Noriko Satsume

Men make their own history but not in circumstances of their own choosing. Karl Marx

Slavoj Zizek's work is, in part, a criticism of postmodernism as an ideological component of capitalism. Criticizing Simon Critchley's book Infinitely Demanding, which states, in Critchley's own words: ... history is habitually written by the people with the guns and sticks and one cannot expect to defeat them with mocking satire and feather dusters. Yet, as the history of ultra-leftist active nihilism eloquently shows, one is lost the moment one picks up the guns and sticks. Anarchic political resistance should not seek to mimic and mirror the archic violent sovereignty it opposes. To which Zizek replies [Critchley] simply demonstrates that todays liberal-democratic state and the dream of an infinitely demanding anarchic politics exist in a relationship of mutual parasitism: anarchic agents do the ethical thinking, and the state does the work of running and regulating society. Zizek's work is essentially critical of postmodern leftists, who, under the impression that they are resisting capitalism and are leading to its downfall, or even that capitalism is here to stay and ought to be resisted in ways that optimize it for the working man, actually serve as the ideological basis for capitalism. Capitalism has, in Zizek's opinion, successfully integrated a critique of capitalism and the state into the functioning of capitalism and the state itself. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone today who wasn't cynical about any current congress, even though the US historically has a congressional re-election rate of over 90%. Culturally, we're opposed to capitalism. Hardly anyone will idealistically argue that capitalism is the absolute greatest structure ever. It's actually the opposite: most people will tell you that the root of all evil is money, greed, etc. Some will venture as far to tell you that communism is, in theory, the greatest, most logical form of social organization, but that it simply won't work. This defeatist form of politics only exists because of the postmodern ideological critique of capitalism: Yes, capitalism is evil, money is the root of all evil, but it is impossible to try to defeat capitalism, so why not try to regulate it through some sort of intimate revolt, rejecting capitalism on a personal ideological basis, becoming more informed, etc. My question for you, judge, is: is this not exactly what we're doing in debate? Think about what debate means to people. When we do debate, there is a certain sense of detachment from school. We come not to represent our schools, but rather ourselves, and our team, which happens to share the same name as our school. It is a personal venture, and the group that we form is not based off the common denominator of where we go to school, but rather that we are the same team, who happens to go to the same school. This is because we don't identify ourselves by the same group mentality as the rest of our schools do. Instead, our activities are almost founded on a rejection of that mentality. We detach ourselves from the school stereotypes, trying to individualize ourselves through higher education in debate, become politically and philosophically informed, etc. Our activities in debate are, in part, a criticism of the everyday layman's activities in regard to school. Now what I'm here to talk to you about isn't a criticism of our subtle snobbery and lust for individualism, but rather our means of satisfying those desires. Though we have detached ourselves from the school and the american public educational environment, we need to recognize that we are doing this using the american public educational environment, and towards the common end of the american public educational environment. Don't highschool administrators and college admission boards love us? Aren't we the future politicians and businessmen and orators and philosophers and college professors and builders of society who score high on tests, look good, represent the school well, and through all this, increase federal funding budgets? The american educational system exploits our talent and lust for individuality by giving us an outlet that they run, they fund, and they regulate. We use their schools, their money, and advertise their name. Is it not the same way with the postmodern intellectuals? Don't they, in their snobby unconscious quest to separate themselves from the common man, and their moralistic conscious quest to separate themselves from the horrors of

Noriko Satsume

Men make their own history but not in circumstances of their own choosing. Karl Marx

capitalism, produce, through their papers and essays, the very rhetoric that we use to justify capitalism as a necessity? Ask any debater whether or not to run a case that's right or a case that wins. They will tell you that the vast majority of judges have their own opinions and it's futile to try to change the debate, so, even though debate is harsh and cruel and soul-crushing, we ought to either conform to its standards or simply run troll cases to make fun of the structure of debate. These troll cases, however, are written to still win the round, because we still don't want to lose. The rhetoric of our cynicism over debate is the very thing that keeps us in debate. If we're not doing debate for a sense of belonging and individualism against a cruel and harsh educational system that does not care about us, then we're doing debate for the exact same reason as anybody else in debate: college. This ties back into capitalism in not a metaphorical way, but is instead the direct link between capitalism and highschool debate; we're being farmed for college material. In this way, we debaters, conditioned by the postmodern ideology of post-industrial capitalism, go on to the very factories where this postmodern ideology was manufactured, and, through our financial support, and indoctrination into the postmodern world of western Universities, become one more number in the postmodern capitalist machine of the 21st century, reciprocating our ideological postmodern cynicism, and enabling the american war machine like a father enables his heroin addict son by giving him money out of fear that he'll starve to death without it, only to have the son take the money and spend it all on heroin. Where do we go from here? Obviously I'm not debating here. I'm using debate as a way of getting my message to reach you. This is not a 1NC, this is not a case. This is me hijacking this round to spread to you my message of communism and revolt. Marx wrote in the communist manifesto: The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself. But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons the modern working class the proletarians. What I am saying here is that the means by which the capitalists are exploiting our intellectual power for harvest as postmodern ideology are now the means by which I am attacking this process of exploitation, in the same way that the means of production of the 19th century's bourgeoisie were turned on them by the 20th century proletariat and 3rd world peasant. There is only one action left: reject debate. Do not vote for me, do not vote for the opponent. Put the pen down, throw the ballot out, and go home, like I am, right here, right now. Free yourself. [Walk out of the round; drive home; never return to debate ever again; quit the team.]