Definitions

Neoliberalism - a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism.

Link
 More link cards
This is a band aid structure, will revert and be bad.
 UBI is neoliberalit sacrifices other reforms and locks in reliance on
the free market
Waldman 14 (Steve Randy, The political economy of a universal basic income. September 19th, 2014.
http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/5589.html)

UBI is the least statist, most neoliberal means possible of addressing socioeconomic fragmentation. It
distributes only abstract purchasing power; it cedes all regulation of real resources to individuals and markets. It [is] deprives
the state even of power to make decisions about to whom purchasing power should be transferred reflective, again, of a neoliberal
mistrust of the state insisting on a dumb, simple, facially fair rule. Libertarians are unsurpisingly sympathetic to a UBI, at least
relative to more directly state-managed alternatives. Its easy to write that off, since self-described libertarians are politically marginal. But
libertarians are an extreme manifestation of the neoliberal imagination that is, I think, pervasive among political elites, among mainstream
progressives at least as much as on the political right, and especially among younger cohorts. For better and for worse, policies that
actually existed in the past, that may even have worked much better than decades of revisionist propaganda
acknowledge, are now entirely infeasible. We wont address housing insecurity as we once did, by having the
state build and offer subsidized homes directly. We cant manage single-payer or public provision of health
care. We are losing the fight for state-subsidized higher education, despite a record of extraordinary success, clear positive externalities, and
deep logical flaws in attacks from both left and right. We should absolutely work to alter the biases and constraints of the prevailing neoliberal
imagination. But if political feasibility is to be our touchstone, if that is to be the dimension along which we evaluate policy choices, then past
existence of a program, or its existence and success elsewhere, are not reliable guides. An effective path forward will build on the existing and
near-future ideological consensus. UBI
stands out precisely on this score. It is good policy on the merits. Yet it is among the
most neoliberal, market-oriented, social welfare policies imaginable. It is the most feasible of the policies that are
genuinely worthwhile.
 UBI is built upon neoliberal ideas and structures
Clarke 17 [John Clarke is a long-time anti-poverty activist, community organizer, and leading member of
the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, or OCAP, in Toronto.
](http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Basic-Income-as-a-Neoliberal-Weapon-20170217-
0009.html)
There are a wide range of notions of what a BI system might look like. Devotees of free market capitalism have their own vision. The
right wing U.S. political scientist, Charles Murray, advocates a meager universal payment and stresses vehemently that this must
replace entirely the other elements of social provision. The liberal to radical left supporters of a progressive BI counter with models
that are anything from modestly redistributive to radically transformative, some even dreaming of a universal and very adequate
payment that would rob capitalism of any capacity to economically coerce workers. The problem with all of these plans is that,
despite thoroughly good intentions, they fail to address the actual practical possibilities of their being implemented. It is just
assumed that fairness and social justice can be introduced by way of a social policy initiative. Before we consider the
prospects for a BI that would improve lives and reduce poverty, we should examine the factors that have
shaped existing systems of income support. If we go back to the roots and consider the English Poor Laws,
we see a peasantry being driven off the land in the 1500s and forced to enter a newly created job
market. An oversupply of labor served the interests of the employers of the day but total abandonment of the unemployed led to
dangerous levels of social unrest. The solution the State came up with was a system of provision that might enable
people to survive but that was as inadequate as possible so as to continue to drive people into the lowest paying
jobs. Modern systems of welfare and social assistance have continued with this approach and are marked by
meager payments and bureaucratic intrusion into peoples lives. As the neoliberal agenda took root and intensified and,
as employers sought to lower wages and increase the rate of exploitation, a systematic degrading of
income support systems was carried out in all countries that had the elements of a welfare state in place. This led to a
scramble for the worst jobs and an explosion of low wage and precarious employment. From the standpoint of the
architects of neoliberalism, this has been an enormously successful and profitable strategy. Yet the
advocates of a progressive BI imagine that all this can be put behind us simply by somehow convincing governments to adopt a
social policy that will make everything rational and fair. They dont ask themselves why the neoliberal powerbrokers would give up
decades of gains by providing income adequacy and, in doing so, increase workers bargaining power massively. They dont ask
how, with our unions and movements significantly weakened by the neoliberal attack, we could force the employers and the state to
make such a vast concession. The danger of not dealing with such issues lies in the above-mentioned right-wing version of BI.
When the exploiters and enablers who gather at Davos consider the policy, they realize that it has enormous possibilities for them.
With a whole progressive lobby laying down a welcome mat, they can now work on very different brand of BI. A meager and
dwindling payment can be provided that in no way interferes with the flow of workers into the low-wage sector. Moreover, if they
extend the payment to the working poor, it becomes a de facto wage top-up for employers. The struggle for living wages is now
undercut. The most exploitative employers know that their workers are being paid out of the tax
revenues and they are under little pressure to raise wages. Governments can freeze of even lower minimum
wages and a general lowering of wages sets in. At the same time as neoliberal BI is used to grease the wheels
of super-exploitation, another key element of the neoliberal agenda, privatization, is facilitated. The
BI payment, as free market advocates have long suggested, is given in place of the other elements
of social provision. As public healthcare, social housing and much else beside are gutted, BI
transforms those who receive it into customers shopping through the privatized rubble of the social
infrastructure. It is, of course, quite possible to design on paper a BI model that is adequate and that does not involve cutbacks
in other areas but the question is which version is more likely, based on prevailing economic and political agendas and the present
balance of forces in society. Rather than trust to the Davos crowd and hope the 1% develops a taste for social justice, a far better
approach would be to build the social movements and struggles that can defend past gains and work for expanded and accessible
public services. Rather than hope neoliberal governments will offer us a social policy end-run around austerity, far better to press for
income support systems that offer full entitlement, adequate payments and that are no longer based on bureaucratic intrusion and
moral policing. Basic Income is a false hope and a pathway to the commodification of social provision
that, while it may be paved with good intentions, leads to a destination entirely to the liking of those
who design and operate the neoliberal order.

The UBI is capitalist because it forces people to engage in the free market to survive.
They absolutely have to spend money in order to not starve. Instead of other possible
welfare policies like directly giving them houses, it gives people money to spend in the
free market.
Impact
 Capitalism justifies genocide through the notion that people are
things
Internationalist Perspective 2K (Internationalist Perspective #36, spring 2000,
http://www.geocities.com/wageslavex/capandgen.html)

Mass death, and genocide, the deliberate and systematic extermination of whole groups of human
beings, have become an integral part of the social landscape of capitalism in its phase of decadence. Auschwitz,
Kolyma, and Hiroshima are not merely the names of discrete sites where human beings have been subjected to forms of industrialized mass
death, but synecdoches for the death-world that is a component of the capitalist mode of production in this epoch. In that sense, I want to
argue that the Holocaust, for example, was not a Jewish catastrophe, nor an atavistic reversion to the
barbarism of a past epoch, but rather an event produced by the unfolding of the logic of capitalism
itself. Moreover, Auschwitz, Kolyma, and Hiroshima are not "past", but rather futural events, objective-real possibilities on the Front of
history, to use concepts first articulated by the Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch. The ethnic cleansing which has been
unleashed in Bosnia and Kosovo, the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda, the mass death to which
Chechnya has been subjected, the prospect for a nuclear war on the Indian sub-continent, are so
many examples of the future which awaits the human species as the capitalist mode of production
enters a new millenium. Indeed, it is just such a death-world that constitutes the meaning of one pole of the historic alternative which Rosa Luxemburg first posed in the midst of the slaughter inflicted on masses of conscripts during World War
I: socialism or barbarism! Yet, confronted by the horror of Auschwitz, Kolyma, and Hiroshima, Marxist theory has been silent or uncomprehending. While I am convinced that there can be no adequate theory of mass death and genocide which does not link these phenomena to the
unfolding of the logic of capital, revolutionary Marxists have so far failed to offer one. Worse, the few efforts of revoluti onary Marxists to grapple with the Holocaust, for example, as I will briefly explain, have either degenerated into a crude economism, which is one of the hallmarks of
so-called orthodox Marxism, or led to a fatal embrace of Holocaust denial; the former being an expression of theoretical bankrup tcy, and the latter a quite literal crossing of the class line into the camp of capital itself. Economism, which is based on a crude base-superstructure model (or
travesty) of Marxist theory, in which politics, for example, can only be conceived as a direct and immediate reflection of the economic base, in which events can only be conceived as a manifestation of the direct economic needs of a social class, and in the case of the capitalist class, the
immediate need to extract a profit, shaped Amadeo Bordiga's attempt to "explain" the Holocaust. Thus, in his "Auschwitz ou le Grand Alibi" Bordiga explained the extermination of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis, as the reaction of one part of the petty bourgeoisie to its historical
demise at the hands of capital by "sacrificing" its other -- Jewish -- part so as to save the rest, an undertaking welcomed by big capital, which could thereby liquidate a part of the petty bourgeoisie with the support of the rest of that same class. Quite apart from an economism which

such an "explanation" asks us to conceive of

simply ignores the dialectic between the economy on the one hand, and the political and ideological on the other (about which more la ter),
genocide not as the complex outcome of the unfolding of the operation of the law of value in the
diverse spheres of social life, but as the direct outcome of the utilitarian calculation of segments of
the petty bourgeoisie and big capital[,]. Auschwitz, the veritable hallmark of the fundamental
irrationality of late capital, is transformed by Bordiga into a rational calculation of its direct profit
interests on the part of the capitalists. However, an undertaking which fatally diverted the scarce resources (material and
financial) of Nazi Germany from the battlefields of the imperialist world war, simply cannot, in my view, be comprehended on the basis of a
purely economic calculus of profit and loss on the part of "big capital." While Bordiga's reaction to Auschwitz fails to provide even the minimal
bases for its adequate theorization, the reaction of the militants of La Vieille Taupe, such as Pierre Guillaume, constitutes a political betrayal of
the struggle for communist revolution by its incorporation into the politics of Holocaust denial. For Guillaume, Auschwitz can only be a myth, a
fabrication of the allies, that is, of one of the imperialist blocs in the inter-imperialist world war, because it so clearly serves their interests in
mobilizing the working class to die in the service of democracy; on the alter of anti-fascism. Hence, La Vieille Taupe's "fervor to contest the
evidence of its [the Holocaust's] reality by every means possible, including the most fraudulent. For the evidence of genocide is just so many
deceptions, so many traps laid for anticapitalist radicality, designed to force it into dishonest compromise and eventual loss of resolve." It is
quite true that capital has utilized antifascism to assure its ideological hegemony over the working class, and that the Holocaust has been
routinely wielded for more than a generation by the organs of mass manipulation in the service of the myth of "democracy" in the West (and
by the state of Israel on behalf of its own imperialist aims in the Middle-East). And just as surely the ideology of antifascism and its functionality
for capital must be exposed by revolutionaries. Nonetheless, this does not justify the claims of Holocaust denial, which not only cannot be
dissociated from anti-Semitism, but which constitutes a denial of the most lethal tendencies inherent in the capitalist mode of production, of
the very barbarism of capitalism, and thereby serves as a screen behind which the death-world wrought by capital can be safely hidden from its
potential victims. This latter, in its own small way, is the despicable contribution of La Vieille Taupe, and the basis for my conviction that it must
be politically located in the camp of capital.
Marxism is in need of a theory of mass death and genocide as
immanent tendencies of capital, a way of comprehending the link (still obsure) between the death-world symbolized by the smokestacks of Auschwitz or the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima and the unfolding of the logic of a

mode of production based on the capitalist law of value. I want to argue that we can best grasp the link between capitalism a nd genocide by focusing on two dialectically inter-related strands in the social fabric of late capitalism: first, are a series of phenomena linked to the actual
unfolding of the law of value, and more specifically to the completion of the transition from the formal to the real domination of capital; second, are a series of phenomena linked to the political and ideological (this latter understood in a non-reductionist sense, as having a material
existence) moments of the rule of capital, specifically to the forms of capitalist hegemony. It is through an analysis of the coalescence of vital elements of these two strands in the developm ent of capital, that I hope to expose the bases for the death-world and genocide as integral

The real domination of capital is characterized by the penetration of the law of value
features of capitalism in the present epoch.
into every segment of social existence. As Georg Lukcs put it in his History and Class Consciousness,
this means that the commodity ceases to be "one form among many regulating the metabolism of
human society," to become its "universal structuring principle." From its original locus at the point of
production, in the capitalist factory, which is the hallmark of the formal domination of capital, the law of
value has systematically spread its tentacles to incorporate not just the production of commodities,
but their circulation and consumption. Moreover, the law of value also penetrates and then comes to preside over the spheres
of the political and ideological, including science and technology themselves. This latter occurs not just through the transformation of the fruits
of technology and science into commodities, not just through the transformation of technological and scientific research itself (and the
institutions in which it takes place) into commodities, but also, and especially, through what Lukcs designates as the infiltration of thought
itself by the purely technical, the very quantification of rationality, the instrumentalization of reason; and, I would argue,
[this is] the
reduction of all beings (including human beings) to mere objects of manipulation and control. As Lukcs
could clearly see even in the age of Taylorism, "this rational mechanisation extends right into the worker's `soul'." In short, it affects not only his
outward behavior, but her very internal, psychological, makeup. The phenomenon of reification, inherent in the commodity-form, and its
tendential penetration into the whole of social existence, which Lukcs was one of the first to analyze, is a hallmark of the real domination of
capital: "Its basis is that a relation between people takes on the character of a thing and thus acquires a `phantom objectivity', an autonomy
that seems so strictly rational and all-embracing as to conceal every trace of its fundamental nature: the relation between people." Reification,
the seeming transformation of social relations into relations between things, has as one of its outcomes what the German-Jewish thinker
when human beings are administered,
H.G.Adler designated as "the administered man" [Der verwaltete Mensch]. For Adler,
they are treated as things, thereby clearing the way for their removal or elimination by genocide. The
outcome of such a process can be seen in the bureaucractic administration of the Final Solution, in
which the organization of genocide was the responsibility of desk killers like Adolf Eichmann who
could zealously administer a system of mass murder while displaying no particular hatred for his
victims, no great ideological passion for his project, and no sense that those who [were killed] went to
the gas chambers were human beings and not things. The features of the desk killer, in the person of Eichmann, have
been clearly delineated by Hannah Arendt. He is the high-level functionary in a vast bureaucratic organization who does his killing from behind
a desk, from which he rationally plans and organizes mass murder; treating it as simply a technical task, no different than the problem of
transporting scrap metal. The desk killer is the quintessential bureaucrat functioning according to the imperatives of the death-world. As a
human type, the desk killer, that embodiment of the triumph of instrumental reason, has become a vital part of the state apparatus of late
capitalism. Here, the Lukcsian concept of reification, the Adlerian concept of the administered man, and the Arendtian portrait of the desk
killer, can be joined to Martin Heidegger's concept of das Gestell, enframing, in which everything real, all beings, including humans,
are
treated as so much Bestand, standing-reserve or raw material, to be manipulated at will. This
reduction of humans to a raw material is the antechamber to a world in which they can become so
many waste products to be discarded or turned into ashes in the gas chambers of Auschwitz or at
ground zero at Hiroshima. While the reification which attains its culminating point in the real domination of capital may contain within itself the possibility of mass murder and its death-world, it does not in and of itself explain the actual

unleashing of the genocidal potential which, because of it, is now firmly ensconced within the interstices of the capitalist mode of production. To confront that issue, I want to elucidate two concepts which, while not directly linked by their authors to the unfolding of the capitalist law of
value, can be refunctioned to forge such a link, and have already been effectively wielded in the effort to explain genocide: the concept of the obsolescence of man [Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen], articulated by the German-Jewish philosopher Gnther Anders, and the concept of bio-
politics, articulated by Michel Foucault. For Anders, the first industrial revolution introduced the machine with its own source of power as a means of production, while the second industrial revolution saw the extension of commodity production to the whole of society, and the
subordination of man to the machine. According to Anders, the third industrial revolution, in the epoch of which humanity now lives, has made humans obsolete, preparing the way for their replacement by machines, and the end of history (Endzeit). For Anders, the Holocaust marked the
first attempt at the systematic extermination of a whole group of people by industrial means, opening the way for the extension of the process of extermination to virtually the whole of the human species; a stage which he designates as "post-civilized cannibalism" [postzivilisatorischen
Kannibalismus], in which the world is "overmanned", and in which Hiroshima marks the point at which "humanity as a whole is eliminatable"[ttbar]. Anders's philosophy of technology is unabashedly pessimistic, leaving virtually no room for Marxist hope (communist revolution).
Nonetheless, his vision of a totally reified world, and technology as the subject of history, culminating in an Endzeit, corresponds to one side of the dialectic of socialism or barbarism which presides over the present epoch. Moreover, Anders's concept of an overmanned world can be
fruitfully linked to the immanent tendency of the law of value to generate an ever higher organic composition of capital, culminating in the present stage of automation, robotics, computers, and information technology, on the bases of which ever larger masses of living labor are ejected

from the process of production, and, indeed, from the cycle of accumulation as a whole, ceasing to be -- even potentially -- a productive force, a source of exchange-value, in order to b ecome an insuperable burden for capital, a dead
weight, which, so long as it lives and breathes, threatens its profitability.
This "obsolescence of man" can at the level of
total capital thereby create the necessity for mass murder; insert[s]ing the industrial extermination of
whole groups of people into the very logic of capital: genocide as the apotheosis of instrumental
reason! Reason transmogrified into the nihilistic engine of destruction which shapes the late capitalist world. Michel Foucault's concept of bio-power can also be refunctioned to explicitly link it to the basic tendencies of the development of capitalism, in which case it
provides a point of intersection between the triumph of the real domination of capital economically, and the political and ideological transformation of capitalist rule, while at the same time making it possible to grasp those features of capital which propel it in the direction of genocide.
The extension of the law of value into every sphere of human existence, the culminating point of the real domination of capital, is marked by the subordination of the biological realm itself to the logic of capital. This stage corresponds to what Foucault designates as bio-politics, which
encapsulates both the "statification of the biological", and the "birth of state racism". Bio-politics entails the positive power to administer, manage, and regulate the intimate details of the life -- and death -- of whole populations in the form of technologies of domination: "In concrete
terms ... this power over life evolved in two basic forms ... they constituted ... two poles of development linked together by a whole intermediary cluster of relations. One of these poles ... centered on the body as a machine: its disciplining, the optimization of its capabilities, the extortion
of its forces, the parallel increase of its usefulness and its docility, its integration into systems of efficient and economic controls, all this was ensured by the procedures of power that characterized the disciplines: an anatomo-politics of the human body. The second ... focused on the
species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes: propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity, with all the conditions that can cause these to vary. Their supervision was effected through an
entire series of interventions and regulatory controls: a bio-politics of the population." Such a bio-politics represents the subjugation of biological life in its diverse human forms to the imperatives of the law of value. It allows capital to mobilize all the human resources of the nation in the
service of its expansion and aggrandizement, economic and military. The other side of bio-politics, of this power over life, for Foucault, is what he terms "thanatopolitics," entailing an awesome power to inflict mass death, both on the population of one's enemy, and on one's own
population: "the power to expose a whole population to death is the underside of the power to guarantee an individual's continued existence. .... If genocide is indeed the dream of modern powers ... it is because power is situated at the level of life, the species, the race, and the large-
scale phenomena of population." Nuclear, chemical, and biological, weapons make it possible to wield this power to condemn whole populations to death. Bio-politics, for Foucault, also necessarily entails racism, by which he means making a cut in the biological continuum of human life,
designating the very existence of a determinate group as a danger to the population, to its health and well-being, and even to its very life. Such a group, I would argue, then, becomes a biological (in the case of Nazism) or class enemy (in the case of Stalinism, though the latter also claimed
that biological and hereditary characteristics were linked to one's class origins). And the danger represented by such an enemy race can necessitate its elimination through physical removal (ethnic cleansing) or extermination (genocide). The Foucauldian concept of bio-politics allows us to
see how, on the basis of technologies of domination, it is possible to subject biological life itself to a formidable degree of control, and to be able to inflict mass death on populations or races designated as a biological threat. Moreover, by linking this concept to the real domination of
capital, we are able to see how the value-form invades even the biological realm in the phase of the real domination of capital. However, while bio-power entails the horrific possibility of genocide, it is Foucault's ruminations on the binary division of a population into a "pure community"
and its Other, which allows us to better grasp its necessity. Such a perspective, however, intersects with the transformations at the level of the political and ideological moment of capital, and it is to these, and what I see as vital contributions to their theorization by Antonio Gramsci and
Ernst Bloch, that I now want to turn in an effort to better elucidate the factors that propel capital in the direction of mass death and genocide. What is at issue here is not Gramsci's politics, his political practice, his interventions in the debates on strategy and tactics within the Italian
Communist Party, where he followed the counter-revolutionary line of the Stalinist Comintern, but rather his theorization of the political and ideological moment of capital , and in particular his concept of the "integral state", his understanding of the state as incorporating both political
and civil society, his concept of hegemony, and his understanding of ideology as inscribed in practices and materialized in institutions, which exploded the crude base-superstructure model of orthodox Marxism and its vision of ideology as simply false consciousness, all of which have
enriched Marxist theory, and which revolutionaries ignore at their peril. In contrast to orthodox Marxism which has equated the state with coercion, Gramsci's insistence that the state incorporates both political and civil society, and that class rule is instanciated both by domination
(coercion) and hegemony (leadership) allows us to better grasp the complex and crisscrossing strands that coalesce in capitalist class rule, especially in the phase of the real domination of capital and the epoch of state capitalism. For Gramsci, hegemony is the way in which a dominant
class installs its rule over society through the intermediary of ideology, establishing its intellectual and cultural leaders hip over other classes, and thereby reducing its dependence on coercion. Ideology, for Gramsci, is not mere false consciousness, but rather is the form in which humans
acquire consciousness, become subjects and act, constituting what he terms a "collective will". Moreover, for him, ideology is no mere superstructure, but has a material existence, is materialized in praxis. The state which rests on a combination of coercion and hegemony is what Gramsci
designates as an integral state. It seems to me, that one major weakness of the Gramscian concept of hegemony is that he does not seem to apply it to the control exercised over an antagonistic class. Thus, Gramsci asserts that one dominates, coerces, antagonistic classes, but leads only
allied classes. Gramsci's seeming exclusion of antagonistic classes from the ideological hegemony of the dominant class seems to me to be misplaced, especially in the epoch of state capitalism, when the capitalist class, the functionaries of capital, acquire hegemony, cultural and
intellectual leadership and control, not just of allied classes and strata (e.g. the middle classes, petty bourgeoisie, etc.), but also over broad strata of the antagonistic class, the working class itself. Indeed, such hegemony, though never total, and always subject to reversal (revolution), is
the veritable key to capitalist class rule in this epoch. One way in which this ideological hegemony of capital is established over broad strata of the population, including sectors of the working class, is by channeling the disatisfaction and discontent of the mass of the population with the
monstrous impact of capitalism upon their lives (subjection to the machine, reduction to the status of a "thing", at the point of production, insecurity and poverty as features of daily life, the overall social process of atomization and massification, etc.), away from any struggle to establish
a human Gemeinwesen, communism. Capitalist hegemony entails the ability to divert that very disatisfaction into the quest for a "pure community", based on hatred and rage directed not at capital, but at the Other, at alterity itself, at those marginal social groups which are designated a
danger to the life of the nation, and its population. One of the most dramatic effects of the inexorable penetration of the law of value into every pore of social life, and geographically across the face of the whole planet, has been the destruction of all primitive, organic, and pre-capitalist
communities. Capitalism, as Marx and Engels pointed out in the Communist Manifesto, shatters the bonds of immemorial custom and tradition, replacing them with its exchange mechanism and contract. While Marx and Engels stressed the positive features of this development in the
Manifesto, we cannot ignore its negative side, particularly in light of the fact that the path to a human Gemeinwesen has so far been successfully blocked by capital, with disastrous consequences for the human species. The negative side of that development includes the relentless
process of atomization, leaving in its wake an ever growing mass of rootless individuals, for whom the only human contact is by way of the cash nexus. Those who have been uprooted geographically, economically, politically, and culturally, are frequently left with a powerful longing for
their lost communities (even where those communities were hierarchically organized and based on inequality), for the certainties and "truths" of the past, which are idealized the more frustrating, unsatisfying, and insecure, the world of capital becomes. Such longings are most powerfully
felt within what Ernst Bloch has termed non-synchronous strata and classes. These are stata and classes whose material or mental conditions of life are linked to a past mode of production, who exist economically or culturally in the past, even as they chronologically dwell in the present.
In contrast to the two historic classes in the capitalist mode of production, the bourgeoisie and proletariat, which are synchronous, the products of the capitalist present, these non-synchronous strata include the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie, and -- by virtue of their mental or cultural
state -- youth and white-collar workers. In my view, Bloch's understanding of non-synchronicity needs to be extended to segments of the working class, in particular those strata of the blue-collar proletariat which are no longer materially synchronous with the high-tech production
process upon which late capitalism rests, and the mass of workers ejected from the production process by the rising organic composition of capital and its comcomitant down-sizing. In addition, the even greater mass of peasants streaming into the shanty towns around the great
commercial and industrial metropolitan centers of the world, are also characterized by their non-synchronicity, their inability to be incorporated into the hyper-modern cycle of capital accumulation. Moreover, all of these strata too are subject to a growing nostalgia for the past, a longing
for community, including the blue-collar communities and their institutional networks which were one of the features of the social landscape of capitalism earlier in the twentieth century. However, no matter how powerful this nostalgia for past community becomes, it cannot be
satisfied. The organic communities of the past cannot be recreated; their destruction by capital is irreversible. At the same time, the path to a future Gemeinwesen, to which the cultural material and longings embodied in the non-synchronous classes and strata can make a signal
contribution, according to Bloch, remains obstructed by the power of capital. So long as this is the case, the genuine longing for community of masses of people, and especially the nostalgia for past communities especially felt by the non-synchronous strata and classes, including the
newly non-synchronous elements which I have just argued must be added to them, leaves them exposed to the lure of a "pure community" ideologically constructed by capital itself. In place of real organic and communal bonds, in such an ideologically constructed pure community, a
racial, ethnic, or religious identification is merely superimposed on the existing condition of atomization in which the mass of the population finds itself. In addition to providing some gratification for the longing for community animating broad str ata of the population, such a pure
community can also provide an ideological bond which ties the bulk of the population to the capitalist state on the basis of a race, ethnicity, or religion which it shares with the ruling class. This latter is extremely important to capital, because the atomization which it has brought about
not only leaves the mass of humanity bereft, but also leaves the ruling class itself vulnerable because it lacks any basis upon which it can mobilize the population, physically or ideologically.The basis upon which such a pure community is constituted, race, nationality, religion, even a
categorization by "class" in the Stalinist world, necessarily means the exclusion of those categories of the population which do not conform to the criteria for inclusion, the embodiments of alterity, even while they inhabit the same geographical space as the members of the pure
community. Those excluded, the "races" on the other side of the biological continuum, to use Foucauldian terminology, the Other, become alien elements within an otherwise homogeneous world of the pure community. As a threat to its very existence, the role of this Other is to become
the scapegoat for the inability of the pure community to provide authentic communal bonds between people, for its abject failure to overcome the alienation that is a hallmark of a reified world. The Jew in Nazi Germany, the Kulak in Stalinist Russia, the Tutsi in Rwanda, Muslims in
Bosnia, blacks in the US, the Albanian or the Serb in Kosovo, the Arab in France, the Turk in contemporary Germany, the Bahai in Iran, for example, become the embodiment of alterity, and the target against which the hatred of the members of the pure community is directed. The more
crisis ridden a society becomes, the greater the need to find an appropriate scapegoat; the more urgent the need for mass mobilization behind the integral state, the more imp erious the need to focus rage against the Other. In an extreme situation of social crisis and political turmoil, the
demonization and victimization of the Other can lead to his (mass) murder. In the absence of a working class conscious of its historic task and possibilities, this hatred of alterity which permits capital to mobilize the population in defense of the pure community, can become its own
impetus to genocide. The immanent tendencies of the capitalist mode of production which propel it towards a catastrophic economic crisis, also drive it towards mass murder and genocide. In that sense, the death-world, and the prospect of an Endzeit cannot be separated from the
continued existence of humanity's subordination to the law of value. Reification, the overmanned world, bio-politics, state racism, the constitution of a pure community directed against alterity, each of them features of the economic and ideological topography of the real domination of
capital, create the possibility and the need for genocide. We should have no doubt that the survival of capitalism into this new millenium will entail more and more frequent recourse to mass murder.
 The drive to profit causes global warming
Bailey 14 [Ronald Bailey is the award-winning science correspondent for Reason magazine and Reason.com, where he writes a weekly science and technology column. Bailey is the author of the book The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first
Century (July 2015) and Liberation Biology: The Moral and Scientific Case for the Biotech Revolution (Prometheus, 2005), and his work was featured inThe Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004.] http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/10/the-origin-of-global-warming-lies-in-cap

Lima, PeruEvo Morales, the president of the Plurinational Republic of Bolivia, is a superstar politician
here at the 20th Conference of the Parties (COP-20) of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. The press gaggle follows him around like puppies and enthusiastically applauds his
unrelenting diatribes against rich industrialized countries. The headline is a quotation taken from
Morales response to being asked at a press conference if he was optimistic about the summit meeting
here in Lima? The deep causes of global warming are not being dealt with here. The origin of global
warming lies in capitalism, asserted Morales. If we could end capitalism then we would have a
solution.

Morales further observed, After thirty years of negotiations, global warming is still going on. He
added, So many people and countries do not act responsibly. They are only thinking about profits,
luxuries, and markets. They are not thinking about life, but only of money and how to accumulate more
capital.
 we can't fight climate change under capitalism
Alcorn 15 [Gay Alcorn is Melbourne editor, Guardian Australia. She has been a journalist for more than 20 years and is a three-times
Walkley award winner. She is a former editor of the Sunday Age and columnist for the Age]
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/03/tony-abbott-and-naomi-klein-agree-we-cant-beat-climate-change-under-
capitalism

The weird thing is that Klein and the prime minister, Tony Abbott, are in complete agreement on one fundamental thing: both believe that
seriously tackling climate change is incompatible with capitalism as we know it. Of course, Klein starts with that and
goes on to argue that our economic system must be upended if we are to have any chance to save the planet
from the worst impacts of climate change. Abbott makes clear that he will protect the way things are at almost any cost. Yet their starting point
is the same: you
can have perpetual economic growth, with all that goes with it, or you can have an approach to
climate change that treats it as the most serious issue the planet faces, but you cant have both. As the critical Paris climate
summit in December looms the last realistic chance for an international accord that could limit warming to 2C its that tension that seems to
lie at the heart of what we confront. It was Kleins book, This Changes Everything, that pushed the discussion out into the open. Not that its
accepted by everyone. There are many people arguing that it is still possible to contain global warming without making systemic change to
market capitalism. Yet even many of those agree that were running out of time. Abbott, in rhetoric and deed, has not embraced the
pro-market view of climate change. He mentions global warming grudgingly and rarely enthuses about the economic opportunities for a sun
soaked Australia. He appoints sceptics to key government positions. He has cut Australias renewable energy target, speaks of coal in
reverential terms and has done much to discourage visually awful wind farms. Climate change is to Abbott just another political problem to
be managed. Labors policies, he says with relish, would hit our economy with massive and unmanageable costs, massive increases in power
prices, massive increase in the hit on families cost of living. Klein understands people like Abbott. Global
warming threatens what
[capitalists]they hold most dear: free markets, limited government regulation and unending material progress. So it makes
sense, as Klein said on the ABCs Q&A this week, that the political right is often so resistant to climate change. The reason for that is that if the
science is true, then their world view collapses, she said. It may be true that Klein was anti-capitalist before she became concerned with
climate change, but her ideas have become central to this argument, the questions she raises impossible to ignore. She helped advise the
Vatican before Pope Francis extraordinary June encyclical, Laudato Si. It was imbued with ideas that Klein would recognise that unending
material progress had a disastrous and destructive side, especially for the poor. That what was needed was a radical transformation of how our
politics and our economy work.

Capitalism causes extinction the affs solution is the exact kind of

politics neolib wants us to engage in so the root cause to go
unquestioned. We must act now.
Farbod 15 ( Faramarz Farbod , PhD Candidate @ Rutgers, Prof @ Moravian College, Monthly Review, http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2015/farbod020615.html, 6-2)

capitalism is the 800-pound gorilla. The twin ecological and economic crises, militarism, the
Global

rise of the surveillance state, and a dysfunctional political system can all be traced to its normal
operations. We need a transformative politics from below that can challenge the fundamentals
of capitalism instead of today's politics that is content to treat its symptoms. The problems we
face are linked to each other and to the way a capitalist society operates. We must make an effort to
understand its real character. The fundamental question of our time is whether we can go
beyond a system that is ravaging the Earth and secure a future with dignity for life and respect
for the planet. What has capitalism done to us lately? The best science tells us that this is a do-or-die moment. We
are now in the midst of the 6th mass extinction in the planetary history with 150 to 200 species going extinct every
day, a pace 1,000 times greater than the 'natural' extinction rate.1 The Earth has been warming
rapidly since the 1970s with the 10 warmest years on record all occurring since 1998.2 The planet has already warmed by 0.85 degree Celsius since the industrial revolution 150 years ago. An increase of
2 Celsius is the limit of what the planet can take before major catastrophic consequences. Limiting global warming to 2C requires reducing global emissions by 6% per year. However, global carbon emissions

Capitalism has also led to explosive social inequalities. The global

from fossil fuels increased by about 1.5 times between 1990 and 2008.3

economic landscape is littered with rising concentration of wealth, debt, distress, and
immiseration caused by the austerity-pushing elites. Take the US. The richest 20 persons have as
much wealth as the bottom 150 million.4 Since 1973, the hourly wages of workers have lagged behind worker productivity rates by more than 800%.5 It now takes
the average family 47 years to make what a hedge fund manager makes in one hour.6 Just about a quarter of children under the age of 5 live in poverty.7 A majority of public school students are low-income.8 85%
of workers feel stress on the job.9 Soon the only thing left of the American Dream will be a culture of hustling to survive. Take the global society. The world's billionaires control $7 trillion, a sum 77 times the debt

owed by Greece to the European banks.10 The richest 80 possess more than the combined wealth of the bottom 50% of the global population (3.5 billion people).11 By 2016 the richest
1% will own a greater share of the global wealth than the rest of us combined.12 The top 200 global corporations
wield twice the economic power of the bottom 80% of the global population.13 Instead of a global society capitalism is creating a global

apartheid. What's the nature of the beast? Firstly, the "egotistical calculation" of commerce wins the day every time.
Capital seeks maximum profitability as a matter of first priority. Evermore "accumulation of capital" is the system's bill of health; it is
slowdowns or reversals that usher in crises and set off panic. Cancer-like hunger for endless growth is in the system's DNA and is

what has set it on a tragic collision course with Nature, a finite category. Secondly, capitalism treats human
labor as a cost. It therefore opposes labor capturing a fair share of the total economic value that it creates. Since labor stands for the majority and
capital for a tiny minority, it follows that classism and class warfare are built into its DNA, which
explains why the "middle class" is shrinking and its gains are never secure. Thirdly, private interests
determine massive investments and make key decisions at the point of production guided by maximization of

profits. That's why in the US the truck freight replaced the railroad freight, chemicals were used extensively in agriculture, public transport was gutted in favor of private cars, and big cars replaced small
ones. What should political action aim for today? The political class has no good ideas about how to

address the crises. One may even wonder whether it has a serious understanding of the system,
or at least of ways to ameliorate its consequences. The range of solutions offered tends to be of
a technical, legislative, or regulatory nature, promising at best temporary management of the
deepening crises. The trajectory of the system, at any rate, precludes a return to its post-WWII regulatory phase. It's left to us as a society to think
about what the real character of the system is, where we are going, and how we are going to
deal with the trajectory of the system -- and act accordingly. The critical task ahead is to build a transformative
politics capable of steering the system away from its destructive path. Given the system's DNA, such a politics
from below must include efforts to challenge the system's fundamentals, namely, its private
mode of decision-making about investments and about what and how to produce. Furthermore, it behooves us to heed the late environmentalist Barry Commoner's insistence on the
efficacy of a strategy of prevention over a failed one of control or capture of pollutants. At a lecture in 1991, Commoner remarked:"Environmental pollution is an incurable disease; it can only be prevented"; and

without democratic control of

he proceeded to refer to "a law," namely:"if you don't put a pollutant in the environment it won't be there." What is nearly certain now is that

wealth and social governance of the means of production, we will all be condemned to the labor of Sisyphus.
Only we won't have to suffer for all eternity, as the degradation of life-enhancing natural and
social systems will soon reach a point of no return.
Alternative
 The Alternative is to reject capitalism aka refusal to participate in the
system. a rejection of capitalism and a refusal to participate in its
policies can destroy the system.
Herod 2004 (James, Getting Free, http://jamesherod.info/?sec=book&id=1)
Herod different papers on conclusions on how you fight cap

-no band aid --- always reject it

-okay to work within cap to destroy inside out

It is time to try to describe, at first abstractly and later concretely, a strategy for destroying capitalism.
At its most basic, this strategy calls for pulling time, energy, and resources out of capitalist civilization
and putting them into building a new civilization. The image, then, is one of emptying out capitalist structures, hollowing
them out, by draining wealth, power, and meaning from them until there is nothing left but shells. This is
definitely an aggressive strategy. It requires great militancy and constitutes an attack on the existing order. The strategy clearly
recognizes that capitalism is the enemy and must be destroyed, but it is not a frontal attack aimed at
overthrowing the system; it is an inside attack aimed at gutting it, while simultaneously replacing it
with something better, something we want. Thus, capitalist structures (corporations, governments,
banks, schools, etc.) are not seized so much as simply abandoned. Capitalist relations are not fought so
much as they are simply rejected. We stop participating in activities that support (finance, condone)
the capitalist world and start participating in activities that build a new world while simultaneously
undermining the old. We create a new pattern of social relations alongside capitalist ones, and then continually build and strengthen
our new pattern while doing everything we can to weaken capitalist relations. In this way our new democratic, nonhierarchical,
noncommodified relations can eventually overwhelm the capitalist relations and force them out of existence. This is how it has to be done.
This is a plausible, realistic strategy. To think that we could create a whole new world of decent social
arrangements overnight, in the midst of a crisis, during a socalled revolution or the collapse of
capitalism, is foolhardy. Our new social world must grow within the old, and in opposition to it, until it
is strong enough to dismantle and abolish capitalist relations. Such a revolution will never happen
automatically, blindly, determinably, because of the inexorable materialist laws of history. It will
happen, and only happen, because we want it to, and because we know what were doing and how we
want to live, what obstacles have to be overcome before we can live that way, and how to distinguish
between our social patterns and theirs. But we must not think that the capitalist world can simply be
ignored, in a live-and-let-live attitude, while we try to build new lives elsewhere. (As mentioned
earlier, there is no elsewhere.) There is at least one thing, wage slavery, that we cant simply stop
participating in (but even here there are ways we can chip away at it). Capitalism must be explicitly
refused and replaced by something else. This constitutes war, but it is not a war in the traditional sense of armies and tanks; it is a war
fought on a daily basis, on the level of everyday life, by millions of people. It is a war nevertheless because the accumulators of capital will use coercion, brutality,
and murder, as they have always done in the past, to try to block any rejection of the system. They have always had to force compliance; they will not hesitate to
continue to do so. Still, there are many concrete ways that individuals, groups, and neighborhoods can gut capitalism, which I will enumerate shortly. We must
always keep in mind how we became slaves; then we can see more clearly how we can cease being slaves. We were forced into wage slavery because the ruling
class slowly, systematically, and brutally destroyed our ability to live autonomously. By driving us off the land, changing the property laws, dismantling community
rights, destroying our tools, imposing taxes, gutting our local markets, and so forth, we were forced onto the labor market in order to survive, our only remaining
option being to sell our ability to work for a wage. Its quite clear, then, how we can overthrow slavery: we must reverse this process. We must begin to reacquire
the ability to live without working for a wage or buying the products made by wage slaves (that is, we must free ourselves from the labor market and the way of
living based on it), and embed ourselves instead in cooperative labor and cooperatively produced goods. Another clarification is needed. This
strategy
does not call for reforming capitalism, for changing capitalism into something else. It calls for totally
replacing capitalism with a new civilization. This is an important distinction because capitalism has
proved impervious to reforms as a system. We can sometimes, in some places, win certain concessions from it (usually only
 we cannot reform it piecemeal.
temporary ones) and some (usually shortlived) improvements in our lives as its victims, but
Hence, our strategy of gutting and eventually destroying capitalism requires at a minimum a totalizing
image, an awareness that we are attacking an entire way of life and replacing it with another, and not
merely reforming one way of life into something else. Many people may not be accustomed to thinking
about entire systems and social orders, but everyone knows what a lifestyle is, or a way of life, and
that is the way we should approach it. The thing is this: in order for capitalism to be destroyed, millions and millions of people must be
dissatisfied with their way of life. They must want something else and see certain existing things as obstacles to getting what they want. It is not useful to think of
this as a new ideology. It is not merely a belief system that is needed, like a religion, or like marxism or anarchism. Rather it is a new prevailing vision, a dominant
desire, an overriding need. What must exist is a pressing desire to live a certain way and not to live another way. If this pressing desire were a desire to live free, to
be autonomous, to live in democratically controlled communities, to participate in the self-regulating activities of a mature people, then capitalism could be
destroyed. Otherwise, we are doomed to perpetual slavery and possibly even to extinction. The content of this vision is actually not new at all. The long-term goal
of communists, anarchists, and socialists has always been to restore community. Even the great peasant revolts of early capitalism sought to free people from
external authorities and restore autonomy to villages. Marx defined communism once as a free association of producers, and at another time as a situation in which
the free development of each is a condition for the free development of all. Anarchists have always called for worker and peasant selfmanaged cooperatives.

The long-term goals have always been clear: to abolish wage slavery, eradicate a social order
organized solely around the accumulation of capital for its own sake, and establish in its place a society
of free people who democratically and cooperatively self-determine the shape of their social world.
 The alternative is a crucial step to breaking down capitalism. A
constant intellectual attack on capitalism enables the paradigm shift
necessary to overthrow capitalism.
Joel Kovel Professor of Social Studies 2002 (Joel, Alger Hiss Professor of Social Studies at Bard
College, The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? pg 223-224) JXu

Revolutions become feasible when a people decides that their present social arrangements are
intolerable, when they believe that they can achieve a better alternative, and when the balance of forces
between them and that of the system is tipped in their favour. None of these conditions is close to being met at present for the ecosocialist
revolution, which would seem to make the exercise upon which we are about to embark academic. But the present is one thing, and the future
another.If the argument that capital is incorrigibly ecodestructive and expansive proves to be true, then
it is only a question of time before the issues raised here achieve explosive urgency. And considering what is
at stake and how rapidly events can change under such circumstances, it is most definitely high time to take up the question of ecosocialism as
a living process to consider what its vision of society may be and what kind of path there may be towards its achievement. The present
chapter is the most practical and yet also the most speculative of this work. Beaten down by the great defeats of Utopian and socialist ideals,
few today even bother to think about the kinds of society that could replace the present with one of ecological rationality, and most of that
speculation is within a green paradigm limited by an insufficient appreciation of the regime of capital and of the depths needed for real change.
Instead, Greens tend to imagine an orderly extension of community, accompanied by the use of instruments that have been specifically created
Such measures make transformative
to keep the present system going, such as parliamentary elections and various tax policies.
sense, however, only if seen as prefigurations of something more radical - something by definition not
immediately on the horizon. It will be our job here to begin the process of drawing in this not-yet-
seen. The only certainty is that the result will at most be a rough and schematic model of what actually might emerge. However uncertain the
end point, the first two steps on the path are clearly laid out, and are within the reach of every
conscientious person. These are that people ruthlessly criticize the capitalist system from top to
bottom, and that they include in this a consistent attack on the widespread belief that there can be
no alternative to it. If one believes that capital is not only basically unjust but radically unsustainable
as well, the prime obligation is to spread the news, just as one should feel obliged to tell the
inhabitants of a structurally unsound house doomed to collapse of what awaits them unless they take
drastic measures. To continue the analogy for the critique to matter it needs to be combined with an
attack on the false idea that we are, so to speak, trapped in this house, with no hope of fixing it or
getting out. The belief that there can be no alternative to capital is ubiquitous and no wonder, given
how wonderfully convenient the idea is to the ruling ideology. That, however, does not keep it from
being nonsense, and a failure of vision and political will. Whether or not the vision of ecosocialism offered here has merit,
the notion that there is no other way of organizing an advanced society other than capital does not follow. Nothing lasts forever, and what is
humanly made can theoretically be unmade. Of course it could be the case that the job of changing it is too hard and capital is as far as
humanity can go, in which instance we must simply accept our fate stoically and try to palliate the results. But we dont know this and cannot
know this. There is no proving it one way or the other, and only inertia, fear of change or opportunism can explain the belief in so shabby an
idea as that there can be no alternative to capital for organizing society. Logic alone neither persuades nor gives hope; something more solid
and material is required, a combination of the dawning insight of just how incapable capital is of resolving the crisis, along with some spark that
breaks through the crust of inert despair and cynicism by means of which we have adapted to the system. At some point it has to happen if
- the realization will dawn that all the sound ideas for, say, regulating the chemical
capital is the efficient cause
industries, or preserving forest ecosystems, or doing something serious about species-extinctions, or
global warming, or whatever point of ecosystemic disintegration is of concern, are not going to be
realized by appealing to local changes in themselves, or the Democratic Party, or the Environmental
Protection Agency or the courts, or the foundations, or ecophilosophies. or changes in consciousness
for the overriding reason that we are living under a regime that controls the state and the economy,
and will have to be overcome at its root if we are to save the future. Relentless criticism can
delegitimate the system and release people into struggle. And as struggle develops, victories that are
no more than incremental by their own terms stopping a meeting of the IMF, the hopes stirred forth by
a campaign such as Ralph Naders in 2000 can have a symbolic effect far greater than their external
result, and constitute points of rupture with capital. This rupture is not a set of facts added to our knowledge of the world,
but a change in our relation to the world. Its effects are dynamic, not incremental, and like all genuine insights it changes the balance of forces
and can propagate very swiftly Thus the release from inertia can trigger a rapid cascade of changes, so that it could be said that the forces
pressing towards radical change need not be linear and incremental, but can be exponential in character. In this way, conscientious and radical
criticism of the given, even in advance of having blueprints for an alternative, can be a material force, because it can seize the mind of the
masses of people. There is no greater responsibility for intellectuals. In what follows, there will be neither blueprints nor
omniscience, although I will be laying out certain hypothetical situations as a way of framing ideas. The overall task can be stated simply
enough: if an ecological mode of production is the goal, what sort of practical steps can be defined to get us there? What might an ecosocialist
society look like? How are the grand but abstract terms of basic change to be expressed as functions of lived life? And how can the path
towards an ecosocialism that is not sharply defined incorporate the goal towards which it moves?
ROB
 The role of the judge is to act as a critical educator combating
oppressionvoting for strategies to combat oppression in this round
makes us better activists in the future.
Giroux 13 (Henry, American scholar and cultural critic. One of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States, he is best known for his pioneering work in public
pedagogy, Public Intellectuals Against the Neoliberal University, 29 October 2013, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/19654-public-intellectuals-against-the-neoliberal-university)//ghs-
VA

Increasingly, as universities are shaped by an audit culture, the call to be objective and impartial, whatever one's intentions, can easily
echo what George Orwell called the official truth or the establishment point of view. Lacking a self-consciously
democratic political focus, teachers are often reduced, or reduce themselves, to the role of a technician or
functionary engaged in formalistic rituals, unconcerned with the disturbing and urgent problems that
confront the larger society or the consequences of one's pedagogical practices and research undertakings. Hiding
behind appeals to balance and objectivity, too many scholars refuse to recognize that being committed to
something does not cancel out what C. Wright Mills once called hard thinking. Teaching needs to be rigorous, self-reflective, and
committed not to the dead zone of instrumental rationality but to the practice of freedom, to a critical sensibility capable of advancing the parameters of
knowledge, addressing crucial social issues, and connecting private troubles and public issues. In opposition to the instrumental model of teaching, with its conceit of

political neutrality and its fetishization of measurement, I argue that academics should combine the mutually interdependent roles of

critical educator and active citizen. This requires finding ways to connect the practice of classroom teaching with important social problems and the operation of
power in the larger society while providing the conditions for students to view themselves as critical agents capable of making those who exercise authority and power answerable for their

actions.Higher education cannot be decoupled from what Jacques Derrida calls a democracy to come, that is, a democracy that must
always "be open to the possibility of being contested, of contesting itself, of criticizing and indefinitely improving itself."33 Within this project of possibility and

impossibility, critical pedagogy must be understood as a deliberately informed and purposeful political and moral
practice, as opposed to one that is either doctrinaire, instrumentalized or both. Moreover, a critical pedagogy
should also gain part of its momentum in higher education among students who will go back to the schools, churches,
synagogues and workplaces to produce new ideas, concepts and critical ways of understanding the world in which

young people and adults live. This is a notion of intellectual practice and responsibility that refuses the professional
neutrality and privileged isolation of the academy. It also affirms a broader vision of learning that links
knowledge to the power of self-definition and to the capacities of students to expand the scope of
democratic freedoms, particularly those that address the crisis of education, politics, and the social as part and parcel of the
crisis of democracy itself. In order for critical pedagogy, dialogue and thought to have real effects, they must advocate that all citizens, old and young, are equally entitled, if not equally
empowered, to shape the society in which they live. This is a commitment we heard articulated by the brave students who fought tuition hikes and the destruction of civil liberties and social
provisions in Quebec and to a lesser degree in the Occupy Wall Street movement. If educators are to function as public intellectuals, they need to listen to young people who are producing a
new language in order to talk about inequality and power relations, attempting to create alternative democratic public spaces, rethinking the very nature of politics, and asking serious
questions about what democracy is and why it no longer exists in many neoliberal societies. These young people who are protesting the 1% recognize that they have been written out of the

they are arguing for a collective future

discourses of justice, equality and democracy and are not only resisting how neoliberalism has made them expendable,

very different from the one that is on display in the current political and economic systems in which they
feel trapped. These brave youth are insisting that the relationship between knowledge and power can be emancipatory, that their histories and experiences matter, and that what
they say and do counts in their struggle to unlearn dominating privileges, productively reconstruct their relations with others, and transform, when necessary, the world around them.

The role of the ballot is to reject capitalism. Every refusal and act of
negativity can challenge capitalism.
Charlie Post, teaches sociology in New York City, is active in rank and file organizing in the American
Federation of Teachers and is a member of Solidarity, in 2002 (REVIEW OF EMPIRE,
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2002w24/msg00030.h_tm)-mikee
In this world, all those who are subject to the vicissitudes of capitalist production and reproduction-
whether they labor collectively in workplaces under the command of capital or are excluded from
social production through unemployment, forced migration and the like-are equally part of a new
revolutionary subject. According to Hardt and Negri 'the multitude has internalized the lack of place
and fixed time; it is mobile and flexible, and it conceives the future only as a totality of possibilities
that branch out in every direction.' (p. 380) Almost any act of 'negativity' - the refusal to work,
migration from one part of the world to another, confrontations with the police, strike action - are
equally powerful forms of resistance because 'the construction of Empire, and the globalization of
economic and cultural relationships, means that the virtual center of Empire can be attacked from any
point.' (p. 59)