The aff devastates any progressive potential for the left: 1-it rejects institutions, 2-it assumes power can be transformed exteriorly, 3-it assumes strength comes through representation (like a ballot) instead of meaningful political restrictions on neoliberal excesses

(Gregory, “Radical Intellectuals and the Subversion of Progressive Politics,” p. 139-141)

It is in the notion of the immanence of freedom through the expres- sion of subjectivity that neo-anarchism is fundamentally antipolitical. If one engages the neo-anarchist in debate over the necessity of political institutions, the viability of the alternatives they propose, or the content of their politics, they have ready answers by drawing the debate into either the extreme Of highly specific evidence of unique cases or entirely unsubstantiated abstract categories. The interlocutor's questions are manifestations of the thought processes that have already bought into the categories produced by ideologies of domination. The mystical and evasive language of neo-anarchism itself becomes a defense of its bona fide revo- lutionary radicalism. However, the question that must be posed against the neo-anarchist is whether or not people are already free and what the substance of that freedom is. Neo-anarchism relies entirely on a concep- tion of political means, but not political ends. Establishing ends requires implementing a program, setting goals, evaluating the desirability and efficacy of these goals. But neo-anarchism is entirely based on a subjective attitude toward the world. It is concerned with the means by which one leads a free life, but not the ends that such means seek to achieve. Political institutions serve the function of realizing political ends. These ends can either be conservative or progressive, repressive or emancipatory. Neo-anarchists deny this. They assert a politics of radical rejection. Such a politics, however, is not a solution to the problems of economic inequality or political domination. It does not reinvigorate a Left that has become increasingly politically powerless. Rather, it is symptomatic of the very malaise of neoliberalism that it pretends to fight against. There is nothing emancipatory about the retreat inward into the self or an insulated com- munity. The neo-anarchists try to valorize a politics of helplessness. In a society that has become increasingly unequal because the economic imper- atives of unconstrained capital have co-opted politics, neo-anarchists urge people to ignore these realities. Neo-anarchism is no less pernicious than the rampant irrationalism and mysticism that pervades our culture. It is the political equivalent of the abundance of self-help manuals. The works of the neo-anarchists endlessly invoke the bogeyman of neoliberalism, but they offer no analysis of what neoliberalism actually is or how it operates to lead to oppression. Political structures and economic systems do not need to be understood so long as one can reject them and live outside their influence. Neo-anarchism's antipolitics tells us that institutions do not matter; that the influence they exert in Our everyday lives is exaggerated. Tra- ditional politics "attributes to the State an autonomy of action that it just does not have. In reality, what the state does is limited and shaped by the fact that it exists as just one node in a web of social relations." 57 Such assertions are left unsubstantiated. They also render critique point- less because they are presented more as observations and musings than as concrete theoretical claims.58 Neo-anarchism is more revealed religion than politics. Only those who recognize that political institutions do not matter are admitted. This is the politics of illusions. So long as individuals conduct themselves as if institutions do not matter, neo-anarchism can claim victories for itself. The neo-anarchist can never fail in her political aims because she has already achieved them by virtue of the kind of life she leads. If power does not affect her because she has chosen to conduct herself as though it is an illusion, then she has no real way to measure the extent to which she is actually oppressed. Denying the power of institu- tions means rejecting any rubric for evaluating her freedom because She can never acknowledge that She is oppressed. If the existence of power is denied, then all the tools for combating injustice are equally irrelevant. "The emancipatory promise of political engagement loses all legitimacy because emancipation comes from disengagement. The antipolitics of the neo-anarchists runs far deeper than the charge that they ignore the reality of institutions. Rather, they believe that power can cease to exert influence on us in the present. Rejecting the existence of power relations leads to the rejection of politics. One need only take the leap: "To begin to think about power and changing the world without taking power (or indeed anything else), we need to start from doing."" Triumphalism, Insurrection, and Apolitical Reactionaries60 Neo-anarchism would not warrant analysis or critique if it were not for the fact that elements of its doctrines were becoming more prevalent in the ways the Left practices politics. Increasingly, the Left has been mea- Suring its relevance and success on the incidence of political action instead of the realization of goals. Protest for its own sake has been taken as a testament to the resurgence of the Left. These protests need not make specific demands, articulate policies, or lead to any reforms. Their suc- cess is evaluated through their bare occurrence. Even obviously failed political actions become cause for celebration. It remains unclear what, if anything, Occupy Wall Street actually achieved. The labor movement Suffered a dramatic setback in its failure to oppose the program of Gov- ernor Scott Walker in Wisconsin. Though the Chicago Teachers Union was more successful in its confrontation with Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, it was still forced to make concessions. Much of the enthusiasm for the CTU strike focused more on its ability to mobilize people than on the realization of their demands. These actions sought to defend rights that the unions already had. At the same time, the number of "right to work" States continues to grow. Such attacks on labor are a mark that the Left is weakening, not strengthening. These are opportunities for the Left to engage in self-evaluation. Such actions show the necessity of confronting political realities, but the Left's new infituation with action regardless of efficacy displays the ways neo-anarchist understandings of politics have infected the Left's ability to assess its gains and losses.