Re: [OPE-L] another comment on John's answers

[John Holloway <johnholloway@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: Re: [OPE-L] another comment on John's answers

> > Michael,
> >
> >     You asked me to comment on the following paragraph:
> >
> > But, there is no alternative (in Venezuela and, I suggest, in general): (a) to seizing the state from capital--- so capital can not use the power of its state to defeat us and (b) to transforming that 'ready-made state machinery' into the 'self-government of the producers' (to use Marx's words) in order to create that space for the development of new people. So, no guarantees--- except the guarantee of struggle. But, for me, as I indicate in my critique for Historical Materialism, the idea of changing the world without taking power is a pipe-dream--- the opiate of the defeated and demoralised.

                    I don’t think the state can be seized from capital any more than value can be seized from capital. The state is the power of capital (one form thereof), whoever “uses” it. The “self-government of the producers” necessarily means a different form of organisation, not the state, but some form of council organisation. To think of the struggles in Latin America and elsewhere to change the world without trying to state power as “the opiate of the defeated and demoralised” suggests a truly extraordinary degree of disconnection from the world around you. 

                You ask: what are you going to do about capitalist power-- police, army, courts, etc if you renounce the idea of taking power (which means taking power away from them)? I don’t think there is any easy answer to the violence of capital. Seizing state power has generally led to the use of the police and the army against the working class. Is this happening in Venezuela? I don’t know. I imagine, from what you say, that the principal function of the police in Venezuela as elsewhere is still to protect capitalist property, but I await your answer on this. But then what do we do about state violence? I don’t think the answer can be thought of in terms of armed struggle (we would lose and it would get us into reproducing the social relations we are struggling against), although in some cases armed resistance may contribute to dissuading the state from repressing struggles (as in the case of the zapatistas). On the whole, I think that defence against state repression has to be thought of in terms of the integration of struggles into the surrounding society, which pre-supposes a non-state or anti-state form of organisation. You may consider this a Hegelian sleight of hand, but it is what is being said very clearly by activists in Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico and elsewhere, and, if I had the patience, I could supply lots of of quotations to this effect.

    I look forward to learning more about Venezuela if you have time.

    John