While it is tiring to have to revisit and re-explain concepts and methodology we have been acting on for years now, it is absolutely necessary, and we *need* each other.
All we ask is that people do their due diligence in research.
For a more expansive breakdown of the history of “dual power” specifically, please see the thread below.
For a more “macro” or “philosophical” breakdown of the Zapatista struggle, please see the thread of highlight clips from an old Subcomandante Marcos interview below.
For an intro to Communalism, please read “The Communalist Project” (2002) by Murray Bookchin (here: new-compass.net/articles/commu…).
For an intro to Libertarian Municipalism, please read “Libertarian Municipalism: An Overview” (1991), also by Bookchin (here: social-ecology.org/wp/1991/04/lib…).
Please do the readings! Many people (some of whom are members of our organization) have put countless hours into trying to simplify a lot of the concepts we are discussing here over the course of years, while also trying to *practice* what we discuss!
Deep theory *and* practice.
Big doomer energy in the podcast episode we are responding to here. Some of it can be attributed to a lack of deeper grounding in (or connection to) real-life, *holistic* “dual power” practice going on today and a lack of understanding around the history of “dual power” struggle.
We don’t build for seizure of state power, but to replace powers of domination with something better.
A people’s power.
A power grounded in decentralization, direct democracy, and cooperation instead of hierarchy, bureaucracy, and/or authoritarianism.
PS: For the love of everything good in this world, please explore our resource guide.
It includes everything mentioned here in this thread (and more), and is organized according to length and relation to our particular strategy as an organization.
What’s alarming is that none of what’s mentioned above was mentioned in the same breath as “dual power.” No mention of efforts towards it in the U.S. either. But lots of talk about how little time we have.
Again, none of this is being said in bad faith, but in love.
We know you are both smart.
We are just trying to encourage deeper interrogation of these concepts, and acknowledgment of the work that is already going on.
We have wasted enough time talking in our respective silos.
We have already checked with folks within our org who are actively doing the work and who also have solid theoretical grounding; they’d be more than happy to speak with you all, @thotteusstevens + @jamie_elizabeth.
It would also be good for y’all to spotlight @SymbiosisRev reps.
Also, there was talk in the pod episode about moving beyond reactive activities and pushing moments of rebellion into movements for systems change (we have addressed this before).
The piece by one of our members linked below covers one transitional tool.
When are we going to confront the reality that countless “Left” media personalities are directly and indirectly complicit in perpetuating the narrative that there is no way out, simply by critiquing *what is*, without exploring (in very practical, accessible terms) *what can be*?
One of the most insidious elements of this phenomenon is that it is actually driven by the logics of these social media platforms most of us use to communicate.
Talking heads channel our righteous rage into low-hanging-fruit “takes” instead of informational seeds for liberation.
“Organize locally,” “join a union,” and “make sure to vote in your local elections” are frequently empty, meaningless, vague, footnote talking points anchored in zero political programs, and in what are typically broader discussions about horrible recent events, or personalities.
As people become more open to the idea that Capitalism is trash, don’t leave them hanging without suggestions for what the institutional alternatives could be, and how we can build them!
Anticapitalist slogans are great, but they are not enough.
People want practical solutions.
We have new (and much more accessible) resources and materials regarding “institutional alternatives” and organization on the way, but the thread below is a great place to start.
As much as “progressive,” Social Democratic politicians talk about “democracy” and throw around the word “grassroots,” you’d think more of them would be interested in moving campaigns that help poor and working-class people build grassroots, direct democracy in their communities.
The “politician” role is an inherently *top-down* role under our current socioeconomic paradigm and system of governance.
Therein lies the contradiction for “progressives.”
Even amongst so-called “progressives,” the implicit/assumed orientation is an orientation of paternalism.
“Democracy” is a concept only spoken to in the context of “representative democracy.”
“Grassroots” is a concept only spoken to in the context of “grassroots” efforts to elect new “representatives” or “leaders.”
Very few politicians are interested in addressing these conundrums.
The 300,000+ indigenous Mayans who make up the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities (MAREZ) in Chiapas, Mexico have one of the most advanced systems of democratic, consensus-based governance in the world.
Here are some clips from “People Without Faces” (2016) that explain.
“Suggest, but do not impose.
Represent, but do not replace.
Build, but do not ruin.
Obey, but do not dictate.
Descend to the people, but do not dominate.
Persuade, but do not defeat.
Serve the others, but not yourself.”
“If there is some profit remaining from the work, the representative gathers all of the families of the support base, and they make a decision on how to use that profit, where to invest it.”
Informal hierarchies will develop in movements for systems change, but there should be zero tolerance for attempts to gatekeep in these movements.
Be skeptical of those taking on “organizer” or “activist” as an identity under broader organization and then expressing entitlement.
True social revolution is the culmination of many different social processes that are catalyzed as a result of many different actions in many different places. Not all of these social processes are catalyzed through actions tied to people or forces grounded in Left values either.
There are also many areas in which people must move in order to help others self-organize and cooperate; there is no one space to “organize,” and no one network through which people develop new social relations.
No one person or group can have a monopoly on new social relations.