[The following is an IM exchange I recently had with our brother Aaron of
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
That's why I'm not a big fan of Subcommandante Marcos [leader of the Zapatista movement based in
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
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)
Linked at http://hegemonik.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/return-to-hegemonik-plus-around-the-blogosphere/
ReplyDeletehmmm. I'm wondering about the part on the Zapatistas. I want to avoid just worshiping everything they do, but I think there's more to it than them not seizing power. I feel like a reason people see them as a postmodern revolution is because they are intentionally not attempting to seize state power. Aside from their lack of power to organize outside of their communities, I feel like they are largely working to organize themselves for their own autonomy. We shouldn't be bound by state boundaries in our analysis(could that be a more cliche anarchist statement). The state is an important power holder that has to be addressed, but we also need a framework for understanding things beyond state boundaries, just like we need our framework to understand society at the level of a household. We need a zoom option on our analysis so that we can pull back and analyze, the Zapatistas as a part of global resistance to neo-liberalism, and see them as building local community autonomy, or see gender relations within households in their communities. They surely haven't seized federal state power, but they have taken and worked to challenge state power in their area. So if we think about from the state perspective, they aren't really presenting a large threat, but if we think about it in that region, they are kicking ass. So we should think about it from both perspectives and shift around our frame to see the picture from multiple angles and all that. I feel like social movements need to have more flexible frames for understanding movements and oppression.
ReplyDeleteI love the rest of this though, great stuff.
I would argue that the Zapatistas are working a great deal to transform state power. That's what the otra campaign is all about.
ReplyDeleteAlso, many of the Zapatista weaving collectives and other community groups started in the 1970s as government-funded state-sponsered groups which later transformed into branches of the Zapatista movement.
-jake brooks
Interesting text, and agree with parts. However, I think it misses the point sometimes, especially with regard to taking state power.
ReplyDeleteDual power, from an anarchist framework, is one of not ignoring the state, but creating alternatives that expose the failings of the state and its systems, ie representative democracy, hierachy and the nature of power. If this went on without addressing state power, then yes, it should be looked upon as largely ineffective. But, an understanding of radical dual power welded with revolutionary anarchsim is another ball game...
State power should not be reformed or transformed, but abolished completely. Obviously you can't do that in a day, which is why anarchists build dual power situations, or 'build the new in the shell of the old'. That is not to say we ignore state power, or, that we need to take hold of state power — rather we need to encourage direct action, and radical workplace, community struggle to put that power back into the hands of everyone. So, in this framework, dual power should not be confused as the end goal, but rather a base for more revolutionary change.
I also think your analysis of anarchists not being workers is flawed, or maybe representative of your region. I know the anarchist groups I'm involved in are considerably 'working class', and many active socialist anarchists would reject the typical stereotypes of black bloc protest activity currently associated with anarchism.
I must point out I'm not too familiar with your site or ideas, and I'm simply commenting without much analysis, sorry!
There's an interesting anarchist critique of dual power by Wayne Price in one of his zines, can't remeber if it's 'Class Struggle Anarchism' or 'Confronting Power' — one of them anayway.
Cheers
@garagecollective: The tunnel vision of your average anarchist never ceases to amaze me. The overwhelming majority of people depend on public services and many workers require certain state programs to survive. There's no way the masses of people are ever going to abolish something that's basically responsible for maintaining their surroundings and keeping order.
ReplyDeleteUndoubtedly the current state in the US is in total shambles after Bush, but that's less a failing of the state and more a reflection of Bush's obliviousness and incompetence. The main pillar of anarchism rests on childish utopianism where everyone works together and is mutually interested in everyone else's well-being. The fact of the matter is any sort of abolition of state power would eventually lead to warlordism.
In conclusion, I'd rather have a system than no system at all and unfortunately for the anarchist movement, the overwhelming majority of workers in the new economy have wisely tossed their lot in with the Obama movement and more power to them.