We are the crisis of capital

John Holloway, author of Change the World Without Taking Power, argues that our response to the global economic crisis should be to create spaces outside of capitalism, not demand that it exploits us better
June 2010

We are the crisis of capital and proud of it. Enough of saying that the capitalists are to blame for the crisis! The very notion is not only absurd but dangerous. It constitutes us as victims.

Capital is a relation of domination. The crisis of capital is a crisis of domination. The dominators are not able to dominate efficiently. And then we go into the streets and tell them that it is their fault! What are we saying, that they should dominate us more effectively?

It is better to take the simpler explanation and say that if the relation of domination is in crisis, it is because the dominated are not prostrating themselves sufficiently. The inadequacy of our subordination is the cause of the crisis.

Faster, faster, faster
This is Marx's argument in his analysis of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall in Capital. The law of value is the rule of faster, faster, faster. The value of a commodity is determined by the labour time socially necessary to produce it, and this is constantly being reduced. To produce value, workers must work faster and faster, or else (or additionally) the same effect can be achieved by the introduction of machinery. If machinery is introduced, workers must in any case work faster and faster to offset the costs of the machinery.

In other words, if the rate of exploitation remains constant, the rate of profit will tend to fall as the organic composition of capital rises, corresponding to the rise in the relative importance of machinery in the process of production. The only way for capital to avoid the fall in the rate of profit is by constantly increasing exploitation.

Exploitation cannot be regarded as something static. There is a constant drive to go faster, a constant transformation of what capitalist labour means. This means not only the intensification of labour in the factories but the ever-increasing subordination of all aspects of life to the logic of capital.

The very existence of capital is a constant turning of the screw. Crisis is quite simply the manifestation of the fact that the screw is not being tightened fast enough. Somewhere it is meeting resistance: resistance on the streets perhaps, organised resistance perhaps, but not necessarily - it may just be the resistance of parents who want to play with their children, lovers who want to spend an extra hour in bed, students who think they can take time to criticise, humans who still dream of being human. We are the crisis of capital, we who do not bow low enough.

In this situation there are really only two solutions. The first is to say sorry, apologise for our lack of subordination and call for more employment: 'More jobs, please exploit us more and we shall work much harder and faster, we shall subordinate every aspect of our lives to capital, we shall forget all this childish nonsense about playing and loving and thinking.' This is the logic of abstract labour, the ineffective logic of the struggle of and by labour against capital.

The problem with this solution is that not only do we lose our humanity but we reproduce the system that is destroying us. If we are successful in helping capital to overcome its crisis, the 'faster-faster-faster' will continue, the subordination of all life, human and non-human, to the requirements of value production will be intensified. And then there will be the next crisis and so on until all humanity (and probably a lot of plant and animal life) is extinguished.

Refusal to bow
The alternative is to abandon the struggle of labour and declare openly that the struggle against capital is inevitably a struggle against labour, against the abstract labour that creates capital, against the faster-faster-faster of value production. In this case, we do not apologise, but rather take pride in our lack of subordination, in our refusal to bow to the capitalist logic of destruction. We are proud to be the crisis of the system that is killing us.

The latter option is more difficult. In capitalism, material survival depends on subordinating ourselves to the logic of capital. If we do not do that, how are we going to live? Without a material foundation, autonomy from capital is very difficult. It seems a logical impossibility, and yet this is the impossibility in which we live, the impossibility with which we constantly grapple.

Every day we try to reconcile our opposition to capital with the need to survive. Some of us do it in a relatively comfortable way, by finding employment (in the universities, for example) that allows us to create spaces in which we can fight against capital while receiving a salary at the same time. Others play for higher stakes, foregoing (by choice or necessity) any form of employment and devoting all their energies to activities that go against and beyond the logic of capital, surviving as best they can, by squatting or by occupying land and cultivating it, or by selling anti-capitalist books, by creating alternative structures of material support, or whatever.

In one way or another, but always in a contradictory manner, we try to create cracks in capitalist domination, spaces or moments in which we live out our dream of being human, spaces or moments in which we say to capital, 'No, here you do not rule: here we shall act and live according to our own decisions, according to what we consider necessary or desirable.'

There is nothing unusual about that. We nearly all do it: not just lefties, not just readers of Red Pepper, but anyone who devotes energy to creating social relations on a different basis, on the basis of love, friendship, solidarity, collaboration, fun. That is our humanity, that is our sanity (or our madness). We all do it all the time, and yet we are always on the brink of failure, on the edge of collapse.

That is in the nature of the struggle: we run counter to the flow of capital. We are never far from despair, but that is where hope lives: next door to despair. This is a world without answers, a world of asking-we-walk, a world of experiment.

Crisis confronts us with these two options. Either we take the highway of subordination to the logic of capital, in the clear knowledge now that this leads directly to the self-annihilation of humanity; or else we take the hazardous paths of inventing different worlds, here and now and through the cracks we create in capitalist domination. And as we invent new worlds, we sing loud and clear that we are the crisis of capital, we are the crisis of the race towards human destruction, and proud of it.

The idea of creating cracks in the domination of capital is developed in John Holloway's new book, Crack Capitalism, published by Pluto Press









John Holloway is professor at the Autonomous University of Puebla in Mexico and author of the influential Change the World Without Taking Power.


 

Building a progressive majority: Left strategy after the Brexit vote

After the EU referendum we are seeing both horror at anti-migrant sentiment and pandering to it, writes Joseph Todd – but only a radical economic offer can carve a way through

Corbynomics can work – once you know that economics is never 'neutral'

Neil Faulkner argues that the biggest barrier to Jeremy Corbyn's rational economic policy is the huge profits the super-rich are making from an irrational one

Ignore the critics, Labour is right to consider a basic income

A universal basic income isn’t something for nothing, but rather a recognition of a right to a meaningful life beyond the needs of the market, writes Andrew Dolan

From the archives: Naomi Klein - why it’s time to show our face

Naomi Klein tells Mat Little how she put into words what so many were feeling – and why it’s time the new movement showed a public face and built coalitions with others on the left (published in issue 79, January 2001)




neuberg 19 January 2012, 04.34

‘The first is to say sorry, apologise for our lack of subordination and call for more employment: ‘More jobs, please exploit us more and we shall work much harder and faster, we shall subordinate every aspect of our lives to capital, we shall forget all this childish nonsense about playing and loving and thinking.’ This is the logic of abstract labour, the ineffective logic of the struggle of and by labour against capital. ‘

This seems hugely reductive. So all labour is, unilaterally, domination? There’s no room for contestation within the labour process, no potential to be found in it or the effort to fight inside it? Labour doesn’t create some of the conditions for a new mode of production? Contesting its current modality inside the process doesn’t create further conditions for the future in the form of workers’ agency and organisation?

Not only does this seem to simplify away the complexity of the capitalist mode of production, it seems to suggest labour is simply, metaphysically, ‘non-contradictory’. It’s just variable capital, and its opposite is external to it.

Capitalism is a hugely complicated formation of relations, concrete individuals, activities and material objects, a social macro-structure that coheres and is sustained on the basic skeleton of the network of means and activities that produce the conditions of life. Individuals’ relation to this network – direct access or otherwise, exclusionary power or otherwise, capacity to utilise and restructure it or not – is where one locates the conditions of the activity of valorisation/exploitation.

To treat that whole formation as the manifestation of a simple essence, a sort of ‘thought’ or syllogism (accumulate!) that functions as an operator on concrete reality, processing it, is to reinstate metaphysics. The capitalist ‘imperative’ is derivative of the structure, not vice versa. It isn’t pure, but exists in admixture with the potential for other kinds of activity that can ‘cancel’ or destroy it.

So are irony, reversals, subversion, tactics and strategy within the labour process really snatched moments of ‘non-labour’? Even when advancing a pay claim, or union recognition, or heaven forfend, labour self-mangagment?

Of course! So why bother going on strike against a pay-freeze when inflation is at 5%? It’s all subordination anyway. Because people’s primary problem isn’t their conditions of life, it’s capitalism’s essential, omnipresent ‘logic’. They can intuit this logic as a sort of affect, the affective experience of the inhumanity of the system, and in response we can counter-pose a counter-affect, the ecstatic feeling of freedom.

But isn’t this halting at the level of experience, without really considering the conditions of experience? What constitutes it? It suggests our handling of the experience can be in a subordinate way or a liberated way, and that opting for the latter will liquidate the system and generate a new mode of production just because. But why must our experience be this way, and why must we handle it in those two ways?

Doesn’t this return us to the thought that there is an underlying structure of conditions for activity, and it is necessary to be mindful of these in action. What is the basis for the availability of the choice of either subordinate or liberated activity as the range of potential options ?

Further, It’s all very well saying labour is subordination, but useful labour is also the material condition for all activities – playing, thinking etc – and the only available way in this mode of production to undertake useful labour to reproduce oneself is through capitalist production.

So, really anti-capitalist activity isn’t exterior to labour and politics, it’s done on the basis of capitalist production, so internal to the capitalist mode of production. It is precisely the class activity of the workers, the proletariat, in the workplace, industry and political field, which they are able to undertake because they subsist.

If that’s the case, then to reduce worker contestation about employment to:
”More jobs, please exploit us more and we shall work much harder and faster, we shall subordinate every aspect of our lives to capital, we shall forget all this childish nonsense about playing and loving and thinking.”

is terrible. Should all those trade unionists go home and not contest having the material conditions of their lives, their activity, reduced? When they voice their opposition to austerity are they really saying the words you put in their mouth? Or is your reductive conceptual scheme really blinding you to the value of fighting against being cast into the surplus population & industrial reserve army? Of securing a wage that means you can pay union dues that can support a strike fund, which can give you the power to hold out against a future employer’s offensive?

Your answer to the question of material subsistence:

‘Every day we try to reconcile our opposition to capital with the need to survive. Some of us do it in a relatively comfortable way, by finding employment (in the universities, for example) that allows us to create spaces in which we can fight against capital while receiving a salary at the same time. Others play for higher stakes, foregoing (by choice or necessity) any form of employment and devoting all their energies to activities that go against and beyond the logic of capital, surviving as best they can, by squatting or by occupying land and cultivating it, or by selling anti-capitalist books, by creating alternative structures of material support, or whatever. ‘

Is, frankly, comically inadequate. The choice is being a university professor who ‘fights against capital’ as a kind of hobby (congratulations Professor Holloway – you’ve theoretically ratified your life!) and a hilariously vague melange of figures, an anticapitalist-squatter-occupier-farmer-bookseller, creator of:

“alternative structures of material support, or whatever.”

Whatever indeed.



Comments are now closed on this article.






Red Pepper · 44-48 Shepherdess Walk, London N1 7JP · +44 (0)20 7324 5068 · office[at]redpepper.org.uk
Advertise · Press · Donate
For subscriptions enquiries please email subs@redpepper.org.uk