Re: [OPE-L] further response to John Holloway

[John Holloway <johnholloway@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: Re: [OPE-L] further response to John Holloway

> Michael,
>
>     Right then: questions and answers, yours and mine. 
>
>     But first some prefatory remarks. I think that probably all on this list share two principal concerns, related but separable for the purposes of discussion. Firstly, we would like to eliminate or reduce poverty and combat inequality. (In your contribution of 11th May, you express this concern by asking, >Will you come here to Venezuela to attack the Bolivarian Revolution because it is absurd to think that state power (rather than the 'shadowy world of anti-power') can change things for the 80% of the population that is poor?<). Probably we all agree that this can be achieved to a limited extent within capitalism, particularly in an oil-rich country such as Venezuela. 
>     I think that the reduction of poverty is desperately urgent, especially and palpably in Latin America (elsewhere too, but more obviously here). For that reason I would probably support any government that I thought was seriously committed to achieving this. I marched against the exclusion of López Obrador and I may possibly vote for him next year. At the same time, I recognise that any government that does not seek to eliminate capitalism will probably achieve very limited results in the reduction of poverty and will be forced to take part in promoting conditions favourable for the accumulation of capital, with all the very real violence that that entails. If, then, I decide to vote for López Obrador, it would be very much on the basis of supporting the lesser (but possibly significantly lesser) of two evils. And to come back to your question: I think that the state in Venezuela probably can improve living conditions for the 80% of the population that is poor and that, I completely agree, is very important. (First question answered).
>
>     The second concern that we all share, probably, is that we want to eliminate capitalism and create a communist, socially self-determining society throughout the world. I see this as an extremely urgent concern, because of the rapidity with which capitalism is destroying humanity in every sense of the word. This clearly involves the elimination of capital, that is to say, of exploitation and private property of the means of production. It also involves the elimination of the state. Why? Because the state is a form of organisation that excludes social self-determination, that separates decisions about the direction of society from society itself: the state decides on behalf of society. This is not just a question of abstract definition: the state has developed historically as a way of excluding people from social self-determination. This shapes the way that the state is organised internally (the functional separation of departments, for example, or the hierarchies of decision-making and status), the language that it uses, the separation of professional functionaries from the rest of the population, the concepts of time and space that it uses, the ethos even among the best, most committed functionaries that they are acting on behalf of the people. That is why the state would have to be abolished in the creation of a self-determining society.
>     The question then is how to think about the abolition or dissolution of the state. Does it have to come about by the creation of non-state forms of organisation (communal or council organisation) outside the state (this is basically what the zapatistas are trying to do, what has happened to some extent in Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador). Or can we think of the dissolution of the state as coming about from within the state itself: revolutionaries take state power in order to dissolve the state from within? This, Alberto B. suggests in his helpful contribution, is what Lenin wanted to do, and it corresponds also to what you say of the Bolivarian Revolution: that it is an attempt by the state to decentralise and involve people in decision-making, that it is (in  my terms) an attempt by the state to overcome the state form, to dissolve itself as state. Can this be done? This is an important question that touches not only Venezuela, but also the attempts from within the state to overcome the state in other parts of the world, such as Porto Alegre, parts of Italy, and so on (see Hilary Wainwright’s book on Reclaiming the State). 
>     Can the state be dissolved from within? My own feeling is that it is extremely difficult, because of the weight of inherited structures and forms of behaviour and because of the separation of paid state functionaries from the rest of the population. If it were to be possible, then it would not come about simply because of the revolutionary commitment of the state functionaries or politicians themselves, but because of the force of the struggles outside the state. The determining force will be the struggles outside the state. 
>     A final remark before your questions. It could be argued that I aim too high, that the best we can hope for is a revolution on behalf of, that we should give up Marx’s old dream of a proletarian revolution by the proletariat itself. Possibly, but I fear that a revolution on behalf of would not only be inevitably authoritarian, but that it would not be capable of eliminating capitalism from the world.
>
> Now your questions: 
>
> 1) So, would you have opposed the very idea of a new constitution in Venezuela because it reinforces illusions about 'the state paradigm'? 
>     I have not read the new constitution (I start, as I have said several times, from a position of ignorance), but I assume that it is much more democratic than the previous one, and in that sense I would support it. At the same time, a constitution always has the purpose of demarcating the state from society, of consolidating the state as an institution, and in that sense I would oppose it. The constitution, I assume, has the function of defining certain people who will act on behalf of others. A constitution is always, I think, an attempt to crystallise class struggle, to consolidate its gains but also to limit its forward movement. In this sense, I agree with Negri and Hardt’s distinction between constituent and constituted power (although I disagree with much else that they say): we have to think of revolution in terms of constituent power, not in terms of the constitution of that power. 
>
> 2) 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? 
>     No, I would not oppose the decentralising aspects of that constitution. However, there are many forms of decentralisation. Generally state decentralisation is an attempt to strengthen the state as state. In this case, my question would be whether the decentralisation is really leading to a dissolution of the state as state, whether there is a real shift to self-determination by local communities? If this is the case, how is this reconciled with the continued respect for private property of the means of production, or is the state allowing local communities to take over private companies in their area?
>
> 3) 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]? 
>     Sorry, I don’t understand the question. In general, I take it that what Marx and Engels said about the state in the Communist Manifesto does not represent their later views (after the Paris Commune).
>
> 4) 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’?
>     No, of course not. However, I do not know what it means to say “using the power of the Bolivarian state against capital”. Does it mean nationalising certain sectors of capital or does it mean taking measures to ensure that the pursuit of profit (and the exploitation that it entails) is not the driving force of social development? Does it mean creating a non-capitalist form of  production?
>
> 5) I suggest to you that you cannot be consistent with your book and not be an opponent of the Bolivarian Revolution. 
>     I have already said several times that I support the upsurge of revolutionary struggle in Venezuela. What worries me very much, however, is that the label “Bolivarian Revolution” identifies this process of struggle with the state and effectively reduces it to the state and what the state is doing. This I do not like. I feel very much that you are looking at the world through state lenses. 
>
>     Finally, on the Zapatistas. If your remark was not offensive and nonsensical, then fine. If you do not want to see the daily harassment by the Mexican state (there are other states besides the US), fine. What concerns me, and what I consider absolutely pernicious, dangerous and divisive, is the attempt to create an opposition between two models of struggle (one good, one bad) between Venezuela and the Zapatistas. This is very clearly done by Tariq Ali in his interview, also in the current interventions of Junaid Alam, and you at times seem to be suggesting the same. This is what I am reacting against. I also feel that people want to push me into a similar black-and-white position in regard to Venezuela, and this I will not accept. I support the struggle in Venezuela enthusiastically, but have doubts about the form it is taking. All struggles are confused and contradictory, and I assume that we are all pushing in more or less the same direction, so that the present discussion is a discussion between comrades.
>
>     And now please, can you answer my questions?
>
>     John
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear John,
>         I don't want to take up any more of your time, and I have too many deadlines and meetings pressing on  me to engage further. I hope that we can find some time to talk when you will be here before I head off to the Historical Materialism/ Socialist Register/ Deutscher Memorial Prize conference in London the first weekend in November. I find that in a face-to-face exchange, it is more difficult to waffle and avoid answering points.
>         For example, I asked for your position on a number of specifics in relation to the real world of Venezuela. I proposed: 'Here, I think, is an excellent opportunity to move away from vague generalizations about the state to a concrete application.' And, after noting a few developments, I indicated:
>
> > 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. 
>
>         Your response was to provide a taxonomic lesson on the concept of 'a state of the Paris Commune-type'. Well, I suppose that was an answer. I hope you have been more responsive to specifics in the answer to my critique in Historical Materialism.
>         Best wishes,
>         michael
> PS. I've searched for what you might mean in referring to my 'own offensive and nonsensical remark about the zapatistas'. It must refer to my comments in the note to Jerry Levy. It certainly wouldn't be my statement that 'I think the Zapatistas represent an important struggle for human dignity.' I'm sure it also wasn't that I said the Zapatistas should not be equated with Venezuela (since you've said something similar, if I recall correctly). So, by process of elimination, it must be my comment in response to Jerry's statement that both the Zapatistas and Venezuela 'are under attack by imperialism' to which I responded that 'I hadn't really noticed that the zapatistas were under attack by imperialism.' It's true--- I don't think the Zapatistas are showing up on US imperialism's screen. If you find that 'offensive and nonsensical', it may have to do with your own emotional commitment to the Zapatistas and how much you've staked on them.
>
> At 17:16 17/05/2005, you wrote:
> > Dear Michael,
> >
> >     Sorry to be slow again.
> >
> >     I’ll take some of your most important points:
> >
> >     On the question of the book being dogmatic: The main aim of the book was to get people talking and thinking about revolution – revolution in the sense of the abolition of capitalism and the creation of a communist society (however one might interpret that). Very explicitly the aim was to promote a discussion on the basis of the acceptance of the fact that we do not know how to make revolution. Within that framework I put forward the argument that capitalism cannot be abolished through the taking of state power, and at the end of the book I say “but we still do not know how to make the revolution, we have to think, we have to discuss.” In other words, I have my views, to which I am strongly committed and which I will put forward forcefully, but I want to discuss these views. As I said before, I see the argument as taking place within a movement, not as dividing the movement and not as leading the movement. Preguntando caminamos (asking we walk) is a central thread in the argument and structure of the book. I do not particularly want to defend the book for the sake of defending it, but I do not think this approach is dogmatic. And, as I mentioned before, the best commentaries have understood the book in this sense, saying in effect “Yes, let’s talk about revolution. I do not agree with you and this is why I think your argument is wrong and dangerous.” This sort of response from people who disagree with me I respect enormously. (There have of course been lots of others that proceed only be denunciation and disqualification.)
> >
> >     You say that the Venezuelan government is trying “to create a state of the Paris Commune-type (the kind that Marx advocated).” You use basically the same _expression_ in your review of my book. Jerry pointed out that >Most anarchists wouldn't agree that the Paris Commune was a state.< to which you replied >If you've read John's book, tell me what you think he means by the state
> >
> > and its relation to the Commune; he made efforts to ground his argument in Marx but I don't recall any mention.< 
> >             It is fundamental to the argument of the book that the _expression_ “a state of the Paris Commune-type” makes no sense at all. The state is a particular form of social relations grounded in the separation of the political from the economic and the separation of the public from social control and the commune is exactly the opposite – a form of social relations directed against the separation of the political from the economic and the subjection of society to social control. The commune is a quite distinct form of social organisation from the state, a form viscerally opposed to the state. To think of the state as any form of social organisation makes the whole discussion meaningless. The state is always a process of forming social relations (that is social struggles) in a certain way, the commune as an organisational form forms them or shapes them in a different way. When you say that “the state has played a central role in the struggle against the old order in Venezuela”, then I am not sure what this means. Clearly the struggle did not originate in the state: it originated as a class struggle, a popular struggle against the manifestations of capitalism. In the 1990s it clearly became focussed on the state and the winning of state power, and the process has been organised to a fairly large extent through the state in the last few years. My question is how this form of organisation affects the development of the struggle. Has it, for example, had the effect of diverting anti-capitalist struggle into the form of anti-imperialism, a form quite compatible with the continuation of exploitation and private ownership? I do not know, I ask. You say, in effect (and translating you into my terms) that the state has been trying to overcome its separation from society, to dissolve itself as a state and convert itself into a form of communal or council organisation. Is that what you’re saying, is that really what’s happening? And if that is what you’re saying, can it really work? Is it possible for a state to dissolve itself into a radically different form of organisation, or will the established practices both of state functionaries and of the people themselves, and the integration of the state into the global multiplicity of states and above all the global movement of capital, not make that impossible? I ask. Has the Venezuelan state managed to liberate itself from the need to secure the profitability of capital? And if it has not broken from that need, does that mean that it necessarily promote the exploitation of labour? And if it has broken the need to secure profitability, this presumably can only be on the basis of the creation of an anti-capitalist form of social organisation. Is this what’s happening? It seems to me that you start thinking from the state (very understandable in your current situation) whereas we need to think from society and from social struggle, class struggle.
> >
> >      I do not doubt your sincerity, your enthusiasm glows. I do not particularly doubt the sincerity of Hugo Chávez and of the many, many people struggling for a radical transformation of society in Venezuela, but I do have these doubts and questions. Of course I support the struggles in Venezuela, my question, as I have said from the beginning, concerns the relation between this struggle and the state as an organisational form. I still feel that to focus struggle on the state is self-defeating: if you say that the state is dissolving itself, I am delighted but dubious. Beyond this I am reluctant to make pronouncements about what is happening in Venezuela: partly I take warning from your own offensive and nonsensical remark about the zapatistas.
> >
> >     Another point: you say that the turn away from the state which is characteristic of many struggles in Latin America and elsewhere is ‘the stuff… of a period of defeat.’ Not surprisingly, I disagree completely. To put it in autonomist terms, the turn from the state is a mark not of the decomposition of the working class, but of its recomposition, and it is very important for Marxists to understand this.
> >
> >     Enough for now. My trip to Venezuela is currently planned for the last week in October, so I hope we can meet there and carry on discussing. 
> >
> >     John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
>
>
> 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