Suchergebnisse

Protesters at a "Queers for Palestine" march in New York City

In my undergraduate dissertation, titled: An exploration into how neoliberal economic policies have impacted Britain's North - South divide in urban spaces since the 1980s, I explore how Britain's adoption of neoliberal policies furthered existing urban inequality through an ability to 'lock-in' existing variation and reinforce itself by coercing urban spaces to compete against each other. I emphasise the importance of viewing neoliberalism as a dynamic and contradictory framework as opposed to a static ideology, and encourage this to be mapped onto space, with a specific focus on urban spaces in Britain. This mapping enables the evolution and perpetuation of neoliberal ideology to be unpacked, with its ever-increasing influence on the living standards of citizens being key to understanding the geographic unevenness in British society.
The post Competition and Contradiction in Neoliberal Britain's Spatial Divide appeared first on Progress in Political Economy (PPE).

Yanis Varoufakis is a vocal critic of capitalism. He is a Greek academic, writer, and politician – as former Minister of Finance, led negotiations during the government debt crisis of 2015. But even as the founder of the left-wing political party MeRA25 (European Realistic Disobedience Front) in 2018, he laments the bankruptcy of today's left.

He describes capitalism as a contradiction with immense advantages (innovation, wealth, gadgets, technologies) but also with an inherent tendency to cause aesthetic, moral, psychological, and financial poverty. Luigi Zingales and Bethany McLean sit down with Varoufakis to understand his diagnosis of the ills of capitalism, not as an unjust system but one that is inefficient and freedom impeding.

The new version of the pre-pandemic fiscal rules, if imposed, would jeopardise the European economy.

Welcome back, friends! For this episode, we're hooking up with our old friends in Columbus, OH, Chairman Moe's Magic Contradiction, to discuss last week's "mega debate" in Toronto, between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Žižek, on "Happiness; Capitalism vs. Marxism." Regular listeners to the show might remember we had Charlie Umland and Jim Calder as guests last year, in Episode 11, to talk about Situationism. That was probably one of the most fun shows we've ever done on this podcast and, given the spectacle of such an eagerly anticipated intellectual debate, I thought it would be a good idea to invite them on again, for a deep dive not only into the debate, but also what it means for the state of intellectual discourse today.



Just to provide some context for this particular episode: I'm lucky to be part of an occasional reading group with Charlie and Jim, and I think I speak for us all that we were all pretty excited when we heard this debate was going to be taking place. We knew there would probably be a pretty intense online reaction to it, especially from elements of the left that are already antagonistic to Žižek's style and brand of Marxism (see here and here, for just two examples). So we thought we'd do this show, as a way of thinking our way through some of that likely response, and also to explore some of the disagreements we have among ourselves on some of the issues arising from the debate, including the political priority of identity politics for the left.



Special thanks to Darren Latanick, who graciously offered to step in as producer of the episode, on the Columbus side. Thanks for listening and, as ever, you can leave us a review on iTunes or reach out to us with feedback on Twitter @occupyirtheory.

Welcome to another episode of Fully Automated! Our guest for this episode is Keir Milburn, Lecturer in Political Economy and Organization at the University of Leicester. Keir has a new book out, called Generation Left. I had a chance to discuss the text recently, with my Columbus, OH-based friends, Chairman Moe's Magic Contradiction (AKA Charlie Umland and Jim Calder). We liked it so much, we thought we'd reach out to Keir and see if he'd come on the show, to discuss.



American audiences may have heard Keir interviewed by Chuck Mertz a couple of weeks ago, on This Is Hell! We're kind of hoping this could be a good companion episode to that interview, as we go deep into some aspects of the book that Chuck didn't have time to address. And there is a LOT going on in this book! It starts by questioning the popular notion that Millennials and Zoomers are a bunch of entitled snowflakes, and suggesting that this myth is actually doing quite a lot of work, politically, in dividing young and old members of the working class, giving them over to the idea that they have fundamentally different interests.



But of course, as with many myths, an investigation of the facts produces a rather different persecutive. It turns out, says Keir, that the generations are stuck in rather different material trajectories. One statement Keir makes early in the book really caught our attention: "the older generation are still tied to the neoliberal hegemony of finance while the young seek to escape it." But these trajectories are not a given. To the contrary, the logic of neoliberalism forces the Boomer generation to hold onto its material advantages, as a retirement strategy. And, as it does this, it condemns Millennials and Zoomers to a life of debt and forces them into a culture of cynical entrepreneurialism.



In the show, we talk with Keir about the role of events in composing generations. Events, he says, can disrupt our accepted ways of making sense of the world, and lead to the emergence of radically new social energies. But not every disruptive event will necessarily lead to some kind of new configuration, nor will every new configuration necessarily be a progressive one.



One particular event, the 2008 financial crisis, of course looms large in Keir's story. Unleashing austerity on the developed world, it represents in a sense the apogee of neoliberal governmentality. Milburn cites academic theorists like Wendy Brown, Maurizio Lazzarato, and Jennifer Silva to try to explain how neoliberal capitalism tries to get us to think and act as if there is no alternative to neoliberalism, even tho we all know its not working — we know we can't all be entrepreneurs. (This reminded us a bit of Adam Curtis, and his hyper-normalization documentary). A key figure for Milburn here is Mark Fisher, and his argument about consciousness deflation.



Whatever we want to call this system (authoritarian neoliberalism? zombie capitalism?), clearly it is making us sick. Throughout the text, Milburn make repeated reference to how we are living in the midst of an epidemic of "depression, insomnia and mental distress." Yet there's kind of a mystery to unpack here. He cites Jennifer Silva, for example, to explain how capitalism prefers us to internalize these issues, making them questions more to to do with our emotional and psychic resilience, than anything to do with the structure of the economy.



And, as he argues, this way of thinking about our mental wellbeing even showed up in the "assemblyism" of the occupy Wall Street movement. Nevertheless, he insists, Occupy's approach to the collective discussion of experiences and struggles did offer therapeutic and even political potentials to the young people who participated. And, as we discuss in the show (admittedly not in nearly enough detail) there are things we can learn here, very much in the spirit of the late Mark Fisher, that might be applied to a new model of treating mental and ...

The critique of settler space is a pressing task in the context of movements for Indigenous justice in settler-colonial societies across the world. My recently awarded PhD thesis contributes to this critique by investigating the historical production of settler space, on the premise that thinking through this project of settler spatial history may help shed light on the contradictions and contours of settler spaces today. It is available to download from the University of Sydney Library here.
The post Settler Space: a spatial history of nineteenth-century Sydney appeared first on Progress in Political Economy (PPE).

To protect the rule of law based legal system against abusive use of the loopholes, imperfections, contradictions of the law, to avoid legal inertia legal positivist arguments are needed to convince and mobilize the legal mind. The same applies when the blind fortune of democracy provides the opportunity to erase the legally enthroned injustice and domination of illiberal regimes. When it comes to legal enactments that serve legal cheating the rule of law must respond to systemic abuse of the law, and that requires and justifies a rule of law based exceptionalism and a systemic remedy.

ROAPE's Peter Lawrence argues that there are strong echoes across Africa of the recession of the late 1970s and early 1980s. The reappearance of recession, debt and structural adjustment to the continent reminds us of the fundamental contradiction of capitalism. Based on his editorial in the forthcoming ROAPE issue 174, Lawrence concludes that there are alternatives to the continent's enduring entrapment in a global financial system that works for the global financial corporates that dominate it.
The post The return of recession, debt and structural adjustment first appeared on ROAPE.
The post The return of recession, debt and structural adjustment appeared first on ROAPE.

Four Futures

This episode is the first in an occasional 'book club' series of podcasts we will be doing, in an around the topic of fully automated luxury communism. This episode's book is Four Futures, by Peter Frase (which is part of the Jacobin series, from Verso Books).

My guests on the show are Laura Horn and Phil Davis. Laura is a political economist working at the University of Roskilde, just outside of Copenhagen in Denmark. While her own research has mainly focused on dimensions of capitalist restructuring in the European Union, she has a strong political and personal interest in the nexus between political economy and science fiction. Four Futures is one of the texts she uses in her course 'Repoliticising Capitalism: Contradictions, critique and alternatives'.

Phil Davis is a molecular biologist working in the Biodefense sector in the Washington DC area. He's currently working towards a master's degree in Bioinformatics from University of Maryland University College. Four Futures sits at the intersection of his enthusiasm for both left-wing politics and futurology. His hobbies also include music.

If you have any questions or comments, please send us a tweet @occupyirtheory

For our last Political Economy seminar in 2023, three recent doctoral graduates will illuminate the diverse applications and insights offered by a political economy approach. From Latin America to East Asia, via Sydney, these three papers will explore the intersections of political economy with other disciplines, such as geography and psychoanalysis, and a range of theoretical traditions from Marxism to post-Keynesian economics to world-ecology. These conceptual resources are applied to crucial and pressing questions about labour’s subordination to economic development, the role of central banks in financial stability, and the relations between nature and the state at the frontiers of commodity exploitation. This panel will give us an opportunity to discuss the connections and contradictions between different applications of a political economy approach and its essential interdisciplinarity.
Presenters:
David Avilés Espinoza, Spatial Political Economy: The Ideology of Nature, state-space, and the Oil Commodity Frontier in Chilean Patagonia
Luciano Carment, Quantitative Easing in Japan: A Critical Evaluation
Christian Caiconte, Theorising the Unconscious in the Study of Political Economy: The Case of Korea
Chair: Adam David Morton
When: 21 November, 12:00-13:30
Where: Social Sciences Building (A02), Room 441
The post Roundtable—The Flight of a Kite: Methodological and Geographical Diversity from Sydney’s Political Economy appeared first on Progress in Political Economy (PPE).

Hello friends! Welcome to another episode of Fully Automated!



Our guest for this episode is none other than James A. Smith, co-host with David Slavick of The Popular Show. Smith is also the author of Other People's Politics: Populism to Corbynism (Zer0 Books, 2019) and coauthor with Mareile Pfannebecker of Work Want Work: Labour and Desire at the end of Capitalism (Bloomsbury, 2020).







Smith is a defender of the idea that the 2016-2020 "Bernie moment" was a real opportunity to advance the cause of socialism. While it can be tempting today to look back and think that it was doomed from the start, Smith argues that the failure was largely self-inflicted. This means there are lessons that can be learned from the failure. However, he notes, the left today "seems worryingly uncurious about the regressive influence earlier defeated lefts have sometimes inadvertently had."



Smith believes that the left needs to rethink its approach to political freedom. Following up on our recent episode with Efraim Carlebach on the 10-year anniversary of Mark Fisher's famous essay, "Exiting the Vampire Castle," we chat with Smith about his recent Sublation essay, "Capitalist Realism All Over Again" (3.17.2023).



As he puts it, the left has "struggled to apply the book's insights," all too often succumbing to political correctness and "anti-political moralism." Meanwhile, as evidenced in the government response to the coronavirus pandemic, capitalist elites are claiming that crises that are "too important to be hazarded to democratic oversight or protest." When the left abandons this fight, the right will try to fill in the gap, claiming that only it can stop the power grab.



We also ask Smith about some of his recent episodes, including his interview with Matt Taibbi, one of the main journalists behind The Twitter Files. Like Taibbi, Smith believes that capitalist elites today are leveraging state powers to censor social media activity, essentially constituting a strategy of "revenge against both left and right populism."



We also discuss a number of foreign policy matters, from the west's war for NATO expansion in Ukraine to the iconoclastic left's bankrupt analysis of Israel's war in Gaza. Concerning the latter, many otherwise insightful critics have suggested that Hamas is essentially a bonapartist organization, seeking to create an islamic state. How does Smith respond to these critics? Moreover, given the difficulty of imagining the construction of a working class party in Gaza today, what should be the left position on this terrible war?



Smith can be followed on Twitter/X @thepopularpod. Curious listeners can also follow up on Smith's work on Jacobin, where he has published numerous articles on the state of the British left:




"The Labour Party Is Ignoring Britain's Muslims. A Judge-Led Inquiry Won't Change That" (12.12.2023)



"Labour's Left Needs to Regain the Insurgent Spirit That Made Jeremy Corbyn Leader" (07.31.2023)



"The Labour Left's Fatal Contradictions Are Still Unresolved" (11.04.2021)




NOTE: This is a re-post of Episode 13 of Class Transmissions, which was posted on Feb 4, 2024. I want to thank Class Unity for letting me share this work with listeners of Fully Automated.



Please check out Class Unity's website: here



Class Unity can be followed on Twitter/X here: @Class_Unity

The episode features a roundtable on Philip Cunliffe's latest book, The New Twenty Years' Crisis (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2020). And, in a bit of a break with tradition, this episode also sees me jump out of the host's seat, and invite Shahar Hameiri (University of Queensland) to take over the reins.



Joining me in the panel to discuss the book is the author, Philip Cunliffe (making his third appearance on the show), and Patrick Porter (University of Birmingham). Tara McCormack (University of Leicester) was also scheduled to join us but had to withdraw at the last minute, due to illness.



It was great to have Phil back on the show, to discuss this important book. The last time he was on, we talked about his previous book, Cosmopolitan Dystopia, which was a survey of human rights discourse on global politics since the end of the Cold War. The new book takes the theme of liberal war-making from that book, and attempts to read it through the lens of E. H. Carr's classic 1939 text, The Twenty Years' Crisis.



On the eve of World War Two, Carr described the politics of his time as a kind of interregnum, or a time of passage between two regimes of world order. For Carr, the great tragedy of his time was that the normative commitments of the intellectuals of interbellum period — namely, to the power of public opinion, to sovereign self-determination, and to international law and institutions — were incongruent with the kinds of mass-mobilized politics that were rapidly sweeping away their world order, and undermining the very conditions of possibility for securing those commitments.



For Cunliffe, however, the lessons of Carr's study of the 1919-1939 period must today be applied in a kind of inverted manner. For where it was mass politics that ultimately frustrated and undid the political project of the utopian idealists, we do not today live in such a massified moment. To the contrary, as scholars like Peter Mair have described, we live in a demassified moment, where the agendas of college-educated neoliberal Brahmins dominate, unchecked. Worse, as Cunliffe explores, these new elites are kind of anti-utopians. They detest the values of the interbellum period, deriding public opinion and breaching sovereign self-determination in the name of so-called responsibility.



Cunliffe explores this argument through a number of fascinating case studies, taking us from the salons of International Relations conventions, which have been overtaken by 'critical' theorists (a group of scholars whose methods are singularly symptomatic of the "imaginary" of our unipolar moment), to the hallways of Brussels, capital of that grandest of examples of "de-massified," neoliberal democracy, the European Union. The overarching theme that emerges is one of a shocking lack of self-awareness on the part of our political and intellectual elites.



As you'll hear, the panelists are on the whole friendly to Phil's diagnosis, but they do push back on some of his normative suggestions. Despite these disagreements, however, I will say that I think this is one of the more important episodes we've done on this show. Diagnostically, Phil is one of the sharpest commentators around, on the contradictions of our postmodern moment. I want to thank Phil, Patrick, and Shahar for their time and effort in helping to make this conversation happen.

From one of the little byways of the climate change discussion: The report, published by food and drink manufacturing consultancy NIRAS, outlines how the brewing industry has a "once in a generation" opportunity to meet demands for sustainability and yet also flags how creating multiple beers with short production runs drains energy resources.In a deep dive into how to build sustainability into brewing, the contradictions were revealed highlighting how even though the regulations and consumer pressures have led to sustainability fast-becoming a "licence to operate", rather than a "nice-to-have" novelty, beer trends for variety were contrary to the guidance.Speaking about the issue, NIRAS vice president Jonas B. Borrit said: "Sustainability is clearly a key consideration for businesses across all sectors and for resource-intensive manufacturers like breweries, it's no longer a nice to have, but is fast becoming a licence to operate. Stronger consumer appetite for variety over volume has undoubtedly created commercial opportunities for breweries, but producing up to 100 different varieties of beer in a large-scale plant means that short production runs will require more energy and water."So, we should have just the one, anodyne, mass produced and lowest common denominator beer - call it "Victory Beer" perhaps - because climate change.This is to - wholly and entirely - misunderstand the task before us. Leave aside whether climate change matters or not. Just work with the very heart of what economics is about. The universe - unfairly, annoyingly and inevitably - places restraints upon us. Resources are scarce. The addition of the CO2 limits in the atmosphere to those limits doesn't change the underlying base in the slightest. We are in a universe of scarce resources. We wish to maximise human utility within those limits. So, how are we to go about that? Maybe it is some unibeer. Perhaps it is some wide variety of beers. Utility - in near every society we've ever had - seems to be increased when there is some socially accepted method of getting somewhere between happy, high and smashed. So, how to decide? Liberty, obviously - leave people be to find what increases their utility, leave people be to explore what they can produce which increases that utility. Sure, we face limits, those explorations must therefore take place within those limits. But other than that the correct solution is something emergent from that liberty, not something planned by those who do not know, cannot know, the individual utility functions nor therefore the societal one.It appears that folk like a variety of beers. Observe in any pub how some have a preference for this, others for that. That is, we've already our solution - variety not unibeer.But then this should be obvious to any sentient being. We do not insist upon the one method of getting somewhere between happy, high and smashed, do we? We have the liberty of doing so through dance - from Sufi mysticism through to the nightclub dancefloor - booze, certain drugs (and we should have greater liberty there) to just being drunk on the pure pleasure of another's presence. That insistence on just the one method, say soma, has been explored but always as a dystopia.Our task is the maximisation of human utility within what ever constraints the universe insists upon. It is only with the liberty of choice and variety that this is even conceptually possible. Therefore that liberty of choice must be a part of any solution to any of those constraints.

Ian Vásquez


We don't know the day he was born, but Adam Smith was baptized on this date 300 years ago. Since then, the ideas of the man widely considered the father of modern economics have changed the world and remain as relevant as ever.
As a central figure of the Scottish enlightenment, Smith is best known for The Wealth of Nations, a work in which he challenged the world's prevailing economic system. Smith opposed privileges imposed by law, including trade protectionism. He further called mercantilism—a doctrine that argued that to accumulate wealth, countries must export more than they import—"absurd."
A keen observer of reality, Smith explained that "What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it off them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage." For instance, Smith asserted that good wine could be produced in Scotland, but he calculated that its cost would be 30 times that of good wines that could be imported from other countries.
Smith took a dim view not just of protectionism, but most any attempt on the part of the authorities to direct the economy. The true origin of wealth is explained by a counterintuitive concept based on another of Smith's observations: The pursuit of self‐​interest in the marketplace, not mere benevolence or a plan imposed by rulers, ultimately produces prosperity and improves the welfare of others.
But Smith, a professor of moral philosophy, understood that people are complex and not just materialistic.
"How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it."
So he wrote in his first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. According to Smith, empathy arises from interacting in society, which also makes people want to be loved and want to deserve it. Experience, not intellectual reasoning, gives rise to moral sentiments and attitudes such as benevolence.
How do we reconcile self‐​interest with sympathy for others? For Smith, there is no contradiction. In the free market, one can only act with the interests of others in mind since exchanges are voluntary.
As Smith tells us in his "Lectures on Jurisprudence," such exchange is based on "the natural inclination everyone has to persuade." He adds, "The offering of a shilling, which to us appears to have so plain and simple a meaning, is in reality offering an argument to persuade one to do so and so as it is for his interest."
Smith believed justice is a pillar that is essential to the functioning of society. Where justice exists, even the impersonal exchanges of an ever‐​expanding marketplace are characterized by collaboration and respectful treatment of the other. These exchanges also encourage benevolence; according to Professor Smith, even a beggar who receives monetary charity ultimately depends on the market.
In his writings, Smith was concerned for the happiness of the poor, who at the time comprised almost the entire population of Scotland and the world. He opposed empires, slavery, and the mistreatment of indigenous people overseas. Since his death, as the world has liberalized, global poverty has plummeted, wealth has soared, empires have fallen, chattel slavery has been officially abolished, and human rights have been extended to a growing portion of the global population.
As long as humans celebrate moral and material progress, so should they celebrate Adam Smith.
Note: This article is based on a version that was originally published in El Comercio (Peru) on June 13, 2023.