Why John Holloway is stupid?

[Akshay!]

The title is pretty self explanatory.

If you've read "Change the World Without Taking Power" by John Holloway, you already know that John Holloway is stupid. Explain why? Is this just a diversion or counter-productive to the whole communist movement?

Also, does anyone support this ideology here (I hope not)? If so, please explain your position.

[Comrade #138672]

How do you change the world without having any power to do so?

[Akshay!]

His argument is that you don't need a revolution. You can just build some kind of a garden and share things with each other and listen to communist songs, and wear weird kind of clothes and then call all of that "communism". It's beyond idiocy.

[bricolage]

maybe you should explain why you think it is stupid if you are asking the question.


His argument is that you don't need a revolution. You can just build some kind of a garden and share things with each other and listen to communist songs, and wear weird kind of clothes and then call all of that "communism". It's beyond idiocy.
ok, give some references from the book that back this up.

[Akshay!]

maybe you should explain why you think it is stupid if you are asking the question.


ok, give some references from the book that back this up.

Look at the title of the book lol. :laugh::laugh: ("Change the world without taking power")

Also, he explains his book in 15 minutes here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fwMC8H739NU#t=2097s

[bricolage]

Look at the title of the book lol. :laugh::laugh: ("Change the world without taking power")
this isn't an argument.


Also, he explains his book in 15 minutes here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fwMC8H739NU#t=2097s
I was asking for examples from the book itself seeing as you claim to have read it.

[Akshay!]

this isn't an argument.


I was asking for examples from the book itself seeing as you claim to have read it.

"The world cannot be changed through the state." pg.19

"the constitutional view isolates the state from its social environment: it attributes to the state an authority of action that it just does not have. In reality, what the state does is limited and shaped by the fact that it exists as just one node in a web of social relations. Crucially, this web of social relations centres on the way in which work is organised. The fact that work is organised on a capitalist basis means that what the stated does and can do is limited and shaped by the need to maintain the system of capitalist organisation of which it is a part." pg.13

"The difficulty which revolutionary governments have experienced in wielding the state in the interests of the working class suggests that the embedding of the state in the web of capitalist social relations is far stronger and more subtle than the notion of instrumentality would suggest. The mistake of Marxist revolutionary movements has been, not to deny the capitalist nature of the state, but to misunderstand the degree of integration of the state into the network of capitalist social relations." pg.14

"How then do we change the world without taking power? At the end of the book, as at the beginning, we do not know. The Leninists know, or used to know. We do not. Revolutionary change is more desperately urgent than ever, but we do not know any more what revolution means." pg.215

And there is more similar nonsense in the book.

Also did I mention the stupid garden example? I can find the page number if you want.

The guy is openly anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist, and anti-communist, but pretends to be the opposite of all 3.

[bricolage]

ok, right thanks for the quotes.
so what john holloway does is reiterate certain views of autonomism that it's not enough to just change the ways in which certain structures are managed but that you instead need to challenge the very forms of these structures themselves and this is based on an implicit view that structures have the ability to corrupt those that use them. this probably echoes a lot of early anarchist theorists.
his alternative is to look for what he calls the 'cracks' in the system, the minor challenges from below that he believes can be expanded and reproduced and can build up an essential counter-power to the state - of course the problem in that it can be argued he doesn't actually think of it as a counter-power to challenge the state but to live alongside it. most of his views have been influenced by his work with the zapatistas and while they have been very influential to a lot of movements that have never managed to supersede the system they work within and it could be argued they have never intended to do so. of course, as you mention, the other problem is that john holloway then sees ever minor 'challenge' (and I use that word loosely) as an embodiment of communism and the garden in greece (which I remember him mentioning at marxism conference) is an example of how he gives ridiculous importance to something that clearly has little importance. I'm pretty sure he's never claimed to be a leninist though so to say he pretends he is seems a bit strange.

two more things,
1. this seems a strange thread to start now seeing as noone really cares much about him anymore. I remember in the earlier 2000s he was a very big name and was widely read but nowadays noone pays much attention to him and his other books have been pretty much ignored.
2. the marxism conference you refer to (based on the videos Ive seen) seemed awful. I remember one year it was callinicos vs holloway then it was callinicos vs zizek then it was callinicos vs holloway vs zizek in the epic battle of three white men trying to sell books. generally shit.

[Os Cangaceiros]

to the OP: are you really an anarchist?

[Akshay!]

to the OP: are you really an anarchist?

I'm an anarchist only in the sense that I distrust any kind of authority - that doesn't mean I go around saying bullshit like "we can have a revolution without taking power" or whatever.. My political ideology is communism (Marx, Lenin, etc.).

I don't think feeling good is the same as winning. People can do all sorts of things for feeling good - but I won't take them seriously if they call That communism.

I personally don't care what these crazy people do - just call it something else. This is not even anarchism! It's bullshit.

[BIXX]

You seem to think we need to take control of the state... If I am not mistaken. I mean, I don't know anything about this guy so I'm not justifying his actions, but if you think we need control of the state you aren't an anarchist.

[Akshay!]

You seem to think we need to take control of the state... If I am not mistaken. I mean, I don't know anything about this guy so I'm not justifying his actions, but if you think we need control of the state you aren't an anarchist.

Obviously the final goal is to abolish the state but to do that we do need to take power at some point. Anything else is a delusion. How else do you intend to fight the capitalists? By creating a garden? Or singing songs?

[Os Cangaceiros]

well I'm not an anarchist, but your listing of "the world cannot be changed through the state" as some kind of wacky quote of Holloway's is kind of bizarre, seeing as how that's a big part of what anarchists have stated throughout the ideology's history...

[Akshay!]

well I'm not an anarchist, but your listing of "the world cannot be changed through the state" as some kind of wacky quote of Holloway's is kind of bizarre, seeing as how that's a big part of what anarchists have stated throughout the ideology's history...

But anarchists, for example in the Spanish revolution, fought for power - he's not even advocating that - that might involve things like violence, things like being in the real world - but nonononono - you need to create a garden! That's communism. Why? It feels good.

Another problem is that he's calling all this nonsense "communism" - not anarchism.. even though, as I've already mentioned, I think it's neither..

[BIXX]

But anarchists, for example in the Spanish revolution, fought for power - he's not even advocating that - that might involve things like violence, things like being in the real world - but nonononono - you need to create a garden! That's communism. Why? It feels good.


You don't fight for the power to control the state- you fight for the power to destroy it. What you seem to be describing is the DOTP, which, while a widely accepted theory, is not an anarchistic theory. Of course, communism (true communism) lead to anarchism, and anarchism to communism, but that doesn't mean all communists are anarchists or all anarchists are communists. It depends on the praxis, and theory of the state's relation to class oppression.

What you are describing is a communist theory, not an anarchist one.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Revolutionary anarchism, though, is hardly about creating gardens and singing. This is the sort of lifestyle "anarchism" that appeals to bored college kids who can't understand revolutionary violence or revolutionary patience.

[Akshay!]

What you are describing is a communist theory, not an anarchist one.

I repeat, he calls this "communism" not anarchism - and it's neither. As Semendyaev mentioned -


Revolutionary anarchism, though, is hardly about creating gardens and singing. This is the sort of lifestyle "anarchism" that appeals to bored college kids who can't understand revolutionary violence or revolutionary patience.


You don't fight for the power to control the state- you fight for the power to destroy it.

So you plan to destroy every single state in the world together in one go - magically? Nice. :lol:

And he even disagrees with you - he doesn't think you should "fight" for anything. As I said, that might involve things like... the real world. According to him, you shouldn't disturb the normal working of this system at all - you should just look for "cracks" and then build your own "communist garden" in it and that's it - you don't need to do anything else. No violence. No revolution. Nothing. It's a perfect philosophy for people who don't want to feel guilty that they're doing NOTHING.

[BIXX]

And he even disagrees with you - he doesn't think you should "fight" for anything. As I said, that might involve things like... the real world. According to him, you shouldn't disturb the normal working of this system at all - you should just look for "cracks" and then build your own "communist garden" in it and that's it - you don't need to do anything else. No violence. No revolution. Nothing. It's a perfect philosophy for people who don't want to feel guilty that they're doing NOTHING.

I was saying that your idea of fighting for the power to control the state is not anarchist. I have no idea about this book as I have not had the time to read it yet.

And no, you don't magically abolish every state all at once despite how nice that would be. But you do not control it- that will just result in a new system of class oppression, under a new name. Instead, you, for example, abolish the state in the US, then another place, then another. But you don't do it through state power. Read the Conquest of Bread, Kropotkin has a very good explanation as to how he feels it should be done. The fact is, once people see how good shit will be without the state, they will abolish it. Even if your revolution isn't necessarily permanent, then others will see and take action. At least, according to anarchist theory.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Another thing that's strange about this thread: the title is "why John Holloway is stupid?", ie it's posed as a question, such as "say chaps, I've heard that this John Holloway fellow is stupid, care explaining why?" Yet the OP seems to have a highly developed opinion of exactly why he thinks John Holloway is stupid...so why the question mark? Why not just "John Holloway is stupid"?

[blake 3:17]

I don't think he's stupid at all. I think he puts forward some issues and problems for the anti capitalist Left that are well worth considering seriously and speak to some basic dilemmas which don't have a solution.

Most of the people I've heard attack any formulation of changing world without taking power have tended to somehow imply that they or their organization or tendency, no matter how marginal, should somehow be running the show.

This comment of Mike Lebowitz's caught my attention a few months back:
And, in turn, the character of “real socialism” contributed to the view of workers in capitalism that socialism was not a desirable alternative. I can recall many arguments about socialism with my father, who was a machinist, and I remember in particular his comment, “Why would I want a bigger, stronger boss?”http://links.org.au/node/3178

People don't want more bosses, or to have to go to more meetings. And at present any Left adversary of Callinicos looks good.

[bricolage]

Nothing. It's a perfect philosophy for people who don't want to feel guilty that they're doing NOTHING.
like I said before, most of john holloway's opinions come from his work with the zapatistas and the people that took most notice of him and read his books were those social movements that were involved in the early 2000s alter-globalisation movement. you can arguments that what they were doing was wrong but it's ridiculous to say that the groups most associated with the book were actually doing nothing.

[Fionnagáin]

I think that John Holloway has a lot of useful stuff to say.

I do not think that Akshay has anything useful to say.

This thread, it is not for me.

[blake 3:17]

I think that John Holloway has a lot of useful stuff to say.

I do not think that Akshay has anything useful to say.

This thread, it is not for me.

I'd appreciate you sharing what you get out of Holloway. I'm interested in his ideas, and get the gist, but am curious about the specifics. This is a collective discussion.

[Fionnagáin]

For me, what's most significant is his emphasis on capitalism as a mode of historical practice, and not simply as an inert structure. By understanding capitalism not as a citadel to be stormed, but as a way of life in which we all participate and which is therefore abolished by the refusal of participation, we can think of class struggle in much more concrete and organic terms, as something occurring in and proceeding from our daily lives rather than from contrived and self-conscious revolutionary politics. It's a nice antinode to the theoretical tendencies of the orthodox radical left, who still insist on thinking in terms of policy, who will identify a static terrain and attempt to draw a route-of-march over the top of it, and for whom class struggle is an impersonal narrative rather than an everyday reality. He carries some of the baggage of the social movements in his aversion to explicit discussions of class, but I think that's a matter of style rather than content, an optimistic attempt to picture us as the humans we might become, rather than the less-than-humans we are. His discussion of communal gardens that so enraged Akshay, for example, is in essence a discussion of working class self-activity, he just takes gardens as an example because gardens are nice, and the world could use more of them.

I read his essay "Stop making capitalism (http://www.johnholloway.com.mx/2011/07/30/stop-making-capitalism/)" when I was first reading into Marxist theory, and it left a big influence on me. It's not a heavy hitter, as theory goes, but it's a well-placed challenge to the preconceptions many of us come bundled with. I'd recommend it.