The affirmative begins their attempt at reform from a position that has already been scripted for them by systems of the neoliberal education system. The reforms of the affirmative are simply an attempt to outsource the work of educators to the private sector
Gibson and Ross 07
E. Wayne Ross, Rich Gibson, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, authors of “Neoliberlaism and Education Reform,” 2007. file:///Users/carver/Downloads/Neoliberalism%20and%20Ed%20Reform%20(Complete%20Proofs%202006).pdf
George W. Bush’s blueprint to reform education, known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002, crystallizes key neoliberal and neoconservative business-oriented education policies. Two main components of this reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act— mandatory high stakes testing and education privatization—have a long history, going back to the free-market proposals of Milton Friedman (1962), Chubb and Moe’s (1990) argument for introduction of market forces and school choice, and the education reforms advocated under Reagan. Beginning with A Nation at Risk (National Commission, 1983) and other education reform manifestos of the 1980s, there has been a steady push for standards, accountability, and regulation of schools, teachers, and students and an explicit linkage of corporate interests with educational practices and goals. The business rhetoric of efficiency and performance standards and theredefinition of education to serve the labor market has become the common vocabulary of education policy. Indeed, apart from Bush’s failed proposal to use public funds for vouchers for private school tuition, NCLB is not unlike Clinton and Gore’s emphasis on standards and tests. It was, after all, Clinton who declared Chicago, with its high-stakes testing and sanctions for failure, a model for the nation. Scholars have examined ways in which accountability, centralized regulation, and standardization undermine democratic purposes of public education, intensify inequality, and bring schools increasingly under the economic and cultural domination of corporations (see e.g., Apple, 2001; Aronowitz & Giroux, 1993; Ascher, Fruchter & Berne, 1996; Lipman, 2004; McNeil, 2000; Molnar, 1996; Saltman, 2000). NCLB solidifies and streamlines these trends, while also promoting favorite neoconservative causes, including dismantling bilingual education, military recruitment in schools, school prayer, sexual abstinence, and attacks on gays and lesbians. In this chapter, I focus on implications of NCLB for intensified race and class inequality in the context of neoliberal globalization, the stratified labor force, and the cultural politics of racism. This analysis draws on data from the Texas state education accountability system and from Chicago’s accountability-based school reform begun in 1995. Both were models for key elements of NCLB and both provide data on the effects of these policies over time. NCLB has succeeded in redefining education reform in the United States. This is not only because it has been widely supported by politicians, neoliberal and neoconservative intellectuals, and business, but also because it speaks to real problems. Proponents justify tough accountability measures by pointing to the profound failure of public schools, particularly their failure to educate children of color (see “Don’t Turn Back the Clock,” 2003). Tough accountability measures suggest that something is finally being done to make sure that all children can read and do math, with schools, educators, and students held accountable for results. Tying educational programs to accountability for results (test scores) resonates with the often repeated idea that schools have not improved despite a proliferation of reforms—in Bush’s words “Congress has created hundreds of programs . . . without asking whether or not the programs produce results.” NCLB also follows the pervasive neoliberal logic that the market can do all things better than public institutions, from managing retirement funds, to providing health care, to running prisons. Test scores serve as a surrogate for productivity, and business is called on to supplement the work of educators, who by definition have failed.
Capitalism is the root cause of violence – it trains and educates its citizens to prepare for strife and conflict, turning the affirmative’s education policies.
Vattimo and Zabala 11 Gianni Vattimo, emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Turin and a member of the European Parliament, and Santiago Zabala, ICREA Research Professor of Philosophy at the Pompue Fabra University, Hermeneutic Communism, Columbia: New York, NY (2011), pg 47-54
Although reports from many other states also warn of a future rife with wars (over water, immigration, and infectious diseases),19the fact that "absolute poverty" and "comparative disadvantage" are now also considered threats for the security of framed democracies inevitably poses "other" alarms than the ones indicated by Fukuyama and Kagan. As we can see, the coming threats are not limited to Russia, China, and India, which, as Kagan explains, have become "responsible shareholders," but rather come from everyone who is not part of framed democracy's neoliberal capitalism. This is why we do not believe the next wars will primarily be against other states20 but rather against those "useless shareholders," who, for the most part, are the weak, poor, and oppressed citizens, as highlighted in the defense reports. As we argue, the weak do not possess a different history but rather exist at history's margins; that is, they represent the discharge of capitalism and are present not only in the Third World but also in the slums of Western metropolises. These slums are not only becoming larger as we write but also are where the majority of the population is forced to live because of the concentration of capital. While in the West the slums are becoming battlegrounds, in some South American states, as we will see in chapter 4, they have become territories for social improvement through communist initiatives. In sum, the conflicts of the twenty-first century will not be caused by the return of history, as Fukuyama and Kagan predict, but rather byits own ends:liberal states. The fact that framed democracy is already preparing to fight and win such urban wars indicateshow within our democratic system change is almost impossible and also how the oppressive effects of capitalism are predicted to increase. As Meiksins Wood explained, whether "national or global, [capitalism] is driven by a certain systemic imperatives, the imperatives of competition, profit-maximization and accumulation, which inevitably require putting 'exchange-value' before 'use-value' and profit before people."21These are systemic imperatives of dominion, supremacy, and control over others, and they result in such metaphysical systems as liberalism, where the power of the individual becomes the only substance. Our goal in this chapter is to demonstrate how framed democracy's liberal, financial, and security measures regulate one another in order both to conserve our current "lack of emergencies" and to impose necessary emergencies. If the democracies' chief priority is to conserve what Heidegger called the "lack of emergencies," that is, the neutrality achieved through science's liberal essence, modern states still have an essential function, contrary to the opinion of many contemporary thinkers.22 This function is not limited to the historical, racial, or linguistic identification of a state's citizens but extends to other states: "liberal states" are also "liberating states"; that is, they liberate other states from undemocratic regimes. The recent imposed liberalization of Iraq and Afghanistan (also called "state building") occurred under the orders of other liberal states and as a consequence of the essence of liberalism. It is also in the name of this essence that democracy is imposed today as the best system of government even when it becomes corrupt. As we mentioned in the previous chapter, the "liberal essence" of science consists in its ideal of objectivity, that is, establishing "truth" or "freedom" as only what legally enters within the established, recognized, and framed democratic order.It must be for these reasons that Carl Schmitt viewed "liberalism as a coherent, all-embracing,metaphysical system"23 and that Heidegger viewed it as another product, with fascism, capitalism, and communism, of subjectivist metaphysics.24 This is why within metaphysically framed democracies liberalism avoids change: while democratic elections are procedures for possible change, liberalism is the realm within which such change presents itself through elections, finance, and institutions. Liberal electoral results represent humanity's unconditional self-legislation, in other words, the focus on "the I"25 from which stems liberalism. But this vision from a pure "I," according to Heidegger, is impossible to achieve, because there are no experiences that ever set man beyond himself into an unentered domain from within which man as he is up to now could become questionable. That is—namely, that self-security—that innermost essence of "liberalism," which precisely for this rea-son has the appearance of being able to freely unfold and to sub-scribe to progress for all eternity. . . . Thus, it now took only a few years for "science" to realize that its "liberal" essence and its "ideal of objectivity" are not only compatible with the political-national "orientation" but also indispensable to it. And hence "science" as well as "worldview" must now unanimously agree that the talk of a "crisis" of science was actually only a prattle.2
Vote negative to endlessly critique capital. Reform is impossible when capital controls the conditions of reform.
Meszaros 08 [Istvan, Chair of Philosophy at the University of Sussex, The Challenge and Burden of Historical Time, p323-328]
The unreality of postulating the sustainable solution of the grave problems of our social order withinthe formal and legal framework and corresponding constraints of parliamentary politics arises from the fundamental misconception of the structural determinations of capital’s rule, as represented in all varieties that assert the dualism of civil society and the political state. The difficulty, insurmountable within the parliamentary framework is this that since capital is actually in control of all vital aspects of the social metabolism, it can afford to define the separately constituted sphere of political legitimation as a strictly formal and legal matter, thereby necessarily excluding the possibility of being legitimately challenged in its substantive sphere of socioeconomic reproductive operation. Directly or indirectly, capital controls everything, including the parliamentary legislative process, even if the latter is supposed to be fully independent from capital in many theories that fictitiously hypostatize the “democratic equality” of all political forces participating in the legislative process. To envisage a very different relationship to the powers of decision making in our societies, now completely dominated by the forces of capital in every domain, it is necessary to radically challenge capital itself as the overall controller of social metabolic reproduction.¶ What makes this problem worse for all those who are looking for significant change on the margins of the established political system is that the latter can claim for itself genuine constitutional legitimacy in its present mode of functioning, based on the historically constituted inversion of the actual state of the material reproductive affairs. For inasmuch as the capital is not only the “personification of capital” but simultaneously functions also “as the personification of the social character of labor, of the total workshop as such,” the system can claim to represent the vitally necessary productive power of society vis-à-vis the individuals as the basis of their continued existence, incorporating the interest of all. In this way capital asserts itself not only as the de facto but also the de jure power of society, in its capacity as the objectively given necessary condition of societal reproduction, and thereby as the constitutional foundation to its own political order. The fact that the constitutional legitimacy of capital is historically founded on the ruthless expropriation of the conditions of social metabolic reproduction- the means and material of labor-from the producers, and therefore capital’s claimed “constitutionality” (like the origin of all constitutions) is unconstitutional, is an unpalatable truth which fades away in the mist of a remote past. The “social productive powers of labor, or productive power or social labor, first develop historically with the specifically capitalist mode of production, hence appear as something immanent in the capital-relation and inseparable from it.¶ This is how capital’s mode of social metabolic reproduction becomes eternalized and legitimated as a lawfully unchallengeable system. Legitimate contest is admissible only in relation to some minor aspects of the unalterable overall structure. The real state of affairs on thee plane of socioeconomic reproduction-i.e., the actually exercised productive power of labor and its absolute necessity for securing capital’s own reproduction- disappears from sight. Partly because of the ignorance of the very far from legitimate historical origin of capital’s “primitive accumulation” and the concomitant, frequently violent, expropriation of property as the precondition of the system’s present mode of functioning; and partly because of the mystifying nature of the established productive and distributive relations. As Marx notes: The objective conditions of labor do not appear as subsumed under the worker; rather, he appears as subsumed under them. Capital employs Labor. Even this relation is in its simplicity is a personification of things and a reification of persons.¶ None of this can be challenged and remedied within the framework of parliamentary political reform. It would be quite absurd to expect the abolition of the “personification of things and the reification of persons” by political decree, and just as absurd to expect the proclamation of such an intended reform within the framework of capital’s political institutions. For the capital system cannot function without the perverse overturning of the relationship between persons and things: capital’s alienated and reified powers dominate the masses of the people. Similarly it would be a miracle if the workers who confront capital in the labor process as “isolated workers” could reacquire mastery over the social productive powers of their labor by some political decree, or even by a whole series of parliamentary reforms enacted under capital’s order of social metabolic control. For in these matters there can be no way of avoiding the irreconcilable conflict over the material stakes of “either/or”¶ Capital can neither abdicate its-usurped-social productive powers in favor of labor, nor can I share them with labor, thanks to some wishful but utterly fictitious “political compromise.” For they constitute the overall controlling power of societal reproduction in the form of “the rule of wealth over society.” Thus it is impossible to escape, in the domain of the fundamental social metabolism, the severe logic of either/or. For either wealth, in the shape of capital, continues to rule over human society, taking it to the brink of self-destruction, or the society of associated producers learns to rule over alienated and reified wealth, with productive powers arising from the self-determinated social labor of its individual-but not longer isolated-members. Capital is the extra-parliamentary force par excellence. It cannot possibly be politically constrained by parliament in its power of social metabolic control. This is why the only mode of political representation compatible with capital’s mode of functioning is one that effectively denies the possibility of contesting its material power. And precisely because capital is the extra-parliamentary force par excellence, it has nothing to fear from the reforms that can be enacted within its parliamentary political framework.¶ Since the vital issue on which everything else hinges is that “the objective conditions of labor do not appear as subsumed under the worker” buy, on the contrary, “he appears as subsumed under them,” no meaningful change is feasible without addressing the issue both in a form of politics capable of matching capital’s extra-parliamentary powers and modes of action, and in the domain of material reproduction. Thus the only challenge that could affect the power of capital, in a sustainable manner, is one which would simultaneously aim at assuming the system’s key productive functions, and at acquiring control over the corresponding political decision making processes in all spheres, instead of being hopelessly constrained by the circular confinement of institutionally legitimated political action to parliamentary legislation.¶ There is a great deal of critique of formerly leftwing political figures and of their now fully accommodating parties in the political debates of the last decades. However, what is problematic about such debates is that by overemphasizing the role of personal ambition and failure, they often continue to envisage remedying the situation with in the same political institutional framework that, in fact, greatly favors the criticized “personal betrayals” and the painful “party derailments.” Unfortunately, though the advocated and hoped for personal and government changes tend to reproduce the same deplorable results.¶ All this could not be very surprising. The reason why the now established political institutions successfully resist significant change for the better is because they are themselves part of the problem and not of the solution. For in their immanent nature they are the embodiment of the underlying structural determinations and contradictions through which the modern capitalist state- with its ubiquitous network of bureaucratic constituents- has been articulated and stabilized in the course of the last four hundred years. Naturally, the state was formed not as a one-sided mechanical result but through its necessary reciprocal interrelationship to the material ground of capital’s historical unfolding, as not only being shaped by the latter but also actively shaping it as much as historically feasible under the prevailing- and precisely through the interrelationship also changing- circumstances.¶ Given the insuperably centrifugal determination of capital’s productive microcosms, even at the level of the giant quasi-monopolistic transnational corporations, only the modern state could assume and fulfill the required function of being the overall command structure of the capital system.¶ Inevitably, that meant the complete alienation of the power of overall decision making from the producers. Even the “particular personifications of capital” were strictly mandated to act in accord with the structural imperatives of their system. Indeed the modern state, as constituted on the material ground of the capital system, is the paradigm of alienation as regards the power of comprehensive decision making. It would be therefore extremely naïve to imagine that the capitalist state could willingly hand over the alienated power of systemic decision making to any rival actor who operates within the legislative framework of parliament.¶ Thus, in order to envisage a meaningful and historically sustainable societal change, it is necessary to submit to a radical critique both the material reproductive and the political inter-determinations of the entire system, and not simply some of the contingent and limited political practices. The combined totality of the material reproductive determinations and the all-embracing political command structure of the state together constitutes the overpowering reality of the capital system. In this sense, in view of the unavoidable question arising from the challenge of systemic determinations, with regard to both socioeconomic reproduction and the state, the need for a comprehensive political transformation-in close conjunction to the meaningful exercise of society’s vital productive functions without which far-reaching and lasting political change is inconceivable-becomes inseparable from the problem characterized as the withering away of the state. Accordingly, in the historic task of accomplishing “the withering away of the state,” self-management through full participation, and the permanently sustainable overcoming of parliamentarism by a positive form of substantive decision-making are inseparable.¶ This is a vital concern and not “romantic faithfulness to Marx’s unrealizable dream,” as some people try to discredit and dismiss it. In truth, the “withering away of the state” refers to nothing mysterious or remote but to a perfectly tangible process that must be initiated right in our own historical time. It means, in plain language, the progressive reacquisition of the alienated power of political decision making by the individuals in their enterprise of moving toward a genuine socialist society. Without the reacquisition of this power- to which not only the capitalist state but also the paralyzing inertia of the structurally well-entrenched material reproductive practices are fundamentally opposed- neither the new mode of political control of society as a whole by its individuals is conceivable, nor indeed the nonadversarial and thereby cohesive and plannable everyday operation of the particular productive and distributive units by the self-managing freely associated producers. Radically superseding adversariality, and thereby securing the material and political ground of globally viable planning- an absolute must for the very survival of humanity, not to mention the potentially enriched self realization- of its individual members- is synonymous with the withering away of the state as an ongoing historical enterprise.