Holloway - Crack Capitalism.pdf - Libcom

superficially attractive, because it seems to draw together the
different forms of struggle into an alliance for changing society.
What is not sufficiently examined, however, is the inherently
antagonistic nature of the relation between 'from above' and
'from below'. The movement from below is the push from the
particular towards self-determination, while any from above, any
representation of the totality in a world still capitalist can only
be a push that moves in the opposite direction, a counter-flow
that, however well-intentioned, demobilises the thrust towards
self -determina tion.
4. WE MOVE FROM THE PARTICULAR,
BUTTHIS DOES NOT MEAN A MICROPOLITICS.
Change from above cannot unravel the abstraction of doing into
labour that carries everything beyond our control. The creation
of a system of state planning, as under the former countries of
'real socialism', did nothing at all to create a self-determining
society. The notion of 'national self-determination' is similarly
meaningless: the problem of self-determination can only be
understood in terms of the organisation of our daily activity.
To unravel the abstraction of doing into labour, we must
move from below. We move from many different startingpoints
against the unifying, oppressive force of abstraction.
Concrete doing comes in an infinite variety of shapes and sizes:
it is the abstraction that imposes its homogenising rigidity. This
gives the impression that our movement is a movement of a
multitude of differences, and has led some to abandon all idea
of contradiction and dialectics. This is a mistake, because what
unites the differences is the fact that they are all movementsagainst,
against the alienated and alienating rigidity of abstract
labour: what unites the differences is that they are contradictions,
antagonisms.? Certainly, the moving of concrete doing is
an explosion of difference, of many different colours (and hence
the undoubted appeal of the concept of multitudeS), but it is a
moving-against, a live antagonism.
In this the moving is crucial, because any staying still, however
radical it appears to be at first, is easily reintegrated into capitalist
208