[OPE-L] response to John Holloway

["michael a. lebowitz" <mlebowit@xxxxxx>]

Dear John,
            My
apologies for the delay in responding--- a very recalcitrant chapter is
the principal reason (although intermittent problems with my internet
connection have contributed, and I don?t know how quickly this will
post).
            Thank
you for the response and the attachment. You sound like a nice person,
and I look forward to a direct discussion--- although, if your visit is
in November (as I recall someone mentioning), we may miss each other
because I?ll be in Europe in the early part of the month. 
            I
think we agree on the ultimate goal. The question, of course, is how to
get there. And, here, we disagree profoundly (as you know from my
Historical Materialism critique)--- not only on the specific means (such
as the need for a political instrument  and the role of the state)
but also on what I describe as your ?No to Marx,? your reversion to
Hegelian Idealism, and your premise of the fragility of capitalism.
            But,
there is another criticism that runs through my discussion: despite all
the statements in your book about how no one, no thinkers, no leaders,
etc have any privileged understanding of history, of struggles, etc, I
find your book incredibly dogmatic. As I said at one point in my comment,
?Holloway, who screams his rejection of the ?Knower? as vanguardist, does
not hesitate to instruct real people on the correct struggles and to
explain why some struggles contribute to dividing the working
class.?
           
Accordingly, I find the statement in your response that ?it makes no
sense at all to assert dogmas as though we possessed the correct line? as
rather disingenuous (to say the least). What are the following statements
that I quoted from your book if they are not dogmatic statements
of the correct line? 
 
> ?the very notion that society
> can be changed through the winning of state power? is the source of all
> our sense of betrayal, and we need to understand that ?to struggle
> through the state is to become involved in the active process of
> defeating yourself? (12-3, 214)
>
>
>  To retain the idea that you can change the world through the state
> (whether by winning elections or by revolution) is a grave error--- one
> which has failed to learn from history and theory that the state
> paradigm, rather than being ?the vehicle of hope?, is the ?assassin of
> hope? (12). For one, the state does not have the power to challenge
> capital: ?what the state does and can do is limited by the need to
> maintain the system of capitalist organisation of which it is a part.? It
> is ?just one node in a web of social relations? (13). 
>  

            There
are many more such assertions (such as a rejection of armed struggle and
national liberation movements), of course, which are all part of your
argument against seeking power to destroy (fragile) capitalism--- an
argument that I find not only dogmatic but wrong.
           
Obviously, we can?t (and shouldn?t) debate here all the specific points I
raised in my critique (and to which I hope you have responded in
Historical Materialism with specifics rather than vague restatements of
your position). I cited the statements above, though, after what I
considered (in the light of your book) your quite undogmatic but vague
response to Paul Zarembka?s question about your view of the Bolivarian
Revolution. Here, I think, is an excellent opportunity to move away from
vague generalizations about the state to a concrete application.
            After
all, it is no secret that the state has played a central role in the
struggle against the old order in Venezuela. Not precisely the same
state, though. Because the constitutional assembly began by changing
ground rules--- writing a new constitution which decentralises power to
communities, local planning committees, and commits the state to foster
self-management and co-management and cooperatives in state bodies and
society as a whole. Not the same state--- because the clientalistic and
corrupt state of the Fourth Republic thwarted the efforts to transform
the society, and so the government found it necessary to create Mission
after Mission, a parallel state, to move forward. As the current foreign
minister said last year around this time, we have a revolutionary
government but we don?t have a revolutionary state. It is what they are
trying to do now­to change the state, to coordinate these missions within
new ministries, to foster popular participation in planning at municipal
and parish level, to introduce worker-management in state firms and to
expand it into the private sector, to create a state of the Paris
Commune-type (the kind that Marx advocated).
            But,
you would say, I infer--- that?s the mistake, talking about a
revolutionary state! How can there be a revolutionary state? The state is
?the assassin of hope?: ?to struggle through the state is to become
involved in the active process of defeating yourself?. Since the state,
after all, is a form of capital, you can not use it against capital.
            So,
would you have opposed the very idea of a new constitution in Venezuela
because it reinforces illusions about 'the state paradigm'? Would you
have opposed the decentralising aspects of that constitution because the
state is the state is the state--- i.e., the state by any other name is
still capital? Would you reject the idea of attempting to make inroads
(especially the ?despotic inroads? referred to in the Communist
Manifesto) because ?the state (any state) must do everything it can to
provide conditions that favour the profitability of capital? [your
attachment]? Finally, would you reject the idea of using the power of the
Bolivarian state against capital because what is needed is not power but
?anti-power??
            I
suggest to you that you cannot be consistent with your book and
not be an opponent of the Bolivarian Revolution. I hope, of
course, that you are not an opponent--- despite the fact that it has
departed so significantly from your perspective. That is why I asked, do
you stand behind the arguments in your book?
           
Finally, let me say that I agree with you that your book is not
responsible for the trend in Latin America and elsewhere to ?turn away
from the idea of taking state power?. As I suggested in my critique, this
is ?the stuff? of a period of defeat.? What your book has done, however,
is to provide theoretical support for this trend and thereby to help
spread its influence. Since I regard this trend as destructive of any
chance of destroying capitalist power and building a new society, you
will understand that I consider it necessary to struggle vigorously
against your arguments in the battle of ideas.
            Of
course, there are many problems in Venezuela. Some because of the very
magnitude of what must be done. Others, I would say, because a state of a
new type and a party of a new type have yet to come together. Since there
is so much to see here and learn from, I am glad that you will be coming
here to see the hope that this revolution has produced in so many people.
(I certainly have learned much.) I only wish you were coming not for the
purpose of discussing your book in a week-long seminar but to listen and
learn for a longer period. The Bolivarian revolution could use a champion
with your obvious skills.

       

Sincerely,

  

michael

Michael A. Lebowitz

Professor Emeritus

Economics Department

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6

Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at

Residencias Anauco Suites

Departamento 601

Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1

Caracas, Venezuela

(58-212) 573-4111

fax: (58-212) 573-7724