IM 1: What is Dual Power? (X. & Aaron) by X.

[The following is an IM exchange I recently had with our brother Aaron of Detroit SDS (Wayne State) about dual power, one of the most important components of Revolutionary Democracy. I decided to throw it up on the blog (with his permission) because it provides a lively introduction to the revolutionary democratic approach to dual power which differs from the anarchist approach (and from the original concept of dual power first introduced by Lenin during the early phase of the Russian revolution in 1917). A number of organizers writing on the Pirate Caucus are working on more in-depths articles on some or all of these concepts, but why make everyone wait? Here’s a first stab at it. (I edited this IM for readability, but left the content untouched.) –X.]

Aaron: Did you ever read Brian Dominick's essay on dual power?

me: Can't say that I have. Can you send it to me?

Aaron: Yeah. I'm reading it now. I decided today, I will read about dual power. Hah.
It's a little ideological (anarchist) in rhetoric. But it's pretty solid and lays it out pretty well.

(…)

me: It's the anarchist take. As far as Revolutionary Democracy goes, I think they get half the picture but they fetishize the buildings and the organizations. Power is social relations.
So yes, we must build our own institutions but we must also take over the system's institutions. Those two things must go hand in hand to succeed

Aaron: Seize power, totally.

me: What we're getting at is that dual power is not the alternative institutions vs. the system’s institutions. That's a superficial analysis.

Dual power is the people vs. the system, each seeking influence in all institutions (and yes, the system -capitalism- tries to and does get in the alternative institutions!) It's the network of people organized democratically for revolution, both in the alternative institutions and in the system (behind enemy lines), working together and strengthening each other vs. the network of lost souls still actively working to promote the system.

That's dual power: When you build a Street University that teaches revolution but that also runs programs in the school system that is run by community residents that took over the Board of Education. It's building new small coop IT companies that get access to big contracts thanks to sympathizing supporters working in the corporate boxes. It's organizing cop watch in conjunction with a review of police procedures from the newly elected revolutionary democratic city council so that not only are bad cops exposed, they are removed.

That's why I'm not a big fan of Subcommandante Marcos [leader of the Zapatista movement based in Chiapas, Mexico - mentioned in Dominick's essay on dual power]: he's chilling in his jungle telling everyone to stay out of power (like Zapata, except he got whacked by the system for that mistake!) Meanwhile there's a huge revolutionary democratic upsurge all over Latin America and Mexico is the only country along with Colombia that has a right wing government!

Aaron: I've been pretty critical of the Subcommandante for similar reasons. It's like, I know that the Zapatistas are doing some good things, but I don't really feel like what the Zapatistas are building is a dual power.

me: Exactly.

Aaron: I feel like they're building power in their own community, but staying out and not really competing that much. Of course, it's really hard to tell what’s going on there.

me: That's my read on it too.

Aaron: And I feel that's definitely the anarchist take. Through the Dominick essay though, he does stress and emphasize withdrawing consent, destroying their power while building ours and competing for legitimacy among "the people." But the anarchist analysis is simply: Build the alternative institutions, don't compete, don't seize power, don't mess with "the system", just work in ours.

me: Yep. And that's not a recipe for success because the vast majority of people have to deal with the system's institutions everyday. They can't "boycott" them because they need jobs, education, food, etc. And what people want most is a plan for how to deal with those institutions that makes sure that the garbage is still getting picked up every week.

Hence the reason why there are so few anarchists (or rigid Marxist Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, etc) especially with families & jobs, etc.

Aaron: Totally. So your dual power says ... let's build our own institutions, but let's find ways to seize their power (rather than, as some would say "destroy" it?)

me: Sure.

Aaron: Get people sympathetic and tied with the alternative institutions to take positions of power within dominant institutions and reform/revolutionize or dismantle them?

me: Exactly. Most of the institutions need to be revolutionized.

Aaron: Rather than say "destroy" them through non-cooperation, withdrawal of consent, delegitimize?

me: We need to dismantle Guantanamo. Democratize the university. Revolutionize local government. Abolish the Electoral College and the Senate… We also need to organize workers to fight not just for wage hikes but for seats on the board of directors -elected by the workers- until they get a majority and profit sharing, reclaiming control over the surplus value they create.

It's not so much a question of sympathizers getting high positions in the system (although that will happen). It's to go organize the vast majority of the people in the system's institutions to start practicing revolutionary democracy. And most of them are waiting for an opportunity to make change where they're at without having to uproot their lives and their families’ lives.

The key is to use our alternative institutions as the headquarters for these organizing drives and as the labs to experiment with democracy (because we all still need to learn how to do that!!!)

Aaron: Totally.

(You can find the essay that Aaron refers to in this IM at: http://publish.sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/09/2403.shtml)