From: John Holloway (johnholloway@PRODIGY.NET.MX)
Date: Mon Sep 18 2006 - 07:21:55 EDT
Many thanks, Jerry, I wasn't aware of this. John > <http://info.interactivist.net/> > > Toni Negri on John Holloway's Change the World Without Taking Power > > <http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?sid=06/09/16/2032251> > > John Holloway's Change the World Without Taking Power > Toni Negri > > [Translator's note: The following review of John Holloway's Change the > World Without Taking Power appears as an "Addenda" to Chapter 13 of > Global: Biopower and Struggles in a Globalized Latin America, a book > co-authored by Antonio Negri and Giuseppe Cocco's (Italian political > scientist currently residing in Brazil) and distributed in Spanish by > Paidos, Argentina. Due to the nature of Negri's writing and certain > ambiguities made possible by the Spanish in which it first appears, this > translation remains preliminary and we would welcome any suggestions for > changes. Translation by El Kilombo Intergaláctico.] > > Change the World Without Taking Power by John Holloway is a beautiful but > strange book. Its paradox consists of the fact that, in his critique of > Italian operaismo (the method of which is the basis of our book), Holloway > considers dialectical Marxism (what he calls "the problem of form") as > predisposed to assume the fetishistic character of the world (this is his > reality principle), and at the same time as capable of proposing an > antagonistic foundation for action. In practice, however, Holloway > considers reality only from its fetishistic side while critiquing > operaismo-attacking it for having employed dialectics-exclusively from its > antagonistic side. With this in mind, where is the principle for action > within Holloway's perspective? > > Let us develop this thought. The words that Holloway uses are very harsh. > According to him, operaismo would be a "radical democratic" theory and > consequently (according to the traditional polemic), neither working class > nor revolutionary because it is incapable of understanding Marxist > dialectics as the discovery of the radical negativity of the world. But > Holloway belongs only partially to this tradition-one towards which he > shows much respect, if at times irreverence. Here we will see how. > > Holloway presumes all figures of power as solely and exclusively > fetishistic figures. Each moment and each form in which power is > expressed, even if it is in an antagonistic manner, never achieves its > independence due to the effect of its fetishistic form; proletarian > potentiality always remains homologous [to capitalist potestas]. Well > gentlemen, there is nothing to be done, the universe is black. If you are > a communist and you rise to power, you become (for this very reason) a > fascist. Only the refusal is a revolutionary moment. > > Beyond the refusal, beyond "the scream" of the oppressed, reality is > completely thingified, dialectics triumphs and its eventual negativity is > affirmed. (Allow us to observe the ambiguous similarity that is revealed > here between the Lucakacsian figures and all the postmodern tonalities of > negativity: the marginal in the style of Derrida, "naked life" according > to Agamben, etc.). But Holloway never speaks of these; perhaps he does not > know them sufficiently. > > In addition, Holloway demonstrates a rather ambiguous relation to > Foucault: he is fascinated by but simultaneously incapable of > incorporating within the horizon of Foucaultian differences (better said, > in the indifferent horizon of "resistances") the productive potential of > antagonism (in Foucault's own language "the production of subjectivity"). > In the face of the articulated dynamic of Foucaultian resistances, > Holloway puts forward the pure reaffirmation of absolute antagonism, the > "scream" of the exploited. Note Bene: Holloway confronts the degradation > that the concept of the dialectic suffers in the tradition of Engels and > in the late Soviet Marxist perspective, where it practically becomes > something of a natural law; despite this, Holloway believes he can > liberate himself of these difficulties in purely negative terms. We will > see the political effects of this choice further on. > > Let us go on to examine Holloway's critique of operaismo. What Holloway > will not accept in any case is the constitutive power that operaismo > attributes to the force of labor and, in general, to the class struggle. > Holloway interprets this attribute [of a constituent power] as belonging > to a constituted power that functions so as to taint the value of labor > and the figure of political liberty. It is evident then, according to this > perspective, that the concept of exploitation can hardly be posed. > Holloway's polemic extends against the concept of self-valorization > [autovalorizzazione] (as he finds it elaborated in the work of Harry > Cleaver). This said, one has to recognize that Holloway is headed down the > wrong path-he is getting ahead of himself: here, the fetishistic form of > Marxian dialectics (interpreted in the manner of Backhaus and taken up > again by Holloway) suffocates all dialectical elements, especially those > which remain antagonistic (and it matters little that this is not > Holloway's intention). All that remains is fetishism, that is, a tragic > form of the real that can never be reclaimed. To reclaim it would be the > absolute event, "The Revolution!" > > Let's return to the critique of operaismo. Here, the contradiction that > was mentioned above becomes apparent in its entirety. Holloway attacks the > constituent perspective of operaismo by characterizing it as > "functionalist." But functionalism, as we understand it, avoids the > contradictions of capitalism; it neutralizes them and it takes on > dialectics as the sublimation of contradictions and differences. > Functionalism is a heresy to materialism because it uses dialectics > linearly, glorifying within it only the element of resolution. With > respect to this presumed functionalism, operaismo simply turns this > picture upside down; the antagonistic pressure of the force of labor > (exactly because dialectics was pushed aside) does not avoid but rather > deepens the contradictions. This deepening of contradictions has two > effects. The first is to accentuate the consistency of the subjects (i.e. > labor force, proletariat, class, multitude) and to impress upon this > subjective reality a continual process of metamorphosis, a dispositif of > ontological transformation. Second, and consequently, there arises the > effect of pushing the subject (labor force, proletariat, class, multitude) > each time further outside of capital-exodus is precisely the result of > this process. It is a process nonetheless, a struggle, not a utopia, an > indefinite lineage, not one that has been concluded, real, not dreamed. > > For the above reasons, what Holloway cannot accept is this: the dialectic, > which is a weapon of capital, simultaneously becomes in his hands a death > sentence for labor. We are then victims of this unsolvable tonality, that > is, unsolvable from its own interior-a solution that can come only from > outside. Our objection: if this were true, if these were the given > conditions, the revolution would not be constituent power, but rather a > mystical event. > > In other places it becomes very clear that in his insistence on the > impossibility of (or better yet, on the incorrect procedure which allows) > identifying elements or dispositifs of "constituent power" within the > "refusal of work" -that is, elements of liberation within the process of > the emancipation from work-Holloway obstructs any dynamic perspective of > the class struggle and thus bangs his head up against the so-called > concrete history of socialism. That is, Holloway cannot avoid giving the > class struggle an institutional figure. However, it is obvious that the > class struggle (as Holloway would like it) is a constituent process that > can never come to an end. But our problem is not to bring it to an end or > to close it. Neither is our problem that of leading this struggle to some > kind of naturalist figure, or to the repetition of the same. Rather, our > effort is that of developing, articulating, metamorphosing class relations > in new consistencies of the potential of the proletariat (or of the > multitude), of the different polarities of class struggle. > > The misfortune of Holloway's reasoning lies in his radical rejection of > all structural and ontological relations between reform and revolution. > This becomes all the more dangerous today, the very moment at which > sovereignty is no longer able to remain concentrated in the unity of power > but rather must accept duality, and thus the relation between movements > and "governance," at the very nature and fundamental horizon of the > institutions themselves. This is as Gramsci (not Togliatti's Gramsci, the > real Gramsci-the Leninist) had already, to the contrary, taught us. > > It is beyond doubt that Holloway's position has the merit of no longer > attempting to simply vindicate the dialectic [dialectical Marxist] > tradition but rather promoting the fundamental effectiveness of all > communist alternatives. There is, in reality something very Zapatista > about Holloway's discourse. Yet, we think that what Holloway calls the > "problem of form," or the problem of fetishism, is reduced in his > discourse to more of a moral or ethical category than that of a critique > or a politics. It was already difficult to be in agreement with the > analogous theoretical and political positions produced by the dialectical > philosophy of the communist left of proletarian Europe during the 1930's, > but it is impossible to accept these positions within the biopolitical > reality of the central and/or peripheral countries of the 21st century, > that is, during the century of Empire. No one can deny > fetishization-ontological corruption and its practical consequences-it > both effects and negates the classed subject, in this way making the dream > of a "rebirth" all the less possible. > > Operaismo owes its dignity to the fact of never having dissolved the > concept of revolution within that of reform; it owes its efficacy, on the > other hand, to the fact of always having resolved the concept of reform > within that of revolution, and also to the fact of having understood that > within this nexus [reform-revolution], the autonomy/independence of the > proletarian subject that was formed in the relations of production was > rejoined with the exodus from the relations of capital. That is, this > subject [labor] has the capacity to destroy, along with exploitation, the > very existence of classes themselves. > > Holloway's line represents the best of the opposition to attempts by a > certain institutional Latin American left to flatten within the categories > of nation and development the relation between biopower and biopolitical > potential. Yet, it remains limited by its negative dialectical framework. > Negativity is not just a mere "scream;" it is rather, desire, a > multitudinary necessity to continuously affirm joy, peace, and communism. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 1.. "El Kilombo Intergaláctico" - http://www.elkilombo.org/ > > © Copyright 2006 - Me, All Rights Reserved
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT