Off

They dont specify what it means to legalize and the conditions of availability
Thats a voting issue because it lets 2ac clarification moot our offense, causes
surface level education, and turns solvency because the aff would be too vauge
Mark A. R. Kleiman and Aaron J. Saiger Spring 90
(*Lecturer in Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; **Consultant on Drug Policy Issues to the
RAND Corporation; A SYMPOSIUM ON DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION: DRUG LEGALIZATION: THE IMPORTANCE OF ASKING THE RIGHT
QUESTION, 18 Hofstra L. Rev. 527)

Legalization, like prohibition, does not name a unique strategy. Perhaps the most prominent
inadequacy of current legalization arguments is their failure to specify what is meant by
"legalization." Current drug policy provides an illustration of this diversity. Heroin and
marijuana are completely prohibited, n74 and cocaine can only be used in rigidly specified
medical contexts, not including any where the drug's psychoactive properties are exercised. n75 On the other hand, a wide
range of pain-killers, sleep-inducers, stimulants, tranquilizers and sedatives can be obtained with a doctor's prescription. n76
Alcohol is available for recreational use, but is subject to an array of controls including excise taxation, n77 limits on drinking ages,
n78 limits on TV and radio advertising, n79 and retail licensing. n80 Nicotine is subject to age minimums, warning label
requirements, n81 taxation, n82 and bans on smoking in some public places. n83 [*541] Drug legalization can
therefore be thought of as moving drugs along a spectrum of regulated statuses in the
direction of increased availability. However, while legalization advocates do not deny that
some sort of controls will be required, their proposals rarely address the question of how far
on the spectrum a given drug should be moved, or how to accomplish such a movement.
Instead, such details are dismissed as easily determined, or postponed as a problem requiring
future thought. n84 But the consequences of legalization depend almost entirely on the details
of the remaining regulatory regime. The price and conditions of the availability of a newly
legal drug will be more powerful in shaping its consumption than the fact that the drug is
"legal." Rules about advertising, place and time of sale, and availability to minors help
determine whether important aspects of the drug problem get better or worse. The amount
of regulatory apparatus required and the way in which it is organized and enforced will
determine how much budget reduction can be realized from dismantling current enforcement
efforts. n85 Moreover, currently illicit drugs, because they are so varied pharmacologically, would not all pose the same
range of the problems if they were to be made legally available for non-medical use. They would therefore require
different control regimes. These regimes might need to be as diverse as the drugs themselves.

OFF
Obama and dems will pull in republican votes for raising the minimum wage
its popular with voters and the senate will compromise and states wont
allow significant wage increases

Wisconsin State Journal, 9/8. (Raising minimum wage rate doable this year, Wisconsin State Journal, September 8, 2014.
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/story/opinion/editorials/2014/09/08/minimum-wage-obama-republicans/15306045/)
President Barack Obama suggested he was just telling the truth Monday in Milwaukee. The sky is blue today, he said at his Labor
Day rally. Wisconsin brats are delicious. The Milwaukee Brewers are in first place. And Republicans in Congress love to say no. Those are just the facts
of life. Obama was mostly right, though it did rain a little Monday, and the Brewers fell a game behind the St. Louis Cardinals in the National League
Central standings that night. More to the presidents point, the GOP has been voting against a lot of Democratic proposals including Obamas high-
profile push to raise the minimum wage. But to get this done, the Democrats need to give a little, too. So far, the Democrats in
Washington have refused to budge from their bill lifting the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour by 2016. The federal wage, which
Wisconsin mirrors, hasnt been raised in five years. So an increase is justified, given the improving economy. But going to $10.10 an hour
is too far, too fast for most Republicans and possibly for the economy, too. Rather than simply using the minimum wage as a campaign issue in the
fall elections, the Democrats should try to actually raise it by pulling in some Republican votes. Sen. Susan
Collins, R-Maine, has proposed a $9-per-hour federal minimum wage as a compromise in the
Senate. Collins alternative might actually pass, boosting pay for many of the nations lowest-
paid workers. That includes a lot of single mothers, who return just about any money they
earn to the economy. It also includes many young people who shop where they work, be it fast-food restaurants or retail shops.
America deserves a raise, Obama declared in Milwaukee on Monday. He said 13 states and the District of Columbia have
increased their minimum wages since he made his $10.10 proposal a year and a half ago. Those states have
enjoyed more job growth than the rest of the nation, he noted. What Obama didnt say is that a lot of those states havent gone
to $10.10 an hour, especially in the Midwest. Minnesota, for example, is raising its minimum hourly wage of $6 and $8 for
employees of small and large companies, respectively, to $7.75 and $9.50 over the next two years. Michigan is going from $8.15 an hour to $9.25 an
hour by 2018. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a handful of states will be at or above $10 an hour within a few years, under
current law. Yet those tend to be states dominated by Democrats. Republicans control the House of Representatives in Congress, and that
doesnt appear likely to change after the November elections. The GOP also is threatening to take back the Senate. Raising the
minimum wage is popular with voters, and some states are holding ballot initiatives this fall. That means
Republicans should be trying to find agreement, too. Elections are about contrasts and choices. But getting good things done is
most important. A higher minimum wage is doable this year if only our leaders could meet in the middle.
Congress is massively opposed thinks that it causes trafficking
Lagon 2008
(Prostitution: To Legalize Or Not Ambassador Mark P. Lagon is Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State and Director of the U.S.
Department of States Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons., http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2008/11/17/prostitution-
legalize-or-not#sthash.ErdT5plT.dpuf )kk
The United States Government believes that prostitution fuels sex trafficking based on solid empirical evidence. It estimates that
approximately 800,000 men, women, and children are trafficked each year across international borders. (This is not to mention
millions more who are trafficking victims who never cross borders.) Two-thirds of these victims are trafficked into commercial sexual
exploitation, making trafficking for prostitution the single biggest category of transnational human trafficking. So, following a
December 2002 policy decision, the U.S. Government opposes prostitution and any related activities, as contributing to the
phenomenon of trafficking in persons. U.S. policy is that these activities are inherently harmful and dehumanizing and should not be
regulated as a legitimate form of work for any human being. This view enjoys broad support from a range of those concerned about
human trafficking policy.

Raising the minimum wage solves poverty
Chapman & Ettlinger 2004
[Jeff Chapman and Michael Ettlinger, Economic Analysts for the Economic Policy Institute. 8/6/04. The Who and Why of Minimum
Wage: Raising the Wage Floor is an essential part of the strategy to support working families.
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/issuebrief201/ Accessed: 6/22/09]
Seven years of federal inaction have allowed rising inflation to eat away at the buying power of
the minimum wage. Moreover, the last three years have seen a slack labor market that has produced
stagnant wages and incomes. It is not surprising, therefore, to hear calls for restoration of the
value of the minimum wage, a crucial 65-year-old bulwark for decent wages. While federal efforts have repeatedly been
blocked since Congress last raised the minimum wage in 1996-97, the number of states with minimum wages set above the federal
level has risen from five in 1997 to 13 in 2004 (counting Washington, D.C.). Several other states, including New York, Minnesota,
Nevada, and Florida, are taking serious looks at raising their minimum as well. In the past, the most common arguments
against raising the minimum wage were that doing so would hurt the economy as a whole and harm
the employment prospects of low-wage workers. But as mounting economic evidence refutes those claims,
minimum wage opponents have been turning to another argumentnamely, that the minimum wage
doesn't actually help people in need and that increasing the minimum wage benefits the better-off rather than those with low
incomes. Those taking this position have called for increased government spending on social programs for
low-income workers as a preferable alternative.1 Is the minimum wage a poorly targeted anti-poverty tool that
mainly benefits the well-off and does little for those with low incomes? After all, although counter-intuitive, it is certainly possible
for the minimum wage to benefit the scion of a wealthy family living off trust funds at night but flipping burgers for minimum wage
by day. In reality, however, these cases are extremely rare. The minimum wage is an effective tool for targeting
families and households that rely heavily on low-wage work to maintain a decent standard of
living:

Thats the biggest impact probability and magnitude
Gilligan 96
[James, Professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, and a member of the
Academic Advisory Council of the National Campaign Against Youth Violence, Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and its Causes, p.
191-196]
The deadliest form of violence is poverty. You cannot work for one day with the violent people who fill our prisons and mental
hospitals for the criminally insane without being forcible and constantly reminded of the extreme poverty and discrimination that
characterizes their lives. Hearing about their lives, and about their families and friends, you are forced to recognize the truth in
Gandhis observation that the deadliest form of violence is poverty. Not a day goes by without realizing that trying to understand
them and their violent behavior in purely individual terms is impossible and wrong-headed. Any theory of violence, especially a
psychological theory, that evolves from the experience of men in maximum security prisons and hospitals for the criminally insane
must begin with the recognition that these institutions are only microcosms. They are not where the major violence in our society
takes place, and the perpetrators who fill them are far from being the main causes of most violent deaths. Any approach to a theory
of violence needs to begin with a look at the structural violence in this country. Focusing merely on those relatively few men who
commit what we define as murder could distract us from examining and learning from those structural causes of violent death that
are for more significant from a numerical or public health, or human, standpoint. By structural violence I mean the increased rates
of death, and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted with the relatively low death rates
experienced by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function
of class structure; and that structure itself is a product of societys collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the
collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting structural with behavioral violence, by which I mean
the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the
deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on. Structural violence differs from
behavior violence in at least three major respects. *The lethal effects of structural violence operate continuously, rather than
sporadically, whereas murders, suicides, executions, wars, and other forms of behavior violence occur one at a time. *Structural
violence operates more or less independently of individual acts; independent of individuals and groups (politicians, political parties,
voters) whose decisions may nevertheless have lethal consequences for others. *Structural violence is normally invisible, because it
may appear to have had other (natural or violent) causes. [CONTINUED] The finding that structural violence causes far more deaths
than behavioral violence does is not limited to this country. Kohler and Alcock attempted to arrive at the number of excess deaths
caused by socioeconomic inequities on a worldwide basis. Sweden was their model of the nation that had come closest to
eliminating structural violence. It had the least inequity in income and living standards, and the lowest discrepancies in death rates
and life expectancy; and the highest overall life expectancy of the world. When they compared the life expectancies of those living in
the other socioeconomic systems against Sweden, they found that 18 million deaths a year could be attributed to the structural
violence to which the citizens of all the other nations were being subjected. During the past decade, the discrepancies between the
rich and poor nations have increased dramatically and alarmingly. The 14 to 19 million deaths a year caused by structural violence
compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to
the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and
civilian deaths, including those by genocide or about eight million per year, 1939-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-66
(perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between
the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (232 million), it is clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues
year after year. In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be
killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, and
accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world.
Structural violence is also the main cause of behavioral violence on a socially and epidemiologically significant scale (from homicide
and suicide to war and genocide). The question as to which of the two forms of violence structural or behavioral is more
important, dangerous, or lethal is moot, for they are inextricably related to each other, as cause to effect.

OFF
Liberal inclusion their reliance on gender and discourse as the site of political
contestation is not an accidental instance of ignoring class. The demand arises
out of the crisis of liberalism such politics particularizes the oppressions of
capitalism to the point that the universal system is naturalized. Attaining
white, male bourgeoisse privilege becomes the bench-mark of success, re-
entrenching the foundation of the system.
Wendy Brown Aug 93
(Professor and genius, Wounded Attachments, POLITICAL THEORY)

Although this dtente between universal and particular within liberalism is potted with volatile conceits,
it is rather thoroughly unraveled by two features of late modernity, spurred by developments in what
Marx and Foucault, respectively, reveal as liberalism's companion powers: capitalism and disciplinarity. On one side, the
state loses even its guise of universality as it becomes ever more transparently invested in
particular economic interests, political ends, and social formations. This occurs as it shifts from a relatively minimalist
"night watchman" state to a heavily bureaucratized, managerial, fiscally complex, and highly interventionist welfare-warfare state, a
transmogrification occasioned by the combined imperatives of capital and the autoproliferating characteristics of bureaucracy.6 On
the other side, a range of economic and political forces increasingly disinter the liberal subject
from substantive nation-state identification: deterritorializing demo- graphic flows; disintegration from within and
invasion from without of family and community as (relatively) autonomous sites of social production and identification; consumer
capitalism's marketing discourse in which individual (and subindividual) desires are produced, commodified, and mo- bilized as
identities; and disciplinary productions of a fantastic array of behavior-based identities ranging from recovering alcoholic
professionals to unrepentant crack mothers. These disciplinary productions work to conjure and regulate
subjects through classificatory schemes, naming and normaliz- ing social behaviors as social positions. Operating
through what Foucault calls "an anatomy of detail," "disciplinary power" produces social identifies (available for
politicization because they are deployed for purposes of political regulation) that crosscut juridical identities based
on abstract right. Thus, for example, the welfare state's production of welfare subjects-themselves subdi- vided through the
socially regulated categories of motherhood, disability, race, age, and so forth-potentially produce political identity through these
categories, produce identities as these categories. In this story, the always imminent but increasingly politically
manifest failure of liberal universalism to be universal-the transparent fiction of state universality-
combines with the increasing individuation of social subjects through capitalist disinternments
and disciplinary productions. Together, they breed the emergence of politicized identity
rooted in disciplinary pro- ductions but oriented by liberal discourse toward protest against
exclusion from a discursive formation of universal justice. This production, however, is not linear or even but highly
contradictory: although the terms of liberalism are part of the ground of production of a politicized identity that reiterates yet
exceeds these terms, liberal discourse itself also continuously recolonizes political identity as
political interest-a conversion that recasts politicized identity's substantive and often
deconstructive cultural claims and critiques as generic claims of particularism endemic to
universalist political culture. Similarly, disciplinary power manages liberalism's production of
politicized subjectivity by neutralizing (re-depoliticizing) identity through normalizing
practices. As liberal discourse converts political identity into essentialized private interest, disciplinary power converts interest
into normativized social identity manageable by regulatory regimes. Thus disciplinary power politi- cally
neutralizes entitlement claims generated by liberal individuation, whereas liberalism
politically neutralizes rights claims generated by disciplinary identities. In addition to the formations of
identity that may be the complex effects of disciplinary and liberal modalities of power, I want to suggest one other historical strand
relevant to the production of politicized identity, this one hewn more specifically to recent developments in political culture.
Although sanguine to varying degrees about the phenomenon they are describing, many on the European and North American Left
have argued that identity politics emerges from the demise of class politics consequent to post-Fordism or pursuant to May 1968.
Without adjudicating the precise relationship between the breakup of class politics and the proliferation of other sites of political
identification, I want to refigure this claim by suggesting that what we have come to call identity politics is
partly dependent on the demise of a critique of capitalism and of bourgeois cultural and economic values. In
a reading that links the new identity claims to a certain relegitimation of capitalism, identity
politics concerned with race, sexuality, and gender will appear not as a supplement to class
politics, not as an expansion of Left categories of oppression and emancipation, not as an enriching
complexification of pro- gressive formulations of power and persons-all of which they also are- but as
tethered to a formulation of justice which, ironically, reinscribe s a bour- geois ideal as its
measure. If it is this ideal that signifies educational and vocational opportunity, upward
mobility, relative protection against arbitrary violence, and reward in proportion to effort, and
if it is this ideal against which many of the exclusions and privations of people of color, gays
and lesbians, and women are articulated, then the political purchase of contemporary
American identity politics would seem to be achieved in part through a certain discursive
renaturalization of capitalism that can be said to have marked progressive discourse since the 1970s. What this
suggests is that identity politics may be partly configured by a peculiarly shaped and peculiarly
disguised form of resentment- class resent- ment without class consciousness or class
analysis. This resentment is displaced onto discourses of injustice other than class but, like
all resent- ments, retains the real or imagined holdings of its reviled subject-in this case,
bourgeois male privileges-as objects of desire. From this perspective, it would appear that the
articulation of politicized identities through race, gender, and sexuality require, rather than
incidentally produce , a relatively limited identification through class. They necessarily
rather than incidentally abjure a critique of class power and class norms precisely because the
injuries suffered by these identities are measured by bourgeois norms of social acceptance,
legal protection, relative material comfort, and social indepen- dence. The problem is that
when not only economic stratification but other injuries to body and psyche enacted by
capitalism (alienation, cornmodifica- tion, exploitation, displacement, disintegration of sustaining, albeit contra- dictory, social
forms such as families and neighborhoods) are discursively normalized and thus depoliticized, other
markers of social difference may come to bear an inordinate weight. Absent an articulation
of capitalism in the political discourse of identity, the marked identity bears all the weight of
the sufferings produced by capitalism in addition to that bound to the explicitly politicized
marking.

Race and gender oppression along with relegation of reproduction to the
private sphere are not ahistorical products of sexism or patriarchy, but
historical productions of a classed society founded on surplus accumulation.
This shift from necessity to surplus solidified the pre-existing division of labor
and then sexed it to justify inequality.
Dana Cloud 4/19/3
(Prof. Comm at UT; Marxism and Oppression, Talk for Regional Socialist Conference)

In order to challenge oppression, it is important to know where it comes from. Historians,
archaeologists, and anthropologists tell us that in pre-class societies such as hunter-gatherer societies,
racism and sexism were unheard of. Because homosexuality was not an identifiable category
of such societies, discrimination on that basis did not occur either. In fact, it is clear that racism, sexism, and
homophobia have arisen in particular kinds of societies, namely class societies. Womens oppression
originated in the first class societies, while racism came into prominence in the early periods of capitalism when colonialism and
slavery drove the economic system. The prohibition against gays and lesbians is a relatively modern phenomenon. But what all
forms of oppression have in common is that they did not always exist and are not endemic to human nature. They were
created in the interest of ruling classes in society and continue to benefit the people at the top
of society, while dividing and conquering the rest of us so as to weaken the common fight
against the oppressors. The work of Marxs collaborator Friederich Engels onThe Origins of the Family, Private Property,
and the State in some respects reflects the Victorian times in which in was written. Engels moralizes about womens sexuality and
doesnt even include gay and lesbian liberation in his discussion of the oppressive family. However, anthropologists like the feminist
Rayna Reiter have confirmed his most important and central argument that it was in the first settled agricultural
societies that women became an oppressed class. In societies where for the first time people
could accumulate a surplus of food and other resources, it was possible for some people to
hoard wealth and control its distribution. The first governments or state structures formed to legitimate an
emerging ruling class. As settled communities grew in size and became more complex social organizations, and, most importantly,
as the surplus grew, the distribution of wealth became unequaland a small number of men
rose above the rest of the population in wealth and power. In the previous hunter-gatherer societies,
there had been a sexual division of labor, but one without a hierarchy of value. There was no
strict demarcation between the reproductive and productive spheres. All of that changed with
the development of private property in more settled communities. The earlier division of labor in which men did
the heavier work, hunting, and animal agriculture, became a system of differential control over resource
distribution. The new system required more field workers and sought to maximize womens
reproductive potential. Production shifted away from the household over time and women
became associated with the reproductive role, losing control over the production and
distribution of the necessities of life. It was not a matter of male sexism, but of economic
priorities of a developing class system. This is why Engels identifies womens oppression as
the first form of systematic class oppression in the world. Marxists since Engels have not
dismissed the oppression of women as secondary to other kinds of oppression and exploitation. To the
contrary, womens oppression has a primary place in Marxist analysis and is a key issue that
socialists organize around today. From this history we know that sexism did not always exist,
and that men do not have an inherent interest in oppressing women as domestic servants or sexual
slaves. Instead, womens oppression always has served a class hierarchy in society. In our
society divided by sexism, ideas about womens nature as domestic caretakers or irrational sexual beings justify
paying women lower wages compared to men, so that employers can pit workers against one
another in competition for the same work. Most women have always had to work outside the home to support
their families. Today, women around the world are exploited in sweatshops where their status as women allows bosses to pay them
very little, driving down the wages of both men and women. At the same time, capitalist society relies on ideas about
women to justify not providing very much in the way of social services that would help provide health
care, family leave, unemployment insurance, access to primary and higher education, and so forthall because these
things are supposed to happen in the private family, where women are responsible. This lack of social support
results in a lower quality of life for many men as well as women. Finally, contemporary ideologies that pit men
against women encourage us to fight each other rather than organizing together.


Specifically, capitalist exploitation explains the emergence of prostitution and
gendered dereliction
Pritchard 10
Jane, author. The sex work debate. International Socialism: A Quarterly Journal of Socialist Theory. Issue 125. 5 January 2010.
http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=618
The scale and nature of prostitution and sex work have been and are conditioned by the
poverty, polarisation and dislocation endemic to global capitalism. However, prostitution is not
just another dimension of exploitation, but has to be understood in the context of womens oppression.
Women have not always been oppressed. According to Frederick Engels womens oppression developed with
the emergence of private property and was later transformed by the rise of the bourgeois
family, which became the mechanism for transferring property from one generation to the next.18
Modern womens oppression was also shaped by the separation of the home from the
workplace during the industrial revolution and the resulting creation of a separate sphere of private life. Along with Engels,
Bebel argued that prostitution was the flip side of marriage and a necessary social
institution of bourgeois society.19 Prostitution played a specific role because sexual interest was removed from
the bourgeois family and assigned to prostitutes. Women within the family were expected to endure sex
as a means of procreating, whereas men were deemed to have desires that could only be
satiated outside the confines of the family. Some Victorian moralists justified the existence of prostitution on
this basis. As historian Leonore Davidoff has written: Defenders of prostitution saw it as a necessary
institution which acted as a giant sewer, drawing away the distasteful, but inevitable waste
products of male lustfulness, leaving the middle class household and middle class ladies
pure and unsullied.20 Alexandra Kollontai wrote that prostitution was the inevitable shadow of the official institution of
marriage designed to preserve the rights of private property and to guarantee property inheritance through a line of lawful
heirs.21 This attitude helps to explain why prostitution was morally condemned but tolerated and in some countries, such as
France, highly regulated by the state. Marxist accounts of the roots of womens oppression were
revived by some strands in the womens liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s. In its
early days the womens movement sought to challenge the economic exploitation of women
with campaigns against discrimination and for equal pay in the workplace. The movement
also campaigned for 24-hour childcare, equal access to education and jobs and the
extension of womens control over their own fertility through access to contraception and
abortion. Women challenged stereotypes about their appearance and the double
standards applied to their sexuality, which sanctioned mens sexual activity while
castigating women who exercised the same freedom. However, the gains made by the womens movement
were not sustained. One wing of the movement retreated into the politics of the personal and
substituted individual lifestyles for collective struggle while the other, the socialist-
feminists, harnessed themselves to the Labour Party. The result of this was to seriously
weaken the movements ability to challenge inequality in the workplace and womens
oppression in general. The demise of the womens movement, coupled with the increased
marketisation of sex, laid the way open for a resurgence in new forms of sexism, the so-
called ironic sexism which has led to the normalisation of lads mags, pornography and
lap dancing clubs. Today women participate more widely in the workforce than ever before, and although some gains
have been made, genuine equality is a long way off. Although the ideology of the nuclear family is
stronger than the reality, the family remains central to capitalism in terms of reproducing
labour and fulfilling welfare functions. The oppression of women and the continued
existence of the family are generated by the interests of capitalism which is best served by pushing
the burden of social welfare onto individual families. Women are left to cope with a post-feminist ideology
that tells them that they are equal and liberated, whereas the reality is one of unequal pay,
responsibility for childcare and sexist discrimination. Capitalism in the 21st century has
increased the objectification of women and the commodification of sex. Sex is used
everywhere, to sell everything. The social relationships that create the possibility of an
industry for sex are deeply rooted in the structures of capitalism itself. The dominance of
market competition over personal relationships creates a situation where human desires
are transformed into commodities which can be sold for a profit. In his early writings Marx described how,
in capitalist society: Each attempt to establish over the other an alien power, in the hope of thereby achieving satisfaction of his
own selfish needsbecomes the inventive and ever calculating slave of inhuman, refined, unnatural and imaginary appetites. He
places himself at the disposal of his neighbours most depraved fancies, panders to his needs, excites unhealthy appetites in
him, and pounces on every weakness, so that he can then demand the money for his labour of love.22 Today we have become
so used to a situation where all our human needs have been transformed into commodities that it seems almost natural. In their
rapacious search for new markets to exploit, capitalist organisations probe more and more deeply into
all aspects of our lives and in the process transform them further. Thus money can buy
anything, including the simulation of love, but on the other side of the coin, all our human
desires and abilities contract into a focus on consuming or what Marx called a sense of
having: Private property has made us so stupid and one-sided that an object is only ours when we have it, when it exists for
us as capital or when we directly possess, eat, drink, wear, inhabit it, etc, in short, when we use it.23 Our ability to
experience sexual pleasure is alienated from us and turned into a commodity which we
then desire to consume. But this process transforms sexual confidence and satisfaction into
goals which recede further and further from our reach. In her book Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and
The Rise of Raunch Culture, Ariel Levy shows how the growing commodification of sex and objectification
of womens bodies has become increasingly divorced and disconnected from sexual
pleasure and fulfilment.24 The sex industry now appears to be setting the agenda for numerous TV programmes,
which show how women are encouraged to seek personal happiness by being surgically,
cosmetically and sartorially tweaked into conforming to certain sexual stereotypes. In the US
breast augmentation rose by 700 percent between 1992 and 2004. In some South American countries this procedure is a
standard gift for a daughter at 18.25Increasingly, women are even prepared to undergo a vaginoplasty in which their vulva
and labia are surgically altered to make them look like those of porn stars in Playboy. There could be no more graphic example
of how women in particular are alienated from their bodies to such an extent that they are prepared to pay for someone to cut
and stitch them into a shape they are told will make them desirable to others. Sex is not immune from the conditions which
shape all aspects of our lives. All sexuality is shaped by the material conditions and social
priorities of the society we live in, but the open treatment of sex as a commodity to be sold
on the market is not just another aspect of that process. Sexuality is regarded as one of the last intimate
aspects of ourselves. Sex is a part of our human nature, an experience that can be fulfilling and a
central part of an individuals identity. As one economist put it: Prostitution is the classic
example of how commodification debases a gifts value and its giver, as it destroys the kind
of reciprocity required to realise human sexuality as a shared good and the mutual
recognition of each partners needs.26 Openness about sex and expectations of sexual
fulfilment were key demands of the womens liberation movement. However, the sexual
freedom fought for in the 1960s and 1970s has been distorted and repackaged as
commodities. The selling of sexuality to clients transforms the body into an object, a thing for someone else to use. All
aspirations to autonomy and personal satisfaction are brutally stripped away by commercial sex which degrades both women
and men and reinforces the most backward prejudices against women.

Capitalism causes inevitable crises, inequality, and dehumanization the
alternative is a class-based critique of the system pedagogical spaces are
crucial staging grounds only insofar as they refuse to particularize identity-
based antagonisms.
Peter McLaren and Valerie Scatamburlo-DAnnibale 4
(*Distinguished Fellow Critical Studies @ Chapman U and UCLA urban schooling prof; **Associate professor of Communication U
Windsor; Class Dismissed? Historical materialism and the politics of difference, Educational Philosophy and Theory Vol. 36, Issue
2, pg. 183-199)

For well over two decades we have witnessed the jubilant liberal and conservative pronouncements of the demise of socialism. Concomitantly, history's presumed failure to
defang existing capitalist relations has been read by many self-identified radicals as an advertisement for capitalism's inevitability. As a result, the chorus refrain
There Is No Alternative, sung by liberals and conservatives, has been buttressed by the symphony of post-
Marxist voices recommending that we give socialism a decent burial and move on. Within this context, to speak of the promise of Marx and socialism may appear
anachronistic, even nave, especially since the post-al intellectual vanguard has presumably demonstrated the folly of doing so. Yet we stubbornly believe that the chants of
T.I.N.A. must be combated for they offer as a fait accompli, something which progressive Leftists should refuse to accept namely the
triumph of capital ism and its political bedfellow neo-liberalism, which have worked together to naturalize suffering, undermine collective struggle, and
obliterate hope. We concur with Amin (1998), who claims that such chants must be defied and revealed as absurd and criminal, and who puts the challenge we face in no
uncertain terms: humanity may let itself be led by capitalism's logic to a fate of collective suicide or it may pave
the way for an alternative humanist project of global socialism. The grosteque conditions that inspired Marx to pen his
original critique of capitalism are present and flourishing. The inequalities of wealth and the gross imbalances of power that exist today are leading to
abuses that exceed those encountered in Marx's day (Greider, 1998, p. 39). Global capitalism has paved the way for the obscene concentration of
wealth in fewer and fewer hands and created a world increasingly divided between those who enjoy opulent affluence and those
who languish in dehumanizing conditions and economic misery. In every corner of the globe, we are witnessing social disintegration as revealed by a rise in
abject poverty and inequality. At the current historical juncture, the combined assets of the 225 richest people is roughly equal to the annual income of the poorest 47 percent
of the world's population, while the combined assets of the three richest people exceed the combined GDP of the 48 poorest nations (CCPA, 2002, p. 3). Approximately 2.8
billion peoplealmost half of the world's populationstruggle in desperation to live on less than two dollars a day (McQuaig, 2001, p. 27). As
many as 250 million children are wage slaves and there are over a billion workers who are either un- or under-employed. These are the
concrete realities of our timerealities that require a vigorous class analysis , an unrelenting critique of capitalism
and an oppositional politics capable of confronting what Ahmad (1998, p. 2) refers to as capitalist universality. They are realities that require
something more than that which is offered by the prophets of difference and post-Marxists who would have us relegate socialism to the scrapheap of history and mummify
Marxism along with Lenin's corpse. Never before has a Marxian analysis of capitalism and class rule been so desperately needed. That is not to say that everything Marx said or
anticipated has come true, for that is clearly not the case. Many critiques of Marx focus on his strategy for moving toward socialism, and with ample justification; nonetheless
Marx did provide us with fundamental insights into class society that have held true to this day.
Marx's enduring relevance lies in his indictment of capitalism which continues to wreak havoc in the lives of most. While capitalism's cheerleaders have attempted to hide its
sordid underbelly, Marx's description of capitalism as the sorcerer's dark power is even more apt in light of contemporary historical and economic conditions. Rather than
jettisoning Marx, decentering the role of capitalism, and discrediting class analysis, radical educators must continue to engage Marx's oeuvre and extrapolate from it that which
is useful pedagogically, theoretically, and , most importantly, politically in light of the challenges that confront us. The urgency which
animates Amin's call for a collective socialist vision necessitates, as we have argued, moving beyond the particularism
and liberal pluralism that informs the politics of difference. It also requires challenging the questionable
assumptions that have come to constitute the core of contemporary radical theory, pedagogy and politics.
In terms of effecting change, what is needed is a cogent understanding of the systemic nature of exploitation and oppression based on the precepts of a radical political
economy approach (outlined above) and one that incorporates Marx's notion of unity in difference in which people share widely common material interests. Such an
understanding extends far beyond the realm of theory, for the manner in which we choose to interpret and explore the social world, the concepts and
frameworks we use to express our sociopolitical understandings, are more than just abstract categories. They imply
intentions, organizational practices, and political agendas. Identifying class analysis as the basis for our
understandings and class struggle as the basis for political transformation implies something quite different than
constructing a sense of political agency around issues of race, ethnicity, gender , etc. Contrary to Shakespeare's assertion
that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, it should be clear that this is not the case in political matters. Rather, in politics the essence of the flower lies in the name
by which it is called (Bannerji, 2000, p. 41). The task for progressives today is to seize the moment and plant the seeds for a political agenda that is grounded in historical
possibilities and informed by a vision committed to overcoming exploitative conditions. These seeds, we would argue, must be derived from the tree of radical political
economy. For the vast majority of people todaypeople of all racial classifications or identities, all genders and sexual orientationsthe
common frame of reference arcing across difference, the concerns and aspirations that are most widely shared are those that are rooted in
the common experience of everyday life shaped and constrained by political economy (Reed, 2000, p. xxvii). While post-Marxist advocates of the politics of
difference suggest that such a stance is outdated, we would argue that the categories which they have employed to analyze the social are now losing their usefulness,
particularly in light of actual contemporary social movements. All over the globe, there are large anti-capitalist movements
afoot. In February 2002, chants of Another World Is Possible became the theme of protests in Porto Allegre. It seems that those people struggling in the streets havent read
about T.I.N.A., the end of grand narratives of emancipation, or the decentering of capitalism. It seems as though the struggle for basic survival and some semblance of human
dignity in the mean streets of the dystopian metropoles doesnt permit much time or opportunity to read the heady proclamations emanating from seminar rooms. As E. P.
Thompson (1978, p. 11) once remarked, sometimes experience walks in without knocking at the door, and announces deaths, crises of subsistence, trench warfare,
unemployment, inflation, genocide. This, of course, does not mean that socialism will inevitably come about, yet a sense of its nascent promise animates current social
movements. Indeed, noted historian Howard Zinn (2000, p. 20) recently pointed out that after years of single-issue organizing (i.e. the politics of
difference), the WTO and other anti-corporate capitalist protests signaled a turning point in the history of movements of recent decades, for it was the issue of class
that more than anything bound everyone together. History, to paraphrase Thompson (1978, p. 25) doesnt seem to be following Theory's script. Our
vision is informed by Marx's historical materialism and his revolutionary socialist humanism, which must not be conflated with liberal humanism. For left politics and pedagogy, a
socialist humanist vision remains crucial, whose fundamental features include the creative potential of people to challenge collectively the circumstances that they inherit. This
variant of humanism seeks to give expression to the pain, sorrow and degradation of the oppressed, those who labor under the ominous and ghastly cloak of globalized capital.
It calls for the transformation of those conditions that have prevented the bulk of humankind from fulfilling its potential. It vests its hope for change in the development of
critical consciousness and social agents who make history, although not always in conditions of their choosing. The political goal of socialist humanism is, however, not a resting
in difference but rather the emancipation of difference at the level of human mutuality and reciprocity. This would be a step forward for the discovery or creation of our real
differences which can only in the end be explored in reciprocal ways (Eagleton, 1996, p. 120). Above all else, the enduring relevance of a radical socialist
pedagogy and politics is the centrality it accords to the interrogation of capitalism. We can no longer afford to
remain indifferent to the horror and savagery committed by capitalist's barbaric machinations. We need to recognize that capitalist democracy is unrescuably contradictory in its
own self-constitution. Capitalism and democracy cannot be translated into one another without profound efforts at manufacturing empty idealism. Committed
Leftists must unrelentingly cultivate a democratic socialist vision that refuses to forget the wretched of the earth, the
children of the damned and the victims of the culture of silencea task which requires more than abstruse convolutions and striking ironic poses in the agnostic arena of
signifying practices. Leftists must illuminate the little shops of horror that lurk beneath globalizations shiny faade; they must challenge the true evils that are manifest in the
tentacles of global capitalism's reach. And, more than this, Leftists must search for the cracks in the edifice of globalized
capitalism and shine light on those fissures that give birth to alternatives. Socialism today, undoubtedly, runs against the
grain of received wisdom, but its vision of a vastly improved and freer arrangement of social relations beckons on the horizon. Its unwritten text is nascent in the present even as
it exists among the fragments of history and the shards of distant memories. Its potential remains untapped and its promise needs to be redeemed.

OFF
Text: The United States should legalize prostitution in worker-run occupational
cooperatives.
Sex Work is sanitized language that allows for people to ignore the violence
that happens in sex trade- Murphy 13
Meghan Murphy, writer and journalist, Vice, Dec. 12, 2013, Decriminalizing prostitution may not be the answer
Recent efforts to frame prostitution as sex work are strongly connected to this push to completely decriminalize the industry. And
while some might argue that the term prostitution is outdated and disrespects the women in trade (as Sarah Ratchford does in her
recent VICE article), according to some prostitution survivors and feminist organizations, the terms "sex work" and "sex worker" are
disrespectful and offensive for a myriad of other reasons. Sometimes framed as a politically correct approach, the language of
sex work and the discourse surrounding it has been adopted by some as a way to normalize
and sanitize the sex industrywhile apparently erasing the exploitative aspects that are
inherent to prostitution. Bridget Perrier is an Aboriginal woman who was prostituted on the
streets and in brothels across Canada from the age of 12. She managed to exit the trade and is now co-founder and
First Nations educator atSextrade 101, a survivor-led, abolitionist organization out of Toronto. To me the terms sex
work and sex worker are both very offensive because of my own experience as a sexually
exploited child, she told me over email. When I spoke with author and prostitution survivor, Rachel
Moran, she told me she hated those more politically correct terms because they were lies.
They are deliberately constructed in order to conceal a truth that I was living every day, she
told me. I hated what I was doing. I hated every moment of it. But I absolutely despised lying
about it.

Case
Human trafficking efforts are working now recent data proves.
Campbell, Deputy Assistant Director, Criminal Investigative Division Federal Bureau of Investigation, 13 *Joseph, Combating
Human Trafficking, 9-23-13, FBI, http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/combating-human-trafficking, RSR]
The Departments prosecution efforts are led by two specialized unitsthe Civil Rights Divisions Human Trafficking Prosecution
Unit, and the Criminal Divisions Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, which provide subject matter expertise and partner with
our 94 United States Attorneys Offices (USAOs) on prosecutions nationwide. The Civil Rights Division, through its Criminal Section
Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit (HTPU), in collaboration with USAOs nationwide, has principal responsibility for prosecuting
forced labor and sex trafficking of adults by force, fraud, and coercion, while CEOS provides expertise in child exploitation crimes,
including child sex trafficking, and works in collaboration with USAOs to investigate and prosecute cases arising under federal
statutes prohibiting the commercial sexual exploitation of children and the extraterritorial sexual abuse of children. Taken
together, USAOs, HTPU, and CEOS initiated a total of 128 federal human trafficking
prosecutions in FY 2012, charging 200 defendants . Of these, 162 defendants engaged
predominately in sex trafficking and 38 engaged predominantly in labor trafficking, although
several defendants engaged in both. In FY 2012, the Civil Rights Division, in coordination with USAOs, initiated 55
prosecutions involving forced labor and sex trafficking of adults by force, fraud, or coercion. Of these, 34 were predominantly sex
trafficking and 21 were predominantly labor trafficking; several cases involved both. In FY 2012, CEOS, in coordination with USAOs,
initiated 18 prosecutions involving the sex trafficking of children and child sex tourism. During FY 2012, the Department
convicted a total of 138 traffickers in cases involving forced labor, sex trafficking of adults,
and sex trafficking of children. Of these, 105 predominantly involved sex trafficking and 33 predominantly involved labor
trafficking, although some cases involved both. The average prison sentence imposed for federal trafficking crimes during FY 2012
was nine years, and terms imposed ranged from probation to life imprisonment. During the reporting period, federal prosecutors
secured life sentences against both sex and labor traffickers in four cases, including a sentence of life plus 20 years, the longest
sentence ever imposed in a labor trafficking case. Civil Rights Division Since the Department created the HTPU within the Criminal
Section of the Civil Rights Division in January 2007, HTPU has played a significant role in coordinating the Departments human
trafficking prosecution programs. HTPUs mission is to focus the Civil Rights Divisions human trafficking expertise and expand its
anti-trafficking enforcement program to increase human trafficking investigations and prosecutions throughout the nation. HTPU
works to enhance the Department's investigation and prosecution of significant human trafficking cases, particularly novel, complex,
multi-jurisdictional, and multi-agency cases and those involving transnational organized crime and financial crimes. Consistent with
increases in trafficking caseloads across the Department, in the past four fiscal years, from 2009 through 2012, the Civil Rights
Division and USAOs have brought 94 labor trafficking cases, compared to 43 such cases over the previous four years, an increase of
over 118 percent. This is in addition to the substantial increase in the number of adult sex
trafficking cases prosecuted by the Civil Rights Division and USAOs. The HTPU, the Executive Office for
U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), and multiple USAOs have continued to lead the six anti-trafficking coordination teams (ACTeams) in
collaboration with the FBI, DHS, and the Department of Labor. Following a competitive, nation-wide selection process, six pilot
ACTeams were launched in July 2011 in Los Angeles, California; El Paso, Texas; Kansas City, Missouri; Atlanta, Georgia; Miami,
Florida; and Memphis, Tennessee. Since that time, the ACTeams, through enhanced coordination among federal prosecutors and
multiple federal investigative agencies, have developed significant human trafficking investigations and prosecutions, including the
first multi-district, multi-defendant combined sex trafficking and forced labor case in the Western District of Texas; the first domestic
servitude prosecution in the Western District of Missouri; and the first Eastern European forced labor case initiated in the Northern
District of Georgia, in addition to numerous other significant investigations and prosecutions. Of particular interest to this
committee, the Department and DHS have collaborated with Mexican law enforcement
counterparts on the U.S./Mexico Human Trafficking Bilateral Enforcement Initiative, which
has contributed significantly to restoring the rights and dignity of human trafficking victims
through outreach, interagency coordination, international collaboration, and capacity-
building. Through the Initiative, the United S tates and Mexico have worked as partners to bring
high-impact prosecutions under both U.S. and Mexican law to more effectively dismantle
human trafficking networks operating across the U.S.-Mexico border, prosecute human
traffickers, rescue human trafficking victims, and reunite victims with their families. Significant
bilateral cases have been prosecuted in Atlanta, Georgia; Miami, Florida; and New York, New York. To advance the interdisciplinary
initiative, the Department and DHS have participated in meetings in both the United States and Mexico to ensure that simultaneous
investigations and prosecutions enhance, rather than impede, each other. These efforts have already resulted in
three cross-border collaborative prosecutions, involving defendants who have been sentenced
in Mexico and the United States to terms of imprisonment of up to 37.5 years, and resulting in
the vindication of the rights of dozens of sex trafficking victims. Outreach and training continue to be a
large part of the Departments efforts to combat human trafficking. HTPU attorneys presented numerous in-person trainings as part
of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's State and Local Law Enforcement Training Symposiums. CRT, FBI, and other
Department components joined with the Department of State to create an Advanced Human Trafficking Investigator course at the
FBI Training Academy in Quantico, Virginia for Central American law enforcement officers. The program has trained investigators
from El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Panama. The Department, DHS, and DOL collaborated to develop and deliver the
Advanced Human Trafficking Training Program to the ACTeams, bringing federal agents and federal prosecutors together for an
intensive skill-building and strategic planning to enhance their anti-trafficking enforcement efforts.
Legalizing prostitution results in a net increase of prostitution Netherlands
proves that it makes it harder to prosecute.
Raymond, professor at the University of Massachusetts, 3 *Janice, Ten Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution And a Legal
Response to the Demand for Prostitution, Journal of Trauma Practice, 2, 2003: pp. 315-332, RSR]
Legalized or decriminalized prostitution industries are one of the root causes of sex
trafficking. One argument for legalizing prostitution in the Netherlands was that legalization would help to end the exploitation
of desperate immigrant women who had been trafficked there for prostitution. However, one report found that 80% of
women in the brothels of the Netherlands were trafficked from other countries (Budapest Group,
1999)(1). In 1994, the International Organization of Migration (IOM) stated that in the Netherlands alone, nearly 70 % of trafficked
women were from CEEC *Central and Eastern European Countries+ (IOM, 1995, p. 4). The government of the Netherlands presents
itself as a champion of anti-trafficking policies and programs, yet it has removed every legal impediment to
pimping, procuring and brothels. In the year 2000, the Dutch Ministry of Justice argued in favor of a legal quota of
foreign sex workers, because the Dutch prostitution market demanded a variety of bodies (Dutting, 2001, p. 16). Also in 2000,
the Dutch government sought and received a judgment from the European Court recognizing prostitution as an economic activity,
thereby enabling women from the European Union and former Soviet bloc countries to obtain working permits as sex workers in
the Dutch sex industry if they could prove that they are self employed. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in
Europe report that traffickers use the work permits to bring foreign women into the Dutch
prostitution industry, masking the fact that women have been trafficked, by coaching them to
describe themselves as independent migrant sex workers (Personal Communication, Representative of the
International Human Rights Network, 1999). In the year since lifting the ban on brothels in the
Netherlands, eight Dutch victim support organizations reported an increase in the number of
victims of trafficking, and twelve victim support organization reported that the number of
victims from other countries has not diminished (Bureau NRM, 2002, p. 75). Forty-three of the 348 municipalities
(12%) in the Netherlands choose to follow a no-brothel policy, but the Minister of Justice has indicated that the complete banning of
prostitution within any municipality could conflict with the federally guaranteed right to free choice of work (Bureau NRM, 2002,
p.19). The first steps toward legalization of prostitution in Germany occurred in the 1980s. By
1993, it was widely recognized that 75% of the women in Germanys prostitution industry
were foreigners from Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay and other countries in South America
(Altink, 1993, p. 33). After the fall of the Berlin wall, 80% of the estimated 10,000 women trafficked into Germany were from Central
and Eastern Europe and CIS countries (IOM. 1998a , p. 17). In 2002, prostitution in Germany was established as
a legitimate job after years of being legalized in tolerance zones. Promotion of prostitution,
pimping and brothels are now legal in Germany. The sheer volume of foreign women in the
German prostitution industry suggests that these women were trafficked into Germany, a
process euphemistically described as facilitated migration. It is almost impossible for poor women to
facilitate their own migration, underwrite the costs of travel and travel documents, and set themselves up in business without
intervention. In 1984, a Labor government in the Australian State of Victoria introduced legislation to legalize prostitution in
brothels. Subsequent Australian governments expanded legalization culminating in the Prostitution Control Act of 1994. Noting the
link between legalization of prostitution and trafficking in Australia, the US Department of State observed: Trafficking in East
Asian women for the sex trade is a growing problemlax laws including legalized
prostitution in parts of the country make [anti-trafficking] enforcement difficult at the
working level (U.S. Department of State, 2000, p. 6F).
Complexity theory mis-represents linear prediction human beings are logical
actors that continually make reliable predictions based on empiricism
Chernoff 9
(Fred, Prof. IR and Dir. IR Colgate U., European Journal of International Relations, Conventionalism as an Adequate Basis for
Policy-Relevant IR Theory, 15:1, Sage)
For these and other reasons, many social theorists and social scientists have come to the conclusion that prediction is
impossible. Well-known IR reflexivists like Rick Ashley, Robert Cox, Rob Walker and Alex Wendt have attacked naturalism by
emphasizing the interpretive nature of social theory. Ashley is explicit in his critique of prediction, as is Cox, who says quite
simply, It is impossible to predict the future (Ashley, 1986: 283; Cox, 1987: 139, cf. also 1987: 393). More recently, Heikki
Patomki has argued that qualitative changes and emergence are possible, but predictions are not defective and that the
latter two presuppose an unjustifiably narrow notion of prediction.14 A determined prediction sceptic may continue to hold
that there is too great a degree of complexity of social relationships (which comprise open systems) to allow
any prediction whatsoever. Two very simple examples may circumscribe and help to refute a radical variety of scepticism. First,
we all make reliable social predictions and do so with great frequency. We can predict with high
probability that a spouse, child or parent will react to certain well-known stimuli that we might supply, based on extensive past
experience. More to the point of IR prediction scepticism, we can imagine a young child in the UK who (perhaps at the
cinema) (1) picks up a bit of 19th-century British imperial lore thus gaining a sense of the power of the crown, without knowing
anything of current balances of power, (2) hears some stories about the USUK invasion of Iraq in the context of the aim of
advancing democracy, and (3) hears a bit about communist China and democratic Taiwan. Although the specific term
preventative strike might not enter into her lexicon, it is possible to imagine the child, whose knowledge is thus limited,
thinking that if democratic Taiwan were threatened by China, the UK would (possibly or probably) launch a strike on China to
protect it, much as the UK had done to help democracy in Iraq. In contrast to the child, readers of this journal and scholars who
study the world more thoroughly have factual information (e.g. about the relative military and economic capabilities of the UK
and China) and hold some cause-and-effect principles (such as that states do not usually initiate actions that leaders understand
will have an extremely high probability of undercutting their power with almost no chances of success). Anyone who has
adequate knowledge of world politics would predict that the UK will not launch a preventive attack against China. In the real
world, China knows that for the next decade and well beyond the UK will not intervene militarily in its affairs. While Chinese
leaders have to plan for many likely and even a few somewhat unlikely future possibilities, they do not have to plan for
various implausible contingencies: they do not have to structure forces geared to defend against specifically UK forces and do
not have to conduct diplomacy with the UK in a way that would be required if such an attack were a real possibility. Any
rational decision-maker in China may use some cause-and-effect (probabilistic) principles along with knowledge of
specific facts relating to the Sino-British relationship to predict (P2) that the UK will not land its forces on Chinese territory
even in the event of a war over Taiwan (that is, the probability is very close to zero). The statement P2 qualifies as a prediction
based on DEF above and counts as knowledge for Chinese political and military decision-makers. A Chinese diplomat or military
planner who would deny that theory-based prediction would have no basis to rule out extremely implausible predictions like P2
and would thus have to prepare for such unlikely contingencies as UK action against China. A reflexivist theorist sceptical of
prediction in IR might argue that the China example distorts the notion by using a trivial prediction and treating it as a
meaningful one. But the critics temptation to dismiss its value stems precisely from the fact that it is so obviously true .
The value to China of knowing that the UK is not a military threat is significant. The fact that, under current conditions, any
plausible cause-and-effect understanding of IR that one might adopt would yield P2, that the UK will not attack China, does not
diminish the value to China of knowing the UK does not pose a military threat. A critic might also argue that DEF and the China
example allow non-scientific claims to count as predictions. But we note that while physics and chemistry offer precise point
predictions, other natural sciences, such as seismology, genetics or meteorology, produce predictions that are often much less
specific; that is, they describe the predicted events in broader time frame and typically in probabilistic terms. We often find
predictions about the probability, for example, of a seismic event in the form some time in the next three years rather than
two years from next Monday at 11:17 am. DEF includes approximate and probabilistic propositions as predictions and is thus
able to catagorize as a prediction the former sort of statement, which is of a type that is often of great value to policy-makers.
With the help of these non-point predictions coming from the natural and the social sciences, leaders are able to choose the
courses of action (e.g. more stringent earthquake-safety building codes, or procuring an additional carrier battle group) that are
most likely to accomplish the leaders desired ends. So while point predictions are not what political leaders require in
most decision-making situations, critics of IR predictiveness often attack the predictive capacity of IR theory for its inability to
deliver them. The critics thus commit the straw man fallacy by requiring a sort of prediction in IR (1) that few, if any,
theorists claim to be able to offer, (2) that are not required by policy-makers for theory-based predictions to be valuable, and
(3) that are not possible even in some natural sciences.15 The range of theorists included in reflexivists here is very wide and it
is possible to dissent from some of the general descriptions. From the point of view of the central argument of this article, there
are two important features that should be rendered accurately. One is that reflexivists reject explanationprediction symmetry,
which allows them to pursue causal (or constitutive) explanation without any commitment to prediction. The second is that
almost all share clear opposition to predictive social science.16 The reflexivist commitment to both of these conclusions should
be evident from the foregoing discussion.
Solvency
The law has forced prostitutes into a non-citizen category where violence is
inevitablelegalizing prostitution reinforces the binary between the citizen and
non-citizen
Sanchez 98
Lisa E., author, essayist, recovering college professor, founder and editor-in-chief of Nomos Review, Ford Foundation Fellow,
received her Ph.D. from UC Irvine and taught college in New York, Chicago, and at the University of California at San Diego.
Boundaries of Legitimacy: Sex, Violence, Citizenship, and Community in a Local Sexual Economy. American Bar Foundation. Pp 548-
550.
As Gramsci suggested, the laws hegemony operates not strictly by force, but by eliciting consent (1971). By declaring a universal
equality while excluding some individuals from its purview, modem law creates dis- cursive and spatial boundaries between the
citizen and noncitizen, the legitimate and illegitimate, the lawful and lawless, and it situates people on one side of
that boundary or the other. Mirroring Hobbess war of all against all (*1668+ 1994), modem law constructs an unprotected
realm for the noncitizen where violence and inequality flourish (Macpherson 1962). By freezing identities in place and time, the
law binds people to mutually exclusive categories of citizenship. Those who are constructed as outlaws or noncitizens are
compelled to avoid the laws knowledge and discovery or disavow their identity and its consequences. Whether a person
internalizes or disavows her legal identity, the law disempowers those whose citizenship is contested by forcing them to channel
their energy into re- sisting, transforming, or masking their identity. The more subtle but equally important point is that those
who have access to a sanctioned-identity cate- gory are also tied to their identity because their rights and privileges are
contingent upon their status as lawful citizens. However tacit or subconscious peoples knowledge of their own privilege, they
reinscribe privilege by affirming their identities as citizens in daily practice. Thus, the laws power inheres in its capacity to
produce legal subjects and to discipline the very subjects it creates (Foucault 1979, 1980, 1983, 1991; Goodrich 1987; Simon
1988; Hunt 1993; Biolsi 1995; Perry 1995; Collier et al. 1995; Henry and Milovanovic 1996). Laws role in eliciting and confirming
peoples identities stems from the constitution of the modem individual as proprietor of his/her own person and capacity.
Similarly, the law confers citizenship through the ownership of property in the form of land and material goods. Early
prohibitions against trespassing, poaching, and vagrancy are outgrowths of this logic of property (Chambliss 1975). While the
evolution of property and land-use laws from the 17th century to the present day is often cited as a method of solidifying class
privilege, it is less often recognized as the seed of the newly emerging disciplinary techniques Foucault described as
governmentality ( 1991).1 The laws extension of private ownership into customary common spaces illustrates this modem
technique of power. Contemporary zoning laws and community policing strategies operate on these principles (Herbert 1996).
They allow the state to manage identities, bodies, and practices by prohibiting specific forms of visible conduct in some spaces
but not in others. Thus, the law draws on both aspects of possessive individualism- ownership of the body and ownership of
space-in creating boundaries of legitimacy. The placement and displacement of people inside or outside the law and the
organization of people in space as having (or lacking) a legitimate place to be highlight this problematic. Modern law categorizes
women in prostitution-prostitutes-by their sexual conduct and makes their involvement in prostitution the central component
of their identity. In constructing the prostitute identity and imposing that identity upon certain women, the law
simultaneously forecloses these womens access to full citizenship and withdraws its protec- tion. Prostitutes stand outside
the law. They are out of place in two senses of the word. First, as known prostitutes, they have no legitimate place in the
law. Second, the law displaces these women spatially. This displacement occurs not just through the criminalization of specific
acts of prostitution, but through laws that criminalize conduct prior to any actual sexual interactions (e.g., solicitation,
procurement, and loitering). In essence, these laws are like status offenses, making it illegal to be identified LLS a prostitute
and to occupy certain public spaces. They are effective visibility-management tools that make nomads out of women in
prostitution by requiring them to keep moving.
*Modified for gendered language
Legalizing prostitution inherently perpetuates patriarchyit normalizes the
subordination of womens bodies and increases violence against transsexual
and homosexual prostitutes
Sophia Gore 14
(Should sex work, be understood as legitimate work, and an expression of womens choice and agency (Jeffreys 2009: 316)?
GROUNDINGS Volume 7, April 2014 www.gla.ac.uk/groundings)
Miriam endorses this concept in her essay Stopping the Traffic in Women. She defines the nature of the contract as a disembodied
agency.12 She similarly claims that what is really sold in the prostitution contract is a relation of
command; the prostitute sells command over his or her body to the john/pimp/employer in exchange for
recompense.13 Prostitution is unique, for, especially in the case of low-end sex work,
prostitutes are expected to subordinate their will for the sexual gratification of the customers.
Thus, for these reasons it cannot be considered a transaction of legitimate agency. Since
prostitution remains a service overwhelmingly provided by women, who make up ninety per cent of the
prostitution labour force, 14 it seems fair to argue that such a practice instils patriarchy and subordination
over women in its most innate and intimate form. Jeffreys reiterates the argument highlighting the sordid
nature of the industry, removing it from its perhaps romanticised historical context as the world's oldest profession; her discourse
of intentionally uncomfortable and graphic language puts the vaginas and anuses *back as+ the raw materials of the industry. 15
She proclaims that womens experience of the world starts from the body, the only territory that
many women have, but not often under their control.16 Abolitionist feminists seek to expose the painful and
very real, physical impact prostitution has on the body and mind, to explain in overt ways why prostitution is an
exploitative, harmful and illegitimate form of labour. They recognise prostitution as,
effectively, a form of socially accepted sexual abuse, legitimised by the historical traditional of
mystifying (predominantly) womens bodies, and misconceiving sex as a legitimate, biological and desirable
right of all persons. In terms of instilling patriarchal values, radical feminists highlight the
inherently harmful and dominative nature of sex work, and the ways in which it affects
mens perception of women. Dworkin uses these reasons to justify why sex work is never
legitimate work. She claims prostitutes are: Perceived as, treated as vaginal slime When men use women in
prostitution, they are expressing a pure hatred for the female body It is a contempt so
deep... that a whole human life is reduced to a few sexual orifices, and he can do anything he
wants. 17 Although by no means all men perceive women in such ways, Dworkins radical feminist argument raises the
complications of perceiving sex work as a legitimate and traditional occupation. Supporting this argument, Sullivan discusses the
impact of legalising prostitution in Victoria, Australia. Sullivans report shows how despite
perceiving sex as legitimate work, the inherent violent nature of the industry has not
changed. Her case-work research interviewed legal prostitutes working in Victoria, and sought to evaluate
whether legalising prostitution had affected and changed the illicit dynamic of prostitution. Even within the supposedly optimum
and secure environments of legal brothels, her interviews confirmed that prostitutes, both men and women,
continue to be raped and traumatised while working: Attempts to treat prostitution
businesses as similar to other mainstream work-places actually obscure the intrinsic violence
of prostitution. This violence is entrenched in everyday work practices and the work
environment and results in ongoing physical and mental harm for women who must accept
that in a legal system such violence has been normalised as just part of the job.18 Furthermore,
since legalising prostitution, the number of men in Victoria who have admitted to paying for
sex has increased considerably. By legalising and legitimising sex work, one incidentally
normalises subjugation of sex workers, a profession which although is seeing an increase in male prostitution,
remains predominantly dominated by the male client - female prostitute relationship. One in six men admits to having paid for sex
work, whereas for women this figure remains negligible, even though prostitution has been legalised. 19 Nonetheless, such
exploitation and abuse has likewise been reported within male prostitution, particularly that
of transsexual or homosexual clientelism. Legalisation masks and entrenches these problems
rather than addressing them. Until the essence of harmful female domination is tackled,
prostitution will always and inherently be exploitative of the sex worker, and the practice
subsumes the overarching structures of patriarchy. It is in consideration of such perspective that I concur that
sex work, by its nature, cannot be considered legitimate work.

Intersectionality is bougie as shitjust like the solutions it produces
Mitchell 2013 (Eve, Marxist-Feminist badass, I Am a Woman and a Human: A Marxist-Feminist Critique of Intersectionality
Theory, http://unityandstruggle.org/2013/09/12/i-am-a-woman-and-a-human-a-marxist-feminist-critique-of-intersectionality-
theory/ JK)
Since identity politics, and therefore intersectionality theory, are a bourgeois politics, the possibilities for struggle are also bourgeois.
Identity politics reproduces the appearance of an alienated individual under capitalism and so struggle takes the form of equality
among groups at best, or individualized forms of struggle at worse. On the one hand, abstract sociological groups or individuals
struggle for an equal voice, equal representation, or equal resources. Many have experienced this in organizing spaces where
someone argues that there are not enough women of color, disabled individuals, trans*folks, etc., present for a campaign to move
forward. A contemporary example of this is the critique of Slut Walk for being too white and therefore a white supremacist or
socially invalid movement. Another example is groups and individuals who argue that all movements should be completely
subordinate to queer people of color leadership, regardless of how reactionary their politics are. Again, while intersectionality
theorists have rightly identified an objective problem, these divisions and antagonisms within the class must be address materially
through struggle. Simply reducing this struggle to mere quantity, equality of distribution, or representation, reinforces identity as a
static, naturalized category.

The empowerment narrative sanitizes the brutal reality faced by a majority of
prostitutes
Fitzgerald 13
Laura, leading socialist party organizer in Dublin. A socialist perspective on the sex industry & prostitution. Socialist Party. August
7
th
, 2013. http://socialistparty.ie/2013/08/a-socialist-perspective-on-the-sex-industry-a-prostitution/
Much of the lexicon around the debate in society regarding prostitution centres around choice. This is a relative term and
issue. First, there are those who have no choice at all, victims of sex trafficking make up only a very small minority of those
engaged in prostitution. Nonetheless, this happens and is part and parcel of the sex industry. It cant be extricated from it. Sex
trafficking has been described as modern day slavery and its a growing industry giving a real insight into the reactionary
nature of capitalism in the 21st century. I will give one anecdote to personalise this point, and illustrate just what it can mean for
some of the most oppressed and exploited human beings on the planet. In Lydia Cachos Slavery Inc: The Untold Story of
International Sex Trafficking, she travels the world, meeting with victims of trafficking. One such young woman Cacho meets,
aged 17, has survived her ordeal. Aged 12, she was sold by her uncle to a Chinese mafia gang in Cambodia and was enslaved
alongside other girls, mostly aged 7 to 10, to perform oral sex acts, or for a special price, to be stripped of her virginity. Clients
were mainly sex tourists; men from Korea, Japan, Europe and the US. When one girl tried to escape, she was killed and later,
unbeknownst to the other famished girls who had been denied food for over 24 hours, fed to them in a meal as a heinous and
deadly warning. This is the seedy, ugly, horrific underworld of the sex industry. Most of those engaged in prostitution exercise a
greater degree of choice than these girls did, but in the vast majority of cases, such a choice is within a truly restrictive, narrow
framework in a capitalist world in crisis rife with extreme poverty and degradation for the poorest and most oppressed section
of women in particular. In a Maya Angelou poem, she evokes with great pathos, the image of a poor black woman approaching
an abortion clinic, confounded by the lack of choices. Confounded by the lack of choices seems a useful way in which to
describe the scenario faced by most prostitutes. The fact that the majority of those working in indoor prostitution are migrants
is indicative of this, as poor women in the main, without the material means, language skills or visas to access decent jobs, the
illegal sex industry may afford them the only opportunity to practice economic migration. Belle de Jour backlash Media
promotion of the sanitised Belle de Jour image of a so-called high-class prostitute who is deeply empowered is an anathema to
the experiences of most prostitutes and bears no relation to their lives. The promotion of this vision of prostitution is part of a
backlash, minimising and even denying the continued existence of the oppression of women in society and consciously aiming to
sanitise a deeply sexist and exploitative industry. If there was no question of a power gap between men and women, if womens
oppression was no longer a factor in society, if it wasnt the case that we live in a world thats motivated by the quest for profits
with those in power willing to commodify all in this pursuit, including sex and womens bodies, then perhaps we could believe
the propaganda. Rachel Moran, Irish survivor of prostitution and author of Paid For: My Journey Through Prostitution has very
articulately challenged the myth of the happy hooker: The first step to being a happy hooker is, of course, consenting to be
one. Consent to prostitution is viewed as a one-dimensional thing; in reality, it is anything but I have never come across an
example of prostitution in any womans life that was not an attempt to get out of a situation, rather than to get into one. In
other words, the plethora of women I met over the years were attempting to remove themselves from financial problems; not
simply because theyd developed a penchant for expensive handbags. The assumption of choice leads to the conclusion of
consent, but choice and consent are erroneous concepts here. Their invalidity rests on the fact that a womans compliance in
prostitution is a response to circumstances beyond her control, and this produces an environment which prohibits even the
possibility of true consent. There is a difference between consent and reluctant submission.
Their individual choice arguments ignore the way patriarchy constructs
womens choicesthey still shapes social perceptions of women as sexual
objects
Sophia Gore 14
(Should sex work, be understood as legitimate work, and an expression of womens choice and agency (Jeffreys 2009: 316)?
GROUNDINGS Volume 7, April 2014 www.gla.ac.uk/groundings)
An alternative argument presented by Brison contests that sex work can ever be perceived as a choice,
on the grounds of societal construction. She develops the argument made by Hirschmann (2000), that
patriarchy and male domination havebeen instrumental in the social construction of
womens choices.29 She considers the effect pornography has on shaping mens attitudes towards women, and presents
the question that, regardless of the assumed free choice of adult film makers participating in the sex
industry, if their free choice hinders the freedoms of other women by shaping the
traditional view men have towards women, can that choice be deemed legitimate?30 By
choosing to work in the sex industry, the individual inadvertently perpetuates traditional
heteronormative patriarchal structures of society, indirectly shaping the social meaning of women.31 Brison
frames her argument by questioning whether pornography may make rape and other forms of harm towards girls and women more
likely. Adapting Brisons ideas from pornography, it seems possible to apply her reasoning when questioning the legitimacy of
choice in prostitution. Even if the woman or man in question independently chooses to work as a
prostitute, it is arguably inappropriate to support the choice of the individual. This argument rests on
the basis that their choice may indirectly harm other women or men by altering social perceptions of sex and, subsequently, shape
the role and expectations men have towards women, and vice versa. As discussed earlier, due to the dominance of male client -
female prostitute relationship, prostitution is therefore inherent to the preservation of traditional
patriarchal values. It encapsulates and perpetuates female subordination and incites
stigmatised sexualisation of all women within society.



Minimum wage outweighs the aff poverty is bigger than the impact of the
case and they are equally as probable. Vote for the best way to resolve the
most structural violence

A higher wage also just straight up turns the aff because the prositutues would
be able to make more and johns would be able to spend more.

Turns the aff key to womens empowerment
Dwyer 2014
(Minimum Wage Increase Is a Feminist Issue Paula Dwyer is a member of the Bloomberg View editorial board. )kk
Should the U.S. raise the federal minimum wage, now $7.25 an hour, to $10.10, as President Barack Obama proposed in this week's
State of the Union address? The answer depends on many things, including whether there are more efficient ways to help the
working poor. But any debate over whether to enhance a federal mandate should begin by understanding who would benefit. The
latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is very helpful in breaking down the demographics. It shows that about 3.6 million
people were paid at or below $7.25 an hour in 2012. One popular misconception is that most minimum-wage earners are relatively
well-off teenagers working part time in coffee shops and college book stores. But it isn't true. Teens make up only 24 percent of the
total, while those 25 and older comprise 49 percent. Another popular belief is that minimum-wage workers are mostly part-timers
looking to supplement the earnings of a spouse (read: wife) or other householder. Here, the data are partially supportive. Two-thirds
of minimum-wage earners hold part-time positions. And indeed they are mostly women. Females make up two-thirds of the part-
timers. But among low-paid women, more than half had never married and only 15 percent were married and living with their
spouses. Looking at the U.S. labor force overall, women are almost twice as likely as men to be paid at or below $7.25 an hour (6
percent versus 3.34 percent). White women make up the largest chunk (50 percent) followed by Hispanic women (11.9 percent) and
black women (9.9 percent). Here's another surprise: Minimum-wage earners aren't mostly high-school dropouts, not by a long
shot. More than 70 percent have at least a high-school diploma. More than 34 percent have had some college, and 8 percent have at
least a bachelor's degree. Get the picture? The composite of a minimum-wage earner is a woman who lives in the South, works part
time in fast-food or retail and has at least a high-school degree. Next time you walk into a McDonald's south of the Mason-Dixon,
wish her well.

No opposition in the squo - Republicans in both houses support raising the
federal minimum wage

Barry, 9/8. (Francis Barry writes editorials on politics and domestic policy. Democrats Can Lose Senate and Raise Minimum
Wage, Bloomberg View, September 8, 2014. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-08/democrats-can-lose-senate-
and-raise-minimum-wage)
On Election Day, voters in four states -- Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota -- will decide whether to raise their minimum wages above the
federal floor of $7.25 an hour. All four lean heavily Republican, yet early polling suggests the proposals are likely to pass. Currently, only five of the 24
states that voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 -- Alaska, Arizona, Missouri, Montana, and West Virginia -- have adopted minimum wages higher than the
federal level, compared with 21 of the 26 states that voted for President Barack Obama. If four more red states adopt higher minimum wages, there
will be as many as a dozen Republican senators (depending on the outcome of races in Alaska and Arkansas) who will
be able to vote for a modest increase without affecting small businesses in their home states.
They would join more than 100 Republican House members from states with minimum wages
above the federal level. Some of those House members have supported past minimum wage hikes
and might well do so again if the issue comes to the floor. The Arkansas ballot proposal, which
raises the minimum to $8.50 in 2017, has drawn support from the states leading Republicans. Another
Republican, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, has proposed federal legislation raising the minimum to $9 an hour, a level
President Obama had supported last year. Republican Senators in the four ballot initiative states along with Arkansas Democrat Mark
Pryor are unlikely to reverse their opposition to President Obamas call for a $10.10 minimum wage. All the state
ballot proposals involve multi-year increases that fall short of the $10.10 minimum supported by Obama. The Presidents call for such a substantial
increase by 2016, however, was always more of a campaign gambit than a legislative strategy; any bill with a chance of passing the House of
Representatives will have to be more modest. No matter what happens in the contest for control of the Senate, a yes vote on the four statewide
ballot initiatives would greatly improve the prospects of a federal minimum wage bill. However, if voters oppose a minimum wage hike in those states,
passing a bill in Congress becomes even more difficult.

Complex
Linearity might not be true but complexity isnt 100% true either our probability and magnitude model is sufficient
Sebastian L. V. Gorka et. al. Spring 12
(Director of the Homeland Defense Fellows Program at the College of International Security Affairs, National Defense University,
teaches Irregular Warfare and US National Security at NDU and Georgetown, et al.; The Complexity Trap,
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/Articles/2012spring/Gallagher_Geltzer_Gorka.pdf)

These competing views of Americas national security concerns indicate an important and distinctive characteristic of todays
global landscape: prioritization is simultaneously very difficult and very important for the United States. Each of these
threats and potential threatsal Qaeda, China, nuclear proliferation, climate change, global disease, and so oncan
conjure up a worstcase scenario that is immensely intimidating. Given the difficulty of combining
estimates of probabilities with the levels of risk associated with these threats, it is challenging to
establish priorities. Such choices and trade-offs are difficult, but not impossible. 30 In fact, they are the
stock-in-trade of the strategist and planner. If the United States is going to respond proactively
and effectively to todays international environment, prioritization is the key first stepand
precisely the opposite reaction to the complacency and undifferentiated fear that the notion of
unprecedented complexity encourages. Complexity suggests a maximization of flexibility and
minimization of commitment; but prioritization demands wise allotment of resources and
attention in a way that commits American power and effort most effectively and efficiently. Phrased differently,
complexity induces deciding not to decide; prioritization encourages deciding which
decisions matter most. Todays world of diverse threats characterized by uncertain probabilities
and unclear risks will overwhelm us if the specter of complexity seduces us into either paralysis or
paranoia. Some priorities need to be set if the United States is to find the resources to confront what threatens it most. 31
As Michael Doran recently argued in reference to the Arab Spring, the United States must train itself to see a large dune
as something more formidable than just endless grains of sand. 32 This is not to deny the
possibility of nonlinear phenomena, butterfly effects, self-organizing systems that exhibit
patterns in the absence of centralized authority, or emergent properties. 33 If anything, these
hallmarks of complexity theory remind strategists of the importance of revisiting key assumptions in light of new data and
allowing for tactical flexibility in case of unintended consequences. Sound strategy requires hard choices and commitments, but it
need not be inflexible. We can prioritize without being procrustean. But a model in which
everything is potentially relevant is a model in which nothing is.

Even if they win 100% of the K vote aff more productive for undergrads to learn a causal approach to socio-political phenomena
this card is long and youre gonna lose on it
D. Scott Bennett 12
(Department Head and Distinguished Professor of International Relations and IR Methodology; Teaching the Scientific Study
of International Politics, in Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin, Paul F. Diehl, and James D. Morrows Guide to the Scientific
Study of International Processes; Pp. 63-79)

The question of how we know what we know lies at the heart of epistemological inquiry in
the social sciences. The point of this chapter is to suggest that it is desirable to teach international politics scientifically, to
discuss some of the challenges of doing so, and to suggest some solutions and ideas for doing so effectively. I will discuss some of
the bene fits to students (particularly those studying international politics) from learning some of the core concepts of science as
part of their courses. I focus particular attention on how concepts and lessons learned about theory,
evidence, and assessment will help all students and not just those following careers where
methodological skills are heavily used. In fact, while I discuss particular methodologies and methodological tools
that we often think of as "scientific" (e.g., statistical analysis, game theory), I suggest that most core scientific concepts can be
taught and illustrated without having to teach such tools. I focus on the most common methods and topics that I have observed in
use in courses, and through discussions with colleagues, over nearly two decades. Within the Scientific Study of International
Politics (SSIP) section, most research tends to employ statistical, game-theoretic, or computational methods as primary
methodologies. In this essay I interpret the term "scientifically" somewhat more broadly than just the use of particular
methodologies. I focus on teaching scientifically to mean teaching which seeks to teach how to use evidence to support or disprove
some particular logical argument or hypothesis that reaches some level of generalization about relationships between concepts,
and which is reproducible. In this chapter, I will mention a variety of methods that might contribute to this
end, ranging from very high-tech statistical or computational analyses, to game-theoretic
methods that contribute to rigorous logical theorizing, to comparative case study work that
explicitly examines variation across cases to reach more general conclusions about patterns.
The keys are that valid and replicable evidence (rather than simply belief) is used to assess
the validity of relationships, and that conclusions are general enough that they reach beyond
one case. We are thus engaged in the systematic comparison of cases (data) to draw more
general knowledge. Thus the use of a single anecdote would not be scientific; while perhaps
very useful in teaching or critical as an illustration of a concept, a single anecdote does not
prove or disprove a general argument. Similarly, a historical account of one event may be
viewed as data, may be valuable for hypothesis development and insight, or may be
suggestive of some more general argument, but alone is only one piece of a scientific inquiry.
Multiple cases used in concert can be used to assess the generality of patterns, though, and
while the search for generalization requires comparison and assessment of multiple cases
and/or detailed tracing of events over time within cases, generalization does not necessarily
have to involve the use of statistical or quantitative methods. Defined generally as I have
done here, the scientific study of international politics can incorporate a variety of
approaches. Why is generalization or generalizability important? Fundamentally, in order for
students to be able to apply any lessons or arguments they have learned outside the
particular case(s) they read, the conclusions must be generalizable to some broader level.
Even interpreting a story in the newspaper in light of prior events, history, or broad concepts
requires that there be some transferability. If every historical event is completely unique,
with no common features or lessons that we can consider, then we are condemned to a
chaotic world in which we see politics and international interaction as subject to whims and
random behavior. Searching for regularities is a cognitive tools that human beings use; we
all compare events or cases, and seek (consciously or unconsciously) similarides between
events to organize the world we see and guide our behavior. Predicting future events, and
making choices based on expectations of consequences, requires that we believe that
regularities exist. When it comes to international politics, luckily, we believe that there are
many regularities to human, group, country, IGO, and NGO behavior. Our task as social
scientists is to discern those systematic regularities, and the limits to the regularities we
identify. "Regularity" does not require all behavior to be perfectiy predictable - the world is
not completely deterministic, and random components of behavior may make perfect
prediction or explanation impossible. We can be scientific even in the face of some
randomness. For instance, "random" behavior may be systematic in the sense of fitting into
particular stochastic distributions in the aggregate or over many trials. We can predict
probabilistically, suggesting that certain outcomes under certain conditions are more likely
than under other conditions, even if they are not certain. As with predicting dangerous
weather, we do not need a perfect understanding of the world in order to be scientific and to
make useful assessments. Even if we cannot understand everything, there will be at least
some areas where we can use evidence to demonstrate that particular generalizations,
repeated patterns, and regularities hold. In my discussion of how the scientific study of international politics can
help stu dents, I focus primarily on undergraduates, discussing graduate students more briefly There are certainly commonalities
in the concerns and issues that these two groups bring to the table, but in most colleges and universities relatively few
undergraduates will actually use scientific methods in advanced research. Rather, most
under graduates taking a typical introduction to international relations course will end up in
careers in other fields, and rarely be required to prepare (say) a paper with statistical analysis
or game theory in it. Partiy for this reason, when dealing with undergraduates it is often
useful to frame the discussion of SSIP in the context of policy assessment. This is because
judging current national policies is a critical part of what our undergraduates want, need,
and will do in the future. It is also something that people do all the time. Relatively few
students (proportionally of a national college audience) will progress to positions in government, think
tanks, or universities where they will actually be doing formal research about politics. Many
students will end up in careers in business, science, the arts, law, or medicine. All of these
students will be potential voters, however, and should be able to pick up a newspaper and
interpret world events, discuss international politics around the proverbial water cooler, and
assess national and international policy and leaders. Given a goal of what some would call
"civic education," a scientific approach to studying politics can aid in students' understanding
of the ideas of logic and evidence that should accompany assessment of national and
international policies. Turning out students who blindly support leaders or policies without
thought or evaluation is not something teachers should aspire to. Rather, showing students
that science and evidence can be used to assess policy immediately shows the relevance of
the concepts to students. For most students, I would argue that the first and most important
reason to think about a scientific approach when learning about international relations is to
ensure that students think about the evidence for assertions and claims that they hear or
read, and realize that claims about politics may be evaluated based on evidence. When a
leader argues for a policy, they are implicitly or explicitly asserting that this policy is better
than some alternative policy or policies. But why should we believe that? Some may take pro nouncements on
faith, or ideological allegiance. Others may not even realize that policies may be evaluated. But educated critics and
citizens do not need to simply accept pronouncements or justifications as fact, and we should
always teach students to be critical evaluators of leader behavior and choices. Part of
teaching students to understand politics and make good political decisions should be to teach
them to look for why leaders are suggesting policy actions, and evaluate whether the
recommended actions make sense in light of some (general) theory of politics and/or
behavior that the student or leader believes has been validated, or in light of relevant past evidence.
Students should be taught to ask about forecasts (formal or not) under alternative plans (the
status quo being one plan to consider), and about how a policy fits with past precedent.
Merely knowing that policies may be evaluated in this way is a key first step for some who may
assume that policies can only be discussed from a partisan or ideological position. This does not mean that we as
consumers of politics can only assess policies that have a track record (and hence
"evidence"), but rather that we should always seek to assess available evidence,
argumentation, assumptions, extrapolations, and counterfactuals when available rather than
take choices and policies as given. Closely related to simply asking what evidence there is, is
teaching students to address the breadth, depth, and quality of that evidence. Generally, a
scientific approach would suggest that the broader the base of evidence for some theory/relationship/ hypothesis/policy, the
more confident we can be that it is correct. A single anecdote offered in favor of a policy or hypothesis is
less strong than a systematically collected or sampled set of facts, cases, or data points.
Generalization, and by extension forecasting based on generalizations and patterns from the
past, requires that specific pieces of information (cases) have been combined and compared.
All other things equal, the more cases, comparisons, and data there are validating a
generalization, the better. Knowing how broad the evidence is behind an argument or policy,
and what the basis for inference was in the theory and forecasting behind a policy, is also
part of being a critical consumer and evaluator of politics and policy evaluation. Depth of evidence
may also make a difference even if we have a small set of cases, for instance if we contrast a set of connected hypotheses that are
all supported by a single high-quality case traced over time to a single hypotheses supported in a single regression on a standard
data set. Quality of evidence ties to concepts of replication and being explicit about indica tors.
If there is "a lot" of "evidence" but it is all vague or could not be reproduced/ replicated by
another researcher, then it is less valuable than more systematically-collected scientific
evidence. One way to phrase this informally is that the scientific approach is like detective
work - it seeks to follow reproducible steps that others (a jury) can follow, and brings to bear
multiple methods, indicators, and arguments to strengthen a claim that is fundamentally
based on evidence. Evidence may come in different forms and from many disparate sources.
But the more evidence , and the better its quality, the more convincing the support for a
generalization will be. Evidence is important in the context of evaluating competing
arguments or hypotheses. It is important to understand that there are alternative hypotheses about
what makes states or other actors do what they do, and understanding the evaluation of
these hypotheses is critical, as they may lead to different policy choices. For example, deter
rence vs. spiral hypotheses about likely paths to peace and war in the age of nuclear
deterrence, encouraging trade rather than democracy as a remedy to war, or focusing on
maintaining balances of power rather than empowering international institutions to keep the
peace, are simple examples of alternative arguments about theories and variables that have
obvious and direct policy implications. Certainly some alternative arguments may be more easily evaluated with
evidence than others. Rather than simply accepting that these competing explanations exist however, or that your party
affiliation must determine which explanation you believe, a scientific approach will suggest that on at least
some questions, assessment via evidence is possible. The scientific language of variables or
factors that influence behavior in the real world may also help students assess complicated
political situations that do not fall neatly into one theme, paradigm, or perspective.
Recognizing that leaders may have multiple incentives to increase national power, to
increase the odds of their election/selection, to satisfy domestic constituencies, to decrease
the risk of costly war - helps students see the push and pull of politics. Framed in scientific
terms, such influences or incentives may be seen as variables that influence politics (or which
at least are hypothesized to influence politics). Predicting what leaders or citizens will do,
which is critical to assessing the likely effects of national/international actions and policies,
depends in part on what variables we believe are important, and on the levels of those variables in different situations. Asking
students "what variables/ factors are at work here" is a useful way of breaking a complicated situation down into components.

K
RC: gender
No impact defense

Extend Cloud our theory of gender inequality has superior explanatory power
for the historical conditions that created womens relegation to the private
sphere pre-class societies may have had gendered divisions of labor, but they
were not hierarchal until the transition from necessity to surplus enabled some
to accumulate wealth at the expense of others and required more workers,
necessitating that women maximize their reproductive potential even if
womens oppression was one of the first classed oppressions, that does not
mean it is prior to class, or an ahistorical product separate from the evolution
of class

Extend Pritchard specifically explains the emergence of prostitution and the
nuclear family while women were expected to procreate and create new
workers, men were able to use their relative wealth to buy sexual pleasure
outside of the home the affs explanation of patriarchal exploitation are
retreats into the politics of the personal and substitutes individual lifestyle
changes for collective struggle whoopdeedoo, men can buy me now! Yay,
agency!

Alt solves the impacts
Alt is a pre-req to solve the impacts and outweighs the ones we dont Cloud
says understanding the material source of oppression is a pre-req to address its
proximate causes

(1) Violence is a product of competition it is a divide and conquer strategy in
the context of violence against sex workers is a product of capitalisms
competition for resources police have incentives to crack down in order to
meet quotas, and they perceive workers as worthy of such violence because
their industry is not legal and regulated
3) Dehumanization is inevitable within capitalism those making dollars per
week, those in FoxConn who cant even kill themselves are non-gendered forms
of dehumanization produced by their objective alienation from the means of
production
2NC: perm
First, they don't get a perm a perm is a test of competitiveness between
policy options that model doesn't make sense when the debate is between
amorphous philosophical positions because you can't really tie them down to
anything. They can always explain why in the abstract certain things they said
are compatible with Marxism but that just raises the question of why they
included the rest.

Praxis DA this is why you cant perm a method they strip all of the
conceptual theory that allows us to understand the world worse than the aff
or the alt alone. Perm will become like Occupy Wall Street it rejects capitalism
but doesnt have a praxis because the movement is fractured, so no one knows
what they are fighting for this is why it will never catch on.
Stephen Tumino 1
(Prof. English @ Pitt; What is Orthodox Marxism and Why it Matters Now More than Ever, Red Critique)

Orthodox Marxism has become a test-case of the "radical" today. Yet, what passes for orthodoxy on the leftwhether like Smith and Zizek they claim to support it,
or, like Butler and Rorty they want to "achieve our country" by excluding it from "U.S. Intellectual life" ("On Left Conservatism"), is a parody of orthodoxy which hybridizes
its central concepts and renders them into flexodox simulations. Yet, even in its very textuality, however, the orthodox is a resistance
to the flexodox. Contrary to the common-sensical view of "orthodox" as "traditional" or "conformist" "opinions," is its other meaning: ortho-doxy not as flexodox "hybridity," but as "original" "ideas." "Original,"
not in the sense of epistemic "event," "authorial" originality and so forth, but, as in chemistry, in its opposition to "para," "meta," "post" and other ludic hybridities: thus "ortho" as resistance to the annotations
that mystify the original ideas of Marxism and hybridize it for the "special interests" of various groups. The "original" ideas of Marxism are inseparable from their effect as "demystification" of ideologyfor
example the deployment of "class" that allows a demystification of daily life from the haze of consumption. Class is thus an "original idea" of Marxism in the sense
that it cuts through the hype of cultural agency under capitalism and reveals how culture and consumption are tied to labor, the
everyday determined by the workday: how the amount of time workers spend engaging in surplus-labor determines the amount of time they get for reproducing and cultivating their needs. Without
changing this division of labor social change is impossible. Orthodoxy is a rejection of the ideological annotations: hence, on the one hand,
the resistance to orthodoxy as "rigid" and "dogmatic" "determinism," and, on the other, its hybridization by the flexodox as the result of which it has become almost impossible today to read the original ideas of
Marxism, such as "exploitation"; "surplus-value"; "class"; "class antagonism"; "class struggle"; "revolution"; "science" (i.e., objective knowledge); "ideology" (as "false consciousness"). Yet, it is these
ideas alone that clarify the elemental truths through which theory ceases to be a gray activism of
tropes, desire and affect, and becomes, instead, a red, revolutionary guide to praxis for a new
society freed from exploitation and injustice. Marx's original scientific discovery was his labor theory of value. Marx's labor theory of value is an elemental truth of Orthodox Marxism that is rejected by
the flexodox left as the central dogmatism of a "totalitarian" Marxism. It is only Marx's labor theory of value, however, that exposes the mystification of the wages system that disguises exploitation as a "fair
exchange" between capital and labor and reveals the truth about this relation as one of exploitation. Only Orthodox Marxism explains how what the workers sell to the capitalist is not labor, a commodity like any
other whose price is determined by fluctuations in supply and demand, but their labor-powertheir ability to labor in a system which has systematically "freed" them from the means of production so they are
forced to work or starvewhose value is determined by the amount of time socially necessary to reproduce it daily. The value of labor-power is equivalent to the value of wages workers consume daily in the form
of commodities that keep them alive to be exploited tomorrow. Given the technical composition of production today this amount of time is a slight fraction of the workday the majority of which workers spend
producing surplus-value over and above their needs. The surplus-value is what is pocketed by the capitalists in the form of profit when the commodities are sold. Class is the antagonistic division thus established
between the exploited and their exploiters. Without Marx's labor theory of value one could only contest the after effects of this
outright theft of social labor-power rather than its cause lying in the private ownership of production. The flexodox rejection of the labor theory of value as the "dogmatic" core of a
totalitarian Marxism therefore is a not so subtle rejection of the principled defense of the (scientific) knowledge workers need for their emancipation from exploitation because only the labor
theory of value exposes the opportunism of knowledges (ideology) that occult this exploitation. Without the labor
theory of value socialism would only be a moral dogma that appeals to the sentiments of "fairness" and "equality" for a "just"
distribution of the social wealth that does the work of capital by naturalizing the exploitation of labor under capitalism giving it an acceptable "human face."

AND, even if they get a one, theres no net benefit you should evaluate the
links first as massive materialism DAs to de-centering class via the perm. Our
alternative presents a competing theory of racism the judge cannot
simultaneously accept both because that would be incoherent. If we win our
thesis that power is material then the permutation makes negative sense.

Footnoting DA class is logically and historically prior locating it among other
identities strips its concrete, socioeconomic nature.
Peter McLaren and Valerie Scatamburlo-DAnnibale 4
(*Distinguished Fellow Critical Studies @ Chapman U and UCLA urban schooling prof; **Associate professor of Communication U
Windsor; Class Dismissed? Historical materialism and the politics of difference, Educational Philosophy and Theory Vol. 36, Issue
2, pg. 183-199)

In stating this, we need to include an important caveat that differentiates our approach from those invoking the well-worn
race/class/gender triplet which can sound, to the uninitiated, both radical and vaguely Marxian.
It is not. Race, class and gender, while they invariably intersect and interact, are not co-primary.
This triplet approximates what the philosophers might call a category mistake. On the surface the triplet may be convincing
some people are oppressed because of their race, others as a result of their gender, yet others because of their classbut this is grossly
misleading for it is not that some individuals manifest certain characteristics known as class
which then results in their oppression; on the contrary, to be a member of a social class just is to be
oppressed and in this regard class is a wholly social category (Eagleton, 1998, p. 289). Furthermore, even though
class is usually invoked as part of the aforementioned and much vaunted triptych, it is usually gutted of its
practical, social dimension or treated solely as a cultural phenomenonas just another form
of difference. In these instances, class is transformed from an economic and, indeed, social category to an
exclusively cultural or discursive one or one in which class merely signifies a subject position. Class is
therefore cut off from the political economy of capitalism and class power severed from
exploitation and a power structure in which those who control collectively produced resources only do so because of the value
generated by those who do not (Hennessy & Ingraham, 1997, p. 2). Such theorizing has had the effect of replacing an
historical materialist class analysis with a cultural analysis of class. As a result, many post-Marxists
have also stripped the idea of class of precisely that element which, for Marx, made it radicalnamely its
status as a universal form of exploitation whose abolition required (and was also central to) the
abolition of all manifestations of oppression (Marx, 1978, p. 60). With regard to this issue, Kovel (2002) is particularly
insightful, for he explicitly addresses an issue which continues to vex the Leftnamely the priority given to different categories of what he calls
dominative splittingthose categories of gender, class, race, ethnic and national exclusion, etc. Kovel argues that we need to ask the question of
priority with respect to what? He notes that if we mean priority with respect to time, then the category of gender would have priority since there are
traces of gender oppression in all other forms of oppression. If we were to prioritize in terms of existential significance, Kovel suggests that we would
have to depend upon the immediate historical forces that bear down on distinct groups of peoplehe offers examples of Jews in 1930s Germany who
suffered from brutal forms of anti-Semitism and Palestinians today who experience anti-Arab racism under Israeli domination. The question of what has
political priority, however, would depend upon which transformation of relations of oppression are practically more urgent and, while this would
certainly depend upon the preceding categories, it would also depend upon the fashion in which all the forces acting in a concrete situation are
deployed. As to the question of which split sets into motion all of the others, the priority would have to be given to class since class relations
entail the state as an instrument of enforcement and control, and it is the state that shapes
and organizes the splits that appear in human ecosystems. Thus class is both logically and
historically distinct from other forms of exclusion (hence we should not talk of classism to go along with sexism and
racism, and species-ism). This is, first of all, because class is an essential ly man-made category, without root in
even a mystified biology. We cannot imagine a human world without gender distinctions
although we can imagine a world without domination by gender. But a world without class is
eminently imaginable indeed, such was the human world for the great majority of our species time on earth, during all of which
considerable fuss was made over gender. Historically, the difference arises because class signifies one side of a larger figure
that includes a state apparatus whose conquests and regulations create races and shape gender
relations. Thus there will be no true resolution of racism so long as class society stands,
inasmuch as a racially oppressed society implies the activities of a class-defending state. Nor
can gender inequality be enacted away so long as class society, with its state, demands the super-
exploitation of women's labor. (Kovel, 2002, pp. 123124) Contrary to what many have claimed, Marxist theory does not
relegate categories of difference to the conceptual mausoleum; rather, it has sought to reanimate
these categories by interrogating how they are refracted through material relations of power and
privilege and linked to relations of production. Moreover, it has emphasized and insisted that the wider political and economic system in which they are
embedded needs to be thoroughly understood in all its complexity. Indeed, Marx made clear how constructions of race and ethnicity are implicated in
the circulation process of variable capital. To the extent that gender, race, and ethnicity are all understood as social constructions rather than as
essentialist categories the effect of exploring their insertion into the circulation of variable capital (including positioning within the internal
heterogeneity of collective labor and hence, within the division of labor and the class system) must be interpreted as a powerful force reconstructing
them in distinctly capitalist ways (Harvey, 2000, p. 106). Unlike contemporary narratives which tend to focus on
one or another form of oppression, the irrefragable power of historical materialism resides in its ability to reveal (1)
how forms of oppression based on categories of difference do not possess relative autonomy from class
relations but rather constitute the ways in which oppression is lived/experienced within a class-
based system; and (2) how all forms of social oppression function within an overarching capitalist system. This framework must
be further distinguished from those that invoke the terms classism and/or class elitism to (ostensibly) foreground
the idea that class matters (cf. hooks, 2000) since we agree with Gimenez (2001, p. 24) that class is not simply
another ideology legitimating oppression. Rather, class denotes exploitative relations between people mediated by their
relations to the means of production. To marginalize such a conceptualization of class is to conflate an individual's
objective location in the intersection of structures of inequality with people's subjective
understandings of who they really are based on their experiences.

Hollowing out DA add Marxism and stir turns it into rhetoric and
reproduces class contradictions
Robert Faivre 3
(Assoc. Professor; Merely Reading, Red Critique, Fall)

The editors treat "class" as an "analytic category" which it would be idealist to prioritize over other categories. They see themselves
as broadening Marxism with what they think orthodox Marxism does not address by "engaging with feminism, cultural studies, and
non-Marxist forms of historicism" (3). The result is that Marxism is "pluralized" into a rhetoric, and thus class, rather than
being an explanatory concept, becomes one category among many to remember if one reads and interprets in order
to "problematize". Rather than providing readers with explanatory concepts and historical modes of analysis for
decisively grasping objective class contradictions in order to change them, then, Marxism is represented merely
as a means of "raising questions" and temporarily framing the issues. Such a radical rewriting of Marxism, reducing it to a vocabulary
and rhetoric, is an indicator both of the growth of class contradictions and of the means by which the ideologists of the ruling class
must work to contain it. As a response at the level of theory to the growing class contradiction which manifests at all sites of culture
and thus must be either historically explained or explained away, Marxist Shakespeares is an exemplary managerial text which offers
a mode of reading culture and humanities education which explains away the contradictions and fosters the production of the
updated skills required for the continuance of the exploitative social relations of class. The skills, that is, required for the functioning
of the contemporary labor force within the property relations of capitalism: not only the technical skills required for the new forms
of production, but the consciousness skills, that is, the modes of subjectivity which displace conceptual
understanding of the social relations with ideological representations of these relations.

Restabilization DA perm is worse than the aff because it validates the ability
of capitalism to fix itself compromising radical politics
Istavan Meszaros 95
(Professor Emeritus, University of Sussex, BEYOND CAPITAL: TOWARDS A THEORY OF TRANSITION)

THE difficulty is that the moment of radical politics is strictly limited by the nature of the crises in
question and the temporal determinations of their unfolding. The breach opened up at times of crisis cannot be
left open forever and the measures adopted to fill it, from the earliest steps onwards, have their own logic and cumulative impact on subsequent
interventions. Furthermore, both the existing socioeconomic structures and their corresponding framework of political institutions tend to act against
radical initiatives by their very inertia as soon as the worst moment of the crisis is over and thus it becomes possible to contemplate again the line of
least resistance. And no one can consider radical restructuring the line of least resistance, since by its very nature it necessarily involves upheaval and
the disconcerting prospect of the unknown. No immediate economic achievement can offer a way out of this dilemma so as to
prolong the life-span of revolutionary politics, since such limited economic achievements made
within the confines of the old premises act in the opposite direction by relieving the most
pressing crisis symptoms and, as a result, reinforcing the old reproductive mechanism shaken by
the crisis. As history amply testifies, at the first sign of recovery, politics is pushed back into its
traditional role of helping to sustain and enforce the given socio-economic determinations.
The claimed recovery itself reached on the basis of the well tried economic motivations, acts as the self-evident
ideological justification for reverting to the subservient, routine role of politics, in harmony with the
dominant institutional framework. Thus, radical politics can only accelerate its own demise (and thereby shorten, instead
of extending as it should, the favourable moment of major political intervention) if it consents to define its own scope in
terms of limited economic targets which are in fact necessarily dictated by the established socioeconomic
structure in crisis.

Our method cant be permuted Marxist theory must be an axiom not an add-
on injection of any other theory denies commitment to TOTALITY
George Lukacs 67
(The Marxism of Rosa Luxemburg, http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/ch02.htm)

Rosa Luxemburgs major work The Accumulation of Capital takes up the problem at this juncture after decades of vulgarised
Marxism. The trivialisation of Marxism and its deflection into a bourgeois science was expressed first, most clearly and frankly in
Bernsteins Premises of Socialism. It is anything but an accident that the chapter in this book which begins with an onslaught on the
dialectical method in the name of exact science should end by branding Marx as a Blanquist. It is no accident because the
moment you abandon the point of view of totality, you must also jettison the starting-point
and the goal , the assumptions and the requirements of the dialectical method. When this
happens revolution will be understood not as part of a process but as an isolated act cut off
from the general course of events. If that is so it must inevitably seem as if the revolutionary aspects of Marx are really
just a relapse into the primitive period of the workers movement, i.e. Blanquism. The whole system of Marxism
stands and falls with the principle that revolution is the product of a point of view in which
the category of totality is dominant. Even in its opportunism Bernsteins criticism is much too opportunistic for all the
implications of this position to emerge clearly.[2] But even though the opportunists sought above all to eradicate the notion of the
dialectical course of history from Marxism, they could not evade its ineluctable consequences. The economic development of the
imperialist age had made it progressively more difficult to believe in their pseudo-attacks on the capitalist system and in the
scientific analysis of isolated phenomena in the name of the objective and exact sciences. It was not enough to declare
a political commitment for or against capitalism. One had to declare ones theoretical
commitment also. One had to choose: either to regard the whole history of society from a
Marxist point of view, i.e. as a totality, and hence to come to grips with the phenomenon of
imperialism in theory and practice. Or else to evade this confrontation by confining oneself to
the analysis of isolated aspects in one or other of the special disciplines. The attitude that inspires
monographs is the best way to place a screen before the problem the very sight of which strikes terror
into the heart of a Social-Democratic movement turned opportunist. By discovering exact descriptions for isolated areas and
eternally valid laws for specific cases they have blurred the differences separating imperialism from the preceding age. They found
themselves in a capitalist society in general and its existence seemed to them to correspond to the nature of human reason, and
the laws of nature every bit as much as it had seemed to Ricardo and his successors, the bourgeois vulgar economists.

Class-based resistance demands active praxis, making collective, cross-cutting
demands on society thats more likely to transform structures of oppression
than the stance of the 1AC
Thomas Frank 12
(Author, editor at The Baffler; "To the Precinct Station: How theory met practice and drove it absolutely crazy,"
http://www.thebaffler.com/past/to_the_precinct_station)

Occupy itself is pretty much gone. It was evicted from Zuccotti Park about two months after it beganan utterly
predictable outcome for which the group seems to have made inadequate preparation. OWS couldnt bring itself to come up with a real
set of demands until after it got busted, when it finally agreed on a single item. With the exception of some residual groups here and there populated
by the usual activist types, OWS has today pretty much fizzled out. The media storm that once surrounded it has blown off to other
quarters. Pause for a moment and compare this record of accomplishment to that of Occupys evil twin, the Tea Party movement,
and the larger right-wing revival of which it is a part. Well, under the urging of this trumped-up protest movement, the Republican
Party proceeded to win a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives; in the state legislatures of the nation it took
some six hundred seats from the Democrats; as of this writing it is still purging Republican senators and
congressmen deemed insufficiently conservative and has even succeeded in having one of its own named as
the GOPs vice-presidential candidate. * * * The question that the books under consideration here seek to answer is: What is
the magic formula that made OWS so successful? But its exactly the wrong question. What we need to be asking about Occupy Wall Street is:
Why did this effort fail? How did OWS blow all the promise of its early days? Why do even the most popular efforts of the Left come to be mired in a
gluey swamp of academic talk and pointless antihierarchical posturing? The action certainly started with a bang. When the occupation of Zuccotti Park
began, in September 2011, the OWS cause was overwhelmingly popular; indeed, as Todd Gitlin points out, hating Wall Street may well have been the
most popular left-wing cause since the thirties. Inequality had reached obscene levels, and it was no longer the act of a radical to say so. The bank
bailouts of the preceding years had made it obvious that government was captured by organized money. Just about everyone resented Wall Street in
those days; just about everyone was happy to see someone finally put our fury in those crooks overpaid faces. People flocked to the OWS standard.
Cash donations poured in; so did food and books. Celebrities made appearances in Zuccotti, and the media began covering the proceedings with an
attentiveness it rarely gives to leftist actions. But these accounts, with a few exceptions here and there, misread that overwhelming approval of
Occupys cause as an approval of the movements mechanics: the camping out in the park, the way food was procured for an army of protesters, the
endless search for consensus, the showdowns with the cops, the twinkles. These things, almost every writer separately assumes, are what the Occupy
phenomenon was really about. These are the details the public hungers to know. The building of a community in Zuccotti Park, for example, is a point
of special emphasis. Noam Chomskys thoughts epitomize the genre when he tells us that one of the main achievements of the movement has been
to create communities, real functioning communities of mutual support, democratic interchange, et cetera. The reason this is important, he continues,
is because Americans tend to be very isolated and neighborhoods are broken down, community structures have broken down, people are kind of
alone. How building such communities helps us to tackle the power of high finance is left unexplained, as is Chomskys implication that a city of eight
million people, engaged in all the complexities of modern life, should learn how humans are supposed to live together by studying an encampment of
college students. The actual sins of Wall Street, by contrast, are much less visible. For example, when you read Occupying Wall Street, the work of a
team of writers who participated in the protests, you first hear about the subject of predatory lending when a sympathetic policeman mentions it in the
course of a bust. The authors themselves never bring it up. And if you want to know how the people in Zuccotti intended to block the banks
agendahow they intended to stop predatory lending, for exampleyou have truly come to the wrong place. Not because its hard to
figure out how to stop predatory lending, but because the way the Occupy campaign is depicted in these books, it seems to have had no intention
of doing anything except building communities in public spaces and inspiring mankind with its noble refusal to have leaders.
Unfortunately, though, thats not enough. Building a democratic movement culture is essential for movements on the left, but its also
just a starting point. Occupy never evolved beyond it. It did not call for a subtreasury system, like the Populists did. It didnt lead a strike (a real one,
that is), or a sit-in, or a blockade of a recruitment center, or a takeover of the deans office. The IWW free-speech fights of a century ago look positively
Prussian by comparison. With Occupy, the horizontal culture was everything. The process is the message, as the protesters used to say
and as most of the books considered here largely concur. The aforementioned camping, the cooking, the general-assembling, the filling of public places:
thats what Occupy was all about. Beyond that there seems to have been virtually no strategy to speak of, no agenda to transmit to the
world. * * * Whether or not to have demands, you might recall, was something that Occupy protesters debated hotly among themselves in the days
when Occupy actually occupied something. Reading these books a year later, however, that debate seems to have been consensed out of existence.
Virtually none of the authors reviewed here will say forthrightly that the failure to generate demands was a tactical mistake. On the contrary: the quasi-
official account of the episode (Occupying Wall Street) laughs off demands as a fetish object of literal-minded media types who stupidly crave hierarchy
and chains of command. Chris Hedges tells us that demands were something required only by the elites, and their mouthpieces in the media.
Enlightened people, meanwhile, are supposed to know better; demands imply the legitimacy of the adversary, meaning the U.S. government and its
friends, the banks. Launching a protest with no formal demands is thought to be a great accomplishment, a gesture of surpassing
democratic virtue. And here we come to the basic contradiction of the campaign. To protest Wall Street in 2011 was to protest,
obviously, the outrageous financial misbehavior that gave us the Great Recession; it was to protest the political power of money,
which gave us the bailouts; it was to protest the runaway compensation practices that have turned our societys productive labor into bonuses for the 1
percent. All three of these catastrophes, however, were brought on by deregulation and tax-cuttingby a philosophy of
liberation as anarchic in its rhetoric as Occupy was in reality. Check your premises, Rand-fans: it was the
bankers own uprising against the hated state that wrecked the American way of life. Nor does it require poststructuralism-leading-
through-anarchism to understand how to reverse these developments. You do it by rebuilding a powerful and competent regulatory
state. You do it by rebuilding the labor movement. You do it with bureaucracy. Occupiers often seemed aware of this. Recall
what you heard so frequently from protesters lips back in the days of September 2011: Restore the old Glass-Steagall divide between
investment and commercial banks, they insisted. Bring back big government! Bring back safety! Bring back boredom! But thats no way to
fire the imagination of the world. So, how do you maintain the carnival while secretly lusting for the
CPAs? By indefinitely suspending the obvious next step. By having no demands. Demands would have signaled
that humorless, doctrinaire adults were back in charge and that the fun was over. This was an inspired way to play the situation in the
beginning, and for a time it was a great success. But it also put a clear expiration date on the protests. As long as demands and the rest of the
logocentric requirements were postponed, Occupy could never graduate to the next level. It would remain captive to what Christopher
Lasch criticizedway back in 1973as the cult of participation, in which the experience of protesting is what
protesting is all about.

Using experience as a starting point for social theory encourages ignorance of
larger structures of capitalist development and exploitation
Valerie Scatamburlo-DAnnibale and Peter McLaren 3
(*Associate professor in the Department of Communication, Media and Film at the University of Windsor; **Distinguished Professor
in Critical Studies, College of Educational Studies, Chapman University, where he is Co-Director of the Paulo Freire Democratic
Project; The Strategic Centrality of Class in the Politics of Race and Difference,
http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/mclaren/mclaren%20and%20valerie.pdf)

This framework must be further distinguished from those who invoke the terms classism and/or class elitism to (ostensibly)
foreground the idea that class matters (cf. hooks, 2000) because we agree with Gimenez (2001) that class is not simply another
ideology legitimating oppression (p. 24). Rather, class denotes exploitative relations between people mediated by their relations
to the means of production (p. 24). To marginalize such an understanding of class is to conflate individuals objective locations in
the intersection of struc- tures of inequality with individuals subjective understandings of how they are situated based on their
experiences. 7 Another caveat. We are not renouncing the concept of experience. On the contrary, we believe that it is
imperative to retain the category of lived experience as a reference point in light of misguided post-Marxist critiques that imply
that all forms of Marxian class analysis are dismissive of subjectivity. We are not, however, advocating the uncritical
fetishization of experience that tends to assume that personal experience somehow guarantees
the authenticity of knowledge and that often treats expe- rience as self-explanatory, transparent,
and solely individual. Rather, we advance a framework that seeks to make connections between seemingly iso- lated
situations and/or particular experiences by exploring how they are consti- tuted in, and circumscribed by, broader historical and
social conditions. They are linked, in other words, by their internal relations (Ollman, 1993). Expe- riential
understandings, in and of themselves, are initially suspect because dia- lectically they constitute
a unity of oppositesthey are at once unique , specific, and personal but also thoroughly
partial, social, and the products of historical forces about which individuals may know little or
nothing. A rich description of immediate experience can be an appropriate and indispensable point of departure, but
such an understanding can easily become an isolated difference prison unless it transcends the
immediate perceived point of oppres- sion, confronts the social system in which it is rooted,
and expands into a com- plex and multifaceted analysis (of forms of social mediation) that is capable of
mapping out the general organization of social relations. That , however, requires a broad class-based approach.
Having a concept of class helps us to see the network of social relations constituting an overall social
organization which both implicates and cuts through racialization /ethnicization and gender . . . . [A]
radical political economy [class] perspective emphasizing exploitation, dispossession and survival takes the issues of . . . diversity
[and difference] beyond questions of conscious identity such as culture and ideology, or of a paradigm of homogeneity and
heterogeneity . . . or of ethical imperatives with respect to the other. (Bannerji, 2000, pp. 7, 19) Various culturalist
perspectives seem to diminish the role of political econ- omy and class forces in shaping the edifice of the socialincluding the
shift- ing constellations and meanings of difference. Furthermore, none of the dif- ferences valorized in culturalist
narratives alone, and certainly not race by itself, can explain the massive transformation of the
structure of capitalism in recent years. We agree with Meyerson (2000) that race is not an adequate explanatory
category on its own and that the use of race as a descriptive or analytical category has serious consequences for the way in which
social life is presumed to be constituted and organized. The category of racethe concep- tual framework that the
oppressed often employ to interpret their experiences of inequalityoften clouds the
concrete reality of class, and blurs the actual structure of power and privilege; in this regard, race
is all too often a barrier to understanding the central role of class in shaping personal and collective out- comes within a capitalist
society (Marable, 1995, pp. 8, 226).


1
Text: The United States should legalize sex voluntarism in volunteer-run
occupational cooperatives
Work is slavery and breeds submission to all forms domination -- we need fewer jobs, not more

Black 85 Bob, anarchist intellectual, The Abolition of Work http://www.zpub.com/notes/black-work.html

Work makes a mockery of freedom. The official line is that we all have rights and live in a democracy. Other
unfortunates who aren't free like we are have to live in police states. These victims obey orders or-else, no matter how arbitrary.
The authorities keep them under regular surveillance. State bureaucrats control even the smaller details of everyday life. The
officials who push them around are answerable only to higher-ups, public or private. Either way, dissent and disobedience are
punished. Informers report regularly to the authorities. All this is supposed to be a very bad thing. And so it is, although it is
nothing but a description of the modern workplace. The liberals and conservatives and libertarians who lament totalitarianism
are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any moderately deStalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary
American workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or monastery. In
fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously
borrowed from each other's control techniques. A worker is a part time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and
what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating
extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can
fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee.
Talking back is called "insubordination," just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for
unemployment compensation. Without necessarily endorsing it for them either, it is noteworthy that children at home and in school
receive much the same treatment, justified in their case by their supposed immaturity. What does this say about their parents and
teachers who work? The demeaning system of domination I've described rules over half the waking hours of a majority of women
and the vast majority of men for decades, for most of their lifespans. For certain purposes it's not too misleading to call our system
democracy or capitalism or -- better still -- industrialism, but its real names are factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who
says these people are "free" is lying or stupid. You are what you do. If you do boring, stupid monotonous work, chances are you'll
end up boring, stupid and monotonous. Work is a much better explanation for the creeping cretinization all around us than even
such significant moronizing mechanisms as television and education. People who are regimented all their lives, handed off to
work from school and bracketed by the family in the beginning and the nursing home at the end, are habituated to heirarchy and
psychologically enslaved. Their aptitude for autonomy is so atrophied that their fear of freedom is among their few rationally
grounded phobias. Their obedience training at work carries over into the families they start, thus reproducing the system in more
ways than one, and into politics, culture and everything else. Once you drain the vitality from people at work, they'll likely submit
to heirarchy and expertise in everything. They're used to it.

The creation of "jobs" comprises the factory for vehicles driving sterile bodies towards a meaningless death and instantiates a
violation of human autonomy that must be resisted

Black 85 Bob, anarchist intellectual, The Abolition of Work http://www.zpub.com/notes/black-work.html

I am not playing definitional games with anybody. When I say I want to abolish work, I mean just what I say, but I want to say what I
mean by defining my terms in non-idiosyncratic ways. My minimum definition of work is forced labor, that is, compulsory
production. Both elements are essential. Work is production enforced by economic or political means, by the carrot or the stick.
(The carrot is just the stick by other means.) But not all creation is work. Work is never done for its own sake, it's done on account
of some product or output that the worker (or, more often, somebody else) gets out of it. This is what work necessarily is. To
define it is to despise it. But work is usually even worse than its definition decrees. The dynamic of domination intrinsic to work
tends over time toward elaboration. In advanced work-riddled societies, including all industrial societies whether capitalist of
"Communist," work invariably acquires other attributes which accentuate its obnoxiousness. Usually -- and this is even more true
in "Communist" than capitalist countries, where the state is almost the only employer and everyone is an employee -- work is
employment, i. e., wage-labor, which means selling yourself on the installment plan. Thus 95% of Americans who work, work for
somebody (or something) else. In the USSR or Cuba or Yugoslavia or any other alternative model which might be adduced, the
corresponding figure approaches 100%. Only the embattled Third World peasant bastions -- Mexico, India, Brazil, Turkey --
temporarily shelter significant concentrations of agriculturists who perpetuate the traditional arrangement of most laborers in the
last several millenia, the payment of taxes (= ransom) to the state or rent to parasitic landlords in return for being otherwise left
alone. Even this raw deal is beginning to look good. All industrial (and office) workers are employees and under the sort of
surveillance which ensures servility. But modern work has worse implications. People don't just work, they have "jobs." One
person does one productive task all the time on an or-else basis. Even if the task has a quantum of intrinsic interest (as
increasingly many jobs don't) the monotony of its obligatory exclusivity drains its ludic potential. A "job" that might engage the
energies of some people, for a reasonably limited time, for the fun of it, is just a burden on those who have to do it for forty hours
a week with no say in how it should be done, for the profit of owners who contribute nothing to the project, and with no
opportunity for sharing tasks or spreading the work among those who actually have to do it. This is the real world of work: a
world of bureaucratic blundering, of sexual harassment and discrimination, of bonehead bosses exploiting and scapegoating their
subordinates who -- by any rational-technical criteria -- should be calling the shots. But capitalism in the real world subordinates
the rational maximization of productivity and profit to the exigencies of organizational control. The degradation which most
workers experience on the job is the sum of assorted indignities which can be denominated as "discipline." Foucault has
complexified this phenomenon but it is simple enough. Discipline consists of the totality of totalitarian controls at the workplace --
surveillance, rotework, imposed work tempos, production quotas, punching -in and -out, etc. Discipline is what the factory and
the office and the store share with the prison and the school and the mental hospital. It is something historically original and
horrible. It was beyond the capacities of such demonic dictators of yore as Nero and Genghis Khan and Ivan the Terrible. For all their
bad intentions they just didn't have the machinery to control their subjects as thoroughly as modern despots do. Discipline is the
distinctively diabolical modern mode of control, it is an innovative intrusion which must be interdicted at the earliest
opportunity.

Refuse the 1AC call to engineer the infrastructure of pointless misery in the name of a false future. Life lives in the present and
making thought economic only serves as a rationalization for enslaving existence. Abandon the perverse calculations of the cure-
all politics of the 1AC and re-claim this space of debate by an insistence on pleasure indifferent to the misery of others and the
genocidal attempt to perfect society in the image of the Eternal Good. Vote negative to affirm a pleasure without goal, a
becoming without end

Vaneigem 79, Raoul, situationist philosopher, leading thinker in the Situationist International The Book of Pleasures trans. John
Fullerton, 1983 http://www.scenewash.org/lobbies/chainthinker/situationist/vaneigem/bop/bop.html

Freedom has no worse enemy than these cure-all panaceas which claim to transform society. For these veils of exorcist ritual
simply serve to smuggle the old world back in. Lawyers for the revolution or sniffers of radical chic, whatever pedigrees these
grocers have, they are our adversaries, armour-clad in neurosis, and will bear the full brunt of the violence of those who live
without restraint. I know well the wise men who denigrate survival, having in many ways been one of them. Under the cassock of
that high-brow criticism moves the secular arm of far more pemicious inquisitions. But they merely project the disgust they feel at
themselves towards others. Since the system spreads by destroying its producers and thus by destroying itself, the problem is how
to avoid becoming an accessory to trade. Those who whimper in pain, unable to relax enough to enjoy themselves, give up
extricating their desires out of the mercantile stranglehold, and make money because they cannot
make anything else. Such potential suicides are notable for the way they slag the Establishment; but however
convinced they seem, they remain its lackeys to be dug back into the social midden. They have grown quite used to suffering
because things don't change, and have also grown to respect their neighbours' wish to leave things as they are. You cannot tell apart
their funeral dirge from the old world's De Profundis. "Love and friendship are just illusions," they whine, snivelling senilities of the
recluse. No doubt that is why we pay them so much attention, these ossified landowners and disillusioned civil servants. Decay
ennobles. Toilers for order, toilers for chaos, for inhibition or psychic lib., the auto-destructive process of
trade programmes the curriculum vitae of inexistence. Death grabs and
you stumble from life, worn out with keeping the books and balance-
sheets of daily misery, or with strutting your stuff like a ham politician
because of the wonderful way you are managing to die. Though you loathe power you
revere it nonetheless, for from it you have borrowed that arrogant attitude of rejection which endorses all your contemptible
acts. But life mocks those even with the most wonderful theories. Only from pleasures is born audacity and laughter, which rings
out at orders and laws and limits; it will fall upon all who still judge, repress, calculate and govern, with the innocence of a child.
While intellectuals devise ingenious methods of slipping through the keyhole, those with a world of desires to achieve are breaking
down the door, an act of particularly gross behaviour for those fastidious mechanics in social engineering who think they see light at
the end of the tunnel. But it is life itself seeking fulfilment. The increasing abstraction of the commercial process has turned our
heads into the last place left to hide; but even there all that remains is the shadow of power in a tower of skulls. The scars of age,
source of so much nostalgic reminiscence, are the wounds of self-renunciation, pleasure mutilated and bled to death by a mania
for appearances, a need to dominate, and the will to power. Your truths have little but the bitterness which has sown them, their
edge honed on generations who learned to accept things only if accompanied by kicks, cuffs and mortification. But all arguments cut
both ways and set up their own repression. What is knowledge worth when it is founded on the tacit postulate that oneself is
one's own worst enemy? An influential person quickly discovers that though he controls others he has no real existence for them.
Should he hope to safeguard this phantom self "for the good of his fellow-men", he loses and deceives himself as well as his
public. That is why I do not intend to try to convince you: I do not care to add scorn to whatever contempt you already have for
others. However rapt your attention to the various messengers of self-destruction, whom I am sure will repay your attention with
interest, I prefer, rather offhandedly, to wait until sooner or later you grow deaf to everything that does not increase your pleasure.
It is much more the lack of fun which batters us than over-abundance and indulgence. Let the dead bury the living dead. My well-
being does not dine upon virtue and certainly not upon revolutionary virtue. I feast upon what is alive and kicking. Dead truths
are venomous, as all who give up their desires discover. What's a book worth which does not say more than all the others? What
returns each man to himself is written with the taste of plenty, not under the scourge of directives. The 'Book of Pleasures' is bound
to be tainted with the life of intellectualism, separate thought which rules over the body and oppresses it. But the lie that we each
carry can be dissolved only by doing exactly what we want to do, without qualm or hesitation. May your desires wipe out whatever
lies remain here, and efface the grand inquisitor from your brain. In all beings, in all things, in all creation, I take what pleases and
leave the rest. Keep away, serious critics! This is not for you. Why should you put up with me if you cannot stand yourselves? I don't
give a toss what you think of this book; so what you do with it is up to you. I have nothing to exchange. If you know all this and
better, go to it! Whoever learns to love himself is beyond the plots and spells of shame and guilt and the fear of loving; and knows
too, that despite my errors I do not veer an inch from my desire to create a society based upon the individual will to live, by globally
subverting the society which has stood everything on its head. What could I wish for the present but to take the greatest pleasure
in being what I am? To enjoy myself in such a way that never again do I get bogged down in other people's misery. If these
righteous citizens knew what dynamite they humped about every step of the way.... Humility's tatters and megalomania's trumpery
have between them successfully persuaded the sober how insignificant they are; look at them, they are so graceless, and their eyes
are dead to what's left of life beyond affective blocks and compensatory binges. Who will shatter the rock
that for millenia has sat upon individual autonomy? For so long now
learning to live has meant learning to die. "When I come to make a wheel," said the wheelright. "I
can't go at it slowly, or it will turn out weak and uncertain. Whereas if I go hard at it, it'll be firm but grossly proportioned. But if I
take it steadily, at my own speed and so that it feels right, it will turn out just as I wish. You can't explain the feel for it in words." The
words here begin where my lived experience falls silent. If you take these words so they 'feel right', I get a chance to mesh with
every person's experience and go forward with it. Only the individual will to live can make the Book of Pleasures what it is to me, an
urge to have fun that nothing and no-one outside myself has imposed on me. I like the Viennese humourist's quip: "There are a lot
of people who'd love to hit me, and many who'd like to chat with me for an hour. They are generally the same people." Cut me or
lionise me, it's a joke either way! But I can't shield myself from the feeling that whoever represses himself, refusing his own desires
and turning towards death, adds a shackle to my emancipation I could well do without . The key is within each of
us. No instructions come with it. When you decide to treat yourself as
your only point of reference you will cease to be trapped by name-
dropping - yours or mine - or by deferring to other people's opinions, or
by the particular way they see things. And you will cease to link yourself to the people whose
everpresent memories of having taken part in a movement in history still prevent them from deriving any personal benefit from
the experience. It is entirely up to us to invent our own lives. We waste so much energy in living
vicariously, it is really hard work, when it would be enough, if you love yourself, to apply this energy to the achievement and
development of the incomplete being, the child within. I wish to reach the anonymity of desire and be carried away on the flood.
In endlessly denaturing what still seemed natural, the history of trade has reached a point
where either we perish with it or recreate nature and humanity
completely afresh. Beyond the inversion in which death battens on life, life leaps up, and swiftly sketches society
where pleasure comes of its own accord. At any one moment, my 'me' is to be found tightly tangled in the detritus of what
oppresses me; heated debate erupts in the attempt to disentangle the twisted
filaments and liberate utterly the sexual impulse as the breath that gives
life perpetually. It ought never to be stifled. That's why enjoying yourself also presages the end
of work and holding back, exchange, intellectuality, guilt, and the will to power. I see no justification -
except economic - for suffering, separation, orders, payments, reproaches or power. My struggle for
autonomy is that of the proletarian against his growing proletarianisation, of the individual against the omnipresent dictatorship
of goods for sale, the commodity. Life erupting has kicked a breach in your death-oriented civilisation.

Dignity is the supreme value of struggle -- the task of the debate is its pursuit

Marcos '95 Subcommandante Insurgente Marcos, leader of the Zapatista ELZN movement "Dignity cannot be studied" Letter to M.
Jauffret, June 20
http://eurozapatista.tumblr.com/post/8527330548/dignity-cannot-be-studied-you-live-it-or-it-dies

The indigenous peoples who support our just cause have decided to resist without surrender, without accepting the alms with
which the supreme government hopes to buy them. And they have decided this because they have made theirs a word which is
not understood with the head, which cannot be studied or memorized. It is a word which is lived with the heart, a word which is
felt deep inside your chest and which makes men and women proud of belonging to the human race. This word is DIGNITY. Respect
for ourselves, for our right to be better, or right to struggle for what we believe in, our right to live and die according to our ideals.
Dignity cannot be studied, you live it or it dies, it aches inside you and teaches you how to walk. Dignity is that international
homeland which we forget many times. Our ideals are simple, and for that reason very large: we want, for all the men and
women of this country, and of the entire world, three things which are fundamental for any human being: democracy, liberty,
and justice. It can appear, and the powerful means of communication certainly help this appearance, that these three things are not
the same thing for an indigenous person of the Mexican southeast as for a European. But it is about the same thing: the right to have
a good government, the right to think and act with a freedom which does not imply the slavery of others, the right to give and
receive what is just. For these three values, for democracy, liberty and justice, we rose up in arms on January 1st of 1994. For these
three values, we resist today without surrender. Both things, the war and resistance, means that these three values represent
everything for us, represent a cause worth fighting for, worth dying for..so that living is worthy of us. Our cause we believe, is not
only ours. It belongs to any honest man or woman in any part of the world. And this is why we aspire so that our voice can be
heard in all the world and so that our struggle will be assumed by everyone in the world. Our cause is not the cause of war, or the
cause of destruction, or the cause of death. Our cause is that of peace, but peace with justice; it is the cause of construction, but
with equity and reason; it is the cause of life, but with dignity, and always new and better. Today, we find ourselves in a very difficult
situation. The war is dressed in its terrible suit of hunger and entire communities suffer in conditions below the minimum survival
level. We willingly accept this not because we like martyrdom or sterile sacrifice. We accept it because we know that brothers and
sisters the world over will know how to extend their hand to help us triumph in a cause which is theirs as well. Like yesterday, we
cover our faces in order to show the world the true face of the Mexico of the basement and after washing with our blood the mirror
in which Mexicans can see their own dignity. Now we hide our face in order to escape the treachery and death which walks in the
steps of those who say they govern the country. We are not fighting with our weapons. Our example and our dignity now fight for
us. In the peace talks the government delegates have confessed that they have studied in order to learn about dignity and that
they have been unable to understand it. They ask the Zapatista delegates to explain what is dignity. The Zapatistas laugh, after
months of pain they laugh. Their laughter echoes and escapes unto the high wall behind which arrogance hides its fear. The
Zapatista delegates laugh even when the dialogue ends, and they are giving their report. Everyone who hears them laughs, and the
laughter re-arranges faces which have been hardened by hunger and betrayal. The Zapatistas laugh in the mountains of the Mexican
southeast and the sky cannot avoid infection by that laughter and the peals of laughter emerge. The laughter is so great that tears
arise and it begins to rain as though the laughter were a gift for the dry land
2

The 1ac equates legalization with autonomy or freedom and pretends
that the white supremacist settler state is capable of restricting its
carceral system of policing. This naivet is a form of complicity -- their
speech act pedagogically participates in an active normalization of the
global prison regime

Rodriguez '10 Dylan, Professor and Chair of the Department of Ethnic Studies at UC Riverside. "The Disorientation of the Teaching
Act: Abolition as Pedagogical Position": The Radical Teacher, No. 88 (Summer 2010), pp. 7-19

The prison industrial complex, in contrast to the prison regime, names the emergence over the last three decades of multiple
symbiotic institutional relationships that dynamically link private business (such as architectural firms, construction companies,
and uniform manufacturers) and government/state apparatuses (including police, corrections, and elected officials) in projects of
multiplyscaled human immobilization and imprisonment. The national abolitionist organization Critical Resistance elaborates that
the prison industrial complex is a system situated at the intersection of governmental and private interests that uses prisons as a
solution to social, political, and economic problems.14 In fact, as many abolitionist scholars have noted, the rise of the
prison industrial complex is in part a direct outcome of the liberal-
progressive prison reform successes of the 1970s. The political convergence between liberals,
progressives, and law and order conservatives/reactionaries, located within the accelerating political and geographical
displacements of globalization,15 generated a host of material transformations and institutional shifts that facilitated in fact,
necessitatedthe large-scale reorganization of the prison into a host of new and/or qualitatively intensified structural relationships
with numerous political and economic apparatuses, including public policy and legislative bodies, electoral and lobbying
apparatuses, the medical and architectural/construction industries, and various other hegemonic institutional forms. Concretely, the
reform of the prison required its own expansion and bureaucratic multiplication: for example, the reform of prison overcrowding
came to involve an astronomical growth in new prison construction (rather than decarceration and release), the reformist
outrage against preventable deaths and severe physiological suffering from (communicable, congenital, and mental) illnesses
yielded the piecemeal incorporation of medical facilities and staff into prison protocols (as opposed to addressing the fact that
massive incarceration inherently creates and circulates sickness), and reformist recognition of carceral state violence against
emotionally disordered, mentally ill, and disabled captives led to the creation of new prisons and pharmaceutical regimens for the
criminally insane, and so on. Following the historical trajectory of Angela Y. Davis concise and accurate assessment that during
the (American) revolutionary period, the penitentiary was generally viewed as a progressive reform, linked to the larger campaign
for the rights of citizens,16 it is crucial to recognize that the prison industrial complex is one of the most significant reformist
achievements in U.S. history and is not simply the perverse social project of self-identified reactionaries and conservatives. Its
roots and sustenance are fundamentally located in the American liberal-
progressive impulse toward reforming institutionalized state violence
rather than abolishing it.
The absolute banality of the prison regimes presence in the administrative protocols, curricula, and educational routines of the
school is almost omnipresent: aside from the most obvious appearances of the racist policing state on campuses everywhere, it is
generally the fundamental epistemological (hence pedagogical) assumption of the school that 1) social order (peace) requires a
normalized, culturally legitimated proliferation of state violence (policing, juridical punishment, war); 2) the survival of civil society
(schools, citizenship, and individual freedom) depends on the capacity of the state to isolate or extinguish the criminal/ dangerous;
and 3) the U.S. nationbuilding project is endemically decent or (at least) democratic in spirit, and its apparent corruptions,
contradictions, and systemic brutalities (including and especially the racial, gender, and class-based violence of the prison industrial
complex) are ultimately reformable, redeemable, or (if all else fails) forgivable. It is virtually indisputablethough always worth
restatingthat most pedagogical practices (including many critical/ radical ones) invest in producing or edifying free and self-
governing citizen/ subjects. The assumptive framework of this pedagogical framework
tends to conflate civil society with freedom, as if ones physical
presence in civil society is separable from the actual and imminent state
violence of criminalization and policing. (Is a criminalized and policed person really free?). This
pedagogical approach also leaves unasked the question of whether the central premise of the teaching practice itselfthat a given
pedagogy is actually capable of producing free citizen/subjects under such historical conditionsmight implode if its conditions of
possibility were adequately confronted. To clarify: as teachers, our generic pedagogical assumption is that we are either teaching
to free studentcitizens who must be empowered and encouraged to live up to the responsibilities of their nominal freedom (a
task that may be interpreted differently and contradictorily depending on the teacher), or that our pedagogy intends to participate
in the creation of free student-citizens who are capable of being trained to participate robustly in civil society, outside and apart
from the social dominance and institutional violence of the prison regime. In both instances, the underlying task of the teacher is
to train the student to avert direct confrontation with the policing and imprisonment apparatus, and to remain un-incarcerated and
relatively un-criminalized by the state. Whether or not the teacher can claim to succeed in
this task, a basic historical truth is obscured and avoided: the structural
symbiosis between the schooling and prison regimes has already
rendered the prevailing cultural and institutional rubrics freedom an
utter sham, no less than the Declaration of Independence was a
pronouncement of displacement, liquidation, and enslavement for the
majority of the continents inhabitants. Within the schooling regime/prison regime nexus, many are
taught into freedom in order to administer, enforce, and passively reproduce the unfreedom of others, while some are trained into a
tentative and alwaystemporary avoidance of unfreedom, meagerly rewarded with the accoutrements of civic inclusion (a job, a vote,
a home address). Numerous others are trained to inhabit a space across or in between these fraudulent modalities of freedom. If
the radical teachers primary challenge does not initially revolve around the creation of pedagogical strategies that can produce
free, self-governing, critical student/ subjects, but instead centers on the structurally violent conditions of possibility for
pedagogy itself, in what form can critical, radical, liberationist teaching actually occur? To revise a previous question: how might
the conceptual premises and practical premises of classroom pedagogy be transformed, rethought, and strategically disrupted in
order that an abolitionist reorientation of teaching becomes feasible and effective? The (Pedagogical) Necessity of the Impossible A
compulsory deferral of abolitionist pedagogical possibilities composes the largely unaddressed precedent of teaching in the current
historical period. It is this deferralgenerally unacknowledged and largely presumedthat both undermines the emergence of an
abolitionist pedagogical praxis and illuminates abolitionisms necessity as a dynamic practice of social transformation, over and
against liberal and progressive appropriations of critical/ radical pedagogy. Contrary to the thinly disguised ideological Alinskyism
that contemporary liberal, progressive, critical, and radical teaching generally and tacitly assumes in relation to the prison regime,
what is usually required, and what usually works as a strategy for teaching against the carceral common sense, is a pedagogical
approach that asks the unaskable, posits the necessity of the impossible, and embraces the creative danger inherent in liberationist
futures. About a decade of teaching a variety of courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels at one of the most
demographically diverse research universities in the United States (the University of California, Riverside) has allowed me the
opportunity to experiment with the curricular content, assignment form, pedagogical mode, and conceptual organization of
coursework that directly or tangentially addresses the formation of the U.S. prison regime and prison industrial complex. Students
are consistently (and often unanimously) eager to locate their studies within an abolitionist genealogy often understanding their
work as potentially connected to a living history of radical social movements and epistemological-political revoltand tend to
embrace the high academic demands and rigor of these courses with far less resistance and ambivalence than in many of my other
Ethnic Studies courses. There are some immediate analytical and scholarly tools that
form a basic pedagogical apparatus for productively exploding the
generalized common sense that creates and surrounds the U.S. prison
regime. In fact, it is crucial for teachers and students to collectively
understand that it is precisely the circulation and concrete enactment of
this common sense that makes it central to the prison regime, not simply
an ideological supplement of it. Put differently, many students and teachers have a tendency to
presume that the cultural symbols and popular discourses that signify and give common sense meaning to prisons and policing
are external to the prison regime, as if these symbols and discourses (produced through mass media, state spokespersons and
elected officials, right-wing think tanks, video games, television crime dramas, etc.) simply amount to bad or deceptive
propaganda that conspiratorially hide some essential truth about prisons that can be uncovered. This is a seductive and self-
explanatory, but far too simplistic, way of understanding how the prison regime thrives. What we require, instead, is a sustained
analytical discussion that considers how multiple layers of knowledgeincluding common sense and its different cultural formsare
constantly producing a lived truth of policing and prisons that has nothing at all to do with an essential, objective truth. Rather,
this fabricated, lived truth forms the template of everyday life through which we come to believe that we more or less understand
and know the prison and policing apparatus, and which dynamically produces our consent and/or surrender to its epochal
oppressive violence. As a pedagogical tool, this framework compels students and teachers to examine how deeply engaged they
are in the violent common sense of the prison and the racist state. Who is left for dead in the common discourse of crime,
innocence, and guilt? How has the mundane institutionalized violence of the racist state become so normalized as to be
generally beyond comment? What has made the prison and policing apparatus in its current form appear to be so permanent,
necessary, and immovable within the common sense of social change and historical transformation? In this sense, teachers and
students can attempt to concretely understand how they are a dynamic part of the prison regimes production and
reproduction and thus how they might also be part of its abolition through the work of building and teaching a radical and
liberatory common sense (this is political work that anyone can do, ideally as part of a community of social movement).
Additionally, the abolitionist teacher can prioritize a rigorousand vigorous critique of the endemic complicities of
liberal/progressive reformism to the transformation, expansion, and ultimate reproduction of racist state violence and
(proto)genocide; this entails a radical critique of everything from the sociopolitical legacies of civil rights and the oppressive
capacities of human rights to the racist states direct assimilation of 1970s-era prison reform agendas into the blueprints for
massive prison expansion discussed above.17


Prison is modern slavery and the Prison Industrial Complex is a rapacious
institution of capitalist heteropatriarchal ableist white supremacy that is
both fundamentally unethical and will destroy the planet unless
collectively opposed

Assata Shakur writes in '98 "Land of No Hope" Taken from her book
Assata: In Her Own words (pages 89-92)
http://bellemaddox.tumblr.com/post/43730134224/land-of-no-hope-
assata-shakur-the-prison-industrial

Greetings Sisters, Brothers, Comrades, Never in our history has critical resistance to the status quo been more important. The
growth of the Prison Industrial Complex has been appallingly rapid and the escalating repression that has accompanied it is
totally alarming. What of future lies ahead of us? What are the implications of for our children? Those who are targeted as the
victims of the Prison Industrial Complex are mainly people of color. They are Native Americans, Africans, Asians, and Latinos, who
came from societies where there were no prisons and where prisons were an unknown concept. Prisons were introduced in
Africa, the Americas and Asia as by-products of slavery and colonialism, and they continue to be instruments of exploitation and
oppression. In the heart of the imperialist empires, prisons also meant oppression. The prisons of Europe were so overcrowded
that European prisoners were sent to the colonies and encouraged to enslave and colonize other peoples. In England, during the so-
called period of expansion, there were not only debtors prisons for the poor, but also more than 200 crimes that were punishable
by death. During the French revolution, the storming and destruction of the Bastille Prison, became a symbol for liberation all over
Europe. And today, those of us whose ancestors were imprisoned in Slave forts like Elmina, or Goree Island, now find ourselves
imprisoned in places like Elmira, Rikers Island, Terminal Island, Marion or Florence. The prisons that are being constructed In the
United States today are more sophisticated than concentration camps like Auschwitz or Dachau, but they serve the same purpose.
The profits from prison industries, and prison slave labor is surpassing the super exploitation levels of forced labor in Nazi
concentration camps. The Prison Industrial Complexis not only a mechanism to convert Public tax money into profits for private
corporations, it is an essential element of modern neo-liberal capitalism. It serves two purposes. One to neutralize and contain
huge segments of potentially rebellious sectors of the population, and two, to sustain a system of super exploitation, where
mainly black and Latino captives are imprisoned in white rural, overseer communities. People of color are easy targets. Our
criminalization and villianization is an Amerikkkan tradition. The image of the dirty-lazy-shiftless- savage - backwards- good for
nothing - darkies has been the underpinning of the racist culture and ideology, that dominates U.S. politics. One of the basic tenets
of that revolution was that only rich, white men have the right to have a revolution, anyone else who struggles for one is a terrorist
or a subversive. The truth of the matter is that oppressed people have, and have always had a great deal more to be outraged
about than taxation without representation. Repression, torture, and beatings are as common in U.S. prisons today as they were
on slave plantations. And political prisoners bear the brunt of this systematic brutality. Those who fight against oppression are
thrown into dungeons, rather than those who perpetuate it. The prolonged torture of solitary confinement is being used, not only
as a weapon against political dissent, but as a weapon against anyone who protests any of the injustices of the system. How can
you fight against injustice, without demanding the liberation of political prisoners? Unfortunately, there are more young people
behind bars because they have been inculcated with and are reproducing the values of this decadent capitalist system, than those
who are consciously struggling to change it. During the 1960s, when the movement was at its height, the prison population was only
a fraction of what it is today. Those who institutionalized the kidnapping of Africans, those who orchestrated genocide against
Native Americans, those who plunder the treasures of the world, and who are responsible for the most heinous crimes on this
planet, want to preach to us about law and order. Those who profit from human misery and deny us education, affirmation action,
health care, decent housing, want to lecture us about morality. Many of us watch helplessly as our children imitate and internalize
the greedy, ostentatious, culture of conspicuous consumption, practiced by those who oppress us. We watch the same people who
import drugs into the country, who distribute them, in our communities, wage a war on us, in the name of fighting drugs. The Prison
Industrial Complex is not a distortion of modern global capitalism; it is part and parcel of that system. It is not enough to fight
against the Prison Industrial complex; we must fight against the ideology that promotes it. Human beings are social beings and have
a basic need to live in nurturing communities, instead of hostile ones. The people on this planet have an infinite potential to
contribute to this planet and it is a crime to prevent us from doing so. The human beings who live on this planet have an unlimited
ability to learn, to grow, to change, to be generous, to invent and to share. It is a crime to prevent young people from developing
their talents. It is a crime to let individualistic values destroy the collective good. To those who rule this planet, we are all
disposable. Our only value to them is the wealth that we are capable of producing. It is a system with no compassion, no love, and
no faith. What kind of mentality is it that would classify a 5 year old as being incorrigible? What kind of system would try a 12 year as
an adult? What kind of mentality is it that would sentence a 20-year-old to life without parole? How can a system claim to be
nonviolent, while praising the death penalty inside its borders, and bombing and killing innocent people all over the world? This is a
system that sells and promotes and exports violence. It is a system that would rather warehouse and murder its young, than
cultivate them. In this grotesque world with its grotesque, cynical values, it sounds, naive, to believe in people, and believe in our
ability to create a better world. But how can you believe in a future if you dont believe in people who are going to make it? How
can you believe in human rights unless you believe in human beings? How can you say you believe in justice, without believing in
social justice, political justice and economic justice for all people? The Prison Industrial Complex not only destroys individuals; it
destroys families and communities. If we do not destroy it, it will destroy us. I urge you to do everything you can to break these
chains.

Us abolitionists don't require a concrete alternative, but rather an
unflinching method of opposition, STARTING POINT is key

PREAP '76 Prison Research Education Action Project, "INSTEAD OF PRISONS" Chapter 1, Writers Fay Honey Knopp Barbara Boward
Mary Jo Brach Scott Christianson Mary Ann Largen Julie Lewin Janet Lugo Mark Morris Wendy Newton Researchers Barbara Boward
Mary Jo Brach Amy Davidson Blanche Gelber Margaret Grammer Dwight Greene Fay Honey Knopp Julie Lewin David Martin Editor
Mark Morris, http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/instead_of_prisons/chapter1.shtml

Still--abolition? Where do you put the prisoners? The "criminals?" What's the alternative? First, having no alternative at
all would create less crime than the present criminal training centers do. Second, the only full alternative is building the kind of
society that does not need prisons: A decent redistribution of power and income so as to put out the hidden fire of burning envy
that now flames up in crimes of property--both burglary by the poor and embezzlement by the affluent. And a decent sense of
community that can support, reintegrate and truly rehabilitate those who suddenly become filled with fury or despair, and that can
face them not as objects--"criminals"--but as people who have committed illegal acts, as have almost all of us. Arthur Waskow,
resident fellow, Institute for Policy Studies, Saturday Review, January 8, 1972 No longer am I interested in or concerned
with prison reform. Neither am I interested in or concerned with making life more bearable inside prisons or protecting the legal
rights of those behind the walls. I am interested only in the eradication of prisons. Should this seem to be the attitude of a
"hardcore," "bitter," "incorrigible" radical, the credit must go to those who lock my barred door each night. James W. Clothey, Jr.,
Vermont Prisoner Solidarity Committee, NEPA News , January 1974 We need to create an atmosphere in which abolition can
take place. It will require a firm alliance between those groups, individuals and organizations which understand that this will not
happen overnight. Just as the slavery abolitionist movement extended over decades, we must be prepared to struggle at length.
But we must start, we must fuel the fires, we must make the alliance that will gain us victory. John Boone, former
Commissioner of Corrections, Massachusetts, Fortune News , May 1976 We are working for a society in which the worth and
the preservation of dignity of all people is of the first priority. Prisons are a major obstacle to the realization of such a society. NEPA
stands for the abolition of prisons by all means possible. We believe that the primary task of the prisoner movement at this time is
to organize and educate in the communities, work places and prisons to develop the mass support needed to abolish the prison
system. Resolution passed by the Ex-Con Caucus, 2nd Annual Northeast Prisoners' Association Meeting, Franconia, New
Hampshire, NEPA News, April/May 1975 Scores of groups focus on changing portions of the criminal (in)justice systems but few links
exist between our efforts. We have no common ideology, language or identification of goals, no mechanism for a coalition. Yet the
basis for an alliance is present. Prison abolitionists arise from a living tradition of movements for social justice. Most especially is
their connection with the 19th-century struggle against slavery. Imprisonment is a form of slavery--continually used by those who
hold power for their own ends. And just as superficial reforms could not alter the
cruelty of the slave system, so with its modern equivalent--the prison
system. The oppressive situation of prisoners can only be relieved by
abolishing the cage and, with it, the notion of punishment.
This mindset shift to penal abolition is a prerequisite to any meaningful
social change. We need to disrupt the epistemic circuitry that make us
complicit with the assumption that institutionalizing people is an
appropriate role for authoritative disciplining
Ben-Moshe '14 Liat, Liat Ben-Moshe is Assistant Professor of Disability Studies at the University of Toledo. She holds a PhD in
Sociology with concentrations in Gender Studies and Disability Studies from Syracuse University. Her recent work examines the
connections between prison abolition and deinstitutionalization in the fields of intellectual disabilities and mental health in the
United States. "The Tension Between Abolition and Reform" in Disability Incarcerated Imprisonment and Disability in the United
States and Canada https://www.academia.edu/3483590/The_tension_between_abolition_and_reform
2. Does Institutional Closure Equate with Abolition? Closure of repressive institutions, such as mental hospitals and prisons, can
be conceptualized as a necessary but not sufficient action on the road to abolition. The most important element in institutional
closure is to ensure that people do not end up re-incarcerated in other formats such as group homes or other institutional
placements (Blatt et al., 1977). In this sense the effectiveness of deinstitutionalization as a movement is in ensuring community
living, with all needed supports, not merely in the closure of the institution, which is only a first step. This ideological stance may
create a dilemma. Should proponents of deinstitutionalization wait until there are sufficient community placements before
advocating for institutional closure? Or, should they go ahead regardless, on the principle that no one should live in an institution at
any time? This is the very dilemma posed by Mathiesen in regards to abolition in general. Taylor (1995/6) suggests that in such cases
one should ask which path would lead to the least harm done to the fewest people. Such questioning, he believes, would lead one to
realize that institutional living is unjustifiable under any circumstances, even if community settings are imperfect at the present
time. The mere closure of prisons and large state psychiatric institutions does not necessarily entail a radical change in policy,
attitudes, or the lived experiences of those incarcerated. Penal abolitionist Ruth Morris reflects on her experiences within the
prison abolition movement in Canada and the United States: My objection to prisons is to something much more oppressive than
closed buildings, or even locks and keys. Its important to think this out, because otherwise we delude ourselves about building
alternatives when actually we are creating their very spirit in the community, destroying people just as effectively as any building
with locks can possibly do. (1989, p. 141) In this light, closure in itself is still embedded within the
same circuits of power that created such institutions, unless there is an
epistemic shift in the way community, punishment, dis/ability and
segregation are conceptualized. Therefore, closure of prisons and institutions is only one step on the way to
achieve a shift in perspective. Closure of large institutions has not led to freedom for all disabled people, nor has it resulted in the
radical acceptance of the fact of difference amongst us. Institutional life, whether in a prison, hospital, mental institution, nursing
home, group home, or segregated school, has been the norm, not the exception, for disabled people throughout North American
history. Harriet McBryde Johnson (The Disability Gulag, New York Times, 23 November 2003) describes her experiences and fear of
the disability gulagthe warehouse for disabled people that is often called the institution. As she describes in her narrative,
many people with significant disabilities fear that one day they will be sent there and lose their independence, if they are already
institutionalized. Prison abolitionists also emphasize that activism entails much
more then closing prisons. It is about creating a society free of systems of
inequity that produce hatred, violence, desperation and suffering. In such
a society the idea of caging people for wrong doings will be seen as
absurd (Lee, 2008). When a system is abolished there is a danger that other systems with the same goals would arise to fill
the void left by the abolished system. Famed sociologist W.E.B. Du Bois, in his book Black Reconstruction (1999 [1935]), discusses
abolition not as a mere negative process, one of tearing down. It is ultimately about creating new institutions. Du Bois was very
insistent that in order to abolish slavery in modern times, new democratic institutions have to be established and maintained.
Because that did not occur, slavery found a new home in Jim Crow, convict lease systems, second class education and mass
incarceration. Thus, the abolition of slavery was only successful on the negative aspect, but no new institutions were created to
successfully incorporate black people into the existing social order. Prisons today have thrived precisely because of the lack of such
resources that Du Bois was arguing for. Prisons today cant be abolished until such equality-ensuring mechanisms are in place (Davis,
2005). Being free of chains is only the beginning. Dismantling the walls of the prison, therefore, is not a goal that will eliminate the
use of coercion and punishment as mechanism of state control, according to some abolitionists (Davis, 2000; Sudbury, 2004). Hence
we notice a shift of many prison abolitionist activists and writers, beginning in the 1990s, from promoting prison abolition to
conceptualizing penal abolition more broadly (Morris, 1995). Penal abolition is viewed as a more comprehensive practice and
discourse than that of prison abolition, attempting to revolutionize the way we perceive crime and punishment (Magnani and
Wray, 2006). Penal abolitionism, according to critical criminologist Willem De Haan (1990), provides a radical critique of the
criminal (in)justice system, while providing other ways, either concrete or envisioned, of dealing with crime and harm. Penal
abolitionists believe that social life should not be regulated by penal law, and that other ways of dealing with problematic behaviors
and situations should be practiced. However, when discussing penal abolition, some activists maintain that there could be instances
where confinement should be used for a select number of cases, at least as a short-term strategy (Sauve, 1988). For the purposes of
this chapter then, I mostly refer to the term prison abolition (and not penal abolition) as my focus here is on strategies that envision
a world without carceral spaces and institutional mindsets, whether they are affiliated with the larger framework of penal abolition
or not. This tension between abolition, closure and reform is discussed further below.


Gentrification DA
Forging a politics of outraged solidarity enables a broad-based challenge
to the ideology of gentrification. The first step must come in prioritizing
the negative impacts of gentrification on communities of color -- that's
why a negative ballot solves
Miller '7 Sam, Sam J. Miller is a writer and community organizer. For the past three years he has organized homeless people to
successfully fight for changes in city housing policy. A graduate of Rutgers University, where he majored in Cinema Studies, he lives
in the Bronx with his partner of five years. Drop him a line at samjmiller79@yahoo.com. " Haunting Our Homes: Nightmares of
Gentrification", a version of this article was published on Alternet, http://www.pd.org/Perforations/perf29/sm1.pdf
Haunted-house escapism allows us to evade two fundamental truths: that on some level we participate in the displacement of
others, and that we ourselves are vulnerable to displacement and homelessness. At the same time, the stigmatization of the
homeless in media and in governmental policy has become so extreme that we equate the homeless with monsters. When you
lose your home, you lose your membership in the human community. You become something else. A ghost; a monster. Not all
haunted house films end with the ghosts getting brutally exorcised, or the humans packing up and running for their lives. Although
the dynamics always play out as a war of Us-vs-Them/ Good-vs-Evil/ Old-vs-New, the battle sometimes ends in a draw. The parody
Beetlejuice, also about clueless rich urban gentrifiers colonizing a haunted house in the countryside, ends with the dead and the
living recognizing that they are fundamentally the same, and learning to co-exist in harmony. The nature of scarcity economics
makes this precise solution impossible with real-life gentrification, but active cooperation across the lines of class and race is not
only possible, its essential. Expecting a mainstream horror film to give us a road map towards fighting gentrification is as absurd as
hoping that an anti-war film will tell us how to stop a war. Instead, artbad art, good art, corporate art, independent artshould
prompt us to examine our fears and our assumptions, and move us to a deeper inquiry of how they impact our reality. The
haunted house film makes assumptions that are worth questioningwho are we as an audience? to whom do these films
address themselves? who haunts our homes? whose homes do we haunt?but it also contains the seeds of a real dialogue
concerning the human costs of the housing crisis, and our responsibility, and our power to do something about it.

The prioritization of their impacts erects all of society as a politics of slow
death fought against precarious bodies. We must resist the temptation to
render gentrification as a crisis, because to do so buys into the idea that
violence is exceptional rather that the process by which the social is
constituted through history
Berlant '7 Lauren, George M. Pullman Distinguished Service Professor Department of English, "Slow Death (Sovereignty, Obesity,
Lateral Agency)" Critical Inquiry, Vol. 33, No. 4, On the Case<break></break>Edited by Lauren Berlant (Summer 2007), pp. 754-780
1. Conceiving the Case Slow death prospers not in traumatic events, as discrete time-framed
phenomena like military encounters and genocides can appear to do, but in temporal
environments whose qualities and whose contours in time and space are often
identified with the presentness of ordinariness itself, that domain of living on, in
which everyday activity;memory, needs,anddesires; diverse temporalities and
horizons of the taken-for-granted are brought into proximity.15 I distinguish environment from
event here not to choose a model of space over time but precisely to describe space temporally, as a back-formation
from practices.16 An event is a genre calibrated according to the intensities and kinds of impact.17 Environment denotes
a dialectical scene where the interaction reified as structure and agency is manifest in predictable repetitions; an
environment is made via spatial practices and can absorb how time ordinarily passes, how forgettable most events are,
and, overall, how peoples ordinary perseverations fluctuate in patterns of undramatic attachment and identification.18
In an ordinary environment, most of what we call events are not of the scale of memorable impact but rather are
episodes, that is, occasions thatmake experiences while notchanging much of anything. They are closer to what
Teresa Brennan calls an atmosphere, but an atmosphere managed and mediated by
temporal, physical, legal, rhetorical, and institutionally normative procedures.19 But
more than establishing the episodic nature of most events and the absorptive function of most environments is at stake
in making out the scene of slow death. Often when scholars and activists apprehend the
phenomenon of slow death in long-term conditions of privation they choose to
misrepresent the duration and scale of the situation by calling a crisis that which is a
fact of life and has been a defining fact of life for a given population that lives it as a
fact in ordinary time. (Etymologically, crisis denotes a crisis in judgment, which is to say that at the heart of a
crisis-claim is not the quality of the object in question but the condition of a spectatorial mind.) Of course this
deployment of crisis is often explicitly and intentionally a redefinitional tactic, a distorting or misdirecting gesture that
aspires to make an environmental phenomenon appear suddenly as an event because as a structural or predictable
condition it has not engendered the kinds of historic action we associate with the heroic agency a crisis seems already to
have called for.20 Meanwhile, having been made radiant with attention, compassion,analysis,
and sometimes reparation, the population wearing out in the space of ordinariness
becomes a figure saturated with emotion generated by a lack of or need for the
responsibility of the privileged in the face of the cold facts. This is why, to turn
ordinary life into crisis ordinariness, social justice activists engage in the actuarial
imaginary of biopolitics; what seem like cool facts of suffering become hot weapons in
arguments about agency and urgency that extend fromimperiled bodies.21 Even as this
rhetoric oftenmakes bizarre intimacies between unthinkable harshness and the ordinary work of living on, it becomes a
way of talking about what forms of catastrophe a world is comfortable with or even interested in perpetuating and how
the rhetoric of crisis effects a slippage or transfer of the notion of the urgency of a situation to the level of the
temporalities of the lives of those who are deemed the locus of the crisis. Yet since catastrophe means change, crisis
rhetoric belies the constitutive pointthat slow death, or the structurally motivated
attrition of persons notably because of their membership in certain populations, is
neither a state of exception nor the opposite, mere banality, but a domain of
revelation where an upsetting scene of living that has been muffled in ordinary
consciousness is revealed to be interwoven with ordinary life after all, like ants revealed
scurrying under a thoughtlessly lifted rock.22 It is as though the very out-of-scaleness of the sensationalist rhetoric
around crisis ordinariness measures the structural intractability of a problem the world can live with, which just looks like
crisis and catastrophe when attached to freshly exemplary bodies. While death is usually deemed an event in contrast to
lifes extensivity, in this domain dying and the ordinary reproduction of life are coextensive, opening to a genealogy of a
contemporary way of being that is not just contemporary or solely located in the U.S. but takes on specific shapes in this
time and space.


Advocating for reform in the legal code is totally beside the point -- they
have conceded that prisons themselves are a form of slavery -- focus on
any particular aspect of criminal justice trades off with that systemic
critique, that's Rodriguez and PREAP. Our impact turns the case -- their
superficial critique only sanitizes the smooth function of the public
incarceration process by concluding that prisons would be better if only
prisoners weren't in prison for (MARIJUANA/ORGAN
SALE/PROSTITUTION/ONLINE GAMBLING/ASSISTING WITH SUICIDE) while
implicitly conceding that it is okay if they are there for something. Their
focus trades off with the far more important advocacy for decarceration,
which is the only meaningful way to reframe our understanding of the
interlocking oppressions of penal modernism. Advocating decarceration is
distinct and incompatible with advocating legal reform. Vote neg

2nc overview

We control the role of the ballot and the internal link to all relevant
impacts -- your role as an educator is to vote negative

Rodriguez '10 Dylan, Professor and Chair of the Department of Ethnic Studies at UC Riverside. "The Disorientation of the Teaching
Act: Abolition as Pedagogical Position": The Radical Teacher, No. 88 (Summer 2010), pp. 7-19

The prison regime is the institutionalization and systemic expansion of massive human misery. It is the production of bodily and
psychic disarticulation on multiple scales, across different physiological capacities. The prison industrial complex is, in its logic of
organization and its production of common sense, at least proto-genocidal. Finally, the prison regime is inseparable fromthat is,
present inthe schooling regime in which teachers are entangled. Prison is not simply a place to which one is displaced and where
ones physiological being is disarticulated, at the rule and whim of the state and its designated representatives (police, parole
officers, school teachers). The prison regime is the assumptive premise of classroom teaching generally. While many of us must
live in labored denial of this fact in order to teach as we must about American democracy, freedom, and (civil) rights, there
are opportune moments in which it is useful to come clean: the vast majority of what occurs in U.S. classroomsfrom preschool
to graduate schoolcannot accommodate the bare truth of the proto-genocidal prison regime as a violent ordering of the world,
a primary component of civil society/ school, and a material presence in our everyday teaching acts. As teachers, we are
institutionally hailed to the service of genocide management, in which our pedagogical labor is variously engaged in mitigating,
valorizing, critiquing, redeeming, justifying, lamenting, and otherwise reproducing or tolerating the profound and systemic
violence of the global-historical U.S. nation building project. As radical teachers, we are politically hailed to betray genocide
management in order to embrace the urgent challenge of genocide abolition. The short-term survival of
those populations rendered most immediately vulnerable to the
mundane and spectacular violence of this system, and the long-term
survival of most of the planets human population (particularly those
descended from survivors of enslavement, colonization, conquest, and
economic exploitation), is significantly dependent on our willingness to
embrace this form of pedagogical audacity.
2nc overview

2ac has no answer to our thesis -- illegality is a symptom of the Prison
Industrial Complex's need to profit from the imprisonment of a certain
percentage of the population at any given time -- legalization in one area
does not change the underlying structure of the slave prison complex
built on the penalization of poverty -- so long as we win Shakur and
Rodriguez's thesis the aff loses turns case because they images of
people that fail
Duke University Press'9 blurb of book by Loic Wacquant, Professor of Sociology, UC Berkeley, "Punishing the Poor"
http://www.dukeupress.edu/Catalog/ViewProduct.php?productid=14857
The punitive turn of penal policy in the United States after the acme of the Civil Rights movement responds not to rising criminal
insecurity but to the social insecurity spawned by the fragmentation of wage
labor and the shakeup of the ethnoracial hierarchy. It partakes of a broader reconstruction
of the state wedding restrictive workfare and expansive prisonfare under a philosophy of moral behaviorism. This paternalist
program of penalization of poverty aims to curb the urban disorders wrought by economic deregulation and to impose precarious
employment on the postindustrial proletariat. It also erects a garish theater of civic morality on whose stage political elites can
orchestrate the public vituperation of deviant figuresthe teenage welfare mother, the ghetto street thug, and the roaming
sex predatorand close the legitimacy deficit they suffer when they discard the established government mission of social and
economic protection. By bringing developments in welfare and criminal justice into a single analytic framework attentive to both the
instrumental and communicative moments of public policy, Punishing the Poor shows that the prison is not a
mere technical implement for law enforcement but a core political
institution. And it reveals that the capitalist revolution from above called neoliberalism entails not the advent of small
government but the building of an overgrown and intrusive penal state deeply injurious to the ideals of democratic citizenship.
2nc overview
Abolitionism is a pedagogical praxis for challenging the root cause that
they identify. Our epistemic circuit-breaker is the best way to solve the aff
Ben-Moshe '14 Liat, Liat Ben-Moshe is Assistant Professor of Disability Studies at the University of Toledo. She holds a PhD in
Sociology with concentrations in Gender Studies and Disability Studies from Syracuse University. Her recent work examines the
connections between prison abolition and deinstitutionalization in the fields of intellectual disabilities and mental health in the
United States. "The Tension Between Abolition and Reform" in Disability Incarcerated Imprisonment and Disability in the United
States and Canada https://www.academia.edu/3483590/The_tension_between_abolition_and_reform
Abolition can be conceptualized as a strategy beyond mere resistance. It not only acknowledges the structure as is, but envisions
and creates and new worldview in which oppressive structures do not exist. It goes beyond protesting against the current
circumstances to envisioning a more just and equitable world. Abolition can take the form of tearing
down the walls of the prison, psychiatric hospital and institution. It is also
about building alternatives to incarceration: supporting community living
for all, developing affordable and accessible housing, and countering
capitalism, ableism, racism, transphobia, and ageism in order to achieve a
world in which carceral spaces are meaningless and unnecessary. Abolition
enables us to engage in politics of the future of what could be, of what was dreamed up by deinstitutionalization and anti-
psychiatry activists in the past and what is imagined by prison abolitionists at present. It is not just the conceptualization but also
the active pursuit of a non-carceral future.
a2: permutation

We'll explain our alternative so mutual exclusivity is clear -- the 1NC was a performative pedagogy of abolitionism -- they cannot
simply say "us too" -- treat the 1NC as a rhetorical artifact -- we are a critique of their reform-minded approach. This starting
point foregrounds our approach to dealing with harms -- that means they cannot permute

Sudbury '9 Julia, Julia Sudbury is a leading activist scholar in the prison abolitionist movement.
She was a co-founder of Critical Resistance www.criticalresistance.org, a
national abolitionist organisation that popularised the concept of the prisonindustrial
complex in the United States. She is now Professor of Ethnic Studies at Mills College, a womens liberal arts college in California.
"Building a Movement to Abolish Prisons:
Lessons from the U.S." Journal of Prisoners on Prisons, Volume 18, No. 1&2, 2009 An earlier version of this piece was presented at
the Twelfth International Conference
on Penal Abolition which took place in July 2008 at Kings College London,
England.

Our fi nal lesson is that we can and must live abolition NOW. Abolition is a way of living and organizing in our families,
communities and work, not just a vision of the future. Living abolition means re-examining our everyday assumptions about how
to deal with confl ict and harm in our lives. It means seeking transformative approaches to create accountability in our lives.
Organizations like Creative Interventions in the U.S. have started to build alternative forms of community accountability, rooted in
gender and racial justice that we can use right now. We may know a family member who is violent or a member of an organization
who is sexually harassing another member. Community accountability strategies encourage us to take responsibility for tackling
harm collectively, in ways that honour all involved. Living abolition also means challenging the systemic inequalities that the PIC is
built on in our everyday lives. This might mean examining how race or class privilege operates in our lives and in our organizing,
and taking action to create more horizontal relationships. Ultimately the promise of abolition is that we can live a life without
blaming, punishing or infl icting violence. And that is a life we can live right now.

If we win ANY RISK of a link argument that they legitimize the prison system vote negative -- proves they are incompatible with
abolitionist pedagogy. We are a prior question

PREAP '76 Prison Research Education Action Project, "INSTEAD OF PRISONS" Chapter 1, Writers Fay Honey Knopp Barbara Boward
Mary Jo Brach Scott Christianson Mary Ann Largen Julie Lewin Janet Lugo Mark Morris Wendy Newton Researchers Barbara Boward
Mary Jo Brach Amy Davidson Blanche Gelber Margaret Grammer Dwight Greene Fay Honey Knopp Julie Lewin David Martin Editor
Mark Morris, http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/instead_of_prisons/chapter1.shtml

If we are unclear about power and how it operates, we will be impeded in our ability to properly analyze specific prison
situations. As a result we will find ourselves grappling with only the outer layers of the criminal (in)justice systems rather than the
core. We will be relegated to acting upon surface reformsthose which legitimize or strengthen the prison system. We
define abolitionist reforms as those which do not legitimize the prevailing system, but
gradually diminish its power and functions. This is the key to an abolitionist perspective on social change.
Abolition is a long range struggle, an unending process: it is never "finished," the phasing out is never completed. Strategies and
actions recommended in this handbook seek to gradually limit, diminish, or restrain certain forms of power wielded by the criminal
(in)justice systems.

Reform-minded and abolition-minded approaches to prison are incompatible. You can either be an abolitionist or a reformer, but
you cannot be both

Angela Davis and Amy Goodman 2014 Democracy Now, "Angela Davis on Prison Abolition, the War on Drugs and Why Social
Movements Shouldnt Wait on Obama" 3/6
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/3/6/angela_davis_on_prison_abolition_the

ANGELA DAVIS: Well, yes. I think that this is a pivotal moment. There are openings. And I think its very important to point out that
people have been struggling over these issues for years and for decades. This is also a problematic moment. And those of us who
identify as prison abolitionists, as opposed to prison reformers, make the point that oftentimes reforms create situations where
mass incarceration becomes even more entrenched; and so, therefore, we have to think about what in the long run will produce
decarceration, fewer people behind bars, and hopefully, eventually, in the future, the possibility of imagining a landscape without
prisons, where other means are used to address issues of harm, where social problems, such as illiteracy and poverty, do not lead
vast numbers of people along a trajectory that leads to prison. JUAN GONZLEZ: Im wondering, in termthe first term of
President Obama was often referred to by some through the myth of post-racial America, represented by the election of President
Obama. But even he has shied away, until recently, dealing with some of the racial inequities of our system, especially the prison
system. Im wondering if you can see a movement or transformation in the president himself in how he deals with some of these
issues? ANGELA DAVIS: Well, this is his second term. He really has nothing to lose. And it really is about time that he began to
address what is one of the most critical issues in this country. Its pretty unfortunate that Obama has waited until now to speak out,
but its good that he is speaking out. And I think we can use this opportunity to perhaps achieve some important victories. AMY
GOODMAN: Explain what you mean, Angela, the difference between being a prison abolitionist, how you describe yourself, and a
prison reformer. ANGELA DAVIS: Well, of course, in 1977, when the Attica rebellion took place, that was a really important
moment in the history of mass incarceration, the history of the prison in this country. The prisoners who were the spokespeople
for the uprising indicated that they were struggling for a world without prisons. During the 1970s, the notion of prison abolition
became very important. And as a matter of fact, public intellectuals, judges, journalists took it very seriously and began to think
about alternatives. However, in the 1980s, with the dismantling of social services, structural adjustment in the Global South, the
rise of global capitalism, we began to see the prison emerging as a major institution to address the problems that were produced
by the deindustrialization, lack of jobs, less funding into education, lack of education, the closedown of systems that were
designed to assist people who had mental and emotional problems. And now, of course, the prison system is also a psychiatric
facility. I always point out that the largest psychiatric facilities in the country are Rikers Island in New York and Cook County in
Chicago. So, the question is: How does one address the needs of prisoners by
instituting reforms that are not going to create a stronger prison system?
Now there are something like two-and-a-half million people behind bars, if
one counts all of the various aspects of what we call the prison-industrial complex, including military prisons, jails in Indian country,
state and federal prisons, county jails, immigrant detention facilitieswhich constitute the fastest-growing sector of the prison-
industrial complex. Yeah, so howthe question is: How do we respond to the needs of those who are inside, and at the same time
begin a process of decarceration that will allow us to end this reliance on imprisonment as a default method of addressingnot
addressing, reallymajor social problems?

Calls for reform mask the deeper structures of penal oppression -- the permutation only re-entrenches elite control
Vogel '4 Richard, "Silencing the Cells: Mass Incarceration and Legal Repression in U.S. Prisons Monthly Review,
http://monthlyreview.org/2004/05/01/silencing-the-cells-mass-incarceration-and-legal-repression-in-u-s-prisons
The PLRA, following 30 years of liberal judicial intervention in U.S. prisons, is a prime example of Marxs observation that reform in
the bourgeois state, including prison reform, is always reform by the bourgeoisie for the bourgeoisie. The PLRA illustrates for us
the important lesson that bourgeois prison reform must never be confused with the revolutionary prison reform that will render the
prison system we know today a grotesque relic of human history. The history and impact of the PLRA is both instructive and
alarmingthere are more of these reforms on the reactionary agenda for the United States. They target everything from court-
ordered education for special needs children and shelter for the homeless to legal attacks on citizen access to the courts and the
fundamental right of habeas corpus in order to make the death penalty more effective. Make no mistake about it. The political
assault by conservatives on the poor and working people is in full swing.