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

Alt Fails

Portraying capitalism as universal and omnipotent dooms political movements against it

What is missing from this somewhat cynical reading are the multilayered and diverse struggles, contestations and forms of acquiescence that have taken shape since the early 1980s when secular national projects were rolled back, and neoliberal forms of capitalism became dominant. While conservative social democracy designed to keep the lid on things is on the ascent in influential quarters, the lid is likely to be small in relation to the social forces unleashed through two decades of neoliberalism. In addition, just as capitalisms and postsocialist transitions assume enormously variable forms in different regions of the world, so too the political processes with which they are inextricably linked diverge sharply, as do actual and potential oppositional forms. Accordingly, while it is all very well to invoke ‘the multitude’ against ‘Empire’ as Hardt and Negri (2000) do in their remarkably influential exposition, these sorts of abstract invocations are singularly unhelpful in exploring the concrete possibilities for feasible alternatives. In the present conjuncture, the central challenge, as David Harvey (2000: 97) eloquently puts it, is ‘to find a way to identify commonalities within the differences, and so develop a politics that is genuinely collective in its concerns, yet sensitive to what remains irreducibly distinctive in the world today’. The political stakes in how we theorize these processes are considerable, and a key imperative is to engage critically with discourses of globalization from both the right and the left that portray global capitalism as a monolithic, cohesive force. A central argument of this essay is that critical human geography has a major role to play in developing politically enabling and non-reductionist understandings of political economy, culture and power in an increasingly interdependent world, and that efforts to illuminate multiple, distinctively ‘non-western’ capitalist and postsocialist Gillian Hart Geography and development modernitieshave contributed significantly to this project. At the same time, I draw attention to a crucial political and analytical distinction between institutionalist under- standings of multiple capitalisms cast in terms of ‘embeddedness’ and those that focus on the spatiotemporal limits and contradictions of capitalist development. First, though, it is important to attend briefly to efforts to move beyond orthodox neoliberal understandings from within mainstream economics.

Social movements like the alt simply allow for the expansion and evolution of capitalism – nationalism prevents the alt from functioning

(Tamas, “Globalisation and prospects of the world society,” CENTRAL EUROPEAN POLITICAL SCIENCE, Vol. 9, pp 6, http://cepsr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ATT81762.pdf#page=9)//SG

(e) If capitalism in the most developed countries, particularly in Europe, changed a lot in the 20th century, then it is mainly due to the rise of “countervailing power” within the system, such as represented by trade unions, labour parties and other social or political non-government organisations, which have gradually forced the operation of capital as well as the policy of the governments to reduce intra-society inequalities and conflicts by a “social contract” resulting in welfare measures and democratic rights.Similar “countervailing forces”, however, which aresoimportant if a brake is to be put onthe concentration andcentralization of power in the hands of a few, hardly exist in the world system as yet.They are either lacking or organized in dubious ways as alliances of some states versus others, with the risk of inter-state military conflicts. While the forces of capital are increasingly organised in the form of “enterprise empires”, such as TNCs, and are not only competing, but also co-operating with each other (as in “strategic alliances”), the forces of labour are still organised (if at all)mostly on “national” level, despite the old slogan of “international workers’ solidarity”. Although contacts and certain international co-operation have developed among national trade unions and other social organisations, too, such non-government organisations have a role neither in the decision-making process of international bodies, nor, particularly in that of TNCs. They are, at best, observers only. A reform of the UN that, for example, would establish a “Second Chamber” of the General Assembly consisting of representatives of internationally organised or co-operating NGOs, could likely be a great step towards the rise of “countervailing forces” on world level.

No concise definition of social movement means alt can’t solve—vague and unproductive

There are problems with all of these approaches, but the key thing I want to point to here is the perhaps rather surprising fact that there is no agreement about what a social movement actually is (Diani, 2000). Some theorists include mobilisation on the basis of identity, others emphasise shared interest; some emphasise irrationality, others rationality; some emphasise formal organisation, others horizontal networks; some institutionally-orientated lobbying, others extra-institutional activism. I want to suggest that all these forms and orientations can be part of movement activism; indeed, they can co-exist within the same movement. Mario Diani makes it clear that, although ‘social movements are not organisations’, organisations may well be part of a movement. Indeed, ‘bureaucratic interest groups and even political parties’ can be included (Diani, 2000: 165-167). But he also insists that a social movement need not give rise to any formal organisations at all. Jean Cohen and Andrew Arato (1992: 550) argue that movements typically have ‘dual faces’ and adopt a ‘dual strategy’: ‘a discursive politics of identity and influence that targets civil and political society and an organized, strategically rational politics of inclusion and reform that is aimed at political and economic institutions’. In sum, the claim here is that movements are typically diverse in organisational form and orientation.

The alternative can’t solve because the effects of contesting neoliberalism are unpredictable and never cause the change anticipated by the negative

The conceptual framework proposed in this chapter views this articulation as a complex, unpredictable spatiotemporal process in which neoliberalism is just one of an ever-changing variety of capitalist and noncapitalist imaginaries and practices that are at stake. It does not resolve into some final outcome, such as neoliberalism; nor is it completely arbitrary. Its tendencies, never fully realized, must be analyzed concretely, taking into account the specific historical geographic context. It follows that any assessment of the implications of contestations for neoliberalism must also examine how the process of articulation plays out on the ground. The effects of particular contestations on neoliberalism are difficult to predict. Some contestations—such as the battle for Seattle and antiprivatization struggles in Bolivia and South Africa, or antisweatshop and living wage initiatives— are more obvious, forcing observable, albeit temporary and often local, adjustments to neoliberalization. Others are less visible, with effects that are more difficult to discern. They may not result in policy change but may create new knowledge and awareness, for example, informing residents of the global north about the negative impacts of WTO policies on the livelihoods of people in the global south. Others again, such as community economy practices, may not see fit to challenge neoliberalism directly at all.Nevertheless, the cumulative implications for neoliberalism of such articulations, including complex interactions among different contestations, cannot be extrapolated from short-term assessments. Revolution often occurs when least expected, suggesting that we should be wary of predictions that neoliberalism as we have known it is here to stay