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

Neoliberalism marginalizes non-economically-useful people and legitimizes violence against a huge swath of society

Like violence, neoliberalism is also notoriously difficult to define. Beyond a vision of naturalised market relations and unobstructed capital mobility, and in spite of variance in doses among regions, states and cities, neoliberalism typically seeks to: impede collective initiative and public expenditure via the privatisation of common assets and the imposition of user fees; position individualism, competitiveness and economic self-sufficiency as fundamental virtues; attenuate or nullify all forms of social protections, welfare and transfer programmes while promoting minimalist taxation and negligible business regulation; control inflation even at the expense of full employment; and actively push marginalised peoples into a flexible labour-market regime of low-wage employment and precarious work (Peck and Tickell 2002). Put bluntly, neoliberalism is a market-driven disciplinary logic (Gill 1995). Following this introduction, I begin by identifying how both violence and neoliberalism can be considered as ‘moments’. From this shared conceptualisation of process and fluidity, I argue that it becomes easier to recognise how neoliberalism and violence actually converge, whereby these two sets of social relations may be considered inextricably bound. Building upon this conceived coalescence, in the following section I argue that the hegemony of neoliberalism positions it as an abuser, which actively facilitates the abandonment of ‘Others’ who fall outside of ‘neoliberal normativity’, a conceptual category that cuts across multiple categories of discrimination including class, race, ethnicity, gender, sex, sexuality, age and ability. I argue that the widespread banishment of ‘Others’ under neoliberalism produces a ‘state of exception’, wherein because of its inherently dialectic nature, exceptional violence is transformed into exemplary violence. This metamorphosis occurs as aversion for alterity intensifies under neoliberalism and its associated violence against ‘Others’ comes to form the rule. The purpose is to recognise that neoliberalisation – inasmuch as it claims a global domain – implicates all of humanity in a particular ‘moment’, a moment of abandonment wherein the social relations that afford privilege to the few and privation to the many are the very same social relations that occasion violence. To be clear, my approach should be read as a theoretically informed exhortation that condemns the suffering caused by neoliberalised violence. My aim is to provide a ‘diagnosis concerning the nature of the present’ (Foucault 1983, 206) that other geographers may employ in examining the violence that unfolds in various contexts undergoing neoliberalisation, where I hope to appeal to a common empathy, solidarity and capacity for outrage.

War

Capitalism and war are inextricably linked—the neoliberal ideology demands constant and predatory accumulation

Reyna, Associate researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology 99 (Stephen P., Deadly Developments: Capitalism, States and War, Psychology Press, 1999, University of Michigan Libraries)//AS

Thomas Hobbes published Leviathan in l65l, beginning modem English discourse concerning the state. Hobbes' state consisted of the "Soveraigne" and the "Subject" in a dominion (l968:228). I accept this Hobbesian notion of a state as a sovereign government and a subject civil society, and my concern in the present article is to introduce an approach that helps to explain the emergence of the modem version of this Leviathan. So, in a sense, I tell a whale of a story, but do so using the logical approach introduced below. The "logics" of what I call the new social anthropology. as opposed to those of mathematics, concern directions taken as a result of complex actions, with it understood that "complexes" are groups of institutions in which force is concentrated' There have been logics of "capital accumulation" that move in the direction of increasing and concentrating capital force in capitalist complexes. There have also been logics of "predatory accumulation" that move in the direction of increasing and concentrating violent force within government complexes. Scholars have recognized that changes internal to Atlantic European states"˜ capitalist complexes increased their capital accumulation and were influential in the emergence of the modem state. Few scholars have contemplated any such role for predatory accumulation. and systematic analysis of the relationships between the two logics in the making of the Leviathan has been virtually ignored. I argue in this article thata military-capitalist complex, based upon two mutually reinforcing logics of predatory and capital accumulation. contributed to the formation of the modern state because the complex allowed the reciprocating logics to produce more violent and capital force than was possible when they operated alone. 'Die military capitalist complex. then. might be imagined as a sort of structural steroid that bulked up stately whales into Hobbes' "great Leviathan." a creature with the forces of a "mortal God" ( l968:227) that-luckily for England-turned out by |763 to be England.

Neoliberalism’s class system pushes indigenous populations to the periphery, stripping them of their identidy while also hurting the State’s ability to provide education and health care. This spurs mass violence and revolutions

Parada, Professor of International Social Work and Graduate Research Seminar at Ryerson University, 6/18/2007

(Henry, “Regional Perspectives...from Latin America : Social work in Latin America History, challenges and renewal,” International Social Work Vol 50.4, 560-64. Sage Publishing)//SG

Latin America1 has a long history of struggle for social justice and human rights. Recently, neo-liberal ideologies and globalization have spurred numerous acts of resistance across Latin American states. The neo-liberal agenda adopted by Latin America, also called capitalismo salvaje, or savage capitalism, has intensified the poverty and social instability in the region and led to the further marginalization and social exclusion of extensive populations(Renique, 2006: 37). Actions in Venezuela, Mexico, Argentina, Central America and Chile are among such responses against the intrusion of international global capital into Latin America (Grassi and Alayon, 2005; Mendoza, 2005). In this current context of resistance, social workers are struggling to define a role for their profession that is relevant to those with whom they work. This is not a new challenge for the social work pro- fession in Latin America, which has struggled to find a place for itself since the first school of social work was established in Chile in 1925.The current situation differs, however, in the prominence of social movements across the continent and particularly of indi- genous activists who, according to Landa (2005: 12), ‘have raised their own voice, clearly indicating that they do not need to be repre- sented by people outside their own communities’. This article exam- ines current attempts by the social work profession in Latin America to shift its practice from one that works on behalf of others and thereby represents their voice, to one that works alongside others who speak for themselves. The current context of resistanceThere are numerous examples of the ongoing social and political upheavals throughout Latin America against neo-liberalism and globalization. Mass mobilizations in Peru, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecua- dor and Mexico have made it clear that the Washington Consensus has been received with resistance(Ellner, 2006; Gindin, 2006; Mendoza, 2005; Saad-Filho, 2005a, 2005b). The indigenous peoples, particularly from Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru have also challenged neo-liberalism. Indigenous identity is closely related to oppression, poverty and marginalization(Nash, 2006: 126). Accord- ingly,indigenous people have presented a strong front against neo- liberalism, arguing that its accompanying structural reforms have furthered their marginalization.Indigenous resistance to neo-liberal policies is clearly seen in Bolivia’s two recent popular mobilizations, namely, the water and gas rebellions.In 2000, indigenous Bolivians reacted to the privati- zation of water and the increase of household water bills by 200 per- cent. Then, in October 2003, they protested against the repressive regime of Sanchez De Lozada, especially his gas and oil policies, which provided generous benefits to foreign companies and little benefit to Bolivians(Hylton and Thomson, 2006: 161–72). In Bolivia, a country with a population in which 62 percent claim indi- genous identity, previous indigenous movements sought to establish alliances with unions and middle-class oppositional forces, but these relationships were tentative and temporary due to distrust and overt racism. In contrast, the October 2003 social mobilization ‘confirmed thatBolivia has entered a new revolutionary cycle in which indi- genous actors have taken the leading role’ (Hylton and Thomson, 2006: 161).Social movements, including the Bolivian rebellions, have affected the professional identity of Latin American social workers. Indigen- ous peoples, women, workers, students and other social groups have demanded to be part of the civil society from which they have been excluded for so long(Conway, 2004; Renique, 2006). They are asking that social work engage in a new relationship, one which includes political listening by academics and practitioners, as well as the development of social and political responses in the form of policies, advocacy and community participation. Social movement participants argue that social workers should be engaged in allowing the voices of the excluded to be heard by the privileged (Matus and Ponce de Leon, n.d.). The historical development of social work in Latin America Social work in Latin America has gone through four important per- iods or paradigm changes. The first involved the establishment of social work as discipline with its own knowledge, skills and prac- tices. There was a strong ‘philanthropic and moralizing . . . remedial’ tone in its practice (Aguerrebere, 2001: 22). This form of social work emphasized individualistic interventions and reflected North American social work practices. A strong positivistic paradigm influenced the training of social workers during this period, most of whom were educated at a technical level (Aguerrebere, 2001; Velez, 2003). The main goal during this period was to establish a legitimate space for social work to be recognized as a discipline that was useful to the state (Friedson, 1994). The second period was characterized by the attempt to integrate social science epistemology into social work, using a somewhat eclectic approach. Tremendous emphasis was placed on the use of the so-called scientific method and on the development of technical-methodological modes of social work practice. As a result, the gap between theory and practice widened. On the one hand, the development of social science objectives and methodolo- gies required that social work adopt some of these forms of knowl- edge. On the other hand, state institutional demands required that social work respond to different kinds of social problems, thereby creating a schism between theory and practice (Velez, 2003). The third period, also called the re-conceptualization movement, is the most extensively studied (Aguerrebere, 2001; Alayon, 2005; Dieguez, 2004; Grassi and Alayon, 2005; Mendoza, 2005). The re- conceptualization process was, in effect, a political reaction to the dissatisfaction with social work as it was taught in Latin American universities, and to the kind of social work practiced in state institu- tions (Aquin, 2005). Political events that influenced the development of this conceptual movement in Latin America included the students’ revolt in Paris in 1968, the Cuban revolution, and certain American political actions such as the Vietnam war and the failed attempts to invade Cuba by the Kennedy administration. Theoreti- cal influences included the theory of development, Marxism, Freire’s concientizacio ́n proposals and the theology of liberation (Alayon, 2005). Many social workers talked of a ‘re-conceptualized . . . a cri- tical . . . a dialectical . . . a Marxist social work practice’ (De Paula Faleiros, 2005: 57).Each country in Latin America experienced re-conceptualization differently, depending on the level to which social work had devel- oped as a discipline. A heterogeneous movement, it responded to national political circumstances experienced by social workers, social work academics and the general population. But they shared a strong reaction to North American influence, not only in social work but in all socio-economic aspects of Latin American life.One consequence of re-conceptualization was that social work as a discipline and as a profession was devalued, forcing many social workers to abandon it for other forms of political action. By and large, the desire of social workers to become politically engaged with marginalized groups resulted in a discipline that became vague and diffuse (Alayon, 2005; Araneda, 2005; Velez, 2003).The fourth period of social work represents a response to the adoption of a neo-liberal agenda in Latin American countries. At this time, new rules of capitalism, which affected Latin America and its relationship with first-world countries, were introduced. These rules included the disciplining of labor and management to benefit financial sectors, the diminishing intervention of the state in the areas of social welfare and social services, the privatization of public companies and the strengthening of transnational corpora- tions(Dumenil and Levy, 2005).The ensuing changes affected the capacity of the state to provide services such as education, health care and pensions. Further, the state institutions that provided these services were the main sources of jobs for social workers, thus leaving many of them unemployed. Those social workers who remained in the system had to transform their practices once again. Social work was reintroduced as ‘neo-philanthropic in which intervention is not based on social rights but in an intervention based on individual charity and moralistic values’ (Aguerrebere, 2001: 31; Velez, 2003). New managerialism as a form of practice has also become a domi- nant discourse in Latin American national institutions. The new managerialism introduced a technocratic model, the main goal of which is to widen the social control of social workers (Aguerrebere, 2001; Sewpaul and Holscher, 2004). Efficiency, efficacy, outcome- based measures, market competitiveness and accountability are some of the new expectations of social workers who continue to work within the state welfare system. As a result of the reality created by neo-liberalism and globaliza- tion, there is a need for social work to renegotiate its position through new forms of networking and the creation of new Latin American social work organizations

Neoliberal expansion is used to justify a new kind of modern war

Roberts and Sparke, Professors of geography at the Universities of, respectively, Kentucky and Washington 03 (Susan and Matthew, “Neoliberal Geopolitics”, Antipode 35:5, 2003, Wiley Online)//AS

Armed with their simple master narrative about the inexorable force of economic globalization, neoliberals famously hold that the global extension of free-market reforms will ultimately bring worldwide peace and prosperity. Like Modernity and Development before it, Globalization is thus narrated as the force that will lift the whole world out of poverty as more and more communities are integrated into the capitalist global economy. In the most idealist accounts, such as those of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (1999:xviii), the process of marketized liberalization is represented as an almost natural phenomenon which, “like the dawn,” we can appreciate or ignore, but not presume to stop. Observers and critics of neoliberalism as an emergent system of global hegemony, however, insist on noting the many ways in which states actively foster the conditions for global integration, directly or through international organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization (Gill 1995). Under what we are identifying as neoliberal geopolitics, there appears to have been a new development in these patterns of state-managed liberalization. The economic axioms of structural adjustment, fiscal austerity, and free trade have now, it seems, been augmented by the direct use of military force. At one level, this conjunction of capitalism and war-making is neither new nor surprising (cf Harvey 1985). Obviously, many wars—including most 19thand 20th-century imperial wars—have been fought over fundamentally economic concerns. Likewise, one only has to read the reflections of one of America’s “great” generals, Major General Smedley Butler, to get a powerful and resonant sense of the long history of economically inspired American militarism. “I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major General,” Butler wrote in his retirement, [a]nd during that period, I spent most of that time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. Neoliberal Geopolitics 887In short I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. I helped make Honduras “right” for American fruit companies in 1903. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. (quoted in Ali 2002:260) If it was engaged in a kind of gangster capitalist interventionism at the previous fin-de-siècle, today’s American war-making has been undertaken in a much more open, systematic, globally ambitious, and quasicorporate economic style. Al Capone’s approach, has, as it were, given way to the new world order of Jack Welch.

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

Download 1.47 Mb.

Share with your friends: