Marx Neg - Michigan 7 2024 KLAB

Case Neg – Marx Aff
Umich K Lab 2024
Contention 1: Cap Adv.
Alt Causes
Alt causes to Private Property Production
Hermeto, 2024 (João Romeiro Hermeto, Department of Humanistic Studies, University of Pavia, Italy. The Paradox of Intellectual Property in Capitalism (book), accessed through libgen / spp)
2.2.14 Capitalist Private Property and Economic Coercion
Assuming labour power as simply another element of the process of circulation of commodities in which they are bought against and sold for money hence represents an economic vulgarisation. Such an insight ignores both capitalist economic coercion, overcoming pre-capitalist economic opportunity, and the peculiarity of the labour commodity, which is the only commodity that can produce value and surplus-value; thus, this specific relation of production constitutes the very core element of capitalist relations. [Exclusive] Private property relations, which subordinate the transformation of economic relations, are therefore the precondition for universalising the selling and buying of labour power. “Only because the worker, in order to live, sells his labour assets, does objective wealth transform itself into capital” (Marx, 1988, p. 79). Thus, this represents a twofold condition. According to Marx, the metamorphosis of money into capital requires a qualitative transformation of labour that ceases to be immediate labour capacities to become a sold commodity. “On the other hand, labour can only appear as wage labour as soon as its own objective conditions confront it as independent [selbstisch] power, estrange property, value that exists for itself and holds on to itself, in short, as capital” (Marx, 1988, p. 79f). These two aspects are essential for the valorisation of capital and thus for the very socio-ontological existence of capital. Marx thus abdicates mechanistic economics, which conflates capital with the sole material aspects of the labour-process; instead, he denounces this reasoning because it ignores the “social characteristic amalgamated” in them, “which constitutes capital” (Marx, 1988, p. 81).
In a footnote, a relevant point reveals the opposition between objective social relations and the perception perpetrated by subjective social relations. While production relations depend on the labour made, produced, and given by workers, in German, the worker is regarded as labour-taker (Arbeitnehmer [in Marx, Arbeitsnehmer]); in contrast, the capitalist that appropriates and takes produced labour is considered labour-giver (Arbeitgeber [in Marx, Arbeitsgeber]) (Marx, 1988, p. 82). Physical and social existence, which are ontologically impossible to be separated, are arbitrarily and artificially separated as a mechanism of power legitimation. The essence of the production of surplus-value disappears behind the veils of capitalist benevolence, which generally provides labour opportunities. The twofold capitalist condition of the so-called primitive accumulation, namely, expropriation and separation of the labourer from the means of doing, on the one hand, and appropriation of value and production of surplus-value, which are labour-dependent, on the other, disappears.
Marx is fully aware that “capital is in and for itself indifferent to the particularity of each sphere of production”, production of surplus-value as an end-in-itself determinates its own legality, social and natural barriers are constantly overcome, and “with the development of its own peculiar mode of production, it removes all legal and extra-economic obstacles to its free movement in the various spheres of production”, that is, norms, rights, laws, and traditions that might prevent labour appropriation are circumscribed, overpowered, and crushed (Marx, 1988, p. 87).
“In this sense, one clearly sees the importance of, first, banking capital and, then, financial capital to enable the most fluid form of capital, which attaches and detaches at will, which, especially with the combination of digitalisation and the Internet, bends the social dimensions of time, space, and culture. Under the real subsumption of capital, “the reserve funds of the banks […] always express on the average the size of the money available as treasure, and a part of this treasure itself consists of paper, mere instructions on gold, which, however, are not intrinsic values”; Marx correctly asserts that the majority of the banker’s capital is “purely fictitious”, to which he adds, “this fictitious banker’s capital largely represents not his capital, but that of the public, which deposits with him, whether with or without interest” (Marx, 1964, p. 487). Marx calls this formation “capitalisation” [kapitalisieren] (Marx, 1964, p. 484). However, as stated elsewhere, this process is not an abstract fictive relation. On the contrary, fictitious capital is leveraged into concrete power by an act of self-expansion, and then with those inflated assets, it appropriates the most profitable capitalist segments. “The fictitious capital has an immanent parasitic character, it needs a host to survive” (Hermeto, 2021, p. 222)
T/ Monolithic
Capitalism’s not monolithic---regs solve their impacts and preserve positives.
Laura Tyson and Lenny Mendonca 21. Laura Tyson, former chair of the US President's Council of Economic Advisers, is Professor of the Graduate School at the Haas School of Business and Chair of the Blum Center Board of Trustees at the University of California, Berkeley. Lenny Mendonca, Senior Partner Emeritus at McKinsey & Company, is a former chief economic and business adviser to Governor Gavin Newsom of California and chair of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. "Capitalism We Can Believe In". Project Syndicate. 1-15-2021. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/what-to-do-about-declining-trust-in-us-capitalism-by-laura-tyson-and-lenny-mendonca-2021-01
Growing distrust of capitalism follows from its failure to address major socioeconomic challenges, not least climate change and inequalities in opportunity, income, and wealth. While private incentives under capitalism are good at stimulating efficiency, growth, and innovation, they also generate unequal income and wealth distributions (even in a context of intense competition), often at odds with social norms of fairness. Moreover, capitalist systems tend to underinvest in public goods like education, health care, and social insurance – all critical factors in the pandemic response – while also discounting negative externalities such as greenhouse-gas emissions.
These shortcomings of capitalism are predictable, but they are remediable through public policies and institutions. Tax and transfer policies and minimum wages can reduce income and wealth disparities, just as public investment in education, training, and health care can enhance opportunity by providing access to good jobs and fostering the creation of new enterprises. Likewise, a price on carbon dioxide and regulations limiting or banning carbon emissions can help the world avert the existential threat of climate change.
Critics of capitalism often miss (or choose to ignore) that there is no single canonical model. Europe’s various “social market” models differ significantly from the neoliberal variant in the US. And even within the US, there are important differences between states and localities.
Some of these distinctions have been highlighted in the responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and recession. All advanced economies have deployed unprecedented levels of fiscal and monetary stimulus in the face of “K-shaped” or “dual” recessions in which lower-wage workers have suffered disproportionately more than other cohorts. Unlike the US, Germany and several other European countries have deployed measures specifically designed to keep as many workers as possible in their jobs. Because these countries have generous social insurance and benefits, including sick leave and family leave, workers and their families have been able to cope with both COVID-19 and sudden drops in their incomes.
Differences in national health-care models have also become more apparent. Unlike European capitalist systems that provide universal coverage, 14.5% of America’s non-elderly population (ages 18-64) remains uninsured. Moreover, owing to America’s heavy reliance on employer-based insurance, the pandemic has pushed at least 15 million more workers at least temporarily into the uninsured pool.
With their strong public-health systems, many European countries were also better equipped to carry out widespread testing and vaccine distribution. The US, meanwhile, has utterly failed to contain the virus, and is now delegating the vaccination campaign to under-resourced state and local authorities.
In another contrast with the US, Europe has dedicated about one-third of its massive stimulus program to investments aligned with its commitment to achieve carbon neutrality by mid-century. America’s federal stimulus measures have been silent on climate with few conditions of any kind.
Within the US, individual states’ responses to the COVID-19 crisis reflect different variants of capitalism. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom’s recent 2021-22 budget proposal reveals some distinctive features. In terms of health-care coverage, California remains a national leader with a Medicaid program covering more than 13 million people. Despite the pandemic-induced recession, the state is increasing its minimum wage to $14 per hour in 2021, on track to realize the target of $15 per hour in 2022 for all businesses employing 26 or more workers; many municipalities, including Los Angeles and San Francisco, have already achieved or exceeded the $15 target. (On January 1, 2021, 20 other states also raised their minimum wages, whereas the US federal minimum wage has remained unchanged at $7.25 per hour since 2009.)
California has also expanded coverage of its Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Young Child Tax Credit to include undocumented workers who are otherwise denied the benefits of federal stimulus packages. Together, these tax credits applied to 3.6 million California households in 2020, adding $1 billion in total income. The state also passed new legislation significantly expanding unpaid family-leave rights. Employers with as few as five employees now must provide this option as well as more time for paid sick leave for workers forced to self-isolate or quarantine as a result of COVID-19 exposure or diagnosis.
Looking ahead, Newsom has proposed an additional $600 one-time cash payment to all taxpayers who are eligible for the state’s EITC in 2021. His proposed 2021-22 budget also earmarks $372 million to expedite the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, and includes $4.5 billion for programs to drive economic growth and job creation once restrictions on normal activities have been lifted. These programs include $575 million in grants to small businesses and nonprofits, in addition to the $500 million for such grants implemented in late 2020 amid forced business closures. The proposal also allocates up to an additional $50 million for the California Rebuilding Fund, a public-private partnership, to support up to an additional $125 million of low-interest loans to underserved small businesses throughout the state.
California’s distinctive approach to market capitalism also emphasizes climate sustainability, using both carbon pricing and efficiency standards to achieve ambitious decarbonization targets. Under a 2018 state law, 60% of electricity must come from renewable resources by 2030, and 100% by 2045. California runs the world’s fourth-largest cap-and-trade system and will be setting even lower caps (and thus a higher carbon price) next month. In September 2020, Newsom announced an executive order requiring that zero-emission vehicles account for 100% of new car sales by 2035. His proposed budget seeks $1.5 billion to accelerate the infrastructure investment needed to achieve this goal.
President-elect Joe Biden has just announced a $1.9 trillion emergency rescue plan to counter the pandemic’s surge and provide substantial relief to workers, families, small businesses, and state and local governments. Prompt congressional passage of this plan is a critical first step in the renovation of America’s outdated neoliberal version of capitalism. As the economy recovers from the deep and uneven COVID-19 recession, the US must “build back better” by strengthening its social safety net, increasing public investment in education, health care, and other public goods, and rejoining the global charge against climate change. Lessons from the more successful variants of market capitalism in Europe and California point the way forward.
T/ Gender Exclusion
Male-centered gender norms dominate hacktivism
Curcelli 17 [Giulia Curcelli (College of Arts and Sciences, Curriculum in Peace, War, and Defense), “Unorthodox Hacking: Addressing Sexism in Hacktivist Communities to Expand Options for Electronic Civil Disobedience,” https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/honors_theses/ff365973q?locale=en, accessed 7-19-2024] //elai
Leonie Maria Tanczer, a postdoctoral researcher of cybersecurity, collective action, and gender studies, draws on the research of Jordan and Taylor to further study the “male-only” stereotype of hacktivism. In a 2015 article with a sample of five women and five men, Tanczer conducted a discourse analysis of hacktivist communities, believing that a gendered analysis was particularly necessary for a community focused on creating social and political change. Language reflects and perpetuates cultural stereotypes, so it was an appropriate venue to study the gender biases of hacktivists. Though Tanczer’s sample size is small, she is the first to venture into studying the direct link between gender and hacktivism. In interviews with her subjects, she recognized four patterns of discourse. Most prominently, she identified Male Oblivious Discourse among the men she surveyed, wherein they overlooked gender entirely. Not acknowledging sexism is in itself a form of sexism, and a male identity in the predominantly male hacktivist community affords the privilege of seeing gender as a non-issue. Female hackers push back on this attitude through Female Discourses of Resistance. This is either an Emphasis Discourse, where they actively emphasize their identities as women and hackers and combat the sexism in the community, or Negation Discourse, where women struggle with feelings of exclusion and with justifying a hacktivist identity. When confronted with their sexism or erasure of women, men retaliate with a Male Justification Discourse, where they try to defend themselves and explain away their Oblivious Discourse.41 A specific experience that Tanczer cites as Negation Discourse is particularly interesting in the context of my work. One woman who did not participate in the study explained to Tanczer that she identified as an activist and a hacker but not a hacktivist because her hacking work was not recognized as “real hacking” by other hackers: teaching everyone at occupy how to use wordpress, or teaching sewing classes at a makerspace in a poor neighbourhood…Skills that are categorized as ‘feminine’ are not thought of as real work in our society, so because of systemic social prejudices both within the hacker culture and society at large, by definition women are often not hacktivists.42 Comparing this with the experiences of the other women in her survey, Tanczer concludes that when faced with the struggle to reconcile their female and hacktivist identities, some will altogether drop the label hacktivist. Men, who dominate hacking communities, set definitions and decide what is considered hacktivism. Because of men’s built-in gender biases, these definitions often exclude work perceived as more feminine.43
T/ BioTech
Capital is crucial for biotechnology – solves a laundry list of impacts
Chris Edwards ’21, Director of Tax Policy Studies and Editor, Down​siz​ing​Gov​ern​ment​.org, “The Triumph of Biotechnology and Private Capital”, CATO, 9/24/21, https://www.cato.org/commentary/triumph-biotechnology-private-capital
People often claim that capitalism focuses only on short-term profits. But the venture capitalists and angel investors who fund firms such as Moderna and BioNTech are hugely patient, and they lose money on most of their investments. Typically, their model rests on the calculation that a small percentage of their investments will generate a sufficiently high return on going public or being sold to both “pay” for those that — as will often be the case in a very tricky sector — lose money (or make very little) and make the sort of good money that they and their clients are expecting when putting together an investment portfolio.
In biotechnology and other leading-edge industries, after-tax investor gains are often reinvested in the next round of risky startups, thus creating a virtuous cycle. If the government had taxed away the Struengmanns’ capital gains from selling Hexal, they might not have had the cash or incentive to invest in BioNTech. One of the reason that nearly all high-income countries keep capital-gains taxes low is to help ensure that investors and entrepreneurs are incentivized to take the risk of committing time and resources to ventures that can offer no promise of a good return, the sort of ventures, in other words, so typical of ventures relying on scientific and technical innovation. Those who take high risks should be rewarded, if that risk works out, with high rewards.
Unfortunately, that logic eludes President Biden and congressional Democrats. They not only would like to raise capital-gains-tax rates, but some of them would also like to broaden the capital-gains-tax base, including by taxing gains before they are realized. If applied to startup investing, that could do terrible damage to the ability of early stage companies to secure the patient capital that they need. Punishing capital gains makes no sense if we want investors and entrepreneurs to pursue valuable but risky growth opportunities.
Some cynics are griping about the big profits that Moderna and BioNTech are now making, but investors in those firms absorbed losses for a decade. Besides, there is no better place for profits to flow right now than to biotech firms and their research. BioNTech announced that it will build on its mRNA advances to develop shots against malaria and tuberculosis, which together kill more than a million people a year. And numerous biotech firms are now aiming to create more effective influenza vaccines based on mRNA technologies.
One of the key moments in the development of the biotech sector as we know it today was the launch of Genentech in 1976, backed by venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins. The success of that pioneering firm “gave credence to the view that scientific research, infused with start-up firm spunk, could be a critical component of economic growth,” noted a history of the industry by Walter Powell and Kurt Sandholtz.
To undermine an approach that has worked so well, and delivered so much, by raising capital gains makes no economic sense. Worse still, as we consider the lives saved or improved by companies in biotechnology and other innovative sectors, companies that relied on private risk capital, it may well come at considerable human cost, too.
T/ Cyber Terror
Hacking means the US can no longer avoid cyber terror attacks – makes our nukes vulnerable
David R. Shedd 17, former acting director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, “Securing the homeland means reauthorizing FISA surveillance,” 11/1/17, http://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/358111-securing-the-homeland-means-reauthorizing-fisa-surveillance
Few would argue that the world is a safer place than it was on 9/11. So how has America avoided a massive, foreign-directed terrorist attack since then? One key has been the foreign collection program implemented under Section 702 of the Fore

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.