From: John Holloway (johnholloway@PRODIGY.NET.MX)
Date: Thu May 19 2005 - 09:35:46 EDT
> 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 >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 25 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT