‘Open Marxism’ against and beyond the ‘Great Enclosure’? Reflections on how (not) to crack capitalism

Abstract

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link AbstractThe main purpose of this article is to provide an in-depth discussion of John Holloway's recent book, Crack Capitalism. To this end, the paper offers a detailed account of the key strengths and weaknesses of Holloway's version of 'open Marxism'. The analysis is divided into two parts. The first part focuses on six significant strengths of Crack Capitalism: (1) its insistence upon the importance of autonomous forms of agenda-setting for both individual and collective emancipation;(2) its emphasis on the ordinary constitution of social struggles; (3) its fine-grained interpretation of the socio-ontological conditions underlying human agency; (4) its processual conception of radical social transformation; (5) its recognition of the elastic, adaptable, and integrative power of capitalism; and (6) its proposal for an alternative critical theory, commonly known as 'open Marxism' or 'autonomous Marxism'. The second part of the study examines the principal weaknesses of Crack Capitalism: (1) the counterproductive implications of the preponderance of negativity, owing to a one-sided concern with critique, cracks, and crises; (2) conceptual vagueness; (3) an overuse of poetic and metaphorical language; (4) the absence of a serious engagement with the question of normativity; (5) a lack of substantive evidence; (6) a residual economic reductionism; (7) a simplistic notion of gender; (8) the continuing presence of various problematic 'isms';(9) the misleading distinction between 'doing' and 'labour'; (10) a reductive understanding of capitalism; (11) an unrealistic view of society; and (12) socioontological idealism.

Revisiting the debate on open Marxist perspectives

“…Moreover, recent critics have claimed, following the first wave (Barker, 1978: 118), that open Marxism has not only failed to account for the historical development of the contemporary state system but argued that the contemporary state system can only be understood in terms of capitalist social relations (Bruff, 2009: 340; Lacher, 2006: 54; Tsolakis, 2010: 397). Bieler et al (2010: 28) maintain this criticism by arguing that Holloway (1991: 231, 1994) understands the state only in terms of the development of global capitalist relations (see also Susen (2012: 299) with respect to Holloway (2010)). 8 They further support it through reference to Bonefeld’s (2008: 67) assertion that the modern state system and the capitalist mode of production developed at the same time, and in tandem.…”

“…This criticism is established through close reading of the work of, principally, Psychopedis (2005) and Holloway (2005a, 2005b). 10 Susen (2012: 311) similarly charges Holloway’s (2010) approach of engaging with all possible-isms as outlined above. On this basis, a further criticism is derived (Bieler et al, 2010; Bruff, 2009a, 2009b) that OM rejects transhistorical qualities of human existence.…”

“…In this article, our key objective is to revisit a long-standing scholarly debate to explore and assess the possibility and future of critical social inquiry within politics and international studies—an endeavour initiated originally by Bieler and Morton (2003: 467) in the early 2000s. To this end, we aim to review and critically engage with a number of criticisms (Bieler et al, 2010; Bruff, 2009b; Elden and Morton, 2015; Susen, 2012; Tsolakis, 2010) directed against a heterogeneous body of scholarship which has come to be identified as open Marxism. 1 These criticisms have focused on open Marxist perspectives’ (OMPs) explanation of the dynamics of international political economy (IPE) and the interaction between globally defined capital and the territorially defined state-form.…”

Rekindling Community Education in Neoliberal Times

“…Newman, 2006) There are some problems with Holloway's proposals, not least his determination that some individualised actions, such as reading a book, a day in the park, or chatting to friends (Holloway, 2010: 33) represent alternative ways of being that can be linked to anti-neoliberal sentiment. Susen (2012) robustly critiques Holloway's argument at length. These include his 'apocalyptic account of capitalist society' and unrealistic outlook on society (Susen, 2012: 295), conceptual vagueness, little substantive and empirical evidence in support of claims, and an essentialist approach to gender analysis.…”

“…Susen (2012) robustly critiques Holloway's argument at length. These include his 'apocalyptic account of capitalist society' and unrealistic outlook on society (Susen, 2012: 295), conceptual vagueness, little substantive and empirical evidence in support of claims, and an essentialist approach to gender analysis. The difficulty with these criticisms is Susen's failure to capture the sentiment of Holloway's writing, a sentiment that carries much practical and personal resonance for many community educators as they struggle in their attempts to create a better world.…”