Moten & Workers Strike Parts 7-9

These are the final 3 parts in a 9 part series on Moten and the 2021 November-December LD Topic on unconditionally recognizing the right of workers to strike.

In part 7, Nae continues talking about how to read Moten and Harney on the affirmative as a critical argument on the resolution. Nae thinks a lot of teams will read the Cap K and starts there. Developing offense versus the state recognition part of the alternative or vertical movements as a mimicry of the state can be a successful strategy to address those criticisms. Nae details the inevitability portion of the debate. In general, when answering criticisms when reading Moten and Harney you should make arguments about why the search for perfect structural theory to make universal theories about resistance and why there needs to be a more contextual analysis of tactics.

In part 8, Nae talks about how teams can answer the Moten and Harney aff when on the negative. Having a strong line of argumentation about a lack of a structural theory is important to take up as well as a permutation debate. Think of the relationship you want to take with the utility of the law, individual policies, and what is the value of the institution. Investing in the state, vertical organizing, reform, and the inevitability of the state can be important. On the case, you should force the aff to choose sides on different issues in the debate that Nae details.

In part 9, Nae finishes the Moten and Harney series by finishing talking about answering affs that will read Moten. Nae explains how to execute kritiks, counterplans, and disads against potential Moten affs. When reading a kritik, you need to figure out the basis of how to evaluate and contest the efficacy of movement making.