From: John Holloway (johnholloway@PRODIGY.NET.MX)
Date: Thu May 12 2005 - 00:47:49 EDT
> Michael, > > The simple answer to your simple question ( >does he stand behind the > arguments in his book?<) is that I have not changed my views. The state is a > historically specific form of social relations developed for the purpose of > excluding us from the determination of our own lives. The state has been > developed as a process of exclusion and it does not make sense to organise > ourselves through the state if we are trying to create a communist (socially > self-determining) society. > > However, it is important to me (and always has been) that this is an > argument made within a movement, a broad anti-capitalist movement. The purpose > of the argument is to stir discussion within the movement, not to divide the > movement. The aim is to promote discussion of the meaning and possibilities of > revolution, not to stimulate a process of mutual denunciation, and the best > contributions to the debate on the book have taken up the argument in this > sense. I assume as a starting point that none of us knows how to get rid of > capitalism, and that it makes no sense at all to assert dogmas as though we > possessed the correct line. It is important that a discussion should take > place, but without losing sight of the fact that we are all trying to go in > more or less the same direction, that we are all committed to the struggle to > get rid of capitalism. The struggle to change the world will always be > confused and contradictory, and should be so. > > It is absurd to think that I might consider Chávez, or Fidel, or Alex > Callinicos or Atilio Borón or indeed yourself as the enemy. The fact that I do > not agree with someone does not mean that I regard them as my enemy. What I am > opposed to is particular forms of social organisation – capital, the state, > value, money: any form that negates our humanity. If I go to Venezuela, it > will be neither with enemies nor idols in mind but to argue in what I assume > will be an atmosphere of mutual respect about the forms of revolutionary > organisation and their impact, and to learn. I take the zapatista maxim > preguntando caminamos (asking we walk) to be a fundamental principle of > revolutionary organisation. It should be clear that I have absolutely no > intention of going to Venezuela to attack the Bolivarian revolution. I support > any process of anti-capitalist revolution, though I certainly think it is > important to discuss and question and criticise and question again its forms > of action – this is surely what revolution means. > > You speak of my arguments as >a very negative political influence > and as demonstrably refuted by events in Venezuela<. I think this completely > overstates the influence of my book. If it has had any influence at all, then > it is simply because (together with many other books) it gives expression to > what is a very important trend in class struggle in Latin America and > throughout the world: the turn away from the idea of taking state power, the > rejection of the party as a form of organisation and the attempt to change > society by other means. To say that the argument is demonstrably refuted by > events in Venezuela makes little sense to me: it is an assertion that could > meaningfully be made only when capitalism no longer exists. > > The process of struggle in Venezuela, as in Mexico, as in Bolivia, > Ecuador, Argentina is, I assume, contradictory and experimental. In all of > these cases, debate about the meaning of revolution and how we can get rid of > capitalism is surely of crucial importance. > > The only thing that I have written that addresses Venezuela specifically > is a short Preface to a collection of articles published as a book under the > title of Keynesianismo: una peligrosa ilusión (Herramienta, Buenos Aires, > 2003). I attach an English version (as yet unpublished). > > On the question of my reply to your criticisms, I think that I mentioned > previously that I have written an article for Historical Materialism (entitled > “No”) and a lengthy epilogue for the new edition of Change the World (due out > over the summer). > > I hope that aggressive discussion is not part of the style of the > Bolivarian revolution. That would, I think, involve a regression to a type of > politics that we should be now have left behind. > > I hope very much that, if I go to Venezuela, you will be there and we > shall be able to pursue the discussion in person. > > John > > > > > > > At 07:57 11/05/2005, John Holloway responded to Paul Zaremba's question: > >> I'm not really going to answer the question now either, apart from >> making the general point that the issue here is not just "the Bolivarian >> revolution" in general, but the interplay between the state and the process >> of popular revolt in Venezuela. What is the effect of the fact that the >> revolt is being channelled into these organisational forms? This is >> something I simply don't know enough about. > > Dear John, > Unfortunately, I don't think that is good enough. In your book you say > (and I quote you, as you know, from my critique-- long overdue for > publication in Historical Materialism): > >> Œthe 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 Œto 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 Œthe vehicle of hope‚, is the Œassassin of hope‚ (12). For one, the >> state does not have the power to challenge capital: Œwhat 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 Œjust one node in a web of social >> relations‚ (13). > > Your position in your book is rather unequivocal. Are you now saying > that you are not certain? That maybe everything you have said about the state > was wrong? That the winning of state power can change the world? That > struggling through the state may not be to defeat yourself? That the state > does have the power to challenge capital? Will you ask your publisher to issue > a large 'Erratum' sticker? If not now, when? > Or, will you be consistent with the argument in your book and argue > that Chavez is the enemy, the misleader, the spreader of illusions about the > state? 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? > Will you join in support or will you wait... to see if you can say, 'I > told you so!'? > Inquiring minds want to know. > michael > PS. Have you written anything in support of what is happening in Venezuela? > > 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 >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 13 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT