity, cultural diversity, and solidarity with the most vulnerable (normally girls from poor coun- tries) promoting poverty alleviation and job creation.Due to global and climate change, these groups have reinforced environmental security(see chap. by Dalby in this vol. and Dalby/Brauch/Oswald 2008) through mitigation processes against disasters, sus- tainable development for environmental protection, environmental services (Urquidi 1999), food sover- eignty, nature conservation, re-use and recycling of waste. They have promoted human rights and strug- gled to abolish torture, discriminatory labour, and to improve social conditions. They requested govern- mental transparency in public affairs, elections, an im- proved state of law, and legal equality for everybody. Their process of democratization includes citizen’s participation through popular budgets, and civil su- pervision of public work and planning. Tolerance and social consensus are trained and basic collective inter- ests are negotiated. In the economic sphere, the con- solidation of local and regional markets, free trade combined with fair trade, is complemented with soli- darity campaigns to sustain the most affected of neo- liberalism, and to mitigate the effects of disasters and extreme poverty (Sader 2005).A characteristic of social movements is their inde- pendence from traditional parties and governmental organizations, which gives them greater freedom for struggle. Although no worldwide “anti-globalization or anti-capitalist movement” (Wood/Kees 2001) exists yet, their demands and struggles are clearly oriented in this direction. There is another important aspect. These diverse movements are not organized against something, but in favour of another world. For this reason, besides the organized struggle, there are man- ifold and culturally diverse activities to maintain and recreate a dignified livelihood for everybody. These goals endanger the status quo created by the world economic elites who have launched activities far be- yond Davos. They are supported by the transnational mass media. But the understanding of the increasing manipulation in the mass media has reinforced the struggle of the social movements, giving them an op- portunity to understand the lack of ethics and the un- derlying interests(León/Bruch/Tamayo 2005). Fur- ther, confronted with greater nonconformity and conflicts, the social movements are also occupying a place in the negotiation process between the market and the state. Finally, they are also serving as a shield for progressive governments to limit the interventions of elites and to permit structural changes in favour of the people and not only of capital (see MST in Brazil pressuring for a democratic land reform and against landlords and the destruction of the Amazon).In some poor countries with limited public educa- tion facilities, fanatic religious leaders train nationalis- tic and religious fundamentalist groups which spawned a new geopolitical terrorism (Kaldor/An- heier/Glasius 2004). These new social movements are global and depend on modern infrastructure such as internet, global funding, a worldwide financial sys- tem, religious solidarity and high technology for arms construction, terrorist artefacts and attacks (Thieux 2004; Beck 2000; Held/McGrew/Goldblatt/Perra- ton 1999; see chap. by Saxe Fernández in this vol.). Their number has increased as a response to the ‘war on terror’, which should apparently protect citizens from threats. However, it brought wider insecurity not only for the countries affected by pre-emptive wars (Afghanistan, Iraq), but also through new terror- ist attacks against civilians, by reducing the rights of citizens by anti-terrorist legislation (U.S. Patriot Act). This has created a legal dilemma where laws that are aimed to protect citizens from terrorism are weaken- ing the rights of these citizens.The rise of terrorist groups has created contradic- tions within the solidarity of social movements, where on one side bottom-up self-reliant processes are rein- forced by world solidarity and non-violent actions. On the other side, paramilitary, undercover agents and white guards are protecting violently TNE installa- tions, mega-development projects, and forcing dis- placement of the indigenous and peasants from their land, etc. killing with impunity the innocent poor who are unable to experience justice in the existing legal framework. The interests the elite are promoting through the ‘war on terror’ have created new insecuri- ties, which are reinforced by the narrow military secu- rity and a reduction of national security items (Gaitán 2004; Oswald 2004). In some regions social move- ments have turned to organized armed struggle, as lib- eration armies and guerrillas.However, peaceful conflict resolution and nonvio- lent opposition have dominated among the social movements, who struggle through bottom-up organi- zation to challenge the regressive globalization. These activities may increase human, gender, and environ- mental security (HUGE; see Oswald 2008), and offer opportunities for dignified livelihoods for the poor- est.

Global Governance

Thus, we advocate for a new democratized system based on proportionate representation, protection of human rights, and shifts in economic practices resulting in the shift towards global governance. This is governed not through the State or the Market but rather Civil Society

Szentes, Professor Emeritus of the Corvinus University of Budapest and member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2008

(Tamas, “Globalisation and prospects of the world society,” CENTRAL EUROPEAN POLITICAL SCIENCE, Vol. 9, pp 14-15, http://cepsr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ATT81762.pdf#page=9)//SG

(h) The conclusion that obviously follows from the above is thatthe world society urgently needs • a new, really global, substantially reformed and democratised institutional system, which is based on the principle of proportionate representation, ensures equal voting powerfor equal number of people, protects the human rights of all the membersof human society, makes the articulation and reconciliation of diverse interestsoperationally feasiblethrough and between cross-border political organisations of the individual classes, self- identified strata and professional groups of the world society, and is equipped with a legal enforcement power; • a substantial shift in development patterns, economic policies and social culture all over the world, towards real human needs, protection ofnatural environment, cooperation and solidarity, as well as •the organisation of the civil society on global scene. A real democratic transformation of the world order (as well as national orders) requires an appropriate answer to the old question: whether the State or the Market should be the main governing force. The only correct answer to this question is: none of them, but the Civil Society20, with its social organisations if being independent from the state and market interest. Thus, a truly democratic world order cannot rely on the spontaneity of the market, or on the dirigisme of some state-power. Instead, it must ensure the upper hand to the global civil society unfolding and organising itself on world level, and playing the primary role in global governance. Such a civil society needs both the market and a kind of global state- power in order to rule and control both, namely by making use of the latter to regulate the spontaneous market, correct and compensate for its unfavourable social consequences, ternationally disequalising and polarising effects, and by making use also of the former, thus ensuring the freedom of market activities, the independence of private business and normal operation of product, service and factor markets, in order to prevent any centralised power from over-ruling the society. (i) Finally, in view of the requirements of a truly democratic world order, which may ensure peaceful co-operation among all peoples on the basis of mutual understanding and benefits, there appears an imperative need also for a “New Enlightenment”.The latter, which can stem,like the former, 18th century Enlightenment, from knowledge, would free all social science theories from ideological misinterpretation, from their apologetic misuseand manipulative distortionfor legitimising political interests and practices, and would put an end to the “religious” belief in any of theoretical streams and ideologies as a single “vehicle of Truth”. It would also detach religions from politics, i.e. make impossible to use religion for generating hostile feelings against others, for justifying discrimination and for declaring “sacred wars”.

AT: GG Utopian

We’ll concede that the alt is Utopian however it’s try or die – every other alternative results in extinction of human kind; global governance is the only option we have

Szentes, Professor Emeritus of the Corvinus University of Budapest and member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2008

(Tamas, “Globalisation and prospects of the world society,” CENTRAL EUROPEAN POLITICAL SCIENCE, Vol. 9, pp 14-15, http://cepsr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ATT81762.pdf#page=9)//SG

It is to be admitted thatall the above conclusions may appear as products of wishful thinking or utopian ideas21, illusory visions. However, in fact,there seems hardly any other alternative scenario for the survival of the world society and sustainability of its development, than substantially reforming the existing world order, for which the above-outlined ideas, as mostly derived from lessons of the reforms of national systems, may be perhaps worth considering.Unless a thorough new “Great Transformation”, by gradual reforms (pushed ahead by “countervailing forces”)of the prevailing world order takes place, unless the international development gap, which implies also a gap in skill, knowledge and technological level,is drastically reduced, and a democratic global governance is established, there is no hope at all for lasting world peace, sustainable development, general respect of human rights or even for the survival of human society.

Not Inev

***Rejecting the notion of inevitable neoliberalism is critical to resistance

Hursh and Henderson, associate professor of education at the University of Rochester and PhD at the Warner Graduate School of Education and Human Development 11 (David and Joseph, “ Contesting global neoliberalism and creating alternative futures”, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 32:2, May 2011, Routledge)//AS

Contesting neoliberalism necessitates that we situate neoliberal policies within the larger neoliberal discourse promoting markets, competition, individualism, and privatization. Analysing education policies in the USA, whether the push for mayoral control in Rochester, New York (see Duffy, 2010; Hedeen, 2010; Ramos, 2010), school reform policies under Renaissance 2010 in Chicago, or Race to the Top under the Obama administration, requires that we understand how reforms such as using standardized testing are presented as efficient, neutral responses to the problem of raising student achievement, rather than examining the root causes of student failure, including lack of decent paying jobs and health care, and under-funded schools. Current policies reinforce neoliberalism and leave the status quo intact. Similarly, if we look at education in Sub-Saharan Africa, we must situate schools within the hollowing out of the state, and the lack of adequate funding for education and other social services such as health care. For example, in Uganda, as in several other Sub-Saharan countries, the global recession has contributed to drug shortages, making it impossible to treat the growing number of AIDS patients (McNeil, 2010). Yet, under more social democratic policies the state would play a larger role in providing health care. Furthermore, education is increasingly contested, as the plutocracy promotes education as a means of producing productive, rather than critical, employees. Schools are more often places where teachers and students learn what will be on the test rather than seeking answers to questions that cry out for answers, such as how to develop a healthy, sustainable environment or communities where people are actually valued for who they are rather than what they contribute to the economy. Instead, we must ask what kinds of relations do we want to nurture, what kinds of social relations, what kind of work do we want to do, and what kinds of culture and technologies do we want to create. These questions require that we rethink schools so that teachers and students can engage in real questions for which the answer will make a difference in the quality of our lives. These questions also require that we rethink our relationship to a specific kind of ‘free’ marketplace that is not, in fact, inevitable. By problematizing the idea of neoliberal marketization, we can begin to construct new markets that actually value commonly held resources and local communities.

Notions of inevitable neoliberalism are a product of discursive presuppositions—by questioning them it can be overcome

Hay and Rosamond, Reader in Political Analysis in the Department of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Birmingham and Senior Research Fellow in International Politics in the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation at the University of Warwick respectively, 02, (Colin and Ben, “Globalisation, European Integration and the Discursive Construction of Economic Imperatives”, Journal of European Public Policy 9:2, 4/02, http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0041/globalisation.pdf)//AS

And it is easy to see why. For the effects of having internalised or deployed strategically assumptions about globalisation may, in time, become almost as entrenched as if they were produced by an inexorable globalising logic. The effects of tax competition are, after all, no less real if informed by assumptions about the mobility of capital which are demonstrably false. Moreover, once established, the momentum of a process such as tax competition may be difficult to halt.Does it matter, then, whether the effects frequently attributed to globalisation are direct products of the demonstrable ‘material reality’ of globalisationor of more or less accurate constructions of globalisation’s assumed imperatives or of an entirely duplicitous appeal to globalisation’s convenient exigencies? Whilst in one sense it may not (the immediate outcome, after all, is the same), in another the difference is extremely significant. In one account we identify an inexorable and fatalistic unfolding economic ‘logic of no alternative’ operating beyond the control or purview of political actors whom we might hold accountable for its consequences. In the other two we have an open-ended, contingent and — crucially — political dynamic to which potentially accountable agents might be linked (see also Hay 2000). Differentiating between the effects of globalisation on the one hand and the effects of dominant discourses of globalisation and the use made of such discourses on the other is, then, an integral aspect of restoring notions of political responsibility and accountability to contemporary political and economic dynamics. It is a prime motivation for much of what follows.

Localism

Reject the affirmative as a means to stop the hyper globalized world to let the economic policy of localism take hold

Posey, He is a Professor in the Public Policy Administration Department at the University of Missouri Saint Louis, 2011(John, “The Local Economy Movement: An Alternative to Neoliberalism?” Pub. Springer Found on ABI Inform)//JS

In recent decades, the challenge of deindustrialization has posed a quandary for progressives at all levels of government. Nationally, the left has been deeply divided over the issue of free trade vs. protectionism. At the local level, urban advocates have been at odds over the degree to which the demands of capital should be accommodated, recognizing that pursuing progressive empowerment regimes can promote capital flight. Moreover, the abandonment or retrenchment of the social democratic project, even in strongholds like Scandinavia (and even by left of center parties), shows that the left never fully succeeded in articulating an alternative to neoliberalism. Over the last 2 years, progressives have been at odds over bailouts and monetary policy. In all, it appears that the left is still struggling to devise a humane response to economic turmoil.This essay has suggested that the local economy movement could potential provide a unifying focus for a new progressive agenda. Localism can help transcend boom/bust cycles and widening inequality for three reasons: 1) Providing some insulation from the international economy can help governments avoidthe race to the bottom. 2) Reducing the geographic scale of economic activity could help reembed the financial sector into the real economy. 3) Localism can provide a counterbalance to the increasing concentration of wealth.However, the possible losses of gains from trade could be a genuine downside to localism. This essay suggested several reasons why diminished economies of scale 310 J. Poseymay not be such a large sacrifice for nations or regions adopting a local ownership strategy. Additional theoretical and empirical work needs to be done to analyze the magnitude of lost gains from trade under different localist scenarios. In particular, it is worth studying whether localizing ownership of retail, restaurants and hotels would have significant negative economic impacts for regions. It is also important to avoid romanticizing the local, assuming that local is always better. Local systems must also be held accountable with respect to labor standards and sustainability. Moreover, the urge to localize cannot diminish activism at other geographic scales.Another possible objection is that the left should not be seeking an alternative just to neoliberalism, but to capitalism itself.3 There is considerable evidence that boom/ bust cycles are inherent to the capitalist system. This is an interesting question to consider. My own tentative conclusion is that there are varieties of capitalism.Localism seems to offer a way to reduce concentrations of wealth and counteract the disembedded nature of finance, while still retaining the positive role of markets in society. Whether localism potentially could or should go beyond this limited goal and produce a genuine alternative to capitalism would be an important debate to have.The need to find an alternative to neoliberalism is urgent. Despite the various potential pitfalls, promoting smaller enterprises that serve smaller geographic areas is a tool that governments can use to promote equity and sustainability. The notion of rebuilding local economies points to a vision for a more humane economy

Testimony

We should embrace testimonio (testimony) as a form of alternative expression in order to resist neoliberal exploitation.

Williams,Associate Professor of Spanish and Latin American and Caribbean Studies at the University of Michigan,2005(Gareth, The Other Side of the Popular: Neoliberalism and Subalternity in Latin America, pages 77-78, http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Other_Side_of_the_Popular.html?id=BhqdmLWEfWcC)//CS

Within the transition to neoliberal models of development and domination, testimonio promised alternative forms of expression and of subaltern/intellectual agency. In Against Literature John Beverley notes thattestimonio was thought to represent "the possibility of regional, national, and/or transnational coalitions of radicalized intellectuals and professionals with subaltern classes or social groups," for this was a form of subaltern expression that, within the very structures of its textual composition, promised the possibility of "a form ofa global "alliance politics’ ofthe left" (90)."In a later essay, Beverley situates testimonio within the reorganizationof the political atmosphere in the United States and abroad in the yearsleading up to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and up to the defeat ofthe Sandinistas in the Nicaraguan elections of the following year:Testimonio began as an adjunct to armed liberation struggle in LatinAmerica and elsewhere in the Third World in the sixties. But its canonization was tied even more, perhaps, to the military, political, andeconomic force of counterrevolution in the years after 1973. It was theReal, the voice of the body in pain, of the disappeared, ofthe losers inthe rush to marketize, that demystified the false utopian myth of neoliberalism|, its claims to have finally reconciled history and society.At the same time, testimonio relativized the moral liberal or even pro-gressive claim of the high-culture writers and artists of the boom tospeak for the majority of Latin Americans. It marked a new site of discursive authority, which challenged the authority ofthe "great writer"¶ to establish the reality principle of Latin American culture and development.Testimonio was intimately linked to international solidarity networks in support of revolutionary movements or struggles around human rights, apartheid, democratization; but it was also a way of testing the contradictions and limits of revolutionary and reformist projects still structured in part around elite assumptions about the role of cultural vanguards. Detached from these contexts, it loses its special aesthetic and ideological power, and runs the risk of becoming anew form of costumbrismo, the Spanish term for "local color" writing.("Rea1" 281)"In other words, the history of the emergence and institutionalization of testimonio as a specific response to the hegemonic crisis of national fictive ethnicity and of national political organization in general is anything but disinterested. As Beverley indicates, "the reception of testimonio today is bound up with the globalization of both capitalist exploitation and the new forms of resistance to it, and thus traverses directly that center of information retrieval and knowledge production which isthe university" (Against 90).Têstimonio, in other words, and in particular the canonization of the genre within metropolitan power/knowledgeconfigurations, is intimately tied to broader questions of how to read culture in times dominated by a crisis of hegemonic models; a crisis that haswrought fundamental shifts in the grounds of fictive ethnicity, in the ideaof social integration, and, indeed, in the category of the nation itself as theprivileged terrain and exclusive horizon from within which to producecritical reason as a whole."

4-in-1

The alternative is to embrace the four-in-one perspective which will transform the economy to one with a new life balance based on solidarity.

Brand and Sekler,professor of International Politics at Vienna University and junior researcher in the area of international politics in the Department of Political Science at Vienna University , 2009 (Ulrich and Nicola, “Postneoliberalism – A beginning debate,” Development Dialogue, no. 51, page 6, January 2009,http://rosalux-europa.info/userfiles/file/DD51.pdf#page=173 )//CS

The transition from an economy dominated by capital to a mixed economy based on solidarity makes possible a fundamentally new life balance, which the Marxist-feminist FriggaHaug calls the ‘four-in-one-perspective’. Wage labour, reproduction labour in the care of the self and others, the leisure of free self-development and public engagement should be generalised as the part-time activities of all, so that each and every person can dedicate around four hours of his or her day to each of these activities (Haug 2008: 20ff .). Wage activity close to home must go down to below 30 hours a week. The ‘oppressive subjugation to the division of labour’ (Karl Marx in the tradition of Charles Fourier and Robert Owen) would finally be brought to Solidarity of common development, Co-determination, Social security, and peace. Universal public sphere ways out of the crisis of neoliberalism to an end.Only such a new organisation of life allows liberation from a psychology of ‘wanting to have’, out of which grew, together with the infinite desire for self-valorisation of capital, the transformation of the world into an accumulation of dead things (‘commodities’), destroying nature as much as the human and the soul – precisely the situation that dominates us today.

Zapatista

The alternative is to join the Zapatista movement – we must seek change from the global system, not an individual state.

Collier and Quaratiello, Professor of Anthropology at Stanford, 2005 – (George A. and Elizabeth Lowery, “Basta!: Land And The Zapatista Rebellion In Chiapas,” May 1, 2005, page 190, http://www.pdfebookds.com/Basta-Land-And-The-Zapatista-Rebellion-In-Chiapas-PDF5-860216/)//CS

The Zapatista rebellion deserves credit for catalyzing "anti-neoliberalism"-the sense that economic globalization was at the root of the plural and sometimes very different perceptions of marginalization that people had been experiencing. The 1994 rebellion came as official socialism was collapsing and Marxist insurgencies, such as occurred in Guatemala, seemed only to provoke genocidal repression. The Zapatistas offered a less violent rebellioncoupled to a new and different hope, one that sought topeople rather than divide them.The original Zapatista demands for land, housing, education, and health care were not only ones that resonated with people around the world whose lifestyles were threatened or deteriorating due to economic restructuring, but also echoed the past promises of capitalist as well as socialist states. Unlike earlier communist insurgencies, they were not trying to overthrow a government. They were merely asking the Mexican government to live up to its promises. When the Mexican government proved incapable of responding to the legitimate demands expressed by the Zapatista- demands which were, after all, enshrined in Articles 22 through 27 of the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights-it gradually became evident that the global system, rather than individual states, was responsible for governments' inability to meet the legitimate demands of citizens.

Directory: rest -> wikis -> openev -> spaces -> 2013 -> pages -> Michigan7 -> attachments

Download 1.47 Mb.

Share with your friends: