From: John Holloway (johnholloway@PRODIGY.NET.MX)
Date: Thu May 29 2003 - 08:12:19 EDT
Sorry. I thought I was writing off-list to Rakesh. John ---------- >From: John Holloway <johnholloway@PRODIGY.NET.MX> >To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU >Subject: Re: review of John Holloway >Date: Wed, May 28, 2003, 11:05 PM > >Rakesh, > > Very many thanks for this - I would never have come across it otherwise. > > By the way, do you have an e-mail address for Jacques Depelchin> it >would be very interesting to get an African perspective. > > All the best, > > John >---------- >>From: Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU> >>To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU >>Subject: review of John Holloway >>Date: Fri, May 16, 2003, 7:01 AM >> > >>Spectrezine.org >> >>Book Review >> >>John Holloway Change the World Without Taking Power: The Meaning of >>Revolution Today (London, Pluto Press 2002) >> >>"Political power grows from the barrel of a gun." (Mao Tse Tung) >> >>As we know from history Mao gained power in China after a long civil >>war, including the Long March. At the beginning of 2001 the Mexican >>Zapatistas marched from Chiapas to the capital Mexico City. They did not >>come to power but spoke in the Mexican parliament and on the Zocalo, the >>main square of the Mexican capital. >> >>John Holloway is one of the theoretical backers of the Zapatista >>insurgency. In his new book Change the World Without Taking Power - The >>Meaning of Revolution Today, he draws a picture of a new form of revolution. >> >>While in Mao's understanding power was located in the military forces of >>the capitalist state which had to be defeated by revolutionary firepower >>and guerrilla warfare, the Zapatistas, though armed, renounce provoking >>a military confrontation with the Mexican army. Instead, they are >>promoting the concept of ordinary-therefore-rebellious, a concept that >>rejects a view of revolution led by an avant-garde of professional >>revolutionaries and the view that revolution is made by taking power. >>Their strategy is the strategy of low intensity revolution, a revolution >>that changes society from the inside without taking the power but by >>destroying the power. >> >>Holloway supports the Zapatista style of uprising by backing this new >>understanding of struggle theoretically. His argument is different from >>the classical anti-imperialist and revolutionary view of struggle, >>preferring "a refusal to accept" (p. 6), a refusal of the daily >>experience of exploitation and injustice, whether experienced as direct >>injustice - being sacked by a boss - or cognitively perceived - by >>knowing about millions of children that have to live in streets, or the >>fact that the world's income is unjust distributed. This feeling of >>being trapped in an unjust world like "flies caught in the spider's web" >>(p. 5) is the energy that fuels resistance. Holloway's "scream" is a >>primarily emotional rejection of the capitalist system, because it is in >>capitalism that injustice has to be located. The scream proves that 'we >>are' and above 'what we are not yet' (p. 7). So the identity of people >>who are screaming is first of all a negative identity. It is the >>identity of negating the present capitalist state of world society. Its >>negativity forbids thinking in terms of classic forms of identity such >>as working class, women or race. >> >>Holloway states that old forms of revolutionary theory have been >>outdated as they have not brought the success expected and for this >>reason places his theory beyond the state and beyond power. He asserts >>that former leftist theory whether it was Rosa Luxemburg, Vladimir Ilich >>Lenin or Eduard Bernstein always had as its focus for social upheaval >>the taking of state power. Whether it was by elections (Bernstein) or by >>revolution (Luxemburg/Lenin), the object of desire was the state. Since >>the state is embedded in a network of power relations, the world cannot >>be changed by taking state power. The state itself is only a node in the >>net, but not equivalent with society. Holloway maintains that all >>"major revolutionary leaders of the twentieth century: Rosa Luxemburg, >>Trotzky, Gramsci, Mao, Che" (p. 18) shared this logic. Further on he >>asserts that history has shown that this concept has not been successful >> >>full: http://www.spectrezine.org/reviews/holloway.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 30 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT