Dual Power

[Sewer Socialist]

I've read quite a bit lately about analyses of capitalism, but not so much the practical side of communism.

What is dual power? Wikipedia is laughably inadequate. This seems important, and yet hardly talked about. Obviously, the left needs independent organizations of some sort to not only challenge and topple the many powerful bourgeois organizations, but to resist repression, to educate each other, defend each other, etc.

They must resist their recuperation by bourgeois society, which recuperates just about everything and obfuscates the path to liberation. How can they manage to escape the totality of capitalism? How can they manage to not just evade but threaten that which has conquered everything? How do they avoid simply reproducing the proletariat, reproducing value, reproducing the conditions of our own repression?

Detailed answers would be great, but quality literature would be equally welcomed. If there were a short history of the Soviets, I'd be interested in that as well.

[LeftistsAreRadical]

"The highly remarkable feature of our revolution is that it has brought about a dual power. This fact must be grasped first and foremost: unless it is understood, we cannot advance....What is this dual power? Alongside the Provisional Government, the government of bourgeoisie, another government has arisen, so far weak and incipient, but undoubtedly a government that actually exists and is growing—the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies." (V.I. Lenin, "The Dual Power". Full text at https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...917/apr/09.htm)

Essentially what happened was the Tsar was overthrown so quickly in the February Revolution that the proletarian liberating forces were sort of paralyzed; they lacked the unity, strength, and frankly the confidence to completely take over and fill the governing role of the former monarchy to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Due to Lenin's lack of presence in the first month or so after the February Revolution because of his exile, the Bolsheviks actually supported allowing the bourgeois Prov. Gov. to regain control and allow the liberal reformism to take hold of the country again. Because both the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks (at least until Lenin's return) supported bourgeois reformism, the Prov. Gov. was able to take hold with worker's soviets existing alongside it to sort of provide the Prov. Gov. with 'input' on workers' reforms to make. However, the bourgeois government was, like all bourgeois governments are, too preoccupied with the war to appease the peasants of Russia, which allowed the Bolsheviks to take control of the soviets and therefore ultimately gain a mass following of the proletariat, giving them the power to overthrow the Prov. Gov. So, the dual power (at least in the case of Russia) was letting the petty bourgeois take control while the workers organized and united, let the bourgeois get preoccupied with their foreign stuff like they always do (which allowed for the Bolsheviks to gain the support and win the hearts of the workers), and then strike after the Prov. Gov. lost their popular support, which included most of the military.

The dual power system is highly unstable, which necessitates the overthrowing of one government and the gaining of control by the other. What really matters to ensure the alternative government is the people's support (Che Guevara saw the support of the people as the greatest asset to revolutionaries, and said that without the support of the people very little can be accomplished, but with it anything is possible. He mentions the support of the people about every other sentence in Guerrilla Warfare).

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'm currently reading "Another Politics" (Chris Dixon) which seems to make a decent attempt to grapple with this question, even if its answers are ultimately tentative.
One reccurring theme is, "In this world, but not of it." That is, grounding organizing in the immediate material needs of communities, but crafting solutions that point beyond component paradigms. In the case of Critical Resistance (a prison abolition organization) they always ask (I'm paraphrasing) "will this shrink the system?" So, for example, they tend to fight against prison construction, and for community-based diversion/reconciliation programmes.
Another theme is what he calls a "Movement-building orientation". This one is pretty self-explanatory. It's a question of contextualizing tactical decisions within a strategy that aims to grow struggles outside of "activist" communities. Sometimes this is seen as the distinction between "activism" and "organizing". Dixon argues, however, that this dichotomy should be treated carefully since "activists" and "activism" can often be a component of organizing (Sureand are maybe useful when not viewed as ends in themselves)
I know that's not much, it just happened to be what I've currently got on the go.

[Sewer Socialist]

"The highly remarkable feature of our revolution is that it has brought about a dual power. This fact must be grasped first and foremost: unless it is understood, we cannot advance....What is this dual power? Alongside the Provisional Government, the government of bourgeoisie, another government has arisen, so far weak and incipient, but undoubtedly a government that actually exists and is growing—the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies." (V.I. Lenin, "The Dual Power". Full text at https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...917/apr/09.htm)

Essentially what happened was the Tsar was overthrown so quickly in the February Revolution that the proletarian liberating forces were sort of paralyzed; they lacked the unity, strength, and frankly the confidence to completely take over and fill the governing role of the former monarchy to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Due to Lenin's lack of presence in the first month or so after the February Revolution because of his exile, the Bolsheviks actually supported allowing the bourgeois Prov. Gov. to regain control and allow the liberal reformism to take hold of the country again. Because both the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks (at least until Lenin's return) supported bourgeois reformism, the Prov. Gov. was able to take hold with worker's soviets existing alongside it to sort of provide the Prov. Gov. with 'input' on workers' reforms to make. However, the bourgeois government was, like all bourgeois governments are, too preoccupied with the war to appease the peasants of Russia, which allowed the Bolsheviks to take control of the soviets and therefore ultimately gain a mass following of the proletariat, giving them the power to overthrow the Prov. Gov. So, the dual power (at least in the case of Russia) was letting the petty bourgeois take control while the workers organized and united, let the bourgeois get preoccupied with their foreign stuff like they always do (which allowed for the Bolsheviks to gain the support and win the hearts of the workers), and then strike after the Prov. Gov. lost their popular support, which included most of the military.

The dual power system is highly unstable, which necessitates the overthrowing of one government and the gaining of control by the other. What really matters to ensure the alternative government is the people's support (Che Guevara saw the support of the people as the greatest asset to revolutionaries, and said that without the support of the people very little can be accomplished, but with it anything is possible. He mentions the support of the people about every other sentence in Guerrilla Warfare).

I am most familiar with the involvement of the soviets in 1917. But since they date back to 1905, was there a continuity between those dates? What happened in between? What were the soviets doing in 1914? 1915? 1916?

1910?

How did they avoid being co-opted into the bourgeois government; what made them radical enough that they lead to revolution where no one else did? Why were they able to be disbanded? Was that in 1922? Was there resistance from them?

I'm currently reading "Another Politics" (Chris Dixon) which seems to make a decent attempt to grapple with this question, even if its answers are ultimately tentative.
One reccurring theme is, "In this world, but not of it." That is, grounding organizing in the immediate material needs of communities, but crafting solutions that point beyond component paradigms. In the case of Critical Resistance (a prison abolition organization) they always ask (I'm paraphrasing) "will this shrink the system?" So, for example, they tend to fight against prison construction, and for community-based diversion/reconciliation programmes.
Another theme is what he calls a "Movement-building orientation". This one is pretty self-explanatory. It's a question of contextualizing tactical decisions within a strategy that aims to grow struggles outside of "activist" communities. Sometimes this is seen as the distinction between "activism" and "organizing". Dixon argues, however, that this dichotomy should be treated carefully since "activists" and "activism" can often be a component of organizing (Sureand are maybe useful when not viewed as ends in themselves)
I know that's not much, it just happened to be what I've currently got on the go.

How do they manage to remain relevant while maintaining their opposition? It seems like most either simply fade away and disappear or become part of the system they once fought.

In other words, how do they stay "In this world, but not of it"?

[Rafiq]

No doubt this question arises from the recent book by Frederic Jameson, American Utopia: Dual Power and the Universal Army?

If not, I should direct you to it. Jameson's insight into the 300+ page book is only 96 pages but is quite profound. Of course, I have my reservations and disagreements, and even up to a point disappointments. But he provides the best possible framework strictly in an immediate, concrete 'maximal program' sense.

One of its problems however is that it does not allot enough attention to the implications of dual power as existing immediately within the context of impending civil war. I do not see it any other way. Our program for a universal army will be the structure of a new proletarian dictatorship of the 21st century. We really don't know how much we can press this system without having to politically overthrow it. I am not saying we can't know - we just don't right now, perhaps because we haven't done enough research or thought on the matter. For example: Would a program for the abolition of private militaries as well as a reinstatement of the universal draft (a crazy proposal I had months ago which caused a mini-controversy here, I don't want to go back to it - look at the thread yourselves) be too much for the system, unlike, say, the civil rights act of 1964?

What Jameson leaves out is the significance of violence in this army, in fact, he commits this army to be completely and wholly non-violent. Given the prospects of the necessity of assisting other revolutions, given the chances of war in a multi-centric world, and given the reality of the internal situation, the universal army as proposed by Jameson must also be equipped and specialized in the most sophisticated and advanced weapons technologies.

[Sewer Socialist]

No doubt this question arises from the recent book by Frederic Jameson, American Utopia: Dual Power and the Universal Army?

If not, I should direct you to it. Jameson's insight into the 300+ page book is only 96 pages but is quite profound. Of course, I have my reservations and disagreements, and even up to a point disappointments. But he provides the best possible framework strictly in an immediate, concrete 'maximal program' sense.

It does not.

But with a description like that, I will have to read that sometime; my pile of unread books is kind of stacking up, unfortunately.

In the meantime, do you have an answer for how dual power can exist, grow and endure in the long-term, and also resist becoming part of that which it once fought?

[Rafiq]

In the meantime, do you have an answer for how dual power can exist, grow and endure in the long-term, and also resist becoming part of that which it once fought?

The basic answer would be the accentuation of antagonisms through political struggle. Or in two words, to: keep pushing and never settle for compromise until the full assumption of the levers of state power. You should note that dual power is always meant to be provisional, to be temporary, and within the context of a prolonged struggle. So a movement, or a force, which is an alternative power with its own cultural services and whatever you like, would only exist insofar as it is incessantly 'clashing' with the state until the assumption of state power.

It really would be a struggle, a battle, and nothing more. It would find resolution either in defeat by the state power, in which case we would be right back to the drawing boards as far as how to build something more resilient and learn from those mistakes, or it would find its conclusion in the overthrow of state power and a proletarian dictatorship.

This is an obvious disagreement with some of the more, let's call it, 'grassroots' approaches to dual power. What my answer would be as it concerns those is: Without political struggle and an ultimate aim toward a real confrontation with state power, it is inevitable that any kind of dual power would indeed be absorbed by the system.

But really, check out the book. It basically answers all of your questions.