Neoliberalism K—UMich 2013 neg 1NCs 1NC: Generic
Sole discursive focus ignores the effect it has on theorizers themselves—both embrace and resistance are possible at once
Download 1.47 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Combination of discursive and political resistance is the only way to resist neoliberal practices
- A policy reform approach to capitalism is the only effective avenue for change
PermGenericSole discursive focus ignores the effect it has on theorizers themselves—both embrace and resistance are possible at onceRosamond, Professor of Political Science, University of Copenhagen 99 (Ben, “Discourses of globalization and the social construction of European identities”, Journal of European Public Policy 6:4, 1999, Taylor and Francis)//AS At issue is the extent to which a series of material shifts has rendered the world economy a singular entity, where territorialized control over economic governance ceases to be relevant or efficacious. The significance of this debate should not be diminished, but it trades very much on the question of the objective transformation of the global economic environment – the move to a ‘world in itself’. But it is also useful to think about the subjective dimensions of globalization – a ‘world for itself’. Here the key question is neither the longevity nor the empirical demonstrability of globalization, but rather the extent to which knowledge of globalization as the defining attribute of contemporary life has become widespread. Research from this starting point thinks less about material structures and more about ideational structures and patterns of political discourse. This discursive dimension can be thought about in two senses. The first concerns the use of ‘globalization’ as a discursive device to render the world manageable, to define the range of individual and collective policy choice, to clarify external threats and constraints and to imagine the repertoire of available strategic opportunities. The second sense treats globalization as a ‘discourse of power’ associated with the emergence of particular interests in the global political economy and the legitimation of neo-liberal policy solutions (Gill 1995). It is also striking how the debate within both large portions of the academic world and policy circles has been captured by a particular conception of globalization: globalization as the progressive spread of economic liberalization across the globe (Robertson and Haque Khondker 1997; Sjolander 1996). At one level the term has spilled out of the academic world into the world of policy dis- course, though, as Robertson and Haque Khondker note, in a highly corrupted fashion. The subtleties and nuances of sociological theories of globalization with their emphasis on dissonance, local mediation, particularization and complexity (Appadurai 1990; Lash and Urry 1994; Robertson 1992; Rosamond 1995) do not register. Economic globalization is privileged and is then redefined in simplistic terms as a form of homogenization of practices and policies which induces a ‘logic of no alternative’ in policy terms (Hay and Watson 1998). In other words, conceptions of globalization as discourse also need to think seriously about the sorts of knowledge that the term draws upon and signifies (Scholte 1996), especially since, as Nikolas Rose has observed, ‘the truth effects of discourses of economic globalization are somehow independent of the reality of the analysis’ (cited in Hay and Watson 1998: 26). Certain conceptions of globalization may be ‘hegemonic’, but this does not foreclose the possibility that alternative discourses may coexist and challenge the dominant strand. ‘Globalization’ may be used to signify market liberalization, but this may induce radically opposed interpretations of its significance and what policy options follow. Both ‘embrace’ and ‘resistance’ are possible. Moreover, ‘globalizing élites’ may engage in strategic theorizing about globalization, but this does not mean that they are immune from the shaping capacities of the intersubjective structures that their discursive practice creates. Combination of discursive and political resistance is the only way to resist neoliberal practicesHursh 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, then, needs to occur at three levels, the discursive, the political, and the pedagogical. First, we need to analyse the ways in which particular discourses have become dominant and the interconnections between what is occurring at the local, national, and global levels. Understanding events in Chicago, Mexico, or Uganda requires that we examine how global neoliberal discourses and policies promote the withering away of the state except for its role in promoting a climate conducive to capital investment through low taxes, deregulation, and the availability of finance capital. A policy reform approach to capitalism is the only effective avenue for changeHutton, Britishpolitical economist, 10 (William, “Modern capitalism is at a moral dead end. And the bosses are to blame”, The Observer, 3/4/10, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/04/will-hutton-capitalism)//AS Lambert is right – modern capitalism has arrived at a moral dead end, interested largely in feathering the nests of its leaders while imposing enormous costs on the rest of society and accepting no reciprocal obligations. Neither Lewis nor Arup would have dreamt of needing to be paid 81 times the salary of an average worker to do their job or of investing a nanosecond in trying to evade or avoid tax. They aimed to build enduring innovative organisations and to do so was a matter of enormous satisfaction in itself. And don't think of them as quasi-socialists – there are no unions in either firm because none is needed. To change matters requires both moral conviction and a political readiness to engineer a series of deep reforms in the way company ownership is discharged, corporate governance is conceived, executives are remunerated and workers represented. Today's secularisation of society and decline of religion have meant that the kind of value system that succoured Packard, Arup and Lewis in their moral beliefs is disappearing. I doubt if any CEOs signing letters much worry about morals or religion and even practising Christian business leaders, such as HSBC's chair Stephen Green, while wringing their hands and searching their souls, do not offer a bold lead. For all its merits, hardly a passage in Green's recent book, Good Value, compares to the standard set by Lewis or Arup, even if his heart is plainly in the right place. Butyou also need morally convinced politicians prepared to take the risk of reform. We have none. The Tories are fired up by the thought of curbing the state and building a Big Society, but not by correcting capitalist excess. New Labour, 13 years in office, has not dared, apart from the odd speech by Paul Myners and Peter Mandelson at the last, to propose any significant reform. On this question, this Easter, it presents a moral vacuum. The banks have got away virtually scot free after the greatest bailout in history. We need a reformed capitalism driven by innovation and a sense of responsibility, yet there is no such prospectus on offer. That's amazing after what we have lived through. The aliens rule. CubaCuba proves perm solves – globalization and the tenets of socialism can occur side by side. Neoliberalism won’t take overCarmona - Professor of Economics at the Universidad San Pablo. Spring 2000 (Antonio, “Cuba: Reforms and Adjustments Versus Transition,” International Journal of Political Economy. Vol 30.1, pp. 86-87. JSTOR)//SG Planning at thislate stage differs from the planned economy of the cold war. It is no longer five-year plans that mobilize the forces of production, but the urgency ofmeeting the basic needs ofthe state in order to carry out production and redis- tribution. Since the Fourth PCC Congress, the government has taken measures to adjust the country to the world marketone year at a time. But during this decade, native restructuring plans can be identified by the central objectives noted by Cu- ban political economists and the PCC. The objectives of the socialist project dur- ing the periodo especialhave been to recuperate Cuba's capacity to produce for profit in the international market, diversify the various sectors of theeconomy in accordance with the present conditions o fglobalization, that is, produce only what can be sold, and retain the maximum level of economic socialization in order to preserve the fundamental conquests ofthe revolution--in short, to reintegrate into the world-market system while maintaining the fruits o f socialist development. O f course, this action must be performed in an orderly fashion to maintain stability and legitimacy. It goes without saying that political and legal structures must ac- company any attempt to open up-even ifonly slightly-to the world market. Carranza et al. argue that structural change in Cuba's economy must penetrate all sectors of the general population.27 Without a premise for political change, economic reforms cannot be successful. The political wing of the project entails the reproduction of popular political power and its manifestation in the new sec- tors of the national economy. This means fortifying the roles of trade unions and other social organizations to defend the interests of workers in conflicts that will or can occur in the new context. Also, participatory democracy must be enhanced in order to defme national interests better. Finally, there is the need to build civil society, whereby the masses become less dependent on the government or official popular organizations. Today, nongovernmental organizations are blooming in Cuba, and independent councils are being set up to meet the needs of the general population in many instances where the government has failed. These can be seen in organizations from nursing homes for the elderly to church recreational youth centers and neighborhood clean-up projects.28 During the autumn of 1997, just before the PCC held its Fifth Congress, the government set out to have documents presented by political economists read in the sugar mills, in schools and universi- ties, at neighborhood watch committees, and at other popular organizational meet- ings. At every popular meeting, the documents describing the economic and political scenario for Cuba for the end of this decade were discussed, in addition to rem- edies for preventing problems such as low production, inefficiency, new fmancial structures, and so on. All changes are in the name ofpreserving Cuba's project of continuous development for an independent nation and safeguarding the triumphs of the revolution.Of course, this is how PCC-inspired rationality is sold to the Cuban population in community meetings, discussions in the workplace and in universities. The rest is all nice and quaint but remains in the hands ofoficialismo, reproduced in government propaganda and newspapers. In real terms, the govern- ment is trying to stimulate an internal economy while saving a residual welfare state. How, then, does this differ from transition economies in Eastern Europe? Download 1.47 Mb. Share with your friends:
|