Debate between Callinicos and Holloway

[YKTMX]

Thought comrades could watch these youtube videos, and we could discuss what people thought of it, its implications etc.

The video is a debate between Alex Callinicos, a Marxist intellectual and member of the SWP, and John Holloway, also a Marxist intellectual, but of the autonomist variety.

The debate centres around the question of whether "taking power" is a neccessary part of changing the world.

The debate was held at the Marxism event this year and is really very interesting.

This is just part one of the debate, if people are interested they can find the subsequent parts very easily on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2liVjkA30T4

[GPDP]

I read some excerpts of John Holloway's book once, titles "Change the World Without Taking Power". It was rather interesting.

[trivas7]

I heard the first two videos and I must say that Holloway's arguments reminds me of theological discussions of whether and to what extent the Parousia (Christ's second coming) was a future event or an immanent in-breaking of Transcendence occurring in the present. And his saying that perhaps communism is the question and not the answer reminds of all those Ingmar Bergman films where some character longs for the non-existent Deity.

I've lived among anarchists that try to live that post-Revolutionary fantasy world and found it both an exhilarating and frustrating challenge at once. My experience was that I was living both utopia and utter modern angst and disfunction all at once. Perhaps my mental breakdowns (figuratively speaking?) were the price I had to pay for the euphoria.

I've personally found it easy to find the cracks in the system. I took my alienation to heart. I know that I have acted both out of compulsion and instinct, but whether or no I'm the happier for it, I couldn't say.

[BobKKKindle$]

This is not the main subject of the video, but the first speaker argues during his introduction that capitalism is a "disaster for the whole of humanity". This is a statement which needs to be examined carefully, because although it may seem appealing based on the widespread material deprivation that exists in our society and the persistent lack of social equality, it shows a failure to acknowledge capitalism's historic role and the progressive character of the capitalist system. Capitalism has allowed for the rapid development of the productive forces, and so now, for the first time in human history, we have sufficient resources and productive capacity to ensure that everyone can have access to the resources they need to attain material security and develop their abilities. Although the capitalist relations of production distort the production of goods through periodic crises and result in huge inequalities in the distribution of income, it is only because of capitalism, which removed the archaic fetters imposed by feudalism and established the dynamic of capital accumulation, that the possibility of material abundance exists, and the socialist revolution will build on the "achievements" of capitalism by turning this possibility into reality.

Therefore, far from being a "disaster" capitalism is a triumph for humanity.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Um no Bob. This is where reading too many books and selling too many newspapers starts to rot your brain. Capitalism is not a triumph, technology is a triumph. Technological advancement doesn't have to come from a humanitarian disaster. In many ways technology is held way back becuase of the capitalist system. Capitalism is a catastrophe, as way feudalism, slave economies, etc. Let's not blow our load talking about how great capitalism is at building productive capacity, its a waste of time and can only lead to pedantic academic masturbation.

[BobKKKindle$]

Technological advancement doesn't have to come from a humanitarian disaster. In many ways technology is held way back becuase of the capitalist systemTechnological advancement does not occur in isolation from economic relations and institutions - feudalism imposed limits on the extent of technological advancement (by preventing the movement of goods between towns, which restricted the growth of commerce, limiting the mobility of workers etc.) and so the overthrow of feudalism and the emergence of capitalism, based on the competitive accumulation of capital and the production of goods for the purpose of exchange (not direct consumption by the producers) represented a historic advance and allowed for the further development of technology, as shown by the important innovations made during the initial stages of capitalist development, which allowed for the production of more goods and an increase in the standard of living. It can be argued that capitalism is no longer progressive, and capitalist relations now restrict the further development of the productive forces (economic activity is increasingly based on speculative investments, or the production of goods which undermine human existence by damaging the environment) but Marxists should still be conscious of the progressive character of capitalism, compared with the feudal system which preceded capitalism. Marx recognized the historic role of capitalism, and contrasts the bourgeoisie with the feudal aristocracy:


The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.The Communist Manifesto, Bourgeois and Proletarians (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm)

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Technology arises to make the material lives of people better. Capitalism, much like any economic means of control, rests on certain technologies. Feudalism rested on control of the land, and the aristocracy arrested technology that would harm this relationship. The same case applies with capitalists. They research only technology that can help build more shit and make more money. Is this progressive compared to feudalism? I guess. But who fucking cares? This is like saying “My old boss whipped me, but my new boss only paddles me, he’s so progressive and forward thinking!” Just because the cappies harnessed more technology to enforce their rule does not mean that capitalism should be commended as progressive. That’s just pedantic. The human desire to not live in shit is motivation enough to develop greater technological means. Capitalism just so happened to find this desire useful, but only up to a point.

[trivas7]

Technology arises to make the material lives of people better. Capitalism, much like any economic means of control, rests on certain technologies. Feudalism rested on control of the land, and the aristocracy arrested technology that would harm this relationship. The same case applies with capitalists. They research only technology that can help build more shit and make more money. Is this progressive compared to feudalism? I guess. But who fucking cares? This is like saying “My old boss whipped me, but my new boss only paddles me, he’s so progressive and forward thinking!” Just because the cappies harnessed more technology to enforce their rule does not mean that capitalism should be commended as progressive. That’s just pedantic. The human desire to not live in shit is motivation enough to develop greater technological means. Capitalism just so happened to find this desire useful, but only up to a point.
Well, then, you disagree with Marx who had a great appreciation of capitalism and its progressive role in world history. Plenty of workers are perfectly happy with the material improvement they see in their lives compared to their parents or country of origin. There has been a quantitative improvement in the lives of most workers over the long haul despite the fact that more surplus value has been extracted from them.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Well, then, you disagree with Marx who had a great appreciation of capitalism and its progressive role in world history. Plenty of workers are perfectly happy with the material improvement they see in their lives compared to their parents or country of origin. There has been a quantitative improvement in the lives of most workers over the long haul despite the fact that more surplus value has been extracted from them.

Ok I disagree with Marx. I'm an anarchist, I don't care. Capitalism has brought material progress, but such material progress is not something to thank capitalism for. Capitalism happened to need that material progress to fuel itself, just like feudalism needed to stop it to fuel itself. Technological progress will spring forth in any distribution system that promotes it.

[trivas7]

Ok I disagree with Marx. I'm an anarchist, I don't care. Capitalism has brought material progress, but such material progress is not something to thank capitalism for. Capitalism happened to need that material progress to fuel itself, just like feudalism needed to stop it to fuel itself. Technological progress will spring forth in any distribution system that promotes it.
The level of technological innovation is just one of the striking differences that is unique to capitalism. I would hope that this kind of ahistorical reductionism re economic formations isn't typical of anarchist thought.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

The level of technological innovation is just one of the striking differences that is unique to capitalism. I would hope that this kind of ahistorical reductionism re economic formations itn't typical of anarchist thought.

unique? Meh. Would capitalism have ever become a world system if Watt hadn't created the steam engine? Steam power didn't come about becuase of capitalism, it came about becuase the English chopped down all their forests, and needed ever larger quantities of coal. And for that you needed pumps for the mines, pumps which would work continuously. Poof steam power!

Would things have been different if the greeks had a greater material pressure to utilize Heron's steam engine? Would that have jump started capitalism... or something totally different? I don't believe in historical determinism, so I can't say.

[Vanguard1917]

The capitalist system has an intrinsic interest in developing the means of production - an intrinsic interest which previous systems did not have. To cut labour costs and remain profitable, capitalism relies on advances in productive technology. Bobkindles is right: technological change can't be viewed as isolated from underlying material circumstances.

[trivas7]

unique? Meh. Would capitalism have ever become a world system if Watt hadn't created the steam engine? Steam power didn't come about becuase of capitalism, it came about becuase the English chopped down all their forests, and needed ever larger quantities of coal. And for that you needed pumps for the mines, pumps which would work continuously. Poof steam power!

OTC, technological innovation has its source in economic conditions, in the mode of production and exchange historically given for each society at a particular time.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Deary me, what a palaver! Is the glass half empty or is it half full...?

Clearly, at its inception, capitalism was a major advance for humanity (built on rivers of blood, to paraphrase Marx), since it developed the material wherewithall and social organisation to enable humanity to cast it off.

The question is: does it still have the same character, or has it now turned into, or is it turning into, an unmitigated disaster?

The evidence seems to suggest the latter is the case.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

By the way, Callinicos's reply can be found here:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2PhBlELzxmE

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=IdhBsslGfy8&feature=related

[trivas7]

Isn't Holloway's position basically that of the anarchist, i.e., we can hope for revolution, but politics is not the way to get there?

[YKTMX]

Isn't Holloway's position basically that of the anarchist, i.e., we can hope for revolution, but politics is not the way to get there?

I actually think he's saying something more than that. He's saying that in order to achieve a communist society, we need to junk the idea of "the" revolution itself. That is, in always anchoring our behaviour towards a goal that exists at some point in the distant future ("the" revolution), we are abrogating our responsibility to find alternatives to capitalist power now. I think that's what he is saying when he advocates not having a srategy - since strategy is, by neccessity, a series of planned actions directed towards a set goal. Furthermore, I think he's saying that Leninists have too much of an idea of what the revolution will look like, and so we (I consider myself a Leninist) fail to see the "cracks" in the capitalist order now - at least cracks that appear outside the traditional struggles of the working class (strikes etc.).

To be honest, I've read Holloway before and been underwhelmed, but I was moved by his argument here.

[Sam_b]

I was in attendance at this meeting. In all honesty, there was only ever going to be one winner.

The problem with Holloway's argument, very simply, is that if you try to set up autonomous areas, these are doomed to failure. You cannot ignore the state: the state will ultimately crush these areas as they are not in the interests of the ruling class.

[YKTMX]

I was in attendance at this meeting. In all honesty, there was only ever going to be one winner.

The problem with Holloway's argument, very simply, is that if you try to set up autonomous areas, these are doomed to failure. You cannot ignore the state: the state will ultimately crush these areas as they are not in the interests of the ruling class.

I've heard this argument before but doesn't it all sound a bit defeatist to you? And aren't there MORE examples now of the kind of actions Mr. Holloway is proposing than the kind of actions "we're proposing". I mean, from the Zapatistas, to the anti-globalization movement, to the movements of occupation in Argentina, to the attack on "copyright", the trend seems to be towards these "cracks" he talks about. Whereas the kind of actions we'd like to see - mass workers' movements and mass political parties - seem to be less successful at the moment.

The point being that our argument has to be a bit more substantial than "it'll never work". I mean, in Chiapas, it does work (not that I'm denying the problems/contraditions in Zapatisism).

[trivas7]

I actually think he's saying something more than that. He's saying that in order to achieve a communist society, we need to junk the idea of "the" revolution itself. That is, in always anchoring our behaviour towards a goal that exists at some point in the distant future ("the" revolution), we are abrogating our responsibility to find alternatives to capitalist power now.
And this differs from anarchism how exactly?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

And this differs from anarchism how exactly?

Autonomous spaces don't last very long, and are extremely tenuous. Anarchist may endorse them to some degree but we know that eventually there's a critical mass where we must annihilate the state and capitalism.

[YKTMX]

And this differs from anarchism how exactly?


Holloway proposes "taking flight" from the centres of capitalist power, anarchism proposes confronting them directly. The two things are almost opposites.

I think you might be confusing "anarchism" (a political doctrine that aims to eliminate the state in all its forms) with the creation of small-scale, collectivist communities within capitalism organized along "anarchist" lines.

Holloway claims that any political action that is self-conscious in the sense that it's taken in pursuit of a future goal is mistaken. He argues that "strategies" (be they anarchist or Leninist) are errors in themself. He argues for an approach that stresses the importance of the inner lives of the movements so that means determine ends, ends don't determine means.

This seems certainly to be influenced by some anarchist theory, and also by Marxist theory but I can't at all see how they're the "same thing", like you seem to be claiming.

Perhaps you have a different interpretation?

[trivas7]

Autonomous spaces don't last very long, and are extremely tenuous. Anarchist may endorse them to some degree but we know that eventually there's a critical mass where we must annihilate the state and capitalism.
I frankly don't know what you're referring to. Holloway doesn't mention autonomous spaces AFAIK.

Holloway proposes "taking flight" from the centres of capitalist power, anarchism proposes confronting them directly. The two things are almost opposites.

Where does Holloway say this? How does anarchism confront centres of capitalist power exactly? Perhaps I'm missing something.