(#)dinerstein, ana - on john h

7/28/2019 (#)Dinerstein, Ana - On John H

1/6

Holloway Forum 13

FORUMOn John Holloway's Change the World WithoutTaking Pov/er: The Meaning of Revolution Today

CONVENED BY A N A C. DINERSTEIN

This Forum discusses John Holloway's Change the WorldWithoutTakingPower. Inspirational and provocative, the hook is a call for emancipatoryreflection and thus an important contribution to the politics of resistanceof our times. Contributors to the Forum explore and engage passionatelywith the controversial arguments contained in thebook, from 'practicalnegativity' and 'anti-power' as ways to radically trans-form the world,to the rejection of the state as a tool for revolutionary change. Theauthors, who include John Holloway himself, collectively push thediscussion beyond their own limits, thus opening up an exciting polemicabout the meaning of revolution today.

A call for emancipatory reflection:Introduction to the ForumAna C. DinersteinNot long ago, the demiurges of post-mo d er n i sm seemed to have beenrelatively successful in spreading the ideathat to change the world (or even tothink about it) was the task of incorri-gible activists, who deserved a specialplace in a museum of modern dreams.But in recent years, an extremely rich'repertoire of actions' (Tarrow, 1995),

dity of this belief apparent. 'Anotherworld is possible!' has becom e the m obi-lising, Utopian cry of our timej whatunlocks the feelings of liberation, andallows the creation of new spaces forparticipation and debate, is precisely thevagueness of this statement. But is thisimprecision also a symptom of thedifficulty inherent in developing a generalstrategy, able to shelter and nurture theplurality of struggles while simultan-eously providing political and ideologicalconsistency to resistance?The originality of the present mo-


2/6

14 Capital & Class #85

repr esen ts a reac t ion to globalneoliberalism and its consequences, butalso shows an enthusiastic determinationto discuss the meaning of revolutiontoday. Th e p resen t F oru m is acon tribution to this task. Th e debatewithin it about John HoUoway's book.Change the World Without Ta king Power: TheMeaning of Revolution Today, has beeninspired by previous debates and will,hopefully, encourage further polemicswithin Capital & Class and elsewhere.

The reasons for engaging with thisparticular book are several. It would behard to refuse HoUoway's call for whatZizek (2002) has called 'emancipatoryreflection'. HoUoway's work has beenwelcomed across the world at a timewhen intellectual contributions to radicalchange are scarce. Holloway standsagainst both those who have succumbedto the sirens of either 'empirical reality'or abstract theory, and those whobelieve that the new anarchist times donot need any theoretical elaboration(see for instance Klein, 2003). Loyal tothe autonomous spirit of his time, andenchanted by the Zapatista project,Holloway neither searches for confir-mation of his theses, nor provides closeanswers to his questions.

Three key issues for Marxists andthose advocating radical change, offeredin the book and in te rconnec ted ,constitute the kernel of this debate: theunderstanding of praxis as 'practicalnegativity'; the idea of 'anti-pow er'; andthe rejection of the state as a tool forradical change.

As a continuation of his previouswork, Holloway invites us to reflect onthe weakness of what is conceived of asinalterably powerful, i.e. capital. He

capacity to create and change the world:'It is labour alone which constitutessocial reality. There is no external force;our own power is confronted by nothingbut our own power, albeit in alienatedform' (Holloway, 1993: 19). Capitalistcontradictions are in no way external,but are in fact inhabited subjectivity.However, capitalist societies are basedon permanent processes of 'objecti-flcation of subjective doing' (p. 27).' By'doing', Holloway means much morethan work and physical action. 'Doing'is the movement of'practica l negativity':'doing changes, negates an existing stateof affairs. Doing goes beyond,transce nds'(p . 23). Th e power impliedin doing is negative: 'The doing of thedoers', Holloway argues, 'is deprived ofsocial validation: we and our doingbecome invisible. History becomes thehistory of the powerful, of those whotell others what to do. The flow of doingbecomes an antagonistic process inwhich the doing of most is denied, inwhich the doing of most is appropriatedby the few' (pp. 29-30).

The notion of subject ivi ty asnegativity is powerful: 'The world thatwe feel to be wrong' (p. 3) must benegated, including our identity. But thispresents a real problem to the organi-sation of resistance: one significant pointof contention in HoUoway's proposal isthat, whereas the negation of 'what weare' is essential to insubordination, themoment of negation cannot be graspedwithout considering the moment ofreinvention of identities, organisationsand strategies which follows negation.If class struggle is, as Holloway argues,'the struggle to classify and against beingclassified at the same time as it is,indistinguishably, the struggle between


3/6

Holloway Forum 15

realisation and social recognition againstthe expansion of indifference entailed inthe expansion of value? In other words,if the 'scream of insubordination is thescream of non-identity' (p. 15), how dowe nourish the revolutionary potentialof new organisational forms of resistancelike the World Social Forum, or theBrazilian landless movem ent MovimentoSem Terra, to use just two examples,which emerged as negation was takingplace and which became the formsthrough which resistance asserts itself?Is it 'practical negativity', or rather the' co n t r ad i c t o r y t en s i o n ' b e t w een'negativity and positivity' (Laclau &Mouffe, 1999) that gives rebellion its realforce?

One lesson that can be learned fromthe Argent in ian exper ience s inceDecember 2001 is that, on the onehand, the struggle to recompose thepolitical fabric and develop new formsof democracy and participation by avariety of social movem ents fired directlyat the heart of the system of corruption,exploitation and domination entailed byneo l iberal s tabi l i ty . T he reject ionentailed in Que se vayan todos!'Out withthem all!'was followed by a momentof in tense mobi l i sat ion and theemergence of new forms of resistancevis-a-v is the ins t i tu t ional cr i s i s .Autonomous and 'disorganised' move-ments became central to political pro-cesses, thus overshadowing inst i tu-tional politics.

On the other hand, the search forautonomy found i ts l imits in therecomposition of state power in thehand s of traditional political elites. Doesthis mean that there was no politicalchange in Argentina after December2001? W here do we look for 'political

separation between 'civil society' andthe 'state' in a way that intensified thesocial movements' dilemma, broughtabout by 'anti-polities': the contradi-ct ion between the need to create apolitical movement able to coordinateaction and dispute the power of thestate, and the free development of apluralist movement of resistance basedon autonomous pract ices and self-affirmation (Dinerstein, 2004; 2003).The second controversial issue inHolloway's book is the idea that anti-power is the route to emancipation.Holloway is not concerned with strategicorganisat ion , but ra ther advocatesuncertainty and anti-power: 'How canwe change the world without takingpower? The answer is obvious: we don'tknow' (p. 22).What we do know is that practicalnegativity is anti-power, and anti-powermeans the rejection of any revolutionaryproject aimed at taking the pow er of thestate. Following H olloway, 'the problemof the traditional concept of revolutionis perhaps not that it aimed too high,but that it aimed too low. The notion ofcapturing positions of power ... missesthe point that the aim of the revolutionis to dissolve relations of power, to createa society based on the mutualrecognition of people's dignity' (p. 20).

But is anti-power a real possibility,or a rhetorical device that refiects thefragmentation and uncertainty of ourtime? Does the defence of oppositionalstruggles, which embrace the idea ofpraxis as practical negativity, adequatelyengage with the real i ty of presentstruggles?Does it give democracyaccording


4/6

16 Capital & Class #85

The third matter of discrepancywithin this Forum is HoUoway's proposalthat a revolutionary movement shouldnot seize the power of the state. Theimpact of Zapatismo on the world lies,according to HoUoway, in that it 'movesus decisively beyond the state illusion. .. T he s ta te il lus ion un de rs ta nd srevolution as the w inning of state powerand the t ransformat ion of societythroug h the sta te' (200 2: 157). Tha t arevolutionary movement must have asits goal the taking of the power of thestate is highly debatable. What seems tobe clear is that to reject such a project isnot the same as to deny that the state is,due to the very natu re of capitalism, oneof the main inst i tut ional forms ofmediation of capitalist social relationsof production and, therefore, of classstruggle too.

Hol loway made a s igni f icantcontribution regarding this matter a longtime ago, when he highlighted the factthat the state was not a thing but thepolitical form of the social relations ofcapital (Holloway & Picciotto, 1977).One cannot get out of the 'state-yes/state-no' loop until one regards the stateas such. As a social form, the state 'isand i s no t ' . T he n, why should thepossibility that the form of the state canbe disputed and fought over on behalfof the interests of the majority beoverruled by HoUoway's proposal? IsHolloway disregarding state power? Ifso , can the power of the state bedisregarded? Or is the search for ema-ncipation a contradictory process ofgoing in, against and through the state?These and more questions are posed inthe co ntributions that follow. In the end,'each thought is a force-field, and justas the t ruth-content of a judgment

transcend their own thesis' (Adorno,2000: 40-41). The polemic is open.^

Note s1. All page references, unless otherwisestated, are from John Holloway(2002) Change theWorldWithoutTakingPower: The Meaning ofRevolution Today,Pluto, London.2. I would like to thank Claire Rigby forher assistance in the editing of thisForum.

ReferencesAdorno, T. (2000) 'M essage in a bo ttle',in S. Zizek (ed.) (2000a) MappingIdeology (Verso) London, pp. 35-41.Dinerstein, A. C. (2004) 'Beyond crisis:The nature of political change inArgentina', in Pratyush Chandra et

al. (eds.) The Politics of Imperialism andCoumerstrategies (Aakar Books) NewDelhi, pp. 263-301.Dinerstein, A. C. (2003) 'Power orcounter power? Th e dilemma of thepiquetero movement in Argentinapost crisis', in Capital & Class, no.81, pp. 1-7.Holloway, J. (2002) Change the WorldWithout Taking Power: The Meaning ofRevolution Today (Pluto Press) London(ISBN o 7453 1863 o) 237 pp.Also available online at .Holloway, J. (2002) 'Zapatismo and thesocial sciences', in Capital & C lass,no. 78 , pp. 153-160.Holloway & Picciotto (1977) 'Cap ital,crisis and the state', in Capital &


5/6

Holloway Forum 17

Klein , N . (2003) 'Que demoniospueden hacer hoy los intelectuales?Los Irrelevantes libres', a talk givenat Artey Confecdon: La Semana Culturalpor Brukman, 27 May to i June,Buenos Aires; transcript.Laclau, E. & C. Mouffe (1999) Hegemonyf Socialist Strategy: Towards a RadicalDemocratic Politics (Verso) London &

New York.Tarrow, S. (1995) Power in Movement-Social Movemen ts, Co llectiveAction andPolitics, Cambr idge S tud ies inComparative Polit ics (CambridgeUniversity Press).Zizek, S. (ed.) (2002) Revolution at theGates: Selected Writings of Lenin from1917 (Verso) L ond on & New York.

Sympathy for the devil?John HoUoway's Mephistophel ianMarxismAlex CallinicosJohn HoUoway's Change theWorldWithoutTaking Power stands alongside Hardt andNegri's Empire as one of the two key textsof contemporary autonomist Marxism.This does not mean that the two booksrepresent identical positions. Hollowaymakes much more of an effort to makehis ideas accessible than Hardt andNegr i do (a l though not whol lysuccessfully). There are also importantsubstantive differences: Holloway offersa cogent critique oi Empire (pp. 167-75),'to which Hardt and Negri, regrettably,have not responded in their new bookMultitude.

Finally, the philosophical framew orksof the two books are quite different.Hardt and Negri rely on a Deleuzianvitalism that celebrates the fullness ofBeing. Holloway, by contrast, privilegesnegativity: 'Rather than to St Francis ofAssisi, perhaps communists should lookto M ephistopheles, the negating devil inaU of us' (p. 226, note 15). Hardt andNegri are anti-humanist Marxists for

of 'negative thought' (p. 8): it is thetradi t ion of Lukacs and the earlyFrankfurt school that provides the mostimportant theoretical thread connectingthis tradition to the present. In thecelebrated opening sentence of Changethe World Without Taking Power'In thebeginning is not the word, but thescream' (p. i )we should hear theech'oes of Adorno's Negative Dialectic.This gives a particular tonality to

HoUoway's humanism. Negativity, thescream, comes first not as an affirmationof our hum anity bu t because of its denial(p . 25), and therefore presupposes 'anotion of hum anity as negation ' (p. 153).Subjectivity itself is defined in terms ofnegativity, as 'the conscious projectionbeyond that which exists, the ability tonegate that which exists and to createsomething that that does not exist' (pp.25-6). Indeed, the key to HoUoway'snegative ontology is a radical subjecti-vism. Rather l ike Fichte, he takessubjectivity as 'the starting point', but aself-differentiating subjectivity that 'canexist only in antagonism with its ownobjectification' so that 'it is torn apartby that objectification and the struggleagainst it' (pp. 37-8).

Capital, as it strives to constitute


6/6

(#)dinerstein, ana - on john h

Documents