Change the World by Cracking Capitalism? A Critical Encounter between John Holloway and Simon Susen

TLDR: A Critical Encounter between John Holloway and Simon Susen was discussed in this article, where the authors described the interaction between the two men as a "critical encounter between John and Simon".

Abstract: 'A Critical Encounter Between John Holloway and Simon Susen' – This interview took place on 19th September 2012 at City University London.

Full text

City, University of London Institutional Repository
Citation: Holloway, J. and Susen, S. (2013). Change the World by Cracking Capitalism? A
Critical Encounter between John Holloway and Simon Susen. Sociological Analysis, 7(1), pp.
23-42.
This is the unspecified version of the paper.
This version of the publication may differ from the final published
version.
Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/2762/
Link to published version:
Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City,
University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral
Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from
City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to.
Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study,
educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or
charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are
credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page
and the content is not changed in any way.
City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ publications@city.ac.uk
City Research Online

Volume 7, Number 1, Spring 2013 23
Change the World by Cracking Capitalism?
Change the World by Cracking Capitalism?
A Critical Encounter between
John Holloway and Simon Susen
John holloway & Simon SuSen
Simon Susen: It would be useful if you could start by saying a few words about your last
book, Crack Capitalism.
1
In what context did you write it? What was the purpose of the
book? To what extent does it differ from your previous works?
John Holloway: As I say in the rst few pages, I see Crack Capitalism as being the daughter
of Change the World Without Taking Power.
2
The earlier book triggered many discussions,
not only in the universities but also amongst activist groups. The reactions were very mixed.
Some people just dismissed it, saying “What absolute rubbish! Of course we can’t change the
world without taking power!”. Many others, however, said “Right, that’s fantastic―it’s just
what we’ve been thinking all along. But how do we do it? Yes, we do not want to take power,
but how do we change the world without taking power?”.
The new book is really an attempt to advance with this argument, by suggesting that
the only way we can think of changing the world is by changing it interstitially, that is,
by changing it piece by piece. Interstices should not be misinterpreted as states; rather,
they should be conceived of as non-state spaces or moments. They should be understood
as cracks: cracks rather than interstices, cracks rather than autonomous spaces; because
John holloway is a Professor of Sociology at the Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades in
the Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Mexico. He has published widely on Marxist
theory, on the Zapatista movement (especially Zapatista, edited with Eloína Peláez, 1998) and on
the new forms of anti-capitalist struggle. His book Change the World Without Taking Power (new
edition, 2010) was translated into eleven languages and stirred an international debate. His new
book, Crack Capitalism (2010), has already been translated into ten languages, with more to come.
Simon SuSen is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology at City University London. He received his Ph.D. from
the University of Cambridge and studied sociology, politics, and philosophy at a range of international
universities and research centres, including the University of Edinburgh, the Colegio de México, the
Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales in Mexico City, and the École des Hautes Études en
Sciences Sociales in Paris. He is an Associate Member of the Bauman Institute and, together with
Bryan S. Turner, Editor of the Journal of Classical Sociology. He is the author of The Foundations of
the Social: Between Critical Theory and Reexive Sociology (2007). Along with Celia Basconzuelo
and Teresita Morel, he edited Ciudadanía territorial y movimientos sociales: Historia y nuevas
problemáticas en el escenario latinoamericano y mundial (2010). Together with Bryan S. Turner, he
edited The Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu: Critical Essays (2011).

Sociological Analysis24
John Holloway & Simon Susen
cracks move, cracks are unstable, cracks are constantly on the move, always opening up
again, joining up with other cracks. Not only is this the only viable way in which we
can make sense of radical social transformation, but, in addition, it corresponds to what
is actually happening at the moment. Thus, we can think of a crack as being a space of
negation and creation, refusal and creation, when we say “no, we won’t accept the logic of
capitalist relations here in this space and this moment, we are going to do things according
to a different logic”.
You can see this all over the place. You can see “big” examples, such as the Zapatistas
uprising in 1995, in Chiapas, Mexico.
3
And you can think of, say, “medium” examples, where
people get together and assert “we are going to go in a different direction, we are going to
develop a social centre, or a cooperative, or simply an area of activity where we do not follow
the logic of capital”. Or you can see it, more generally, in everyday life, when people say “no,
really, I’m not going to sell my soul to money”, and when, as a consequence, they decide to
do things in a different way. So the book is really an attempt to explore this further, to reect
upon how we can conceive of these cracks and of their overall importance, but also, in some
detail, upon both the difculties and the possibilities arising from their existence.
Susen: Fair enough, but how does this view differ from the perspective put forward in your
previous book? More specically, in Change the World Without Taking Power, you were
concerned with the complex ways in which power operates in our everyday lives. To what
extent does your current conception of power, underlying the argument of Crack Capitalism,
differ from the account of power you developed in your previous writings? It seems to me
that your approach to power has always been inextricably linked to a critical concern with
“the ordinary”, correct? For instance, you have been deeply suspicious of the view that
“revolution is just about conquering the state or winning an election”, haven’t you?
Holloway: Yes, I have. We have to think of breaking the state in terms of everyday practices.
How does this relate to the previous book? I don’t know. I always have a slight fear that I may
end up saying the same thing over and over again. In Crack Capitalism, I have tried to take
up, and develop, themes from my previous work. It is true that one issue remains important
to me, namely the question of how, in our everyday lives, we can break with the logic of
capitalism and, by so doing, invent different ways of doing things within, but ultimately
beyond, the existing system.
Susen: If you don’t mind, let’s talk about the Special Issue on Crack Capitalism, which
has recently been published in the Journal of Classical Sociology (JCS).
4
Can you say a
few words about the idea of publishing the Special Issue in a “mainstream” journal, such as
JCS, rather than in one of the Anglophone Marxist journals, such as Radical Philosophy or
Historical Materialism?
5
Holloway: With Marxist―or, more generally, left-wing―discussions, there is always a
danger of getting stuck in a ghetto. I think it’s important to try and break out of that, to try
moving into different areas, to experiment with different contexts. So when the idea came
up―whether it was yours or mine, I think it was yours―I was delighted. I thought “Great!”,

Volume 7, Number 1, Spring 2013 25
Change the World by Cracking Capitalism?
fully aware of the fact that such a project poses a major challenge: it creates a broader and
more diverse forum for discussion. In this sense, it pushes me to try to explain what I’m
talking about...
Susen: …to a wider audience?
Holloway: Yes, to a wider audience.
Susen: Do you think that the way your work is perceived in Britain is different from the ways
in which it is interpreted and used in, say, Australia, North America, or Central and South
America? If so, do you notice these differences when you give talks and discuss your ideas
with people in particular “national” contexts?
Holloway: I don’t really notice the difference, although I suppose one of the great things
about moving to Latin America was the feeling that my ideas found a much deeper and wider
resonance. By this I mean that I could talk about what I was thinking and then receive a much
stronger response than in Europe. Yet, I don’t want to exaggerate, because I think it has been
growing in Europe.
Susen: What do you mean by “stronger”? Do you mean “more engaged”, “more interested”,
“more serious”, “more in-depth”?
Holloway: Possibly “more engaged”, but also stronger in terms of numbers, and stronger
in the sense of feeling that a lot of people were more or less on the same wave length. And
I guess stronger in the sense that, in very big areas, many people share my view of what
universities are, or should be, about. I mean that universities are, and should be, about
thinking how we break the system. These assumptions do exist in Europe, but they tend to
be more marginal.
Susen: As you probably know, the Journal of Classical Sociology tends to publish articles on
the continuing relevance of classical sociological thought by tracing the roots of contemporary
social theory in the writings of inuential thinkers such as Karl Marx, Max Weber, Émile
Durkheim, and Georg Simmel. Would you say that your work has been inuenced by the so-
called “classical gures” in sociology, that is, not only by Marx but also by Weber, Durkheim,
and Simmel?
Holloway: Not consciously, although I’m sure these scholars have inuenced my work―for
instance, in the sense that Weber inuenced Lukács, and Lukács has obviously inuenced me,
but not in the sense of any conscious or direct relation between these “classical sociologists”
and myself.
Susen: What strikes me when reading your books and articles is that the thinkers who have
had the most signicant impact upon your work are scholars such as Karl Marx, György
Lukács, Ernst Bloch, and Theodor W. Adorno. Is that right?

Sociological Analysis26
John Holloway & Simon Susen
Holloway: Yes, they are the key gures in my work.
Susen: Talking about Adorno, what do you make of recent developments in critical theory?
For example, if you consider the works of inuential thinkers such as Jürgen Habermas and
Axel Honneth, how would you assess their contributions?
Holloway: I think I don’t nd them particularly interesting.
Susen: So are you of the opinion that, at least in relation to your own work, their contributions
are not really worth engaging with?
Holloway: I guess that’s right.
Susen: OK, fair enough. In Crack Capitalism, you emphasize the importance of agenda-
setting in general and of autonomous agenda-setting in particular. Am I right to assume that
you suggest that one of the most fatal mistakes of the political left, including the radical left,
has been to follow the agendas dictated by capital? If so, can you elaborate on this point?
Why do you think it is crucial that the left takes on the challenge of setting its own agenda?
Holloway: There is always the danger that the left ends up simply reacting to capital. This
pattern of reaction, however, locks us into the existing system. Thus, we have to break this
agenda by saying “we can create a different world, and we are going to create a different
world, so let them chase after us”. In fact, it seems to me that this is what happens: capital is
a constant process of trying to chase after us, of trying to appropriate our creativity, of trying
to co-opt our revolts. We should be conscious of this process and, hence, of the fact that we
are the people who shape the world.
Susen: Another aspect that strikes me about your last book is that it stresses the sociological
importance of “the ordinary”, which is a dimension upon which we touched at the beginning
of this interview. The emphasis you put on the ontological signicance of ordinary social life
reminds me of some key concerns examined by the French sociologist Luc Boltanski, who,
on a number of occasions, has insisted that “il faut prendre les gens au sérieux” (“we need
to take people seriously”).
6
I think it would be fair to suggest that this normative concern is
no less important in your work than it is in Boltanski’s studies. In other words, you appear to
share the view that it is vital to take people seriously and, in this sense, recognize that they
are, at least potentially, autonomous and critical entities, rather than―largely heteronomous
and unreective―cultural dupes, who do not really know, let alone understand, what is
going on in the world. On this account, the traditional divide between scientists and experts,
on the one hand, and laypersons and ordinary people, on the other, describes a somewhat
dangerous epistemological “division of labour”. Would you nevertheless accept that the kind
of knowledge you produce as a researcher―that is, as a critical sociologist, critical theorist,
or university professor―is somewhat different from the kind of knowledge that we use in our
everyday interactions? Or are you implying that there are no epistemological distinctions to
be drawn between specic types of knowledge production? To my mind, this is not only an

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What is the way you think of the organization of human activity?

The way The authorunderstand the organization of human activity is in terms of capital, in terms of the way in which their individual activities are bound together through abstract labour. 

Q2. What does the author think of the “bright” aspects of social life?

In other words, you appear to assume that the “bright” aspects of social life (such as cooperation, communication, mutual understanding, democracy, and autonomy) are preponderant over the “dark” aspects of their existence (such as competition, rivalry, social ranking, envy, and heteronomy). 

Q3. What is the main argument for the so-called Geistes- and Kulturwissenschaften?

the so-called Geistes- and Kulturwissenschaften are based on the assumption that culture is a distinctively human characteristic. 

Q4. What was the interesting thing about the discussions arising from Change the World Without taking power?

One of the interesting things about the discussions arising from Change the World Without Taking Power was that The authorwas invited to give various talks and join numerous meetings with different groups, who were trying to develop alternative conceptions of social activity. 

Q5. What is the key to the success of the modern capitalist system?

Susen: Talking about “human creativity” and “human doing”, it seems to me that another issue worth discussing is the fact that one of the secrets underlying the relative success of the contemporary capitalist system is that, ironically, it appears to be capable of reappropriating the purposive, cooperative, and creative dimensions of “human doing”7 in order to ensure its own existence. 

Q6. What is the view that the authors should hate their jobs?

the view that the authors should all hate their jobs is complete nonsense, because part of what the authors perform as labour is concrete labour, as an experience which makes sense for us, as a meaningful activity.