Overview

There is a binary between the manager and the managed, the

worker and the employer in Zambia. The cause of this is
imperial neoliberalism inflicted by the Chinese- thats Brooks
10. Brooks 10 also explains how this neoliberal imperialism
caused by China has already taken the lives of many people.
Starvation, poverty, racism, and death are the results of this. A
problem thats inherent is that we believe there is no
alternative to this neoliberal ideology. But we cant simply
accept it, Simutany 6 explains that there are alternatives to
capitalism if we start to think and explore the possibilities! In
the debate space it is key that we take on problems and
critically discuss them. You can make a change by voting
affirmative and endorsing Marxism we can solve for this
neoliberalism. This is Giroux and he explains that before we
take action we must think critically about what we will do and
how this affects reality. Our pedagogy is uniquely key to
solving and is a prerequisite to solving neoliberalism,
imperialism, and more after that as we think critically.

Harms

AT Zambian Humanism
Yes, Zambian humanism is in no doubt bad, but it in no way
explains the capitalist exploitation of Zambian miners by the
Chinese. And, Zambian humanism is no longer the philosophy
of Zambia. Despite this, Zambians are still waiting for Gods
calling to save them
Igwe, 15, (Leo Igwe, Nigerian human rights activist, "God save the Kwacha: What
happened to Zambian Humanism?" http://zambianeye.com/archives/38938)
When I listened to the president of Zambia , Edgar Lungu, declare before an ecstatic
crowd that Zambia was a christian nation and that October 18 would forever be a
national day of prayer, I asked: What happened to the once renowned Zambian
Humanism?
Yes, humanism used to be the national ideology of Zambia. The countrys first
President Kenneth Kaunda popularized humanist principles as the framework of
national governance. So what happened to those principles? There seems to be no
trace of humanist values in contemporary statecraft in Zambia. So what has
transpired over the years that caused the erosion of the once guiding philosophy of
the Zambian nation? I am posing this question because it is now a week after the
national day of prayer and there seems to be no indication that prayer has made
any difference in the problems facing the country.
There is no sign that God has saved the Kwacha as Zambians prayed . God has not
intervened and fixed the economy. The much awaited mercy of God has not
materialized.

And, Igwe is proof that Zambians seek an alternative out of this

oppressive system while simultaneously not approving of Zambian
humanism. He calls for a philosophical rudder, but not one of the
socialist ideals pertaining to Zambian Humanism.
Igwe, 15, (Leo Igwe, Nigerian human rights activist, "God save the Kwacha: What
happened to Zambian Humanism?" http://zambianeye.com/archives/38938)
What happened to what was used to be the national philosophy of the Zambian
nation, humanism? What caused the eclipse and forgetfulness of humanist values in
the country?
This piece is not an attempt to get Zambians to readopt the nationalist socialist
ideology of humanism. No not at all. Rather I think the government and people of
Zambia can draw from the countrys humanist heritage in tackling the problems
facing the nation.

The country has tried praying and fasting and that has not brought the real positive
change, result or difference which Zambians wanted. So is it not time to tap into the
countrys humanist heritage?
This is because, going by recent development, the Southern African nation is adrift
and there is an urgent need for a philosophical rudder to redirect the nation and get
it on the track of real and effective recovery. Zambia needs a practical not
imaginary guide to solving its problems.

AT Marxist theory repressive

Extend Simutany 6, Simutany explains that Marx did not
provide an exact blueprint as to how his theory would be in the
real world, it is more that he put forth just the idea based on
his analysis of the capitalist system. Socialism does not need
to be in place the same way the Soviet Union has had it in
place, critical pedagogy opens up the potential for change.

Inherency
Group their args- No double bind, critical pedagogy can solve
but the modern way of teaching does no good. Students still
have a bourgeois ideology engrained into them, thus taking
Marxist classes for capitalist reasons. The narrative of the 1AC
is key to awakening these students, and an affirmative ballot is
the first step in endorsing Marxism.
Ollman, 78 (Bertell Ollman, professor of politics at New York University. He teaches both
dialectical methodology and socialist theory. He is the author of several academic works relating to
Marxist theory. "DIALECTICAL MARXISM: The Writings of Bertell
Ollman,"https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/index.php)

At many American universities, Marxism G2010 or Communist Theory V1106 or

Socialist Thought A2242 are no longer "know your enemy" kinds of exercises, and the
number of serious courses on these subjects is constantly increasing. Unfortunately, the
opportunity they offer for promoting a true understanding of Marxism is frequently lost,
either wholly or partially, under the weight of problems inherent in the university context.
Having taught both undergraduate and graduate courses on Marxism for almost a
decademainly at New York University, but also at Columbia University, Union College,
and the old Free University of New YorkI would like to share with other Marxist
teachers my experiences in dealing with these problems.
There are three main problems facing any university teacher of Marxism: the
bourgeois ideology of most students, the social and ideological restraints that are part of
the university setting, and the absence of a vital socialist movement. To be sure, the
same difficulties confront any radical teacher no matter what the subject matter, but the
forms in which they are expressed and their disorienting effect vary considerably, and so
too must the strategies for dealing with them.
The absence of a vital socialist movement makes most students approach Marxism
too much in the spirit of another academic exercise , just as it confirms them in the belief
before study beginsthat Marx's analysis cannot be correct. The classroom situation,
whatever one does to humanize social relations, remains locked inside a university
structure that is itself forced to play a certain preparatory role within society at large.

Students take Marxism for four credits; for some it counts toward their "major"; for all it
is a step toward their degree. Given a society with restricted privileges, some kind of
grading is necessary at each stage of the education process, as in life generally. All of
this affects how students prepare for a course, any course, so that all but the most
committed treat the acquisition of knowledge (and often understand it) as the means to
a good grade.

There are also ideological elements in the classroom situation, which continually
gnaw away at the foundations of a Marxist analysis. The very presence of a Marxist
teacher who is allowed to teach Marxism is conclusive evidence to some that bourgeois
freedom worksjust as students from modest backgrounds often take their own presence
in class and in the university as proof that extensive social mobility and equality of
opportunity really exist under capitalism. Even the fact that the course is offered by a
particular department reinforces the alienated notion of the division of knowledge into
disciplines and predisposes students to view Marx as essentially an economic or political

or a philosophical thinker.
But undoubtedly the major hurdle in presenting Marxism to American students is the
bourgeois ideology, the systematic biases and blind spots, which even the most radical
bring with them. This ideology reflects their own class background, whatever that may
be, but also their position in capitalism as young people and students . There is nothing
in bourgeois ideas and ways of thinking that doesn't interfere with the reception of
Marx's message, but the scrambling effect of some ideas is clearly greater than that of
others. In my experience, the most troublesome notions have been students' egotistical
and ahistorical conception of human nature; their conception of society as the sum of
separate individuals, and with this the tendency to reduce social problems to problems
of individual psychology (the whole "blaming the victim" syndrome); their identification of
Marxism with Soviet and Chinese practice; and of course the ultimate rationale that
radical change is impossible in any case. Much less destructive and also easier to
dislodge are the intrinsically feeble notions that we are all middle class, that there is a
harmony of interests under capitalism, that the government belongs to and represents
everybody equally, and that history is the product of the interaction of great people and

ideas. Underpinning and providing a framework for all these viewswhether in the
form of conclusions or assumptions, and whether held consciously or unconsciouslyis
an undialectical, factorial mode of thinking that separates events from their conditions,
people from their real alternatives and human potential, social problems from one
another, and the present from the past and the future. The organizing and predisposing
power of this mode of thought is such that any attempt to teach Marxism, or indeed to
present a Marxist analysis of any event, is doomed to distortion and failure unless
accompanied by an equally strenuous effort to impart the dialectical mode of reasoning.
I originally thought that students who chose to take my course on Marxismthe
department doesn't exist where this is a required coursewould be relatively free of the
worst effects of bourgeois ideology, and it just may be that a survey of the whole
university would show a tilt in critical consciousness in their favor. I certainly attract most
of the self-consciously radical students, but it has become clear that the great majority
of my studentswhatever the sense of adventure or morbid curiosity that bring them to
classsuffer from most of the distortions mentioned above. And even the radical
students, as I have indicated, have not escaped the ideological effects of their
bourgeois conditioning and education.
The problem one faces in teaching Marxism that come from the absence of a
socialist movement, the university context, and the students' own bourgeois ideology
permit neither easy nor complete solutions. Still , how one approaches and organizes
the subject matter, where one begins and concludes, the kind of examples used, and
especially what one emphasizes have considerable influence on the degree of success
(or failure). My own courses on Marxism on both the undergraduate and graduate levels
lay heaviest stress on the dialectic, the theory of class struggle, and Marx's critique of
bourgeois ideology. These three theories are explained, illustrated, questioned, and
elaborated in a variety of contexts throughout the term.

Solvency
REGARDLESS OF OUR ALTERNATIVES SOLVENCY, WE HAVE AN
ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO GET OVER CAPITALISM OUR UTOPIAN
THINKING IS KEY TO RESISTANCE AND TRANSCENDENCE
MARSH 95 (JAMES L, CRITIQUE, ACTION, AND LIBERATION P. 334-335)
The basic question concerning the possibility of socialism, then, is the rationality of utopian thinking. If
scientism and positivism or some of their offshoots such as the postmodern pragmatism of Rorty exhaust the definition of reason, then utopian
thinking is irrational and the human mind must confine itself to the straight jacket of empirical fact. If, on the other hand, my dialectical
phenomenological definition of reason is correct, then the thinking of utopia is not only legitimate but necessary. Reflection
and freedom and praxis are essentially utopian in their full, unfolding life. Denial of utopia mutilates freedom and reason.6 We
can appreciate this point more deeply by focusing phenomenologically on my experience of myself as an incarnate subject in the world. First of
all, questioning is essential to the life of reason, and any questioning points beyond the data to a future answer arrived at in a future insight and
judgment. A scientist hit on the head by an apple asks questions that point toward a future answer. Any question negates the given set of facts and
anticipates a new future.7>Next, on the level of insight and conceptualization we arrive at a universal that is not exhausted by any particular
manifestation or instance. ''Triangle'' is not exhausted by this particular triangular thing, "justice" by this particular example of justice, "beauty"
by this particular painting. Moreover, no particular, sensible incarnation matches the perfection of the ideal. These instances of "triangle,"
"justice," "beauty," respectively, are not perfect; they have cracks, blemishes, and impurities.8 Further , on a reflective, ethical level I

constitute through reflection and choice myself as an end in a community of ends. This ethical norm has
the same inexhaustibility and perfection as any universal, but in addition is the ethical obligation to
realize the ideal. If, therefore, I am essentially and eidetically an experiencing, understanding, judging, and choosing subject and the
current social situation is irrational and unjust in not respecting that reality, I have three choices. I can capitulate to the situation and in so doing
reduce or renounce my humanity, or I can live a double life in thinking utopian thoughts and pursuing a nonutopian life, or I can pursue the utopia
of a full economic, social, and political democracy that is worthy of such a rational, free subject and incarnates in its institutions full respect for
such a subject. Only the last option is fully consistent with the life of incarnate reason and freedom. Finally, we may affirm a threefold

exteriority to the irrational, exploitative capitalist system: exteriority as past, present, and future.
Exteriority as past is the laborer initially confronting capital as deprived of means of production, land, and
means of consumption; as present exteriority is labor confronting capital as nothing, poor, more and more
deprived of skill, surplus value, and even of employment; and as future exteriority is the utopia of
liberation that is suggested by, demanded by, and called for by the alienated present. Such utopia as norm
and goal calls into question our alienated bourgeois present."Exteriority" or "the other" in this book has at least five
moments or stages of articulation: as phenomenologically described, as ethically evaluated, as hermeneutically interpreted, as critically judged,
and as anticipated in an utopian manner. Our affirmation of "utopia" as essential and implied by ''rationality" in the full sense just completes and
fills out our affirmation of exteriority as linked to rationality. A rationality and freedom and ethics and hermeneutics and critique and

praxis not open to exteriority are incomplete, truncated, mutilated. Exteriority is the positive ground
enabling us to go fully beyond a merely negative dialectic. 9
We affirm, then, the ethical necessity of
pursuing ethical community and democratic socialism as the rational embodiment of that vision. Here it is
important to be clear about the difference between acquisitive, empirical reason and constitutive, ethical reason. Ethical community as
utopia is not primarily something I stand back and predict objectively and scientifically; it is something to
which I commit myself ethically and politically. An example from the sphere of personal morality should make the difference
clear. When a friend, relative, teacher, or minister counsels an alcoholic to confront her habit, she is not making a
prediction. Indeed, it may seem unlikely, given this particular person's past history, that she will lick her habit.
Nonetheless, the moral obligation to get over her habit remains. Similarly, an obligation exists to get over
our capitalism as a social equivalent of drunkenness. If the argument of this chapter is correct, we cannot renounce
such an attempt at transcendence without giving up on the ethical project or curtailing that project by
confining it to the sphere of intimate, interpersonal relations. I am a good father or husband or lover in my private life, but I
remain exploitative, cruel, and inhumane in my public, capitalistic life. Such ethical renunciation or curtailment is the death
or mutilation of the human; denial of utopia is a living death. Ideologies of scientific elitism, therefore, as they function in
capitalist society are correct if there is no such thing as ethical, constitutive reason operating in community. If such constitutive reason is possible
and actual in human beings as human in community, then scientific elitism is false. Men and women acting democratically and participatively do
have a capacity to understand themselves and their lives in a way that is cogent and in touch with reality. Indeed, many of the popular movements
in Europe, England, and the United States in the last twenty years such as feminism, environmentalism, civil rights, and antiwar movements,

often acting against the advice or opinions of experts, have shown themselves to be right and effective. In the Vietnam War, for example, millions
of people in the United States taking to the streets in protest proved the "best and the brightest" in the White House, Pentagon, and State
Department wrong. The "best and the brightest" according to the standards of scientific elitism proved to be deluded. The presence of an ethical,
political rationality in all of us as human invalidates scientific elitism at its core. As I am arguing it here, a fundamental link exists among
dialectical phenomenology, ethical, constitutive rationality, and democracy. Philosophy and ethics, properly understood, are antielitist. 10 To

think in a utopian manner, then, about community and socialism is to free ourselves from the excessive
hold that science and technology exert over our minds and imaginations. We begin to see that science and technology
and expertise, even though they are legitimate within their own proper domains, do not exhaust or monopolize the definition of reason and other
forms of reason and knowledge that are more informative, profound, and fundamental. Indeed, compared to certain expressions of art or ethics or
philosophy or religion, science and technology are relatively superficial. What revelatory power does a scientific equation have compared to
Hamlet's "To be or not to be" speech? What does an empirical study of human populations show me about human life compared to the insight of
Marx's Capital? What can a factual study of war show about its horrors compared to Picasso's Guernica ?11 To the extent, therefore, that science
and technology dominate in the twentieth century as not only the highest forms of reason but the only forms of reason, they shove other, more
profound, more reflective, more fundamental forms of reason to the side and twentieth-century industrial society emerges as an inverted, topsyturvy, absurd world. What seems normal, factual, rational, and sane in such a world is in fact abnormal, apparent, irrational, and absurd . We

begin to suspect and see that science and technology appear as the highest and only forms of reason
because capitalism has appropriated science and technology for its own ends as productive force and
ideology. In science and technology capitalism has found the forms of rationality most appropriate for
itself, perfectly manifesting it, mirroring it, and justifying it. In such an absurd, inverted, topsy-turvy
world, fidelity to the life of reason demands critique, resistance, and revolutionary transcendence. One
has to pierce the veil of such a world, see through it as absurd rather than accepting it as normal and sane.
The prevailing rationality is profoundly irrational.12

Endorsing an end to neoliberalism in the classroom is key to

spark the eventual revolution against the seemingly invincible
monolith, the judge should act as a critical intellectual in
refusing the systems that seek to break down our movement
Lipman 11 (Pauline Lipman, Pauline Lipman (plipman [at] uic.edu) is an
education activist and professor of educational policy studies at University of Illinois
at Chicago., July-August2011, "Neoliberal Education Restructuring," Monthly Review,
http://monthlyreview.org/2011/07/01/neoliberal-education-restructuring/) CH
In the past few years, a multifaceted education movement in and outside
classrooms has emerged against neoliberal education restructuring and in
resistance to racism, gender and heterosexist oppression, and militarization of
schools. Liberatory education projects and social-justice-oriented schools have
sprouted up in cracks in the public system. There are freedom schools and popular
education projects outside public schools, and community-based youth activist
organizations across the country. The immigrant rights movement and organized
opposition to the criminalization of youth through the school to prison pipeline
have begun to link political and educational issues. Organizations of activist
teachers and community educators in a number of cities have joined together to
form national networks. (The Education for Liberation Network and Teacher Activist
Groups are examples.) These groups have joined parents and students in
community coalitions to stop school closings and privatization, prevent mayoral
takeovers of urban school districts, defend undocumented students, and challenge
high-stakes testing. With the victory of a progressive caucus to lead the Chicago
Teachers Union, there is also a significant progressive force in the heart of the
American Federation of Teachers. Although there is some overlap, these various

streams are not yet organized around a coherent program or analysis of the
problem.42 The outpouring of teachers and other workers against union busting and
austerity budgets has changed the terrain. Thousands of people who have never
attended a protest before are in the streets and engaged politically. So far, this
motion is mainly defensive, and some are willing to make concessions to help
capitalism extricate itself from the crisis.43 On the one hand, there is the possibility
that the protests will be subsumed by the electoral politics of the Democratic Party,
much like the current focus in Wisconsin on recalling Republican legislators, or
diverted to scapegoating people of color and immigrants. On the other hand, the
challenge to taken-for-granted living standards opens a space to see social
arrangements differently. This is a moment that can reveal the systemic
connections between the bailout of Wall Street and social privations, a moment to
connect attacks on workers with other social strugglesparticularly to see the
common threads between wars for domination, oppression of people of color, and
the unfolding austerity regime.44 Buried in Governor Walkers proposed 2012-2013
budget is a measure to repeal access to in-state tuition for undocumented students
and eliminate Food Share benefits (food stamps) for documented
(legal)immigrants.45 How Wisconsins majority white teachers, union members,
and farmers will respond will be important. Bridging deep divisions along lines of
race, ethnicity, and immigrant status, and challenging racial oppression are central
to building a counter-hegemonic alliance with the power to defeat austerity
measures and move toward a proactive politics that challenges capitalism itself.
Although it is only now coalescing, a movement that links education with immigrant
rights and other social struggles can play an important role in teacher unions and in
student community, and parent organizations. In classrooms, critical educators
are positioned to help young people understand why their schools are
under attack and to connect the dots to the structural crisis of
capitalism. Revitalized teacher unions are in a strategic position to insist that Wall
Street pay for the crisis. Although the U.S. context is different, there is much to
learn from social movement teacher unionism outside the United States (e.g., in
Oaxaca, Honduras, and South Africa) and its central role in social struggles for
democracy, against neoliberalism, and for social liberation.46 This is a moment
not simply to defend the public education we have, but to advocate for a
just, inclusive, democratic, humanizing education that prefigures the
society we wish to haveone premised not on exploitation but on the full
development of human beings in social solidarity. 47

AT West failed to convert to Marxism

Ollman 78 answers this, there must be action in the classroom
endorsing Marxism for the transition to occur, like the
affirmative, rather than simply teaching it in the class.

Fem K
No link: Class struggle and gender inequality go hand in hand.
In addition, Marx simply called for class struggle against the
bourgeois, he had no sexist intentions in his theory. Marxist
feminism proves its not sexist.
Smith, 13 (Sharon Smith, author of the soon-to-be-republished Women and
Socialism: Essays on Women's Liberation, examines how the Marxist tradition has
approached the struggle to end women's oppression, including its attitude toward
other theories, in this article based on a talk given at the Socialism 2012 conference
in Chicago.

INESSA ARMAND, the first leader of the women's department of the 1917 Russian
Revolution, made the following observation: "If women's liberation is unthinkable without
communism, then communism is unthinkable without women's liberation." That statement
is a perfect summary of the relationship between the fight for both socialism and women's
liberation--neither is possible without the other.
And the Marxist tradition has from its beginnings, with the writings of Karl Marx and
Frederick Engels, stood for the liberation of women. As early as the Communist Manifesto,
Marx and Engels argued that the ruling class oppresses women, relegating them to secondclass citizenship in society and within the family: " The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere
instrument of production...He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at [by
communists] is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production."
Marx did not devote much space in Capital to describing the precise role of women's
domestic labor under capitalism. Nor did he explore the origin of women's oppression in
class society, although he did take extensive ethnological notes on the subject late in his life.
After Marx's death, Engels used some of Marx's ethnological notes to write the book The
origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, which examined the rise of women's
oppression as a product of the rise of class society and of the nuclear family. Whatever
revisions have been necessary to update Engels' book, it was pathbreaking in its time as a
contribution to understanding women's oppression, particularly since Engels was writing in
Victorian England--which was hardly an age of enlightenment for the status of women.
Indeed, The Origin is noteworthy for the careful attention Engels gives to the personal
aspects of women's oppression inside the family, including the extreme degradation
suffered by women at the hands of their husbands, with a degree of inequality that had been

unknown in pre-class societies. Engels called the rise of the nuclear family "the world
historic defeat of the female sex." Although Marx's notes suggest that this world historic
defeat began to occur over a longer period of time--predating, and leading to the rise of,
class society--the end result is an enormous setback for women's equality to men.
Moreover, Engels explicitly argued that rape and violence against women were built in to
the family at its beginning:
The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude;
she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children...In order
to make certain of the wife's fidelity and therefore the paternity of his children, she is delivered
over unconditionally into the power of the husband; if he kills her, he is only exercising his
rights.

Engels also argued that the ideal of the monogamous family in class society is based upon a
fundamental hypocrisy. From its very beginning, the family has been stamped "with its
specific character of monogamy for the woman only, but not for the man ." While acts of
infidelity on the part of women were condemned, he said, are "considered honorable in a
man, or, at the worst, a slight moral blemish which he cheerfully bears."

We control root cause, gender inequality is an effect of

capitalism. Opposing the neoliberal order specifically in Africa
is key to challenge gendered oppression
Mate 11
(Ma-tay)
( Rekopantswe Mate, Rekopantswe Mate is a Lecturer in the Department of
Sociology at the University of Zimbabwe, currently on study leave to pursue
doctoral stud.ies at the International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University,
Rotterdam (EUR), the Netherlands, 7-8-2011, "Feminist Responses to the Neoliberal
Global Economic Order," Open Society Initiative For Southern Africa(Osisa),
http://www.osisa.org/buwa/womens-rights/regional/feminist-responses-neoliberalglobal-economic-order) CH

Neoliberal theories see the individual as the unit of analysis , as they do not accept
that society exists. In other words, they do not agree that there are collective
interests, which train people (socialisation) and therefore influence behaviour.
Individuals are seen as economic agents with no social identifiers they are
genderless, classless, have no race and so on. They are abstract indi.viduals (Dawson 2000: 2).
The market sees only their choices, preferences and tastes, and responds to them as the demand side of the

supply-and-demand forces of the market. Some variants of neoliberal policies see the household as the smallest
unit of analysis, assuming it to be a harmonious unit headed by the so-called benev.olent dictator, assumed to be

The internal divisions within the household, and the possibility of

multiple pro.duction systems and divergent uses of income as men
prioritise some things while women focus on others remain unseen.
Assuming that men are heads of house.holds means that they benefit from
proposed changes, while womens roles remain invisible. Due to the popu.larisation
male.

of the feminisation of poverty, women in fe.male-headed households may be recognised as targets of

Social
relations based on this conceptualisation of the market and the
individual make people look at each other as opportunities to make
profit a recipe for ex.ploitation and insecurity as opportunities are
exhaustible (see Elson 2001; Elson 2004). Relations terminate soon after opportunities are exhausted, and
development while those in male-headed households re.main in a bind as far as policy is concerned.

the anxiety this en.tails for those who are exploited and left after they have served their purposes are not dealt with
(Bauman 2004). This has seen a lot of instability and insecurity in rela.tionships and institutions such as marriage

The rise of transactionalism in the wake of this instability and insecurity

should be seen as despair, which comes with the rapid change. Opportunities are of
course gendered; women provide opportunities for do.mesticity, while the women
themselves may transact in their domestic skills, leading to a range of behaviours
and arrangements, which are associated with risk, such as transactional sex,
temporary marriages and sex work. In other words neoliberal change has worsened
inequality and pushed women into worse forms of despair. Some.times
fear of this despair forces women to stay in violent relations because the
alternative is seen as worse. Thus, state withdrawal from social services such as
healthcare and education through the introduction of user fees often leaves women
doing most of the care work. With the AIDS crisis, especially in southern Africa,
women have carried a large burden of care for the sick. With the increase in the use
of antiretrovirals, perhaps this burden will decline in time. A lot of the care work is
done with very few materials and little technical support from the state and nongovernmental organisations.
and house.holds.

Perm do the aff: The affirmative solves for gendered

oppression by attacking the root cause of it, classism. The aff
is the first step in restoring equality
No alternative solvency and turn--Capitalism causes patriarchy
keeps women poor and oppressed by the family unit
Meszaros, 95 (Istvan Meszaros, Hungarian Marxist philosopher and Professor Emeritus at U.
Sussex. Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition. p. 215)
Still, for us the meaning of the examples quoted above is fairly obvious. They are, for sure, contrasting enough. They appear on one single page
of one single newspaper, on one single day when the other newspapers of the country supply many other examples. Not to mention the countless
number of reportable cases which are not reported or are simply but elegantly 'explained away'. In any case, our examples also

show how slender are the margins from which the space for the emancipation of women must be carved
out, confining efforts directed towards it to an uphill struggle against the odds of - constantly nullified 'equality of opportunity'. As a recent report of the United Nations revealed on 17th October 1994: the day
meant to open the year 'for the eradication of world poverty' (a most likely prospect indeed!), women

represent today no less than 70 percent of the world's poor . It would be a miracle if it could be otherwise
under the prevailing practices of 'equal opportunity'. For under the rule of capital in any one of its
varieties - and not only today but for as long as the imperatives of this system continue to determine the
forms and limits of social metabolic reproduction -the 'equality of women' cannot amount to more than
tokenism. Since the promise of 'equal of opportunity' is used as a mystifying diversion by the ruling ideology, remaining to all those who
aspire at it so elusive as to appear an altogether unrealizable dream, the temptation is great to turn ones back to the whole question of equality
and settle for relative advantages for more or less limited sections of the people in structurally subordinate position, be they male or female. And
that is precisely what the ideological ruse of the vacuous 'equality of opportunity' is meant to achieve by promising advancement towards a
desired condition whose realization it simultaneously denies by a priori excluding the possibility of an equitable social order. However, despite
the mystifications involved, it is by no means a matter of indifference, not even of minor importance, that the ruling order cannot assert its
domination over the hierarchically subjected masses of the people without constantly resorting to the false promise of equality of sorts, even if in
the bastardized and preemptied form of 'equality of opportunity'. The self-legitimation of the capital system -based on the notion of contracts
freely entered by equal parties, without which the very idea of the assumed contract would be null and void - cannot conceivably be maintained if
the personifications of capital openly declared that they must and do indeed deny equality to the structurally subordinate masses of the
population, male or female, in any meaningful sense of the term. Moreover, the self-expansion of capital makes it necessary to progressively
bring into the labour process formerly marginal or non-participating groups of people, and potentially the entire population - including, of course,
virtually all women. This kind of change in the labour process carries with it, in one way or another, the significant (even if for a variety of
reasons necessarily iniquitous) extension of the consuming circle, altering in a corresponding sense also the family structure as well as the role
and relative importance of the younger and older generations in the overall process of socioeconomic reproduction and capital realization. Thus
the earlier mentioned and by socialdemocratic and liberal parties politically encouraged illusion of 'upward equalization' - postulated on the
ground of the 'growing cake' (an illusion cultivated for as long as the cake grows and even beyond), despite clear evidence all the time that the
proportionate slice of the cake conceded to labour is not only not growing but shrinking - is further complicated by changes in the labour process
directly linked to the extension of the consuming circle. For even if the cause of structural equalization is not advanced by a fraction of an inch by
the relative extension of the consuming circle, and even if there are major inequalities as regards the benefits made available to labour in different
countries according to their position in the global framework and pecking order of capital (as we shall see in Chapters 15 and 16), nevertheless
the underlying process brings with it for important sections of the labour force the improvement of their standard of living during the
expansionary phase of capital's historical development. Naturally, this is a process full of contradictions, as everywhere where the imperatives of
the capital system set the rules. The contradictions are manifest not only in the massive differences between groups of labour in any particular
country and globally; equally important is that the capital system itself becomes dependent on a process - the expansion of the consuming circle which cannot be maintained indefinitely, activating thereby in due course apotentially most explosive contradiction between capital and labour.
For even if there can be no question of 'upward equalization: which would modify the structure of the capital system, there is most decidedly a
downward equalization directly affecting the labour force even of the capitalistically most advanced countries. This is the necessary concomitant
of the appearance of major disturbances in the process of capital expansion and accumulation, witnessed in the last two decades, assuming the
form of a dangerous tendency for the equalization of the differential rate of exploitation mentioned above. Another vitally important

dimension of the problem we are concerned with is the worsening position of women as a result of the
changes in the family structure through the imperatives of capital , directly linked to the necessary
extension of the consuming circle. The contradictions are clear enough also in this domain, in that on the
one hand capital's undisturbed reproduction process badly needs the changes that have taken place (and
seem to continue unabated) in the field of consumption, but at the same time, on the other hand, the
system is exposed to the dangers and disturbances arising from the growing instability of the 'nuclear
family'. In other words, the rule of capital is both dependent on the continuity of such changes and is
bound to be weakened by them. It is significant in this respect that according to a recently published
report -called 'Diverse Living Arrangements of Children' - of the U.S. Census Bureau, in 1991 only
fractionally more than one half of all children lived in 'nuclear families' in the United States: 50.8 percent,
to be precise. (By now the figure must be well under one half, if the trend quoted in the Report was
maintained between 1991 and 1994.) Thus in 1991 nearly half of American children, outside the 'nuclear
family', lived in some other family arrangement: with single parents, step-parents, half-siblings, and so
on. This is a big change. Not long ago, a Census official found, in a separate study, that the number of
children in 'nuclear' families was 57 percent in 1980. In 1970, it had been 66 percent.'" Naturally, the
lion's share of the problems and complications for such changes must be placed on the shoulders of
women. Indeed, the burden imposed on women by the capital system for maintaining the nuclear family
is getting heavier, and their position in the poverty spectrum is shifting constantly for the worse, instead
of being alleviated, as the rhetorics of 'equal opportunity for women' and 'the elimination of all gender
discrimination' would have it. The disturbing fact highlighted by the United Nations that in 1994 women
constituted 70 percent of the world's poor is therefore not in the least surprising. Indeed, given the causal
determinations behind these figures, the situation of women is bound to get worse in the foreseeable
future. On the basis of the current trends the appalling figure put into relief by the United Nations is likely

to reach 75 percent within a decade, amounting to a horrendous 3 to 1 ratio compared to men among the
world's poor.

Framework
Counter interpretation: The judge should be a critical
intellectual tasked with promoting education to combat the
neoliberalism in Zambia implemented by the Chinese.
Educators and this space are uniquely key to challenge
neoliberal structures, and reclaim the ceded political sphere,
the argument that we cannot escape these structures only
dooms us to narcissism and the reproduction of the same
oppressive structures
Giroux 12 (Henry A. Giroux, Henry A. Giroux currently is the McMaster University
Professor for Scholarship in the Public Interest and The Paulo Freire Distinguished
Scholar in Critical Pedagogy, 10-16-2012, "Henry A. Giroux: Can Democratic
Education Survive in a Neoliberal Society? ," Truthout, http://www.truthout.org/opinion/item/12126-can-democratic-education-survive-in-a-neoliberalsociety) CH
This challenge suggests, in part, positing new forms of social citizenship and civic
education that have a purchase on people's everyday lives and struggles. Teachers
bear an enormous responsibility in opposing neoliberalism - the most dangerous
ideology of our time - by bringing democratic political culture back to life. Part of
this effort demands creating new locations of struggle, vocabularies and values that
allow people in a wide variety of public spheres to become more than they are now,
to question what it is they have become within existing institutional and social
formations, and "to give some thought to their experiences so that they can
transform their relations of subordination and oppression ."20 One element of this
struggle could take the form of resisting attacks on existing public spheres , such as
schools, while creating new spaces in clubs, neighborhoods, bookstores, trade
unions, alternative media sites and other places where dialogue and critical
exchanges become possible. At the same time, challenging neoliberalism means
fighting against the ongoing reconfiguration of the state into the role of an enlarged
police precinct designed to repress dissent, regulate immigrant populations,
incarcerate youth who are considered disposable and safeguard the interests of
global investors. It also means shifting spending priorities in favor of young people
and a sustainable democracy. Revenue for investing in young people, social
services, health care, crucial infrastructures and the welfare state has not
disappeared; it has simply been moved into other spending categories or used to
benefit a small percentage of the population. For instance, military spending is far
too bloated and supports a society organized for the mass production of violence.
Such spending needs to be cut to the bone without endangering the larger society.
In addition, as John Cavanaugh has suggested, educators and others need to fight
for policies that provide a small tax on stocks and derivatives, eliminate the use of
overseas tax havens by the rich and create tax policies in which the wealthy are
taxed fairly.21 Cavanagh estimates that the enactment of these three policies could
produce as much as $330 billion in revenue annually, enough to vastly improve the

quality of education for all children through the United States.22 As governments
globally give up their role of providing social safety nets, social provisions and
regulation of corporate greed, capital escapes beyond the reach of democratic
control, leaving marginalized individuals and groups at the mercy of their own
meager resources to survive. Under such circumstances, it becomes difficult to
create alternative public spheres that enable people to become effective agents of
change. Under neoliberalism's reign of terror, public issues collapse into privatized
discourses and a culture of personal confessions, greed and celebrities emerges to
set the stage for depoliticizing public life and turning citizenship and governance
into a form of consumerism. It gets worse. The rich and the powerful dislike public
education as much as they despise any real notion of democracy and they will do all
in their power to defend their narrow ideological and economic interests. The
growing attack on public education in American society may say less about the
reputed apathy of the populace than about the bankruptcy of old political languages
and orthodoxies and the need for new vocabularies and visions for clarifying our
intellectual, ethical and political projects, especially as they work to re-absorb
questions of agency, ethics and meaning back into politics and public life. In the
absence of such a language and the social formations and public spheres that make
democracy and justice operative, politics becomes narcissistic and caters to the
mood of widespread pessimism and the cathartic allure of the spectacle. In addition,
public service and government intervention is sneered upon as either bureaucratic
or a constraint upon individual freedom. Any attempt to give new life to a
substantive democratic politics must address the issue of how people learn to be
political agents as well as what kind of educational work is necessary within what
kind of public spaces to enable people to use their full intellectual resources to
provide a profound critique of existing institutions and to undertake a struggle to
make the operation of freedom and autonomy achievable for as many people as
possible in a wide variety of spheres. As engaged educators, we are required to
understand more fully why the tools we used in the past feel awkward in the
present, often failing to respond to problems now facing the United States and other
parts of the globe. More specifically, educators face the challenge posed by the
failure of existing critical discourses to bridge the gap between how society
represents itself and how and why individuals fail to understand and critically
engage such representations in order to intervene in the oppressive social
relationships they often legitimate. Against neoliberalism, educators, students and
other concerned citizens face the task of providing a language of resistance and
possibility, a language that embraces a militant utopianism while constantly being
attentive to those forces that seek to turn such hope into a new slogan or punish
and dismiss those who dare to look beyond the horizon of the given. Hope is the
affective and intellectual precondition for individual and social struggle, the mark of
courage on the part of intellectuals in and out of the academy who use the
resources of theory to address pressing social problems. But hope is also a referent
for civic courage, which translates as a political practice and begins when one's life
can no longer be taken for granted, making concrete the possibility for transforming
politics into an ethical space and a public act that confronts the flow of everyday
experience and the weight of social suffering with the force of individual and
collective resistance and the unending project of democratic social transformation.

No violation: 4 arguments against this

Brooks is not our solvency advocate, but Giroux and Simutany. Brooks
describes the horrors of the Zambian workers, but lays out no solvency
unlike Giroux and Simutany
Brooks book is a noble attempt at making the voice of the voiceless be
heard, because in todays society we hear nothing of Zambia. Its
working within the system to bring about change.
Turn- Buying Brooks book makes the negative also partake in this
oppression that Brooks has put onto Zambian workers
Reason to prefer/Answering standard
No self-fulfilling prophecy- Brooks has no intent in oppressing
Zambian workers, rather he is spreading the word
Our interp is best for education because we create a pedagogy
that challenges neoliberalism in Africa
Not a voter, make the negative prove oppression explicitly
explain how Brooks is an oppressor and as to why a rejection
of the case is necessary.