An epistemology of rupture is evasive. In contrast to an established system or structure, ruptures are fleeting and interruptive. This is why the intervals manifested by rupture are so important. Machiavelli's situationist disruption, Hobbes's destructionist break, Hume's empiricist interruption—we know we are in the presence of rupture when the continuous order of things is disturbed in a moment, when the very emergence of a value appears in a new and nonsensical way—a way whose possibilities cannot be garnered from the epistemology that is being interrupted. Through an engagement with situationism, destructionism, and empiricism, this essay probes the ways in which breaks from the accepted epistemology come into being. In the process, the essay also situates rupture generally in the study of epistemology, in an attempt to emphasize the ways in which breaking out, breaking through, and breaking forth are central forces underpinning the Continental tradition.

No abstract

Nine papers with respective replies, grounded in Marxist traditions, analyse the potential for social transformation through a reinvigorated radical Left, all within the context of the ascendance of the far Right worldwide. Papers variously take up new lines of analysis, while also identifying and theorizing strategies and possibilities for increasing and deepening popular participation and support on the far Left. Authors are drawn variously from Australia, Britain, Canada, Cyprus, France, Greece, Ireland, Japan, Slovenia, and the United States. They comprise new scholars as well as established and leading theorists and activists. Collectively, the papers address three predominant themes: the changing and expanding conceptualization on the Left of contemporary capitalism; what it means to speak of ‘the people’ in relation to political action today; and approaches to mobilizing and organizing that people. The wide-ranging but focused and rigorous insights produced across the pieces are aimed at speaking to scholars, students, observers, and activists who seek knowledge about the challenges and opportunities the Left faces today.

No abstract

<p>The Internet we know today is both content filtered and packet shaped. Subsequently, it is not the free operating zone of meta-space early proponents expected. Contrary to conventional wisdom, a multitude of actors have shown an increased willingness to intervene and control communication via the Internet with precision and effectiveness. This paper employs the Copenhagen School’s conceptualisation of securitisation at the macro level to address the issue of global Internet filtering from a “network” position between traditional “national” security and critical “individual” security. It looks at the ways in which intervention into the Internet’s infrastructure is leveraged for governance through various research programs such as Ronald Deibert’s Open Net Initiative, which probes all aspects of a national information infrastructure over the long term, concluding that the scope, scale, and sophistication of global Internet filtering are increasing in non-transparent fashions.</p> <p>It should come as no surprise that since its dissemination, authoritarian regimes such as China, Iran and, Saudi Arabia have actively engaged in Internet filtering practices. What is troublesome is that advanced industrialised countries including Canada, Germany, and the United States have also followed suit. Reasons for doing so include: the securitisation of information communication after 9/11, to restricting access to material involving the sexual exploitation of children as well as ‘extremist’ websites. Considering these securitising moves, this paper argues that the more that filtering practices are withheld from public scrutiny and accountability, the more temping it is for framing authorities to employ these tools for illegitimate reasons such as the stifling of both opposition and civil society networks. Furthermore, due to increased connectivity, transparent Internet requires desecuritisation of social agents and international security structures in order to ensure more free information.</p>