Race Affirmatives

These are some cards that explain why the kritik doesnt solve and/or is the
wrong starting point for solving the impacts of the affirmative. Pick and
choose them to make a 2ac and make your own analytics. Obviously neither
of the affs are Wilderson affs and a lot of the cards are from Wilderson, but
they are good on what should come first and should still jive with the specific
literature of the affirmative. Thank you to Hakeem for the cites and articles!
-Camila Reed-Guevara

2AC
The alternative perpetuates violence against the Black body
and leads to coercive and unacceptable political backlash
Wilderson, 5 (Frank, Full professor of Drama and African American studies

at the University of California, Irvine, January 27 2005, Gramscis Black Marx:

Whither the Slave in Civil Society?,
http://bmorereadinggroup.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/frank_gramsci.pdf)-CRG
Therefore, Gramscian wisdom cannot imagine the emergence, elaboration,

and stunting of a subject by Way, not of the contingency of violence

resulting in a crisis of authority, but by Way of direct relations of force.
This is remarkable, and unfortunate, given the fact that the emergence
of the slave, the subject-effect of an ensemble of direct relations of
force, marks the emergence of capitalism itself. Let us put a linear point
on it: violence towards the Black body is the precondition for
the existence of Gramscis single entity the modem bourgeoisstate with its divided apparatus, political society and civil society. This is to
say violence against Black people is ontological and gratuitous as
opposed to ideological and contingent. Furthermore, no magical moment
(i.e., 1865) transformed, paradigmatically, the Black bodys relation to this
entityz. In this regard, the hegemonic advances within civil society

by the Left hold out no more possibility for Black life than the
coercive backlash of political society. What many political theorists

have either missed or ignored is that a crisis of authority that might take
place by way of a Left expansion of civil society, further instantiates,
rather than dismantles, the authority of Whiteness. Black death is the
modern bourgeois-states recreational pastime, but the hunting season is not
confined to the time (and place) of political society; Blacks are fair game as

a result of a progressively expanding civil society as well.

Focus on capitalism fails to recognize Americas legacy of
racism which has materialized violently in the status quo in the
form of police brutality, prisons systems and the extreme
poverty that people of color experience
Ervin, 2k (Lorenzo, American writer, activist, and black anarchist. He is a
former member of the Black Panther Party, originally written in 2000 posted
online on July 29 2005, It's Racism Stupid! libcom,
https://libcom.org/library/its-racism-stupid-lorenzo-ervin)--CRG
In speaking about any class issues in the United States, an

understanding of white supremacy and economic inequality must go

hand-in-hand. Most white "radicals" want to neatly put "race
issues" over in one neat category, and then "class issues" in
another. We'll call this "vulgar radicalism" because it is totally not based on
any social or political understanding of the problem. The US working class

has never been monolithic, there has always been a dual tier economy
of poor oppressed workers of color on the bottom, and better paid and

treated whites standing on top of and benefitting from their misery. I don't
just mean the bosses either, as many so-called "radicals" like to claim, when
they talk mythically about some so-called "aristocracy of labor." In a country

with a history of racial genocide, racial slavery, and other forms of

racialized oppression, it is chauvinism and political opportunism of the
worst sort to call for peoples of color to blindly follow behind some
corrupt white dominated political or social movement to liberate
themselves. This has been a problem for Labor, Socialist, Anarchist, and
other radical movements for decades. They have a White, middle class
understanding of this race and class oppression as mere "prejudice",
and see the problem as a simple matter of making "those Blacks" see
that they should just "follow us". This idea of the "white working class
hero" is really dangerous and delusional, sliding into racism itself.
With an epidemic of police crimes, and now that the prison system is
being used to confine huge number of poor Black and non-white peoples,
it is treachery and escapism to refuse to acknowledge that this is
happening because of America's legacy of racism, and because this
capitalism political and economic system is deteriorating. It is funny how in
the United States, most whites have an obliterated consciousness when it
comes to racism, they see it as an adjunct to something else, whether
economic theory or religious dogma. The questions of internal power dynamic
(of which racism is a part) are reduced to a group of Wall Street economic
overlords or owners of industry, to which we are all *equally* disposed and
exploited. Again, any economic analysis cannot be based on the white
European experience alone, rather than the United States America as a
nation-state. To me, this is part of where they always go wrong...using
mechanical analysis to explain everything. I ain't buying it, the cops ain't
stopping the cars of Black folks cause they are just oppressing "everybody
alike". It's racism, stupid, get your head out of your butt!

They have it backwards- capitalism began because of the

violent exploitation of the black body
Wilderson, 5 (Frank, Full professor of Drama and African American studies

at the University of California, Irvine, January 27 2005, Gramscis Black Marx:

Whither the Slave in Civil Society?,
http://bmorereadinggroup.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/frank_gramsci.pdf)-CRG
Capital was kick-started by the rape of the African continent .
This phenomenon is central to neither Gramsci nor Marx. The theoretical
importance of emphasizing this in the early 21st century is two-fold: First,
the socio-political order of the New World (Spillers 1987: 67) was kickstarted by approaching a particular body (a Black body) with direct

relations of force, not by approaching a White body with variable

capital. Thus, one could say that slavery-the accumulation of Black bodies
regardless of their utility as laborers (Hartrnan; Johnson) through an idiom of
despotic power (Patterson)-is closer to capital's primal desire than is

waged oppression-the exploitation of unraced bodies (Marx, Lenin,

Gramsci) that labor through an idiom of rational/symbolic (the wage) power:

A relation of terror as opposed to a relation of hegemony? Secondly,
today, late capital is imposing a renaissance of this original desire,
direct relations of force (the prison industrial complex), the despotism of

the unwaged relation: and this Renaissance of slavery has, once again,
as its structuring image in libidinal economy, and its primary target in
political economy, the Black body.
Perm do both- classical Marxism doesnt take into account the
category of the slave. A combination of both allows the
potential of a Black subject to challenge capitalism
Wilderson, 5 (Frank, Full professor of Drama and African American studies

at the University of California, Irvine, January 27 2005, Gramscis Black Marx:

Whither the Slave in Civil Society?,
http://bmorereadinggroup.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/frank_gramsci.pdf)-CRG
The value of reintroducing the unthought category of the slave, by way
of noting the absence of the Black subject, lies in the Black subjects

potential for extending the demand placed on state/capital formations

because its re- introduction into the discourse expands the intensity of
the antagonism. In other words, the slave makes a demand, which is in
excess of the demand made by the worker. The worker demands that
productivity be fair and democratic (Gramsci's new hegemony, Lenins
dictatorship of the proletariat), the slave, on the other hand, demands

that production stop; stop without recourse to its ultimate

democratization. Work is not an organic principle for the slave. The
absence of Black subjectivity from the crux of marxist discourse is
symptomatic of the discourse's inability to cope with the possibility
that the generative subject of capitalism, the Black body of the 15th and
16th centuries, and the generative subject that resolves late-capital's
over-accumulation crisis, the Black (incarcerated) body of the 20th and

21st centuries, do not reify the basic categories which structure marxist
conflict: the categories of work, production, exploitation, historical self-

awareness and, above all, hegemony.

The negative fails to disrupt white supremacy and we have
better access to their impacts because the position of the
affirmative itself disrupts the notions of productivity that
capitalism thrives on
Wilderson, 5 (Frank, Full professor of Drama and African American studies

at the University of California, Irvine, January 27 2005, Gramscis Black Marx:

Whither the Slave in Civil Society?,
http://bmorereadinggroup.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/frank_gramsci.pdf)-CRG

Thus, the Black subject position in America is an antagonism, a demand

that can
not be satisfied through a transfer of ownership/organization of
existing rubrics;
whereas the Gramscian subject, the worker, represents a demand that
can indeed
be satisfied by way of a successful War of Position, which brings about
the end
of exploitation. The worker calls into question the legitimacy of

productive
practices, the slave calls into question the legitimacy of
productivity itself. From

the positionality of the worker the question, What does it mean to be free? is
raised. But the question hides the process by which the discourse assumes a
hidden grammar which has already posed and answered the question, What
does
it mean to suffer? And that grammar is organized around the categories of
exploitation (unfair labor relations or wage slavery). Thus, exploitation (wage
slavery) is the only category of oppression which concerns Gramsci:
society,
Westem society, thrives on the exploitation of the Gramscian subject. Full
stop.
Again, this is inadequate, because it would call White supremacy

"racism" and
articulate it as a derivative phenomenon of the capitalist matrix, rather
than
incorporating White supremacy as a matrix constituent to the base, if
not the
base itself.
The alternative ignores the libidinal economy of White
supremacy and recreates the affs impacts
Wilderson, 5 (Frank, Full professor of Drama and African American studies

at the University of California, Irvine, January 27 2005, Gramscis Black Marx:

Whither the Slave in Civil Society?,
http://bmorereadinggroup.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/frank_gramsci.pdf)-CRG
And it is well known that a metaphor comes into being through a violence

which kills, rather than merely exploits, the object, that the concept
might live. West's interventions help us see how marxism can only come
to grips with Americas structuring rationality -- what it calls capitalism,
or political economy; but cannot come to grips with America's
structuring irrationality: the libidinal economy of White
supremacy, and its hyper-discursive violence which kills the
Black subject that the concept, civil society, may live. In other
words, from the incoherence of Black death, America generates the

coherence of White life. This is important when thinking the Gramscian

paradigm (and its progenitors in the world of U.S. social movements today)
which is so dependent on the empirical status of hegemony and civil society:

struggles over hegemony are seldom, if ever, asignifying-at some point

they require coherence, they require categories for the record-which
means they contain the seeds of anti-Blackness.
The negative has the wrong starting point- their discourse
assumes a country based upon capital, not one based upon
white supremacy
Wilderson, 5 (Frank, Full professor of Drama and African American studies

at the University of California, Irvine, January 27 2005, Gramscis Black Marx:

Whither the Slave in Civil Society?,
http://bmorereadinggroup.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/frank_gramsci.pdf)-CRG

Any serious consideration of the question of antagonistic identity

formation-a formation, the mass mobilization of which can precipitate a
crisis in the institutions and assumptive logic which undergird the United
States of America-must come to grips with the limitations of marxist
discourse in the face of the Black subject. This is because the United
States is constructed at the intersection of both a capitalist and white
supremacist matrix. And the privileged subject of marxist discourse is a
subaltern who is approached by variable capital-a wage. In other words,

Marxism assumes a subaltern structured by capital, not by white

supremacy. In this scenario, racism is read off the base, as it were, as
being derivative of political economy. This is not an adequate subalternity
from which to think the elaboration of antagonistic identity formation;
not if we are truly committed to elaborating a theory of crisis-crisis at
the crux of Americas institutional and discursive strategies.
Their kritik ignores the black body and the exploitation of
slavery, meaning they can never solve the affirmative
Wilderson, 5 (Frank, Full professor of Drama and African American studies

at the University of California, Irvine, January 27 2005, Gramscis Black Marx:

Whither the Slave in Civil Society?,
http://bmorereadinggroup.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/frank_gramsci.pdf)-CRG
First, the Black American subject imposes a radical incoherence upon
the assumptive logic of Gramscian discourse. In other words, s/he implies
a scandal. Secondly, the Black subject reveals marxisms inability to
think White supremacy as the base and, in so doing, calls into question
marxisms claim to elaborate a comprehensive, or in the words of
Antonio Gramsci, decisive antagonism. Stated another way: Gramscian

Marxism is able to imagine the subject which transforms her/himself

into a mass of antagonistic identity formations, formations which
can precipitate a crisis in wage slavery, exploitation, and/for
hegemony, but it is asleep at the wheel when asked to provide enabling

antagonisrns toward unwaged slavery, despotism, and/or terror. Finally, we

begin to see how Marxism suffers lrom a kind of conceptual anxiety: a

desire for socialism on the other side of crisis -- a society which does
away not with the category of worker, but with the imposition workers
suffer under the approach of variable capital: in other words, the mark of

its conceptual anxiety is in its desire to democratize work and thus help keep
in place, insure the coherence to; Reformation and Enlightenment
foundational values of productivity and progress. This is a crowding-out
scenario for other post- revolutionary possibilities, i.e. idleness.

The K erases the concept of White privilege and positionalitymeans it can never solve our imapcts
Wilderson, 5 (Frank, Full professor of Drama and African American studies

at the University of California, Irvine, January 27 2005, Gramscis Black Marx:

Whither the Slave in Civil Society?,
http://bmorereadinggroup.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/frank_gramsci.pdf)-CRG
It is true that Gramsci acknowledges no organic division between political
society and civil society. He makes the division for methodological purposes.
There is one organism, the modern bourgeois-liberal state (Buttigieg
28), but there are two qualitatively different kinds of apparatuses: on the one
hand, the ensemble of so-called private associations and ideological

invitations to participate in a wide and varied play of consensus

making strategies, civil society, and on the other hand, a set of
enforcement structures which kick in when that ensemble is regressive
or can no longer lead, political society. But Gramsci would have us
believe not that White positionality emerges and is elaborated on
the terrain of civil society and encounters coercion when civil society is
not expansive enough to embrace the idea of freedom for all, but that
all positionalities emerge and are elaborated on the terrain of civil
society. Gramsci does not racialize this birth, elaboration, and stlmting, or reemergence, of human subjectivity-because civil society, supposedly,
elaborates all subjectivity and so there is no need for such specificity.

The negative ignores the gratuitous violence perpetuated

against the black body- reject the team
Wilderson, 5 (Frank, Full professor of Drama and African American studies

at the University of California, Irvine, January 27 2005, Gramscis Black Marx:

Whither the Slave in Civil Society?,
http://bmorereadinggroup.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/frank_gramsci.pdf)-CRG
Anglo-American Gramscians like Buttigieg and Sassoon, and U.S. activists

in the anti-globalization movement whose unspoken grammar is

predicated on Gramscis assumptive logic continue this tradition of
unraced positionality which allows them to posit the valency of Wars
of Position for Blacks and Whites alike. They assume that all

subjects are positioned in such a Way as to have their consent solicited and
to, furthermore, be able to extend their consent spontaneously. This is

profoundly problematic if only-leaving revolution aside for the momentat the level of analysis; for it assumes that hegemony with its three
constituent elements (influence, leadership, consent) is the modality
which must be either inculcated or breached, if one is to either avoid or
incur, respectively, the violence of the State. However, one of the
primary claims of this essay is that, whereas the consent of Black people
may seem to be called upon, its withdrawal does not precipitate a
crisis in authority. Put another Way, the transformation of Black
peoples acquiescent common sense into revolutionary
good sense is an extenuating circumstance, but not the
catalyst, of State violence against Black people. State violence
against the Black body, as Martinot and Sexton suggest in their
introduction, is not contingent, it is structural and, above all,
gratuitous.

1AR

Starting point
The negative has the wrong starting point- they start from a
White category of work- instead we should begin from the
ontological category of the Black Body
Wilderson, 5 (Frank, Full professor of Drama and African American studies
at the University of California, Irvine, January 27 2005, Gramscis Black Marx:
Whither the Slave in Civil Society?,
http://bmorereadinggroup.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/frank_gramsci.pdf)-CRG

The Black body in the U.S. is that constant reminder that not only can
work not be reformed but it cannot be transformed to accommodate all
subjects: work is a White category. The fact that millions upon
millions of Black people work misses the point. The point is we were
never meant to be workers; in other Words, capital/White supremacys
dream did not envision us as being incorporated or incorporative. From
the very beginning, we were meant to be accumulated and die. Work (i.e. the
French shipbuilding industry and bourgeois civil society which iinally
extended its progressive hegemony to workers and peasants to topple the
aristocracy) was what grew up all around us -- 20 to 60 million seeds planted
at the bottom of the Atlantic, 5 million seeds planted in Dixie. Work
sometimes registers as an historical component of Blackness, but where
Whiteness is concemed, work registers as a constituent element. And the

Black body must be processed through a kind of civil death for this
constituent element of Whiteness to gain coherence. Today, at the end
of the 20th century, We are still not meant to be Workers. We are
meant to be Warehoused and die.

Marxism bad for black body/doesnt solve

Marxism cannot account for racial oppression
Wilderson, 5 (Frank, Full professor of Drama and African American studies
at the University of California, Irvine, January 27 2005, Gramscis Black Marx:
Whither the Slave in Civil Society?,
http://bmorereadinggroup.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/frank_gramsci.pdf)-CRG
Civil society is the terrain where hegemony is produced, contested, And

the invitation to participate in hegemony's gestures of influence,

leadership, and consent is not extended to the Black subject. We
live in the world, but exist outside of civil society. This structurally
impossible position is a paradox because the Black subject, the slave, is
vital to civil societys political economy: s/he kick-starts capital at its
genesis and rescues it from its over-accumulation crisis at its end-Black death
is its condition of possibility. Civil societys subaltern, the worker, is coded as
waged, and wages are White. But marxism has no account of this

phenomenal birth and life-saving role played by the Black

subject: in Gramsci we have consistent silence.

Slavery began Capitalism

Violence perpetuated against the black body lead to the
exploitation of resources and of African peoples
Wilderson, 5 (Frank, Full professor of Drama and African American studies
at the University of California, Irvine, January 27 2005, Gramscis Black Marx:
Whither the Slave in Civil Society?,
http://bmorereadinggroup.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/frank_gramsci.pdf)-CRG
The gratuitous violence begun in slavery, hand in hand with the
absence of data for the New World Historical Axis (Rights/Entitlement,
Sovereignty, Immigration) as a result of slavery, position Black subjects in

excess of Gramscis fundamental categories, i.e. labor, exploitation,

historical self- awareness; for these processes of subjectification are
assumed by those with a semiotics of analogy already in hand-the currency of
exchange through which a dimension of relatedness between ole human
personality and another, between human personality and cultural
institutions can be established. Thus, the Black subject imposes a radical
incoherence upon the assumptive logic of Gramscian discourse. S/he
implies a scandal: total objectitication in contradistinction to human
possibility, however slim, as in the case of working class hegemony, that

human possibility appears.

Ecofeminism Affirmatives

2AC- Capitalism Kritik

( ) Prefer our role of the ballot- the judge should vote for the
team that best methodologically and performatively combats
exploitation of the environment
( ) Case outweighs- Our domination of the environment is
increasing now as our resources dwindle
( ) A focus on traditional capitalism critiques marginalizes
cultural discussions of sexuality and gender, rendering the
affirmative useless and recreating our impacts
Butler, 98 (Judith, Judith Butler is an American philosopher and gender

theorist whose work has influenced political philosophy, ethics and the fields
of feminist, queer and literary theory,
MERELY CULTURAL, New Left Review I/227, January-February 1998,
http://newleftreview.org/I/227/judith-butler-merely-cultural)--CRG
Thus, the result of parody is paradoxical: the gleeful sense of triumph

indulged by the avatars of an ostensibly more serious Marxism about

their moment in the cultural limelight exemplifies and symptomatizes
precisely the cultural object of critique they oppose; the sense of

triumph over this enemy, which cannot take place without in some eerie way
taking the very place of the enemy, raises the question of whether the

aims and goals of this more serious Marxism have not become
hopelessly displaced onto a cultural domain, producing a transient object
of media attention in the place of a more systematic analysis of economic
and social relations. This sense of triumph reinscribes a factionalization

with-in the Left at the very moment in which welfare rights are being
abolished in this country, class differentials are intensifying across the
globe, and the right wing in this country has successfully gained the
ground of the middle effectively making the Left itself invisible within
the media. When does it appear on the front page of the New York Times,

except on that rare occasion in which one part of the Left swipes at another,
producing a spectacle of the Left for mainstream liberal and conservative
press consumption which is all too happy to discount every and any faction of
the Left within the political process, much less honour the Left of any kind as
a strong force in the service of radical social change? Is the attempt to

separate Marxism from the study of culture and to rescue critical

knowledge from the shoals of cultural specificity simply a turf war
between left cultural studies and more orthodox forms of Marxism?

How is this attempted separation related to the claim that new social
movements have split the Left, deprived us of common ideals, factionalized

the field of knowledge and political activism, reducing political activism

to the mere assertion and affirmation of cultural identity? The charge
that new social movements are merely cultural, that a unified and
progressive Marxism must return to a materialism based in an objective

analysis of class, itself presumes that the distinction between material and
cultural life is a stable one. And this recourse to an apparently stable
distinction between material and cultural life is clearly the resurgence of a
theoretical anachronism, one that discounts the contributions to Marxist
theory since Althussers displacement of the base-superstructure model, as
well as various forms of cultural materialismfor instance, Raymond
Williams, Stuart Hall and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Indeed, the untimely
resurgence of that distinction is in the service of a tactic which seeks to
identify new social movements with the merely cultural, and the cultural with
the derivative and secondary, thus embracing an anachronistic materialism
as the banner for a new orthodoxy. Orthodox Unity This resurgence of left
orthodoxy calls for a unity that would, paradoxi-cally, redivide the Left
in precisely the way that orthodoxy purports to lament. Indeed, one way
of producing this division becomes clear when we ask which movements, and
for what reasons, get relegated to the sphere of the merely cultural, and how
that very division between the material and the cultural becomes tactically
invoked for the purposes of marginalizing certain forms of political activism?

And how does the new orthodoxy on the Left work in tandem with a
social and sexual conservativism that seeks to make questions of race
and sexuality secondary to the real business of politics,
producing a new and eerie political formation of neo-conservative
Marxisms. On what principles of exclusion or subordination has this
ostensible unity been erected? How quickly we forget that new social
movements based on democratic principles became articulated against a
hegemonic Left as well as a complicitous liberal centre and a truly
threatening right wing? Have the historical reasons for the development

of semi-autonomous new social movements ever really been taken into

account by those who now lament their emergence and credit them
with narrow identitarian interests? Is this situation not simply reproduced
in the recent efforts to restore the universal through fiat, whether through the
imaginary finesse of Habermasian rationality or notions of the common good
that prioritize a racially cleansed notion of class? Is the point of the new
rhetorics of unity not simply to include through domestication and
subordination precisely those movements that formed in part in opposition to
such domestication and subordination, showing that the proponents of the
common good have failed to read the history that has made this conflict
possible? What the resurgent orthodoxy may resent about new social
movements is precisely the vitality that such movement are enjoying.

Paradoxically, the very movements that continue to keep the Left alive
are credited with its paralysis. Although I would agree that a narrowly

identitarian construal of such movements leads to a narrowing of the political

field, there is no reason to assume that such social movements are reducible
to their identitarian formations. The problem of unity or, more modestly,

of solidarity cannot be resolved through the transcendence or

obliteration of this field, and certainly not through the vain promise of
retrieving a unity wrought through exclusions, one that reinstitutes
subordination as the condition of its own possibility. The only possible
unity will not be the synthesis of a set of conflicts, but will be a mode of

sustaining conflict in politically productive ways, practice of contestation that

demands that these movements articulate their goals under the pressure of
each other without therefore exactly becoming each other.

( ) Link turn- Because in some instances capitalism has made

queerness more visible, it is the perfect time to use queer
Marxist feminism to challenge capitalisms totalizing stance
Sears, 5 (Alan, Professor at the Department of Sociology and Anthropology

of University of Windsor, January 2005, Queer Anti-Capitalism: What's Left of

Lesbian and Gay Liberation,
Science & Society, Vol. 96, No. 1, January 2005, 92-112,
http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/pesm/QueerAntiCap.pdf) --CRG
Yet the fact that advanced capitalism has opened up certain spaces for
open lesbian and gay existence should not mute our anti-capital ism.
Indeed, queer marxist feminism provides tools for understand- ing

the ways that the commodification of public lesbian and gay life has
distorted our communities. The nature of market relations is that access to
goods or services is based not on need or desire, but on the ability to pay. A
community structured around commodified public spaces is economically
exclusive. Not everyone has the money, or the class-based taste, to outlit
themselves with the right clothes, hair- cuts and accessories or to pay the
price of socializing at the in places. Women are less likely to have

access to a public commercial lesbian scene as a result of the

dominant gendered division of labor that tends to offer women lower
economic standing and a greater likelihood of having private
domestic responsibilities. Men with limited incomes are not likely to find
their way in.

( ) Perm do both solves: A combination of queer and feminist

theory with Marxism can solve the complicated nuances and
intersections of class and sexuality and their relationship to
the capitalist system
Sears, 5 (Alan, Professor at the Department of Sociology and Anthropology

of University of Windsor, January 2005, Queer Anti-Capitalism: What's Left of

Lesbian and Gay Liberation,
Science & Society, Vol. 96, No. 1, January 2005, 92-112,
http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/pesm/QueerAntiCap.pdf) --CRG
I refer specifically to a queer marxist feminism to argue that marxist feminism
as it has emerged since the 1960s is a necessary but not suf- ficient tool for
the of contemporary lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered politics. The

distinguishing feature of marxist-feminist theories is the insistence that

the dynamics of class, gender, race and sexuality are internally related
yet not reducible to one another. The historical materialist analysis of
capitalist reproduction must examine the ways that the different
dimensions of structured inequality are present in each other (see
Banneiji, 1995). An adequate understand- ing of class formation must
therefore be based on a rich analysis of the ways class relations are

gendered, racialized and sexualized, just as an examination of

sexualities must attend to the ways that sexual and in- timate relations
are classed, gendered and racialized. Marxist feminism thus rejects both
dual (or multi) systems theo- ries that see class, gender, race/ ethnicity
and sexuality as separate spheres that intersect, on the one hand; and the
reductionist marxism that seeks to capture all of social reality through the
single lens of class exploitation as examined in the works of classical
marxism, on the other! Marxist feminism expanded the parameters of marxist
analysis by seriously rethinking in the light of the challenge of an emerging
social movement (in this case, second-wave feminism).5 Marxist feminists

neither rejected the key premises of marxism nor argued that all
important questions had already been answered in the received
versions of so-called classical marxism.
( ) Link turna) Science fiction helps to break down capitalist ideaology
Fekete, 1 (John, Professor Emeritus of Cultural Studies and English

Literature at Trent University, as well as a member of the Cultural Studies PhD

Program and the Centre for the Study of Theory, Culture, and Politics.
Recognized as an international figure in the field of modern and postmodern
theory and in the antifoundational transformation of theory from the 1970s,
March 2001, Doing the Time Warp Again: Science Fiction as Adversarial
Culture, Science Fiction Studies, #83 = Volume 28, Part
http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/review_essays/fek83.htm)--CRG

sf is Marxist, and that therefore Marxists should

pay more attention to it. He claims an affinity between critical theory and science fiction,
Freedmans argument, simplified, is that real

summarized in the equivalence relationship: "each is a version of the other" (xv). While he makes no effort

he is prepared to
substitute strategically the more euphemistic "critical-theoretical" for
"Marxist," since the work that the book does in many of its pages is
literary criticism and the slippages around "critical theory" provide a lot
of wiggle room for the argument. While he does not ultimately show much Marxism in sf,
he does successfully build a case to show that a number of first-rate sf
works can be organized together into a critical intellectual tradition.
to show that critical theory is fictional (see also endnote 2 below),

Building that case, partly by argument and partly by extended readings that display elements resonant
with the concerns argued, is the main achievement of Freedmans book. Nevertheless, he overstates the
importance of this selective tradition as equivalent to the essence of science fictionits intrinsic generic
characteristicto the neglect, marginalization, or exclusion of other virtues or achievements. This inflated
system of definitions and descriptions is then turned prescriptive, and slipping back up to the societal level

the literary tradition thus constructed is assigned a

gatekeeping task that will impact on future membership: the
redemptive task, in the absence of other historical-revolutionary
agencies, of keeping critical theory alive and making it effective (in order
to break the total reification of the world). Through the system of slippages around
"critical theory," it is hoped that literature can be pressed into social
service.
of critical theory,

b) The very beginnings of SF are traces back to anticapitalist struggles

SEE, 14 (The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, June 26, 2014, Critical and
Historical Works About SF http://www.sfencyclopedia.com/entry/critical_and_historical_works_about_sf) --CRG

The cautious interest being shown in sf by the US academic world bore its first
fruits in 1959, in the shape of the critical journal Extrapolation. For many years this was stencilled,
not printed, which suggested that the financial support it was receiving
from academia at large was small; nevertheless it lived on. Two further
academic magazines about sf followed, both (in different ways) a little livelier: Foundation: The Review of
Science Fiction in the UK from 1972, and Science Fiction Studies in the USA from 1973. The former as
much fannish as academic emphasized reviews and critical and sociological studies of contemporary and

concentrated on writers of sf's

past plus only the more academically acceptable of the present, with
good coverage of European sf and some interesting and, to many,
unexpected Marxist criticism. A relative newcomer has been Journal of the Fantastic in the
post-World War Two sf; the latter more strictly academic

Arts, published since 1988.

( ) The alternative refuses to address sexualities which leads

to repression and widespread violence
Ellison, 96 (Marvin, completed his doctoral studies at Union Theological

Seminary in 1981 and taught Christian social ethics at Bangor Theological

Seminary, Sexuality and the Sacred: Sources for Theological Reflection,
edited by Marvin Mahan Ellison, Kelly Brown Douglas
http://tinyurl.com/qehqq7u)--CRG
An ethic of erotic justice, therefore, does not lower but raises moral
expec- tations. lt teaches us to demand for ourselves (and others) what we
deserve, namely, to be whole persons to each other and to be deeply,
respectfully loved. A gmcious, liberating ethic will teach us to claim our
right to erotic justice and also to invest in creating a more just and equitable
world. ln our late-capitalist culture, desire has been commodified to sell
goods. ln that process of commodi- fication, desire has been narrowly
sexualized and privatized, so much so that liar many people erotic desire
now denotes only desire ofa genital sort. More spe- cilically, desire has been
truncated to mean taking pleasure in possession. Posses- siveness is a
primary virtue in a capitalist political economy. Pleasure has become the
pleasure of owning consumer goods and status objects, as well as exercising
monopoly control over another person as my man" or my woman." l t is a
major challenge I enlarge the meaning I desire I ineo olate once again a
sense I being free-spirited, full I joy in being alive non-possessed,"
throughout ones life. This expanded notion 'desire can be a mighty,
though tender, spark from within I, enlivening our desire - a more ethical
world. Erotic power can stir I I engage in a full-bodied wav in Creating My
suspicion is that the pervasive fear of sex and passion, rampant in all
patriarchal religious traditions, is deeply implicated in the difficulty for many
people have in sustaining I interest in, much less a passion for, social justice.
By and large, even liberal Christians either regard patriarchal control as

socially necessary sary or dismiss sexuality as a rather indifferent

matter that bears little conse- quence compared to larger more

legitimate social issues. For many people, the link between sexuality is

muddled at best. By not paving atten- tion to sexual oppression, people fail I
grasp how a multiplicity of intercon- nected social oppressions operate in the
small and large places their lives, in and on their bodies and the body politic.
These injustices diminish human lov- ing. When people are willing I accept
power as control in their intimate lives, they are also likely to acquiesce to
other oppressive structures that control them. They fail to see that sexual
oppression is intimately bound up with race, gender, - class oppression.
People fail, therefore, to connect their personal pain with larger systemic
patterns injustice. White, middle-strata Christians are deeply hurting but have
few clues about the sources of their suffering. They project their fear and

pain onto more vul- nemble groups, including feminist women, people
of color, and gay/ lesbian/ bisexual persons. Out touch with their own
bodies (and feelings), they are also distanced from the beauty and moral
value of other body-selves, especially among the culturally despised."

They are at a loss about how to reclaim their personal power and zest for life.
Tragically when people are cut off from genu- ine community and when their
physical emotional needs are not being ade- quately met, they tend to

become more repressive about sex more judgemental about

differences, and more unforgiving toward themselves and others. In the
process they become dangerous. They turn their repressed anger and
rage on the very people they ought to be listening to and learning
from, the ones most insistent about the goodness of every body.
( ) Perm queer the alternative- we need a queer version of
Marxist thought in order to solve for the problems of exploitive
capitalism and solves for the gaps in queer analysis now
Sears, 5 (Alan, Professor at the Department of Sociology and Anthropology
of University of Windsor, January 2005, Queer Anti-Capitalism: What's Left of
Lesbian and Gay Liberation,
Science & Society, Vol. 96, No. 1, January 2005, 92-112,
http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/pesm/QueerAntiCap.pdf) --CRG

A queer marxist feminism builds on this conception of social reproduction by relating it to the indigenous politics of sexual emancipation developed in the lesbian and gay liberation movement. I believe
a queer marxist feminism can contribute to a revival of some of the
most emancipatory aspects of lesbian and gay liberation by explaining

how the limits and contradictions in the gains we have made since 1969 are
tied to the specific dynamics of racialized, gendered and sexualized capitalist
reproduction. This is not a departure from marxist feminism, but an
expansion of it in light of the politics of queer liberation. In the first
section of this article I briefly map the politics that emerged out of the lesbian
and gay liberation movement. I believe that a critical encounter with these

indigenous politics is a crucial feature of a queer marxist-feminist

analysis. In the second section, I work to- wards the development of a queer
marxist-feminist analysis that sheds light on the current moment in sexual

politics. It is my contention that this kind of analysis provides insight into

aspects of queer existence that are not examined in the postmodern

queer theories or liberal accounts that tend to dominate theoretical
work in this area.
( ) Capitalism is not monolithicattempts at absolutist
rejection fail. Instead, we should endorse critical interrogation
like the affirmative to produce the most effective method for
combatting it
Gibson-Graham 06 J.K., pen name shared by feminist economic

geographers Julie Graham and Katherine Gibson (The End of Capitalism (As
We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy, pg 2-5)
The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It) problematizes "capitalism" as an
economic and social descriptor.4 Scrutinizing what might be seen as
throwaway uses of the term - passing references, for example, to the
capitalist system or to global capitalism - as well as systematic and deliberate
attempts to represent capitalism as a central and organizing feature of
modern social experience, the book selectively traces the discursive origins

of a widespread understanding: that capitalism is the hegemonic, or

even the only, present form of economy and that it will continue to be
so in the proximate future. It follows from this prevalent though not
ubiquitous view that noncapitalist economic sites, if they exist at all, must
inhabit the social margins; and, as a corollary, that deliberate attempts
to develop noncapitalist economic practices and institutions must take
place in the social interstices, in the realm of experiment, or in a visionary
space of revolutionary social replacement. Representations of capitalism
are a potent constituent of the anticapitalist imagination, providing
images of what is to be resisted and changed as well as intimations of
the strategies, techniques, and possibilities of changing it. For this reason,
depictions of "capitalist hegemony" deserve a particularly skeptical
reading. For in the vicinity of these representations, the very idea of a
noncapitalist economy takes the shape of an unlikelihood or even an
impossibility. It becomes difficult to entertain a vision of the prevalence
and vitality of noncapitalist economic forms, or of daily or partial
replacements of capitalism by noncapitalist economic practices, or of
capitalist retreats and reversals. In this sense, "capitalist hegemony"
operates not only as a constituent of, but also as a brake upon, the
anticapitalist imagination.5 What difference might it make to release that
brake and allow an anticapitalist economic imaginary to develop
unrestricted?6 If we were to dissolve the image that looms in the

economic foreground, what shadowy economic forms might come

forward? In these questions we can identify the broad outlines of our

project: to discover or create a world of economic difference, and to populate

that world with exotic creatures that become, upon inspection, quite local and
familiar (not to mention familiar beings that are not what they seem ). The

discursive artifact we call "capitalist hegemony" is a complex effect of

a wide variety of discursive and nondiscursive conditions.7 In this book

we focus on the practices and preoccupations of discourse, tracing some of

the different, even incompatible, representations of capitalism that can be
collated within this fictive summary representati n. These depictions have
their origins in the diverse traditions of Marxism, classical and contemporary
political economy, academic social science, modern historiography, popular
economic and social thought, western philosophy and metaphysics, indeed, in
an endless array of texts, traditions and infrastructures of meaning. In the
chapters that follow, only a few of these are examined for the ways in which
they have sustained a vision of capitalism as the dominant form of
economy, or have contributed to the possibility or durability of such a

vision. But the point should emerge none the less clearly: the virtually
unquestioned dominance of capitalism can be seen as a complex
product of a variety of discursive commitments, including but not limited
to organicist social conceptions, heroic historical narratives, evolutionary
scenarios of social development, and essentialist, phallocentric, or binary
patterns of thinking. It is through these discursive figurings and alignments
that capitalism is constituted as large, powerful, persistent, active, expansive,
progressive, dynamic, transformative; embracing, penetrating, disciplining,
colonizing, constraining; systemic, self-reproducing, rational, lawful, selfrectifying; organized and organizing, centered and centering; originating,
creative, protean; victorious and ascendant; selfidentical, self-expressive, full,
definite, real, positive, and capable of conferring identity and meaning.8 The
argument revisited: it is the way capitalism has been "thought" that has
made it so difficult for people to imagine its supersession.9 It is
therefore the ways in which capitalism is known that we wish to delegitimize
and displace. The process is one of unearthing, of bringing to light images
and habits of understanding that constitute "hegemonic capitalism" at the
intersection of a set of representations. This we see as a first step toward
theorizing capitalism without representing dominance as a natural and
inevitable feature of its being. At the same time, we hope to foster conditions
under which the economy might become less subject to definitional closure .

If it were possible to inhabit a heterogeneous and open-ended

economic space whose identity was not fixed or singular (the space

potentially to be vacated by a capitalism that is necessarily and naturally

hegemonic) then a vision of noncapitalist economic practices as existing

and widespread might be able to be born; and in the context of such a

vision, a new anticapitalist politics might emerge, a noncapitalist politics
of class (whatever that may mean) might take root and flourish. A long shot
perhaps but one worth pursuing.

1AR- Perm do both

( ) Queer Marxism in combination with Marxist feminism are
key to a new queer radical agenda
Sears, 5 (Alan, Professor at the Department of Sociology and Anthropology
of University of Windsor, January 2005, Queer Anti-Capitalism: What's Left of
Lesbian and Gay Liberation,
Science & Society, Vol. 96, No. 1, January 2005, 92-112,
http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/pesm/QueerAntiCap.pdf) --CRG

A queer marxist-feminist perspective provides us with ways of envisioning a queer anti-capitalism. Many people who engage in samesex sexual practices have won neither full citizenship nor a place within
the currently existing queer public spaces. The brutalizing ex- periences
of many queer youth (or youth perceived as queer) in high schools is an
important reminder of how far we have to go to achieve full human rights
(see Frank, 1994; Smith, 1998). A new queer radi- cal agenda will have to

be built around the needs, desires and orga- nizing capacities of the
young, the poor, people of color, women, transgendered people,
working-class people, people living with AIDS and/ or disabilities, the
elderly and those who cannot or will not come out. One of the important
organizing bases for this agenda will be the emerging movement of queer
trade unionists, though (like the unions themselves) it will need to go much
farther to organize the unorganized (people in non-union workplaces,
contingent workers, people who are not employed) and the excluded (on the
basis of nationality, racialization, disability or gender).