Contrary to widespread assumptions, post-truth politicians formally adopt a rhetoric of ‘truth’ but turn it against established experts. To explain one central factor behind this destructive strategy and its success with voters, I consider Walter Lippmann and Friedrich Hayek, who from 1922 onwards helped develop and popularize a political rhetoric of ‘truth’ in terms of scientific expertise. In Hayek’s influential version, market economics became the crucial expert field. Consequently, the 2008 financial crisis impacted attitudes towards experts more generally. But even (...) sweeping rejection of experts continues to use the rhetoric, by now dominant, of expert truth. Paradoxically, this bipartisan language fuels division as opponents accuse each other of disregarding ‘truth itself’. Against the underlying metaphysics of context-free ‘facts’, John Dewey and Alfred Schutz recommend understanding truth as ‘presumptive’ knowledge produced within human practices, which can be robust but requires a readiness to engage in pluralistic and open-ended processes of (re-)contextualization. (shrink)

Legality in the Global South suffers from problems of application by convenience. Some rules are applied, and some are not, depending on certain actors, such as the State, the stakeholders, or others. This undermines legitimation as constructed by legality and due process. These problems are connected to a wider complex formed by coloniality, internal colonialism, and a form of functional differentiation that limits autonomy of the different social systems. This complex of structural properties allows States and other actors to systematically (...) use one system against the other or—within a given system—one level of rules against the other. This was the case in Ecuador: in the initial months of quarantine due to Covid-19, the government took decisions about external state bonds following international legislation—and quite contrary ones related to local work contracts. Once again, legality followed different paths in diverse cases. Ecuadorian economic authorities accept and respect conditions on external public bonds which are protected by some complex and specific clauses to secure the payment. The same authorities have different practices towards international and national legislation that were organized in the sense of legal subsidiarity. This text will explore reasons and effects of legal de-differentiation in the Global South in times of crisis. The Ecuadorian case in time of Covid-19 helps to understand how structural problems related to the lack of autonomy of the legal system are perpetuated and lead to effects of convenient political action. (shrink)

This review article assesses the core arguments of Quinn Slobodian’s Crack-Up Capitalism. In this book, Slobodian identifies and analyses territorial forms that are central to the creation of capitalist zones of exception that, to a large extent, sit outside the reach of political democracy: ‘islands’, ‘phyles’, and ‘franchise nations’. This article argues that Slobodian’s analysis of these territorial forms – which have been designed to enable the extraction, accumulation and protection of capital to the benefit of the super-rich – is (...) a valuable addition to the existing literature on neoliberalism and libertarianism. However, further conceptual and theoretical work is needed to connect these territorial forms to existing analyses of capitalism, sovereignty and exception that address long-standing historical and political tensions between capitalism and democracy. (shrink)

This article explores the role played by a reconfigured version of the modern social in the genesis of contemporary digital computational technological systems. It argues that the latter are not generically shaped by social forces (as in the notion of the sociotechnical), nor do they simply shape them (as in technological determinism), but that there is an ongoing process of mutual constitution and entanglement of the social and the technological – producing new modes of the social that can be described (...) as ‘technosocial’. While there are different types of technosocial in circulation (including those enacted by the state), this article focuses on one particular inflection – that is, the network social – which it sees as implicated in the formation of a variation of liberalism as a political rationality that it calls technoliberalism. (shrink)

This paper examines how accounting can both entrench and challenge an inhumane and costly neoliberal policy—namely, the Australian government’s offshore detention of asylum seekers. Drawing on Bruff, Rethinking Marxism 26:113–129 (2014) and Smith, Competition & Change 23:192–217 (2019), we acknowledge that the neoliberalism underpinning immigration policies and the practices related to asylum seekers takes an _authoritarian_ tone. Through the securitisation and militarisation of the border, the Australian state politicises and silences marginalised social groups such as asylum-seekers. Studies have exposed accounting (...) as a technology that upholds neoliberalism by representing policy as objective and factual. Curiously, there has been a wilful intention by successive Australian governments to silence the accounting for offshore detention. We seek to demystify this _un_accounting and _un_accountability by exploring counter-accounts produced by meso-level organisations that support asylum seekers. We apply a close-reading method in analysing limited governmental accounts and various counter-accounts to demonstrate how counter-accounts give visibility to practices that an authoritarian neoliberal regime has obfuscated. We also reflect on the potential for counter-accounting to foster broader social change by holding the Australian government accountable to moral and ethical standards of care for human life. This paper considers the intersections between accounting and authoritarian neoliberalism and presents counter-accounts as mechanisms that can challenge these neoliberal norms. (shrink)

In this article I assess the contribution of works by Nancy Fraser and Wendy Brown on neoliberalism and the rise of right-wing populism. Both theorists report on monstrous and morbid symptoms that have emerged recently: the result of a crisis of hegemony for Fraser, and of contradictions in morality and moral conscience produced by neoliberalism, for Brown. Both also offer a feminist lens in relation to the politics of recognition and identity on the one hand, and wounded angry white maleness (...) on the other. I discuss the differences in their particular contributions to post-Marxist debate and ways forward from the uneasy place in which we find ourselves, in which the moral authority of neoliberalism both wanes and continues to persist. Their work is of particular importance in understanding how subjects are enrolled into neoliberalism and, therefore, how alternative principles, practices and subjectivities, and new coalitions and alliances might be built. (shrink)