Search

This paper seeks to problematise the historical significance of the EU for British governing strategy with reference to immigration policy and the concept of depoliticisation. Situating British governing strategy in terms of the crisis-prone nature of capitalist society, this paper argues that British immigration policy has been depoliticised through, initially, the invocation of globalisation and, more recently, the EU. Through this strategy, the British state has been able to repeatedly claim that immigration policy is largely out of its hands, as they have no control over workers wishing to enter Britain looking for work. This paper makes three claims: firstly, immigration policy has been used as a means by both Conservative and Labour governments to manage inflation and labour; secondly, successive governments have sought to depoliticise immigration policy through reference to external forces; thirdly, this strategy of depoliticisation ultimately failed, politicising Britain’s relationship with the EU and creating conditions for Britain’s exit from the EU.

open access article PIs: Dr. Ross Beveridge and Dr. David Featherstone, University of Glasgow, UK The full details of the research team members can be found here: https://antipoliticsandausterity.wordpress.com/research-team/ This paper aims to explore the growing and deepening trend of politics of repression coupled with prolonged crisis and austerity politics, reflecting on the potentials as well as limitations of progressive politics in such a constrained context. Austerity policies continue pushing for anti-labour and reactionary politics in a variety of forms reflecting the unresolved crisis conditions of contemporary capitalism. While the liberal democratic state-form remains relatively intact in particular contexts, in others, it gradually evolves into repressive forms. The growing repression risks conceiving the anti-authoritarian struggles and the anti-capitalist and labour movements separate and/or mutually exclusive. This review article draws on the recent insights of (de)politicization, labour geography and history and political economy scholarships with specific reference to the case of Turkey while cautioning against the binary thinking of ‘success’ and ‘failure’ in leftist and labour mobilisations. It proposes a historical perspective in order to appreciate the diversity and multiplicity of struggles against the intersecting nodes of austerity, capitalism and repression in the complex geographies of periphery.

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link. This article analyses the recent political repression of academia in Hungary and Turkey within the critical scholarship on globalisation and neoliberalisation of higher education. We introduce and challenge the hegemonic definitions of academic freedom that sit comfortably with the capitalist logic as well as repressive governing forms and assess the recent attacks on university communities with emphasis on both academic labour and freedom. Adopting a case study approach, we investigate how economic and political forms of repression accompany and reinforce one another within the specificities of both country contexts. We delineate the underlying structural and historical dynamics as well as emergence and evolution of methods of struggle and resistance employed by diverse university communities in their shared and divergent characteristics. Our conclusions include critical reflections on the broader implications of higher education restructuring, authoritarian interventions, and the future of systemic-level resistance.

This article seeks to review the recent incarnation of a long-standing engagement in international political economy (IPE) and critical theory between open Marxist perspectives (OMPs) and their critics. The article aims to identify the enduring relevance of this debate in order to think about the possibility and future of critical social inquiry in our time constructively. It criticises elements on both sides of the debate that no longer serve but rather hinder achieving this objective. We argue that the recent criticisms make a number of important constructive points that could help enhance the explanatory power of OMPs yet still portray the latter uncharitably. We propose to take the emphasis on openness in OMPs seriously as a scholarly and political orientation without immersing the debate with the charges of reductionism, instrumentalism, determinism and functionalism which are frequently raised by various versions of Marxism against one another—often to little avail.

This chapter argues that the recent developments in Turkey towards what some deem “authoritarian”/“illiberal” form of governing cannot be divorced from their relationality with the post-2001 depoliticisation strategy in economic policymaking or the large-scale politicisation of social relations since the summer of 2013. Proposing a critical approach to (de)politicisation within a broader understanding of the crisis and restructuring of social relations, the chapter presents an account of the progressive forms of politicisation that aim to demystify the capitalist and class character of social relations. Against this background, the chapter assesses the unfolding politicisation in counter-hegemonic form as manifested in Gezi protests as well as the enclosure of the political terrain with the governing strategy of politicisation in the post-2013 context.

This chapter reviews the existing literature on depoliticisation and assesses its utility for exploring the contingent nature of this phenomenon. In essence, it makes two claims. First, while a number of contrasting definitions exist in the scholarship on depoliticisation, they can be grouped under two main headings: (a) as a systemic condition that imbues the whole of society; (b) as a more specific governing strategy that originates at the state level but then influences groups at the societal level. Second, while both these approaches have much to commend them, they suffer from limitations when it comes to making sense of the unpredictable and potentially reversible nature of depoliticisation as a process. Systemic accounts are too broad and all-encompassing, appearing to offer very little space for depoliticisation to be resisted. Conversely, a conception of depoliticisation as a governing strategy is too narrow. Focussing as it does on state elites and how they propagate this form of political rule, this definition of depoliticisation neglects the importance of societal actors, who are surely most likely to pose a challenge to such a governing technique. The chapter concludes by listing a range of questions designed to help the contributors to this volume explore theoretically and empirically the dynamics of depoliticisation.

Bu makalede dikiş ipliklerinin bazı teknik değerlerine ve özelliklerine değinilmiş,incelik derecelerinin ifadelendirilmesi,gerekli bükümlerinin hesaplanması ele alınmış daha sonra da çeşitli dikiş tiplerinde sarf edilen dikiş ipliği miktarlarının hesaplanması gösterilmiştir.

Bu makalede dikiş ipliklerinin dikişte üstlendiği fonksiyonlar ve maruz kaldığı etkiler ele alınmış, hammadde cinslerine göre dikiş ipliklerinin sınıflandırılması ve üretim metodları açıklanmıştır. Anahtar Kelimler: Dikiş iplikleri, Dikiş iplik imalatı, Dikil İpliklerinin fonksiyonu Sewing Yarns and Prodactionmethods of Sewing Yarns

Despite often being treated as an ‘anti-case’ of regionalism, borrowing an expression used for the Middle Eastern region (Coskun, 2008, p. 89), Turkey has recently been receiving considerable amount of public and scholarly attention due to its increasing international profile and active foreign policy over the past decade. It has been called, among other things, a ‘benign’ (instead of a ‘coercive regional power’) (Aras, 2005; Onis, 2003), a ‘trading state’ (Kirisci, 2009), an ‘emerging middle power’, and a ‘bridge-builder’ (Lesage and Kacar, 2010; Vom Hau et al., 2012). However, these analyses have not addressed Turkey’s role (or lack thereof) in facilitating regional governance as defined in this volume. Yet, in the case of Turkey, this is crucial. The latest ‘global’ crisis has had dramatic implications for the European, the Middle Eastern, and Mediterranean regions, all three of which border Turkey. It is thus appropriate to consider the challenges posed to Turkey, given the rhetoric of its so-called emergent regional influence, and to use approaches, which assume the permeation of such influence over time. To do this, a critical and historical perspective, which incorporates the decisive role of crisis (in the singular), and crises (in plural), in triggering and hindering regional governance modes is necessary.