Holloway Forum

13

FORUM
On John Holloway's Change the World Without Taking Pov/er: The Meaning of Revolution Today
CONVENED BY ANA C. DINERSTEIN This Forum discusses John Holloway's Change the WorldWithout Taking Power. Inspirational and provocative, the hook is a call for emancipatory reflection and thus an important contribution to the politics of resistance of our times. Contributors to the Forum explore and engage passionately with the controversial arguments contained in the book, from 'practical negativity' and 'anti-power' as ways to radically trans-form the world, to the rejection of the state as a tool for revolutionary change. The authors, who include John Holloway himself, collectively push the discussion beyond their own limits, thus opening up an exciting polemic about the meaning of revolution today. A call for emancipatory reflection: Introduction to the Forum Ana C. Dinerstein Not long ago, the demiurges of postmodernism seemed to have been relatively successful in spreading the idea that to change the world (or even to think about it) was the task of incorrigible activists, who deserved a special place in a museum of modern dreams. But in recent years, an extremely rich 'repertoire of actions' (Tarrow, 1995), from Chiapas to Seattle, from Buenos Aires to Mumbai, has made the absurdity of this belief apparent. 'Another world is possible!' has become the mobilising, Utopian cry of our timej what unlocks the feelings of liberation, and allows the creation of new spaces for participation and debate, is precisely the vagueness of this statement. But is this imprecision also a symptom of the difficulty inherent in developing a general strategy, able to shelter and nurture the plurality of struggles while simultaneously providing political and ideological consistency to resistance? The originality of the present moment lies in the way that the regaining of the streets by a variety of actors not only

14

Capital & Class #85

capacity to create and change the world: 'It is labour alone which constitutes social reality. There is no external force; our own power is confronted by nothing but our own power, albeit in alienated form' (Holloway, 1993: 19). Capitalist contradictions are in no way external, Change the World Without Taking Power: The but are in fact inhabited subjectivity. Meaning of Revolution Today, has been However, capitalist societies are based inspired by previous debates and will, on permanent processes of 'objectihopefully, encourage further polemics flcation of subjective doing' (p. 27).' By within Capital & Class and elsewhere. 'doing', Holloway means much more The reasons for engaging with this than work and physical action. 'Doing' particular book are several. It would be is the movement of'practical negativity': hard to refuse HoUoway's call for what 'doing changes, negates an existing state Zizek (2002) has called 'emancipatory of affairs. Doing goes beyond, reflection'. HoUoway's work has been transcends'(p. 23). The power implied welcomed across the world at a time in doing is negative: 'The doing of the when intellectual contributions to radical doers', Holloway argues, 'is deprived of change are scarce. Holloway stands social validation: we and our doing against both those who have succumbed become invisible. History becomes the to the sirens of either 'empirical reality' history of the powerful, of those who or abstract theory, and those who tell others what to do. The flow of doing believe that the new anarchist times do becomes an antagonistic process in not need any theoretical elaboration which the doing of most is denied, in (see for instance Klein, 2003). Loyal to which the doing of most is appropriated the autonomous spirit of his time, and by the few' (pp. 29-30). enchanted by the Zapatista project, The notion of subjectivity as Holloway neither searches for confir- negativity is powerful: 'The world that mation of his theses, nor provides close we feel to be wrong' (p. 3) must be answers to his questions. negated, including our identity. But this Three key issues for Marxists and presents a real problem to the organithose advocating radical change, offered sation of resistance: one significant point in the book and interconnected, of contention in HoUoway's proposal is constitute the kernel of this debate: the that, whereas the negation of 'what we understanding of praxis as 'practical are' is essential to insubordination, the negativity'; the idea of 'anti-power'; and moment of negation cannot be grasped the rejection of the state as a tool for without considering the moment of reinvention of identities, organisations radical change. As a continuation of his previous and strategies which follows negation. work, Holloway invites us to reflect on If class struggle is, as Holloway argues, the weakness of what is conceived of as 'the struggle to classify and against being inalterably powerful, i.e. capital. He classified at the same time as it is, suggests that, in this world, it is only indistinguishably, the struggle between humans (rather than the fetishised constituted classes' (p. 143), how do we forms of their work) who retain the then theorise the struggle for human

represents a reaction to global neoliberalism and its consequences, but also shows an enthusiastic determination to discuss the meaning of revolution today. The present Forum is a contribution to this task. The debate within it about John HoUoway's book.

Holloway Forum

15

realisation and social recognition against separation between 'civil society' and the expansion of indifference entailed in the 'state' in a way that intensified the the expansion of value? In other words, social movements' dilemma, brought if the 'scream of insubordination is the about by 'anti-polities': the contradiscream of non-identity' (p. 15), how do ction between the need to create a we nourish the revolutionary potential political movement able to coordinate of new organisational forms of resistance action and dispute the power of the like the World Social Forum, or the state, and the free development of a Brazilian landless movement Movimento pluralist movement of resistance based Sem Terra, to use just two examples, on autonomous practices and selfwhich emerged as negation was taking affirmation (Dinerstein, 2004; 2003). place and which became the forms The second controversial issue in through which resistance asserts itself? Holloway's book is the idea that antiIs it 'practical negativity', or rather the power is the route to emancipation. 'contradictory tension' between Holloway is not concerned with strategic 'negativity and positivity' (Laclau & organisation, but rather advocates Mouffe, 1999) that gives rebellion its real uncertainty and anti-power: 'How can force? we change the world without taking One lesson that can be learned from power? The answer is obvious: we don't the Argentinian experience since know' (p. 22). December 2001 is that, on the one What we do know is that practical hand, the struggle to recompose the negativity is anti-power, and anti-power political fabric and develop new forms means the rejection of any revolutionary of democracy and participation by a project aimed at taking the power of the variety of social movements fired directly state. Following Holloway, 'the problem at the heart of the system of corruption, of the traditional concept of revolution exploitation and domination entailed by neoliberal stability. The rejection is perhaps not that it aimed too high, entailed in Que se vayan todos!'Out with but that it aimed too low. The notion of them all!'was followed by a moment capturing positions of power ... misses of intense mobilisation and the the point that the aim of the revolution emergence of new forms of resistance is to dissolve relations of power, to create vis-a-vis the institutional crisis. a society based on the mutual Autonomous and 'disorganised' move- recognition of people's dignity' (p. 20). But is anti-power a real possibility, ments became central to political processes, thus overshadowing institu- or a rhetorical device that refiects the tional politics. fragmentation and uncertainty of our On the other hand, the search for time? Does the defence of oppositional autonomy found its limits in the struggles, which embrace the idea of recomposition of state power in the praxis as practical negativity, adequately hands of traditional political elites. Does engage with the reality of present this mean that there was no political struggles? change in Argentina after December Does it give democracyaccording 2001? Where do we look for 'political to Lowy, the 'absent concept' in changes'? The recomposition following Holloway's proposalthe central place the December crisis re-established the that it deserves?

16

Capital & Class #85

The third matter of discrepancy within this Forum is HoUoway's proposal that a revolutionary movement should not seize the power of the state. The impact of Zapatismo on the world lies, according to HoUoway, in that it 'moves us decisively beyond the state illusion ... The state illusion understands revolution as the winning of state power and the transformation of society through the state' (2002: 157). That a revolutionary movement must have as its goal the taking of the power of the state is highly debatable. What seems to be clear is that to reject such a project is not the same as to deny that the state is, due to the very nature of capitalism, one of the main institutional forms of mediation of capitalist social relations of production and, therefore, of class struggle too. Holloway made a significant contribution regarding this matter a long time ago, when he highlighted the fact that the state was not a thing but the political form of the social relations of capital (Holloway & Picciotto, 1977). One cannot get out of the 'state-yes/ state-no' loop until one regards the state as such. As a social form, the state 'is and is not'. Then, why should the possibility that the form of the state can be disputed and fought over on behalf of the interests of the majority be overruled by HoUoway's proposal? Is Holloway disregarding state power? If so, can the power of the state be disregarded? Or is the search for emancipation a contradictory process of going in, against and through the state? These and more questions are posed in the contributions that follow. In the end, 'each thought is a force-field, and just as the truth-content of a judgment cannot be divorced from its execution, the only true ideas are those which

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

Notes 1. All page references, unless otherwise stated, are from John Holloway
(2002) Change theWorldWithoutTaking Power: The Meaning of Revolution Today,

Pluto, London. 2. I would like to thank Claire Rigby for her assistance in the editing of this Forum.

References Adorno, T. (2000) 'Message in a bottle', in S. Zizek (ed.) (2000a) Mapping Ideology (Verso) London, pp. 35-41. Dinerstein, A. C. (2004) 'Beyond crisis: The nature of political change in Argentina', in Pratyush Chandra et
al. (eds.) The Politics of Imperialism and Coumerstrategies (Aakar Books) New

Delhi, pp. 263-301. Dinerstein, A. C. (2003) 'Power or counter power? The dilemma of the piquetero movement in Argentina post crisis', in Capital & Class, no. 81, pp. 1-7. Holloway, J. (2002) Change the World
Without Taking Power: The Meaning of

Revolution Today (Pluto Press) London (ISBN o 7453 1863 o) 237 pp. Also available online at <http:// www.endpage.com/Archives/Subversive_Texts/Holloway/Change_The_ World_Without_Taking_ Power.htm>. Holloway, J. (2002) 'Zapatismo and the social sciences', in Capital & Class, no. 78, pp. 153-160. Holloway & Picciotto (1977) 'Capital, crisis and the state', in Capital & Class, no. 2, pp. 76-101. Holloway, J. (1993) 'The freeing of Marx', in Common Sense, no. 14 (CSE).

Holloway Forum

17

Klein, N. (2003) 'Que demonios New York. pueden hacer hoy los intelectuales? Tarrow, S. (1995) Power in MovementLos Irrelevantes libres', a talk given Social Movements, Collective Action and at Artey Confecdon: La Semana Cultural Politics, Cambridge Studies in por Brukman, 27 May to i June, Comparative Politics (Cambridge Buenos Aires; transcript. University Press). Laclau, E. & C. Mouffe (1999) Hegemony Zizek, S. (ed.) (2002) Revolution at the f Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Gates: Selected Writings of Lenin from Democratic Politics (Verso) London & 1917 (Verso) London & New York.

of 'negative thought' (p. 8): it is the tradition of Lukacs and the early Frankfurt school that provides the most important theoretical thread connecting this tradition to the present. In the Alex Callinicos celebrated opening sentence of Change the World Without Taking Power'In the John HoUoway's Change theWorldWithout beginning is not the word, but the Taking Power stands alongside Hardt and scream' (p. i)we should hear the Negri's Empire as one of the two key texts ech'oes of Adorno's Negative Dialectic. of contemporary autonomist Marxism. This gives a particular tonality to This does not mean that the two books HoUoway's humanism. Negativity, the represent identical positions. Holloway scream, comes first not as an affirmation makes much more of an effort to make of our humanity but because of its denial his ideas accessible than Hardt and (p. 25), and therefore presupposes 'a Negri do (although not wholly notion of humanity as negation' (p. 153). successfully). There are also important Subjectivity itself is defined in terms of substantive differences: Holloway offers negativity, as 'the conscious projection a cogent critique oi Empire (pp. 167-75),' beyond that which exists, the ability to to which Hardt and Negri, regrettably, negate that which exists and to create have not responded in their new book something that that does not exist' (pp. Multitude. 25-6). Indeed, the key to HoUoway's Finally, the philosophical frameworks negative ontology is a radical subjectiof the two books are quite different. vism. Rather like Fichte, he takes Hardt and Negri rely on a Deleuzian subjectivity as 'the starting point', but a vitalism that celebrates the fullness of self-differentiating subjectivity that 'can Being. Holloway, by contrast, privileges exist only in antagonism with its own negativity: 'Rather than to St Francis of objectification' so that 'it is torn apart Assisi, perhaps communists should look by that objectification and the struggle to Mephistopheles, the negating devil in against it' (pp. 37-8). aU of us' (p. 226, note 15). Hardt and Capital, as it strives to constitute Negri are anti-humanist Marxists for itself from our labour, must accordingly whom Spinoza is the great anti-Hegel. be understood through the lens of this But for Holloway, Marxism is a tributary 'binary antagonism between doing and Sympathy for the devil? John HoUoway's Mephistophelian Marxism