Aufheben latest issue

Aufheben latest issue

Aufheben 24 (2017)

AVAILABLE NOW

Contents:

BREXIT MEANS… WHAT?
HAPLESS IDEOLOGY AND PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES
A number of left groups and individuals campaigned for the UK to leave the European Union in the recent referendum. We argue that the Brexit campaign, and the referendum itself, its results and its implementation, have been one with a victory of the ruling class against us. The implementation of Brexit will negatively affect solidarity among workers and radical protesters, setting back our strength and potentials to overturn capitalism. Many people in the radical left were blinded by the ideological forms of our capitalist relations, the reification of our human interactions, to the point of accepting a victory of the far right with acquiescence, or even collaborating with it.

THE RISE OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES:
REIFICATION OF DEFEAT AS THE BASIS OF EXPLANATION
Conspiracy theories have become more widespread in recent years. As populist explanations, they offer themselves as radical analyses of ‘the powerful’ – i.e., the operation of capital and its political expressions. One of the features that is interesting about such conspiracy theories therefore is that they reflect a critical impulse. We suggest that at least part of the reason for their upsurge (both in the past and in recent years) has to do with social conditions in which movements reflecting class struggles have declined or are seen to be defeated. We trace the rise of conspiracy theories historically and then focus on the most widespread such theory today – the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. We suggest that one factor in the sudden rise of 9/11 conspiracy theories was the failure and decline of the movement against the war in Iraq.

CHINA: THE PERILS OF BORROWING SOMEONE ELSE’S SPECTACLES
We argue that the transition facing China is the shift from the export of commodities to export of capital. This transition would mark a major step in transforming China from what we have termed a mere epicentre in the global economy to its establishment as a distinct second pole of within the global accumulation capital – an emerging antipode to that of the US. The group Chuǎng argue that recent Aufheben analyses are ‘too optimistic’ concerning China’s ability to maintain economic growth rates and fuel global capital accumulation. We reproduce their article as an Intake. In our response, we contend Chuǎng are unable even to recognise what we are suggesting let alone argue against it. This is because in making their analysis of the current economic situation in China, they have borrowed the spectacles of neo-liberal economics. They have thereby inadvertently adopted a myopic and ideologically circumscribed perspective that contains crucial blind-spots.

£4.00 (UK) and £6 (elsewhere), including postage - see our subscription and contact details to order a copy, or buy through Paypal below.


Location




Comments

Fleur
Oct 7 2015 15:50
Quote:
(though none of the red "new" or "updated" words appear on my version of this webpage)

No, it doesn't after you've clicked on it the first time. It's no longer new or a version which has been updated once you've looked at it. If it doesn't show up at all on any of threads, then it's something to do with the browser you're using.

Khawaga
Oct 7 2015 16:00
Quote:
The problem with professional intellectuals like you (however proletarianised you might well be) is that you are so stuck in your heads as to be incapable of recognising anger, let alone making decisions, as an essential contribution to subverting your own complacency towards this society and to those like libcoma who are complicit with it. For you it is enough to have a merely "theoretical " critique divorced from emotions or genuine attack.

Damn, what app are you using to detect my emotional states? And that I am apparently complacent towards society. And not just now, apparently over several years even. Or do you have some inhuman superpower? That's really impressive!

S. Artesian
Oct 7 2015 23:47

What I think is just too precious for words, and says all that needs to be said is that we can all talk about censorship and conspiracies , but nobody apparently has the time to comment on this kind of crap:

Quote:
OBAMA’S PIVOT TO CHINA
In this article we consider the unfolding of civil war following the demise of the Arab Spring and then place this complex conflict in the context of the overarching imperatives of US foreign policy. As we shall argue, contrary to the common view on the left and in the anti-war movement, far from being hell bent on war against Syria and Iran, the Obama administrations approach to the Syrian conflict has been determined by the ultimate aims of establishing a rapprochement with Iran in order to secure stability in the Middle East, permit the opening up of the Iranian and Iraqi oil and allow for a major shift in emphasis of US foreign policy towards the rise of China and Asia.

Yeah right, that's the ticket. Sorry, it doesn't matter what capitalism wants-- rapprochement with this or that regime-- "stability" is simply out of the question. And that stuff about "opening up of Iranian an Iraqi oil...." excuse me, as Ripley said, "did IQs drop sharply while I was away?" Anybody paying attention to the overproduction in the oil industry? That US production although down a bit is at its second highest level in what? 35 years? 40 years? That Russia is pumping at a rate last seen before the fSU collapsed? That the Saudis have ramped up production above 10 million b.o.e/day? That the US had every opportunity to "open up" Iraqi oil when it governed, if you can call it that, Iraq, and when it came time to bid on the leases and licenses, the US oil companies quite simply had almost zero interest?

The pivot to confront China? No one it would ever guess it has anything to do with overproduction, right? That it has anything to do with slowing growth in world trade, and all those other things that run counter to the so-called "inflection point" for a new capitalist upsurge?

Chilli Sauce
Oct 8 2015 01:53

Nah, "libcomatose" was the best part of that post!

Rob Ray
Oct 8 2015 07:59

It's mildly amusing that I tick you off so much you feel it necessary to slate me on threads I've nothing to do with Gerry, though I'm sorry to say I can't reciprocate your obsession as you're entirely uninteresting. Tbh usually whenever I see you've involved yourself in some thread or other it just makes me feel a bit libcomatose.

GerryK
Oct 8 2015 09:44

I wrote:

Quote:
the libcom sycophant Rob Ray's comments on the Michael Schmidt thread

Rob Ray wrote:

Quote:
you feel it necessary to slate me on threads I've nothing to do with

So these have nothing to do with Rob Ray:

http://libcom.org/forums/general/ak-press-says-michael-schmidt-fascist-25092015?page=2#comment-565911

http://libcom.org/forums/general/ak-press-says-michael-schmidt-fascist-25092015?page=2#comment-565915
In which case there are at least 2 possiblities:
1. Someone has hacked into Rob Rays libcom account.
2. Rob Ray is indeed in such a libcoma he does not know what he said or where.

Rob Ray will undoubtedly find some Third Position unless his declared lack of interest .in anything I say prevents him from responding this time.

GerryK
Oct 8 2015 09:50

And, yes, S.Artesian has shown that even in the safe sphere of an analysis of objective developments in political economy in which it has hoped to display its specialism, Aufheben has shown itself to be devoid of the slightest intelligence.

Rob Ray
Oct 8 2015 11:15

This thread Gerry. I know it's hard for you but do try and keep up.

petey
Oct 8 2015 11:35
GerryK wrote:
The word "updated" in "little red letters" must have been written so little that to my eyes they are as invisible as the credibility of this site.

Chilli Sauce
Oct 8 2015 13:31

Gerry, this is just getting a bit sad, man.

Pennoid
Oct 8 2015 15:58

Not trying to be smarmy, s. Artesian but are you suggesting that military action in Midwest is to slow production of oil? Just trying to make sure I understand your criticism. I've heard other people say similar things that it's about CONTROLLING production of oil not simply "getting it."

Of course we have to disentangle the general systemic or total trends from those particular struggles which drive the total trends, in some ways right?

S. Artesian
Oct 8 2015 16:24

I think that the cause of the invasion of Iraq was the decline in oil prices, first in 1998, brought about by overproduction, and then again in 2002.

The war in the Mideast drove the price of oil to spectacular, in every sense of the word, highs and with that price change, massive profits were siphoned into the industry. There followed, as there always follows the implosion. However, over the long term, this brought the rate of profit in the industry more in line with that of the average rate of profit, whereas before, in the period 1986-1991 (until the first invasion of Iraq) and then again from 1997-1999 rates of profit in the industry were generally lower than average, which makes sense given the enormous concentration of "dead value" accumulated in the means of production.

So yeah, the US "oil men" were quite vociferous, and specific, in complaining about Iraqi production which had reach 3 million barrels/day. Bush and Cheney did exactly what they were paid to do.

GerryK
Oct 8 2015 16:57

Petey: now that you've provided me with glasses I can see the sense of Aufheben - TOZ3LPED4PECFD5EDFCZP6.

And yes Chilli Sauce, man, everything on libcom, man, has been getting sad for a long long time, man, and it is sad that there are still a few intelligent people, man, who think it worth contributing to this sad site for sore eyes, man (an example of sadness is Rob Ray who complains that I slate him on threads he has nothing to do with and yet does the very same thing on the Michael Schmidt thread - slating someone, in a totally spurious manner, who not only had nothing to do with with that thread but has had nothing to do with libcom for years). And - yes - it is sad for me to bother to go on writing this kind of stuff. Consequently I shall never write anything on libcom ever again and you can go back to being happy.

Chilli Sauce
Oct 8 2015 17:12

Well, put your money where your mouth is then. Man.

Pennoid
Oct 8 2015 18:34

Good points S. Artesian, any book recommendations or is this from following the press through the period?

Rob Ray
Oct 8 2015 18:47

Oh I'm not complaining Gerry, as I say I found it mildly amusing that you're clearly so upset by me when I have so little interest in you. As for mentioning Samotnaf, that was a contextual aside based on saying I didn't think the Schmidt thing came from the same place as a similar sort of event in libcom's past - direct comparison, as opposed to unrelated whinge.

Having said this, I can see you trying to slide the thread back onto your favourite topic, you naughty old goat, so I think I'll stop the derailing here. Have a lovely time throwing your endless tantrums wink.

S. Artesian
Oct 8 2015 19:42

Mostly from following the press, and the stats from the US Energy Information Agency, which used to produce a great "Appendix B" to their annual reports-- called Financial Performance-- but dropped it when the Congress cut all the money (among other things, those cuts eliminated the Dept. of Commerce's Annual Statistical Abstract. Now, I believe the data is farmed out to some private group that publishes something almost, but not quite official, and I think for 2 or 3 times what the US GPO used to charge).

For books, I recommend Cyris Bina The Economics of the Oil Crisis, and Gorelick's Oil Panic and Global Crisis

Hieronymous
Oct 8 2015 20:37
S. Artesian wrote:
For books, I recommend Cyris Bina The Economics of the Oil Crisis

Great book and excellent recommendation. But his given name is Cyrus.

Could you suggest any book about the coal industry?

S. Artesian
Oct 9 2015 00:35

Right. My misspelling. Thanks.

Actually, I haven't read anything about the coal industry in years. My bad. Not even about the Powder River Basin, which was the "great coming thing" back when I first hired out on the railroad in 1972.

S. Artesian
Oct 9 2015 21:01

Hey Hieronymous,

Given that some trolls have an axe to grind, every time someone down votes your posts, I will up vote them. Even, and particularly, when, the post is disagreeing with me. It's the very least I can do to counter the facebook-ization of Libcom.

Hieronymous
Oct 9 2015 22:46
S. Artesian wrote:
Hey Hieronymous,

Given that some trolls have an axe to grind, every time someone down votes your posts, I will up vote them. Even, and particularly, when, the post is disagreeing with me. It's the very least I can do to counter the facebook-ization of Libcom.

Thanks comrade.

S. Artesian
Oct 9 2015 22:50
S. Artesian wrote:
Right. My misspelling. Thanks.

Actually, I haven't read anything about the coal industry in years. My bad. Not even about the Powder River Basin, which was the "great coming thing" back when I first hired out on the railroad in 1972.

But... I will note, that as of last month, there is no longer a single unionized coal mine in Kentucky (I think).

Hieronymous
Oct 10 2015 00:40
S. Artesian wrote:
S. Artesian wrote:
Right. My misspelling. Thanks.

Actually, I haven't read anything about the coal industry in years. My bad. Not even about the Powder River Basin, which was the "great coming thing" back when I first hired out on the railroad in 1972.

But... I will note, that as of last month, there is no longer a single unionized coal mine in Kentucky (I think).

You're right. Here's the story I saw about it last month: "No union mines left in Kentucky, where labor wars once raged."