John Holloway

El conjunto de trabajos contenidos en el presente libro, producidos entre el 2006 y el 2013, constituyen una provocativa propuesta discursiva desde la cual reconstruir críticamente al Derecho actual y repensarlo o, mejor aún, traspasarlo desde ese sentido alternativo de normatividad societal que se va desplegando por doquier más allá de los límites impuestos por la forma-jurídica y el modo estadocéntrico de regulación social.

Dinerstein offers a much-needed critical review of the concept and practice of autonomy. Defining autonomy as either revolutionary or ineffective vis-à-vis the state does not fully grasp the commitment of Latin American movements to the creation of alternative practices and horizons beyond capitalism, patriarchy and coloniality. By establishing an elective affinity between autonomy and Bloch’s principle of hope, Dinerstein defines autonomy as ‘the art of organizing hope’, that is, the art of shaping a reality which is not yet but can be anticipated by the movements’ collective actions. Drawing from the experience of four prominent indigenous and non-indigenous urban and rural movements, Dinerstein suggests that the politics of autonomy is a struggle that simultaneously negates, creates, deals with contradictions and, above all, produces an excess beyond demarcation that cannot be translated into the grammar of power. Reading Marx’s method in key of hope, the book offers a prefigurative critique of political economy and emphasises the prefigurative features of indigenous and non indigenous autonomies at a time when utopia can no longer be objected.

(A könyv Tartalomjegyzéke, Az új globális konfliktus (1-22.) és A falak politikája (161-177.) című fejezete, valamint a Felhasznált irodalom)



Amikor politikáról gondolkodunk, akkor általában a szegények és gazdagok, a hatalom és a nép, az erősek és gyengék, a tőkések és a munkások közötti hagyományos szembenállásokból indulunk ki. A könyv fő tézise szerint azonban teljesen más megközelítésre van szükségünk, amennyiben a következő évtizedek közéleti eseményeit várhatóan a rendszerek nyújtotta előnyökön belül lévők és az azokon kívül rekedtek küzdelmei határozzák majd meg.

Az új globális konfliktus megjelenésére utalnak a világszerte épülő falak és kerítések éppúgy, mint az egymást érő migrációs hullámok útjában magasodó szögesdrótok, a koronavírus idején lezáruló határok és karanténok, vagy a Brexit, az EU bővítés felfüggesztése és a nemzetállami nosztalgia felerősödése.

A változás hátterében a posztmodern kapitalizmus éleződő ellentmondásai állnak. A szerző bemutatja, hogy a tőke miképpen szabdalja gazdasági, társadalmi és kulturális zónákra a Földet és hogyan emelkednek ki a most kialakuló kulturális kapitalizmus oázisai a globalizáció sivatagából. Ezekkel a folyamatokkal összefüggésben elemzi többek között a jelen szorongó és konzervatív korszellemét, a populizmus veszélyeit vagy magyar politikai elit versengését. Kiemelten foglalkozik a 21. század radikális-forradalmi baloldali mozgalmainak esélyeivel – különös tekintettel az autonomista, feminista és ökológiai irányzatokra. A kötet a politikaelmélet és a kultúrkritika nézőpontjának eredeti egyesítési kísérlete, amely alapos szembenézésre sarkallja olvasóját.

This is an author-produced pre-publication PDF of a chapter accepted for publication
on the 13t of March 2017
The citation for the accepted version should be as follows:
Dinerstein, A. C., 2017. ‘John Holloway. The Theory of Interstitial Revolution’. In The SAGE Handbook of
Frankfurt School Critical Theory, edited by Beverley Best, Werner Bonefeld and Chris O’Kane
(in press)

John Holloway’s work spans over four decades of intellectual development and commitment to radical change. Holloway develops his ideas through ongoing dialogues, conversations, debates and discussions with both Marxists and radical scholars and students, and social movements and activists, worldwide. His work developed within the context of the Conference of Socialist Economists (CSE) and was foundational for the establishment of Open Marxism (OM). The chapter focuses on Holloway’s theory of interstitial revolution which, paraphrasing Holloway,
has produced a ‘crack’ in Marxist praxis. I start with an account of Holloway’s life and intellectual trajectory. Then,
I discuss his theory of interstitial revolution, presented in his two books Change the World Without Taking Power.
The meaning of revolution today (CTWWTP) (2002) and Crack Capitalism

F*ck May 68, Fight Now: Exploring the Uses of the Radical Past from 1968 to Today

Session 1: History is a Weapon

June 8, 2018

Department of History, University of Liverpool

https://archive.discoversociety.org/2018/09/04/circumnavigating-the-past-foreclosing-the-future-commemoration-of-the-radical-past-in-the-amnesiac-present/

"To what extent is it possible to situate Hardt and Negri’s thought? Are they best regarded as ‘anarchists’, ‘socialists’, ‘communists’, ‘marxists’, ‘leninists’, ‘postmarxists’ or ‘postanarchists’?  Answering this question is no mere intellectual exercise. As Wittgenstein once remarked, ‘words are deeds’. On the radical left, much blood has been spilt through those deeds, careers ended and reputations shattered. Of course, today a great deal is made of the claim that we live in ‘postideological' times, ‘new times’ where ‘class struggle’ does not have the importance it once had; postmodern times, where meanings and identities are constantly subject to the contestation of ‘discourse’. Now, while the costs of labelling are not what they once were, there are still costs. Labelling instigates a kind of ‘symbolic violence’ over discursive space. Rival ideologies are constructed as ‘straw men’, as ‘crude’, ‘naïve’, as ‘elitist’ or ‘authoritarian’ etc. This process neglects any philosophical sophistication, common ground, or indeed the interpenetration of ‘rival ideologies.’ One danger of labelling is that we move beyond healthy criticism to a desire to relegate our theoretical interlocutors to the status of the ‘other’. Accordingly, they become an opponent we seek to dismiss, in order to give positive identity to ourselves, rather than a potential ally in the struggle against the exploitative mechanisms of global capitalism. Where labelling is also connected with the construction of orthodoxies, it can lead to what Skinner has termed a ‘mythology of coherence’ (and of incoherence) produced often by those wishing to defend the integrity of their specific ideological projects.   
While seeking to avoid the excesses of such ‘symbolic violence’, this chapter aims to locate Hardt and Negri’s work within the cross-cutting currents of modern socialism, and crucially to understand the labelling strategies which they themselves deploy in the field of revolutionary politics.  Why specifically, do they find it necessary to reject the label of ‘anarchism’? Why do they make often rather cryptic reference to ‘leninism’? What game are they playing, and why do they feel a need to play it? What are their intentions? How can we read Hardt and Negri?  Antonio Negri has paid a higher price than most in the struggle against global capitalism and we can learn a great deal both from his work and activism. That said, in what follows I will subject his work – along with Michael Hardt’s – to a robust critique, drawing on marxist, anarchist, postmarxist, and postanarchist thinking, so as to assess the cogency of their arguments in the context of radical politics today. 
"

Bu küçük kitap, dünyayı değiştirme mücadelesi için iyimser bir ufuk çiziyor. Kapitalizmin ve sermayenin “lüzumsuzluğunu” bilmenin büyük güveniyle… İnsan haysiyetinin çiğnenmesine isyan ederek… Sistemde çatlaklar açarak… Peşin “biliyoruz”larla değil, sorgulayarak ilerlenecek bir yol…

Zapatista hareketinin özgün yorumcusu olarak da bilinen John Holloway’in fikirlerini öğrencilere ve eylemcilere anlattığı, onların sorularını yanıtladığı, heyecanlı bir teorik-politik gezinti.

“Holloway’in Marksizmi, devlet türetmeciliğinin, otonom geleneğin, eleştirel kuramın ve Zapatista hareketinden gelen içgörülerin yaratıcı ve özgün bir bileşimidir.”

Andrej Grubacic

Why Marxism? Why Marxist educational theory? Through addressing these questions, this paper proclaims the importance of Marxism as a theory that intellectually disrupts and ruptures capitalist society and its educational forms. With reference to the work of John Holloway, it is argued that the significance of Marxism resides in its capacity to pinpoint fragilities and weaknesses in the constitution of capital. Grasping these fragilities in the rule of capital in contemporary social life sharpens the critical edge of any politics aimed at social transformation. Marxist educational theory plays an important role in this enterprise. These points are illustrated through consideration of the following ideas and phenomena: fragility, crisis, critique, negativity and social form(s). It is argued that fragility must be the starting point as Marxism is primarily a theory of capitalist weaknesses, and not the opposite: a theory of capitalist domination. Following Holloway, Marxism is a theory against society, rather than just another mainstream theory of society. Against Holloway, it is argued that the forms that fragilities for labour take also need to be understood. Paradoxically, our strength vis-à-vis capital is also the place for apprehending the fragilities and dependencies of labour. This vicious duality also exists in terms of crises in capitalism, and this flows into the phenomena of critique and negativity too. Finally, on the basis of this theorisation, the doors of capitalist hell are opened through a consideration of social forms in general and commodity forms in particular and their relations to educational processes and institutions. It is at this point that Marxist educational theory enters the stage, although in a transfigured form. In 1997, I wrote an article for the British Journal of Sociology of Education called ‘Scorched Earth: Prelude to Rebuilding Marxist Educational Theory’. Twenty-one years later, this paper can be viewed as my definitive first element in a programme of rebuilding Marxist educational theory.

Article based on paper presented as part of Panel 24: ‘Looting, Refusing, Negating, Embodying’ ‘Critical Refusals’ Fourth Biennal Conference of the International Herbert Marcuse Society, University of Pennsylvania, 27-29th October 2011

http://www.pdcnet.org/radphilrev/content/radphilrev_2013_0016_0001_0375_0385

http://web.asc.upenn.edu/news/Critical_Refusals_Conference.pdf

This paper explores some contemporary issues and challenges facing those working in Adult and Higher Education and possible responses:
- contexts and critiques of the ongoing neoliberalisation of both university and wider society
- possible responses rooted in critical educational theories speaking to the need for educations for eco-social justice

Edited version of published paper presented at 'Is Black and Red Dead?' Conference, Centre for the Study of Social and Global and Justice (CSSGJ) University of Nottingham, 7-8 September, 2009

https://socialhistoryportal.org/news/articles/110943

RESUMEN La obra de John Holloway abarca cuatro décadas de desarrollo intelectual y compromiso con el cambio radical. Su trabajo se desarrolló en el contexto de la Conferencia de los Economistas Socialistas y fue fundamental para la crea-ción del Marxismo Abierto. Este artículo presenta lo que voy a denominar la teoría de la revolución intersticial la cual, parafraseando a Holloway, produjo una "grieta" en las teorías y praxis marxistas, autónomas y radicales. Comien-zo con un relato de la vida y la trayectoria intelectual de John Holloway para marcar los caminos a través de los cuales se comienza a articular esta teoría crítica, a través de un trabajo de años. Luego discuto su "teoría de la revolu-ción intersticial". Concluyo que el trabajo de Holloway es pionero tanto para la teoría crítica como para la praxis anticapitalista. Palabras clave: teoría crítica, revolución, Holloway.

ABSTRACT John Holloway's work spans over four decades of intellectual development and commitment to radical change. Holloway develops his ideas through ongoing dialogues, conversations, debates and discussions with both Marxists and radical scholars and students, and social movements and activists, worldwide. His work developed within the context of the xism. The chapter focuses on Holloway’s theory of interstitial revolution which, paraphrasing Holloway, has produced a ‘crack’ in Marxist praxis. I start with an account of Holloway’s life and intellectual trajectory. Then, I discuss his theory of interstitial revolution. I conclude that for critical theory as a critique of capital, Holloway’s work is groundbreaking.
Keywords: critical theory, revolution, Holloway.

In this working paper, I trace the mutations in political subjectivation in Greece through three important moments in the latest cycle of mobilisation: the December 2008 revolt, the square occupations of 2011, and the referendum of 2015. In all these events, political time was condensed, bringing forth different, overlapping but divergent, contentious imaginaries. First, in December 2008, a complete absence of demands and the dissolution of all insurgent identities into a collective and peculiar “we” signified a break not only with the political establishment, but also with the accepted forms of political struggle and dissidence. I examine this event in reference to John Holloway’s non-identitarian political philosophy. Second, like in many other countries at that time, the Greek squares in 2011 were constituted as a network of porous, open-ended and self-organised processes, as an ongoing negotiation to give content and meaning to the occupied urban space. I approach this event as an example of the politics of inclusion and multiplicity propounded by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. Lastly, the collapse of the traditional two-party system under the weight of austerity politics gave rise to a new hegemonic party, Syriza, which created an antagonistic frontier between the people and the elites, and attempted to represent the diverse aspirations and demands of the former, condensed in the empty signifier of hope. Here I mobilise Ernesto Laclau’s discourse theory, approaching the crisis as a large-scale dislocation which allowed a new hegemonic power to emerge out of a chain of equivalences, all those who suffer under austerity. In all three cases, the focus is on the processes of subjectivation. By juxtaposing Holloway’s self-negating proletariat, Hardt and Negri’s diverse multitude and Laclau’s hegemonic people, I propose a tentative framework for understanding the development of social struggles in Greece from the viewpoint of the collective subject, with the aim of linking this discussion back to the debates within the social movements.

Este artículo recorre la concepción de tres corrientes dentro del mainstream de la Sociología del Trabajo sobre la categoría trabajo. Se aborda la escuela regulacionista francesa, así como los catedráticos Juan José Castillo de España y Enrique de la Garza Toledo de México. Se explica que estos enfoques sostienen una mirada transhistórica y ontologizada del trabajo. Asimismo, se presentan tres líneas desde el interior del marxismo, las cuales pusieron el eje en la constitución desigual del trabajo capitalista, constituyendo una economía política del trabajo. Por último, se reconstruye la categoría de trabajo desde la teoría crítica, presentándolo como una expresión del antagonismo de clase.

The Party is once again the subject of sustained discussion among academics and popular movements. Jodi Dean’s most recent book, Crowds and Party, is an attempt to re-think the party form for contemporary politics after the experiences and lessons of Occupy. Crowds and Party is engaging and interesting, but falls short when it attempts to intervene in important strategic debates about organisational structure and seizing capitalist state power. In her attempts to defend the party form, she explicitly rejects three central emancipatory components of Marxism: the commitment to a future society collectively ruled by the associated producers; the commitment to a future society which does away with the hierarchical division of labour; and the commitment to working class self-emancipation.

Marx ve Kooperatifçilik

Karl Marx, partisinin en önemli metinlerinden biri olan, 1850 Mart’ında yayınlanan, Kuruluş “Çağrısı’’nda kapitalizmin proletaryanın mutlak yoksullaşmasına değil göreli yoksullaşmaya doğru bir eğilim olduğunu ifade etmekteydi. “Çağrı” Britanya sermaye sınıfına karşı proletaryanın iki önemli zafer elde ettiğini ilan etmişti. Bu zaferlerden ilki işçilerin çalışma sürelerini sınırlandıran On Saat Yasası’nın İngiliz parlamentosunda kabul edilmesiydi.  İkinci zafer ise Robert Owen’ın öncülüğündeki kooperatif hareketinin zaferiydi. Bu kooperatif deneyimi tüm eksikliklerine rağmen ortaklaşa emeğin kölelik ve ücretli emek karşısındaki üstünlüğünü net bir şekilde ortaya koymuştu. Keza Marx o günkü deneyimlerin ortaklaşa emeğin “yığınları özgürleştirmesi” için “ulusal boyutta geliştirilmesi ve dolayısıyla ulusal araçlarla desteklenmesi” gerektiğini ifade etmişti. Bununla birlikte, burjuva devletin ulusal kooperatifleşmenin önüne koyacağı engelleri işçilerin ancak ulusal sınırları aşarak birleşmesi ve siyasal iktidarı ele geçirmesiyle aşabileceğinin vurgusunu da yapmıştı Marx.

Kooperatifçilik ve Devrim
Bernstein ve Luxembourg tartışması

Revizyonizmin kurucusu Eduard Bernstein’in yazılarına cevap vermek için kaleme aldığı Reform mu Devrim mi? kitabında Rosa Luxemburg, Bernstein’ın kooperatifleri sosyalizmin gerçekleşeceği iki yoldan biri-diğeri sendikacılıktır-  olarak görmesi karşısında kooperatifçilik meselesine de bir başlık ayırmıştı. Luxemburg’a göre kooperatifler ve özellikle üretim kooperatifleri kapitalizmin ortasında melez bir form oluşturur ve kapitalist mübadele içindeki küçük sosyalistleşmiş üretim birimleri olarak tanımlanabilirler. Ona göre kapitalist ekonomi içinde sermaye çıkarları için yoğun sömürü koşullarında üretim yapan işletmelerle rekabet etmek işçi kooperatiflerini birtakım çelişkilere iter. İşçiler hem kendi çalışma koşullarını iyileştirmek, hem de kapitalist girişimci rolünü oynamak zorunda kalır. Bu çelişki de işçi kooperatiflerinin sonu olur, bu kooperatifler ya yeniden kapitalist gelişime dönüşürler ya da işçi çıkarları ağır geldiği durumlarda dağılırlar. Üretim kooperatiflerinin kapitalist üretim içindeki üretim biçimiyle mübadele biçimi arasındaki bu çelişkiyi ortadan kaldırıp yaşamını sürdürebilmesinde ancak tüketim kooperatifleri destek olabilir. Ama tüketici ve üretici kooperatifleri sermaye üretiminin en önemli dallarının- tekstil, madencilik, metalurji ve petrol endüstrileri, makine, lokomotif ve gemi yapımı- dışında olup neredeyse gıda alanıyla sınırlandığı için tek başına, genel bir toplumsal dönüşümün aracı olamaz.  Çünkü mücadele üretim sermayesine karşı savaştan, yani kapitalist ekonominin temeline karşı savaştan, ticaret sermayesine, küçük ve orta ticaret sermayesine karşı, yani kapitalizmin küçük unsurlarına karşı savaşa indirgenir. 

Lenin ve Kooperatifçilik Üzerine

Lenin Ekim Devrimi sonrasında ve NEP’in (Yeni Ekonomi Politikaları) uygulama koyulması sonrasında kaleme aldığı Kooperatifçilik Üzerine yazısında politik iktidarın ve üretim araçlarının işçi sınıfının eline geçmesinden sonra en önemli işin halkı kooperatif kolektiflerinde örgütlemek olarak tanımlamıştır. Halkın kooperatiflerde örgütlenmesiyle sosyalizm hedefine ulaşacaktır. Kooperatifler “sosyalist toplumun kuruluşunun bizzat kendisi değildir; ama bunun için gerekli ve yeterli olandır.” Lenin açısından kooperatiflerin önemi iki şeyden kaynaklanmaktadır. İlki üretim araçlarının devletin elinde bulunması, ikincisi de “köylüler açısından en basit en kolay ve en benimsenebilir” yol olması. Bu sebeple kooperatiflere bir dizi ekonomik, mali ve bankacılık konusunda ayrıcalık tanınmalı ve halk kooperatiflere katılmasının yararlarını göreceği şekilde “aydın” konuma yükseltilmelidir. Çünkü üretim araçlarının toplumsal mülkiyeti sağlandığında “çağdaş kooperatif sistemi bir sosyalizm sistemi olacaktır”. 

Holloway vs Harvey

Yukarıda gördüğümüz gibi Lenin üretim araçlarının işçi sınıfına geçtiği bir aşamada, devrim sonrasında kooperatifçiliğin muazzam önemine dikkat çekmektedir. Peki kooperatifçilik devrimci bir dönüşümü mümkün kılabilir mi? Zapatista deneyimleri üzerine yoğunlaşan John Holloway’e göre devrimi ancak kapitalist tahakküm içerisindeki çatlakların genişletilmesi ve çoğaltılması üzerinden düşünülebilir. Bu çatlaklar da hiyerarşik olmayan, yereldeki otonom faaliyetler, fabrika işgalleri, kooperatifler gibi özyönetimci hareket ve gruplarla mümkün kılınabilir.  David Harvey ise işçi özyönetimi, dayanışma ekonomileri, yerel ticaret sistemleri yoluyla sistemi değiştirme girişimlerinin küresel ölçekte kapitalizm karşıtı çözümler üretmede başarısız olduğunu ifade etmektedir. Bu tür deneyimlerin başarısız olma nedeni ise Harvey’e göre çok basittir: Kapitalist dünyada varlığını sürdüren bütün işletmeler ‘rekabetin zorunlu yasaları’na tabidirler. Rakipleri kendilerine benzer bir ürünü çok daha düşük fiyata satarsa bu kooperatifler ya iflas ederler ya da verimliliği artırmaya veya üretim maliyetlerini düşürmeye, yani emek, ara mal ve ham madde maliyetini azaltmaya çalışırlar. Böylece bu yapılar kapitalist rakiplerini taklit ederler. Hatta, işçiler “en az sermaye tarafından dayatılan kadar ezici bir kolektif öz-sömürü durumuna” düşebilirler. Harvey’e göre işçi denetimine veya kolektif üretim ve tüketime dayanan bu tür deneyimlerin kapitalist değer yasasının dünya genelindeki işleyişine karşı çıkabilmesi için “makro-iktisadi ilişkiler hakkında teorik bir kavrayış”a sahip olmakla birlikte “farklı bir tür teknik ve örgütsel gelişkinlik düzeyi”ne ulaşması gerekmektedir.  Oysa kapitalist pazarlara bağımlılık ilişkisinden tamamen kopup kendi alternatif dünyasını yaratabilmesi için gelişkin üretim araçlarını elinde bulundurması, A’dan Z’ye her bakımdan kendi kendisine yetebilmesi gerekmektedir. Bu ise dünya genelinde siyasi bir hâkimiyet kurmadan pek mümkün görünmemektedir.

En el seno de la tradición marxista existen corrientes que, asumiendo la existencia de una presunta escisión entre las determinaciones «cuantitativas» y «cualitativas» de El capital, relega o desecha las primeras para centrarse en las segundas. La crítica de las categorías introducidas en la sección primera, tales como el valor, el trabajo abstracto o el «fetichismo de la mercancía», asume un papel central; mientras que el desarrollo de otras como la plusvalía o el propio capital queda en un segundo plano. Dado que la atención de los autores acaba por focalizarse en la circulación mercantil, aquello que hace de la clase obrera el sujeto revolucionario, esto es, su situación en la producción, pasa desapercibido o es directamente negado. Este es el camino que lleva a autores como J. Holloway o T. Negri a amalgamar la clase obrera con otros grupos sociales para formar el sujeto, o a otros como M. Postone, R. Kurz o A. Jappe a rechazar de plano cualquier potencialidad revolucionaria de esta clase social. Frente a estos planteamientos, se apuesta por articular —de una manera que no puede ser sino dialéctica— las diferentes determinaciones presentes en la crítica de la economía política para reconocer a la clase obrera en el lugar donde el capital la sitúa: en la negatividad respecto de sí mismo. A este punto tan solo se puede llegar a través de la aprehensión sistemática del modo de producción capitalista en su unidad, y no del examen de uno u otro de sus momentos. En este sentido, la obra de Marx da indicaciones certeras pero debe ser complementada y criticada a la luz del método que él mismo legó, a saber, la comprensión de lo concreto mediante sus determinaciones.

Verschiedenste Ansätze innerhalb des Marxismus versuchen das „Dilemma der dringlichen
Unmöglichkeit der Revolution“
zu lösen, indem sie die revolutionstheoretischen Konsequenzen einer
Form- und Fetischtheorie des Sozialen als ‚Pessimismus‘, ‚Strukturalismus‘, ‚Hermetik‘,
‚Funktionalismus‘ oder ‚Ökonomismus‘ kritisieren. In jeweils unterschiedlicher Intensität und aus
unterschiedlichen geistesgeschichtlichen Traditionen heraus werden ‚Praxis‘ gegen ‚Struktur‘,
‚Kampf‘ gegen ‚Integration‘, ‚Widerspruch‘ gegen ‚Identität‘, ‚Symbolisches‘ gegen ‚Ökonomisches‘,
‚konjunkturelle Dichte‘ gegen ‚systemische Grenze‘ ins Feld geführt. Das Spektrum reicht dabei vom
klassischen Operaismus bis zum ‚Postmarxismus‘ von Ernesto Laclau und Chantal Mouffe.

Debates within critical educational theory and its relation to capitalism have often been heavily influenced by the tradition of critical social theory. For instance, Jürgen Habermas' (1984; 1987) communicative action approach has proven to be a valuable theory that combines both analytical considerations regarding the conflict between the 'lifeworld' and 'system', and a decisively normative theory for deliberative and democratic discourse. However, Habermas' communicative action is not without problems, as a critical linguistic approach may prove. As such, in this paper I attempt to analyse the issues of communicative action in the context of anti-capitalist discourse and debate within and about higher education. To do this, I first outline Habermas' (1984) and Fleming's (2008) theories on the colonization of higher education, followed by a critique by means of Wittgenstein's (1968) philosophy of language. As such, I argue that, in order to decolonize higher education from the logic of capital, we must reflect upon the language-games used when speaking about education.

https://blog.apaonline.org/2017/12/20/negativity-and-democracy-marxism-and-the-critical-theory-tradition/

https://www.amazon.com/Negativity-Democracy-Tradition-Routledge-Democratic/dp/1138886467/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1484675447&sr=8-1&keywords=vasilis+grollios

Στο παρόν άρθρο ασχολούμαι με τη συλλογική δράση των «αγανακτισμένων» της Πλατείας Συντάγματος. Το ενδιαφέρον μου εστιάζει στον προσδιορισμό των επαναστατικών υποκειμένων και κατ’ επέκταση στον εντοπισμό της έκφρασης ενός επαναστατικού πράττειν. Στην προσπάθειά μου να κινηθώ ανάμεσα στο «πλήθος» και την εργατική τάξη, θα αρνηθώ να «ταξι-νομήσω» τους συλλογικούς
δρώντες. Εκφράζοντας, έτσι, τη θέση ότι το επαναστατικό υποκείμενο βρίσκεται σε μια συνεχή διαδικασία συγκρότησης και επανασυγκρότησης. Τέλος, θα εμβολιάσω αυτόν τον μη-ορισμό με τις πρακτικές των υποκειμένων καταλήγοντας στην κεντρική θέση: οι συλλογικοί δρώντες συνθέτουν επαναστατημένα υποκείμενα, καθώς πραγματώνουν στο εδώ-και-τώρα έναν διαφορετικό κόσμο.

Este artículo es una introducción de sólo dos de las principales, y altamente controversiales, visiones anticapitalistas contemporáneas: el Marxismo Abierto, de origen
anglosajón, y el Autonomismo, de origen italiano. Por cuestiones de espacio, me centro en John Holloway Antonio Negri, en tanto que son unos de los mayores exponentes de estas dos vertientes.

"DANIEL CUNHA, na sequência, resenha o novo livro de John Holloway, Fissurar o capitalismo. O autor procura mostrar os eixos de sua  teoria, seus pontos fortes e limitações. Como diz o título, Em busca do sujeito perdido, o livro é apresentado como uma tentativa de reinterpretação de um conceito central na obra marxiana – o duplo caráter do trabalho – para redefinir o sujeito. O confronto com outros autores da crítica do valor problematiza questões teóricas importantes." (Do editorial da Sinal de Menos #10)

""This article offers a comprehensive review of John Holloway’s Crack Capitalism by situating it within the wider body of his work spanning the last two decades. The article reflects on the significance of Holloway's argument that revolution must be conceived as an interstitial process, suggesting that this latest volume offers both a more grounded analysis of capitalism and an exploration of the poetry of ‘cracks’
that rupture the capitalist ‘synthesis’. Holloway effectively articulates Adorno’s
negative dialectics with Bloch’s principle of hope, pointing pointing to the necessity of
rejecting what-is and opening outwards to what-is-not-yet.""

Début : Loin de tirer des plans sur la comète, nullement futurologue, André Gorz a fondé son « utopie concrète » sur les possibilités de réalisation qu’offrait, sous ses yeux, notre monde en crise. Cette première biographie intellectuelle a cependant donné lieu à des jugements émerveillés qualifiant André Gorz de « visionnaire » et « décroissant précoce » (Le Magazine littéraire), de « clairvoyant précurseur » (Le Canard enchaîné) ou encore de « prophète de l’écologie et du temps libéré » (Les Inrockuptibles). Il fallait comprendre, rien de moins, que « le penseur de gauche idéal a existé » (L’Obs) et donc se demander si l’on n’avait pas découvert en cet écologiste sans concession, qui assurément « avait tout compris » (Télérama), « le grand penseur du xxie siècle » (Socialter)...

Dinerstein re-evaluates the place of the theoretical and of critical theory in today's praxis. By pointing to the sphere of social reproduction as the 'site' of both new forms of class struggle and the renewal of critical theory, Dinerstein argues that critical theory today should be based on Bloch's philosophy of hope. Despite the critical theorist's fear of the positivisation of social struggles, Dinerstein argues that the fight against Barbarism is not only possible but already exists in the form of struggles for alternative forms of life. In a context of crisis of the social reproduction, these struggles cannot not be regarded as positive: they are critical affirmations that affirm life as a form of negating a totality of destruction in a 'contradictory' manner (see Gun 1994). To her, while Adorno's negative dialectics remarkably prevents dialectical closure of the capitalist totality from taking place theoretically, negative dialectics cannot open onto a 'world with Front' in practice. And this is what is needed today.

En este breve capítulo pretendo rastrear las mutaciones en los procesos de subjetivación política en Grecia en la última década a través del análisis de tres momentos importantes en los que el tiempo político se vio condensado: la Revuelta de diciembre de 2008, la ocupación de las plazas en 2011, y el referéndum de 2015, poniendo el foco sobre diversos imaginarios en contienda, superpuestos pero divergentes. Yuxtaponiendo el proletariado auto-negante de Holloway, la multitud diversa de Hardt y Negri, y el pueblo
hegemónico de Laclau, propongo un marco conceptual tentativo para comprender el desarrollo de las luchas sociales desde el punto de vista del sujeto colectivo, con el objetivo de vincular dicho desarrollo a los debates al interior de los movimientos sociales.

The article revisits the Conference of Socialist Economists (CSE) debate on the national state and the global economy, and concludes with an appeal to internationalism. Its purpose is to introduce this debate to a new readership. Contemporary analyses of globalisation and the state tackle issues that were of key importance to this debate—yet the specific critical insights that the CSE debate brought to the fore are lost in a world in which ideology is in the process of producing itself. The article argues that regardless of fashion, these insights are as relevant now as they were then.

“Bütün dünyada bir öfke kol geziyor. (…) Haklı, çok haklı bir öfke bu! Gelgelelim yanlış bir yere yöneliyor. Dahası, eğer bu öfkeyi doğru hedeflere yöneltemezsek hepimizi yok edecek. (…) Bu öfkenin özünde umut var: Her şeyin daha iyi olabileceğine, geçmişin geri dönebileceğine, barışın yeniden sağlanabileceğine ve bir gün her şeyin yerli yerine oturabileceğine dair bir umut. Ne var ki bu umut tam aksinin şeklini alıyor: Zenginlerin gücünü katlıyor; dünyayı daha şiddet dolu, yaşamak için daha beter bir yer haline getiriyor. Faşistler ve köktendinciler de öfkeli, onlar da çocukları için kendilerince daha iyi bir dünya yaratmak istiyor; yine de öfkelerini boşaltma biçimleri tam aksi yönde bir etki yaratıyor. (…) Öfkeyi sermayenin iktidarına, paranın hükümranlığına duyulan bir öfkeye dönüştürebilir miyiz yeniden?” Dünyanın bütün “aşağıdakileri” arasında kol gezen öfke, nasıl gerçek demokrasiye doğru bir yol açabilir? Bu öfke, nasıl, “doğru” bir dava için güç toplamayı sağlayabilir?

Bu sorulara cevap ararken, paraya odaklanıyor elinizdeki politik çözümleme. Paranın egemenliğine, paranın kendini değişmez, ebedî bir gerçeklik ve “her şey” gibi kabul ettirmesine isyan ediyor. Paranın, toplumsal ilişkileri zehirleyen bir saldırganlık biçimi olduğunu gösteriyor. Hayatın parasallaştırılmasının insaniyetimizi nasıl “bozduğunu” bir defa daha hatırlatıyor.


John Holloway’in Leeds Üniversitesi’nde verdiği bir dizi derse dayanan metin, öğrencilere hitap etmenin etkililiğiyle ve heyecanıyla akıyor. Dünyayı değiştirme azminin enerji kaynaklarına inen, küçük ve tutkulu
bir söylev...