The essay, Company of One: The Fate of Democracy in an Age of Neoliberalism, takes up Brown’s Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution (2015) and Lazarrato’s Governing by Debt (2015, but first published in Italian in 2013). Both books are anchored in readings and responses to Foucault’s 1978-9 lecture course The Birth of Biopolitics as well as the shift (oddly Lazzarato, despite long discussions of Foucault, kept conflating liberalism and neoliberalism, using the terms interchangeably) that Foucault was attempting to mark. Their analyses are in many ways congruent, though their last chapters reveal divergent projects for the left, with Brown arguing for bolstering “liberal” forms of politics being lost to neoliberalism and Lazzarato saying all forms of politics need to be rendered inoperative.
Later today, I’ll have a post up on neoliberalism at the LARB (I’ll share the link when I get it), but in the mean time, you have to love those supposedly irrational regulations the Greeks have, as given by Steven Rattner at the NYT:
Take, as one small example, medications. Greece is one of the few European countries that sets prices for over-the-counter drugs, which can be sold only in licensed pharmacies, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported. Pharmacies must be owned by licensed pharmacists and they can each own only one. Other rules dictate where new pharmacies may open, as well as their operating hours. As a result, prices for consumers are higher, as are retail margins for the pharmacies.
Crazy–they set prices! They make sure pharmacists don’t own more than one store so, you know, they can actually manage those stores as, what’s the word, pharmacists–that is, dispensing of drugs shouldn’t be done by underpaid staff at far flung locations. Maybe there’s better ways to do things, but I don’t know–I tend to think that’s up to the Greeks to decide since maybe Rattner thinks Greeks overregulate their economy, but perhaps we can agree it’s not up to the Germans to overregulate how Greeks do these things.
It’s a translation from Liberation, but still reads like your friend’s blog post: VersoBooks.com.
Via Daily Nous. Count me as skeptical about such a venture, though UK PhD programs are quite hands-off anyway. The program is at Staffordshire, which as far as I can tell, has two philosophers heading up the program, Douglas Burnham and David Webb. (Here’s the About Us page, which spends more time on the wonders of Staffordshire, which would-be distance PhDs might never see, than about the program itself.) The department already has an online MA.
News reviews up at Antipode…
We’ve published some great book reviews on AntipodeFoundation.org recently, including…
Christopher Taylor (University of Chicago) on Martha Schoolman’s Abolitionist Geographies;
Karen McCallum (University of London) on Gita Sen and Marina Durano’s The Remaking of Social Contracts: Feminists in a Fierce New World;
Anna Laing (Northumbria University) on Leandro Vergara-Camus’ Land and Freedom: The MST, the Zapatistas and Peasant Alternatives to Neoliberalism;
Anthony Ince (Stockholm University) on Constance Bantman and Bert Altena’s Reassessing the Transnational Turn: Scales of Analysis in Anarchist and Syndicalist Studies;
Mike Hodson (University of Manchester) on Federico Caprotti’s Eco-Cities and the Transition to Low Carbon Economies;
Kate Shaw (University of Melbourne) on Kirsteen Paton’s Gentrification: A Working-Class Perspective; and
Kevin Gould (Concordia University) on Silvia Posocco’s Secrecy and Insurgency: Socialities and Knowledge Practices in Guatemala.
As you might know, all Antipode
View original post 180 more words
At NDPR here. Having not read this yet, this looks like a great text to work through the next time I teach a course on violence. Here, May goes through Balibar’s “civility” approach as a counter to violence and non-violence:
If violence, or at least its threat, cannot be eliminated, what can be done to address it? Balibar briefly considers and rejects two options before embracing a third. The two he rejects are nonviolence and counterviolence. Nonviolence is to Balibar an “abstraction” (22) from violence. It fails to recognize that violence is always a threat, opting instead to occupy a position that seeks to be beyond the threat of violence. Counterviolence, by contrast, seeks to invoke violence against violence, hoping to end violence by violent means. This strategy, however, is simply an “inversion” (22) of violence, one whose consequence is often to repeat the cruelties that it set out to oppose. Instead of these two strategies, which share a false commitment to the idea that the threat of violence and in particular of the extreme violence of cruelty can be terminated, Balibar believes we must embrace a strategy of anti-violence or civility. He insists that “unless a politics of civility is introduced into the heart of the politics of transformation, indications are that the latter will not by itself create the conditions for emancipation (but only those of another form of servitude).” (104)
At the International Philosophical Seminar in mp3 here. The introduction is by Serge Trottein (ENS), though I cut into it by forgetting to hit the record button. I essentially take up Badiou’s thinking of the decision as well as his claim not to belong to a long period in onto-theology. The set up for the conference was to responds to Badiou’s two manifestos for philosophy as a means of thinking the entirety of his work. There is a lengthy Q and A that follows.