The great task of grassroots dual power is to seek out and create social spaces and fill them

with liberatory institutions and relationships. Where there is roo m for us to act for ourselves, we form institutions conducive not only to cataly zing revolution, but also to the present conditions of a fulfilling life, includ ing economic and political self-management to the greatest degree achievable. We seek not to seize power, but to seize opportunity vis a vis the exercise of our power.

"The proletariat needs state power, a centralized organization of force, an orga nization of violence ... to lead the enormous mass of the population ... in the work of organizing a socialist society." --V.I. Lenin Bolshevik Party "We wish not to seize power, but to exercise it." --Subcommandante Marcos Zapatista Army of National Liberation There are two dualities at work in the modern strategic concept known as dual po wer. First, there is the classical notion of the relationship between (1) the cu rrent establishment and (2) the second social infrastructure pitted in oppositio n to it. Here the status quo consists of a market capitalist economy, an authoritarian re public, patriarchy, adultarchy, judeo-christian eurocentricity, white supremacy, etc. These are the ideologies and institutions which make up the oppressive sys tem according to which our society operates. By necessity, then, our oppositiona l dual power, our alternative infrastructure, must be based on decentralized soc ialist economics, a participatory democratic polity, feminist and youthist kinsh ip, and a secular yet spiritual, intercommunal culture. Those will be the buildi ng blocks of our new society, and the masonry has already begun. The second duality is between (1) the creative force of forming new social insti tutions and transforming oppressive ones into liberatory, and (2) resisting or d estroying what is useless and oppressive to us in the current establishment. In other words, we need to approach revolutionary social change with constructive a nd a destructive tactics in our toolbox. We cannot build until we make space, bu t our alternative social infrastructure will not make itself, so we must establi sh it on the ruins of the old order, in the shadow of that order. Dual power is a relatively generic strategy, as we have seen. Not only is there great contention between the leninist version of the strategy and the contempora ry, grassroots approach, but there are also a number of tendencies within the la tter framework. Essentially, the most popular alternative to the strategic outlo ok detailed in this book is known as libertarian municipalism. To differentiate, without coming up with a snazzy name like that, we'll call this version holisti c dual power because a main tenet of the approach is that we need to form altern ative and resistance infrastructure in all spheres of social life (where liberta rian municipalism only focuses on political dual power). Revolutionary Conditions Contemporary marxists insist that the objective conditions necessary for social revolution exist today in North American societies, and throughout the industria lized world. These conditions, they assert, are the technologically advanced for ms of production which place the ability, just not the authority, to meet all pe ople's material needs in the hands of the workers. In other words, if only the w orkers were to rise up and seize control of the means of production, revolution

would be at hand, as they could reorganize allocation and finally do away with a contrived scarcity of material goods and services. The missing element today, m arxists assert, is the subjective condition of revolutionary consciousness. That is, the people need to become revolutionary in mind. Marxist ideology, as disseminated by modern "communist" parties (self-proclaimed vanguards in a premature state), is the vehicle allegedly capable of instilling this revolutionary consciousness among "the masses." Such belief is why contemp orary marxists tend to organize ideologically, spreading propaganda, instead of practically, as in establishing the grassroots organizations necessary for fulfi lling the immediate and future needs of the people, including popularized politi cal and economic self-management. For them, dual power comes about when their pa rty establishes the strength and wherewithall to reorganize and run society from the top down. Marxists generally deny the necessity of popular, grassroots organization, preci sely because they believe the vanguard method is the path to follow, despite its historical record. At least, they claim, vanguardism has accomplished something , whereas the spontaneous methods attributed to anarchism have gotten us nowhere . Regardless of this claim's in/accuracy, it can be easily exposed as a product of marxists' basic fear of empowering "the masses" with more than ideological al legiance to marxism and the vanguard party of their choosing. The party will "pr ovide the necessary leadership" to guide the revolution and rebuild society in t he wake of insurrection. It is not imperative, then, to build grassroots institu tions and form a democratic framework in the pre-insurrectionary period. Nor is it important that the people, seen as "masses," develop the skills required to s elf-manage even one's own life, much less an entire society. For marxists, dual power structures are limited to the Party itself. Everyone else should go about their normal business, while supporting the party and awaiting further orders.* Also, we should recognize that present day projects intended to disseminate info rmation, popularize social critiques or raise consciousness are limited. This is especially true when their thrust is biased towards offering the oversimplified (not to mention dangerous) solution of mass alignment with political parties or vanguards. Revolutionary media and propaganda must be intrinsically tied to str uggle. Without the practical, day-to-day projects which build toward revolution, in the meantime providing essential living space and protection from the effect s of oppression, our propaganda is baseless. It is simply false to claim the sol ution to our collective woes can be found in turning to elites and leaders as ou r "activism," whatever their ideological persuasion or their power. The essence of a grassroots dual power strategy is captured in the above quotati on from EZLN leader Marcos. It illustrates the very different concept of revolut ion professed by the Zapatistas, and beginning to be understood by radicals in v arious movements throughout the world. As we discussed in the last chapter, the social power of "the masses" is current ly on loan -- rented by elites. We forfeit our prerogative to manage our own pol itical and economic lives, defaulting to the role of passively accepting the est ablished manner of social functioning. The limited access to politics afforded b y the status quo, such as voting and petitioning, amount to nothing more than re affirmations of our consent to be ruled, to have our political power handled by elites in our steads. Nothing short of refusal to participate, in any way, in the dominant society, by everyone from workers to bureaucrats to police officers, will result in the ove rturning of the status quo. Indeed, even passive acceptance of the status quo, w hen coupled with participation in everyday social functions as defined by that s ame status quo, is still active support of it. Even in the case when a new, alte rnative political force seizes power at the top, the relationship of authority a

nd subordination persists. Only when people actually participate in an alternati ve social arrangement does the old paradigm become dissolved. This essay is about basic democracy. I am not introducing a radical new ideology , I am talking about building a social framework, or infrastructure, which is re sponsive to the actual will of the people. I will say nothing herein about moral ity, nor will I share my opinions on the issues of the day. What I am proposing is a system whereby decisions of social policy and economic relations are made b y those affected by them: citizens and workers. This strategic idea is still a t hreat, of course. It does take a stance against the inordinate amounts of author ity presently reserved for politicians and their private backers. It does call t o task the hierarchical arrangements of the workplace, the family, the school, t he church, and so forth, which directly contradict and resist the exercise of po wer by common people. But it makes no claims as to how those people ought to use their power, once acquired. I make few specific suggestions regarding what issu es need to be decided, much less which conclusions should be favored, in a democ ratic society, or a society aspiring toward real democracy. Such is the essence of grassroots dual power. It is foremost a revolutionary str ategy, the procedure by which we can sustain radical social change during and af ter insurrectionary upheavals -- even to manage those upheavals; but dual power is also a situation we create for ourselves as communities. Whether the insurrec tion happens in the next decade or takes 3 more generations to occur, we can cre ate revolutionary circumstances now, and we can exercise power to the greatest p ossible extent. Dual power recognizes that waiting until after the insurrection to participate in liberatory political and economic relationships means postponi ng our liberation; it is as senseless as waiting until after the insurrection to begin reorganizing society. We do not require that the state and capitalism col lapse before we can begin living relatively free lives. The great task of grassroots dual power is to seek out and create social spaces and fill them with liberatory institutions and relationships. Where there is roo m for us to act for ourselves, we form institutions conducive not only to cataly zing revolution, but also to the present conditions of a fulfilling life, includ ing economic and political self-management to the greatest degree achievable. We seek not to seize power, but to seize opportunity vis a vis the exercise of our power. Thus, grassroots dual power is a situation wherein a self-defined community has created for itself a political/economic system which is an operating alternative to the dominant state/capitalist establishment. The dual power consists of alte rnative institutions which provide for the needs of the community, both material and social, including food, clothing, housing, health care, communication, ener gy, transportation, educational opportunities and political organization. The du al power is necessarily autonomous from, and competitive with, the dominant syst em, seeking to encroach upon the latter's domain, and, eventually, to replace it . The creation and implementation of this second power marks the first stage of re volution, that during which there exist two social systems struggling for the su pport of the people; one for their blind, uncritical allegiance; the second for their active, conscious participation. Aside from revolutionary upheaval, the very formation of a dual power system in the present is in fact one of the aims of the dual power strategy -- we seek to create a situation of dual power by building alternative political, economic and other social institutions, to fulfill the needs of our communities in an essent ially self-sufficient manner. Autonomy and relative independence from the state and capital are primary goals of dual power, as is interdependence among communi ty members.

And, again, while a post-insurrectionary society which has generally surpassed t he contradictions indicated by the term "dual power" is the eventual goal of thi s strategy, the creation of alternative social infrastructure is a desirable end in itself. Since we have no way of predicting the insurrection, it is important for our own peace of mind and empowerment as activists that we create situation s in the present which reflect the principles of our eventual visions. We must m ake for ourselves now the kinds of institutions and relationships, to the greate st extent possible, on which we'll base further activism. We should liberate spa ce, for us and future generations, in the shadow of the dominant system, not onl y from which to build a new society, but within which to live freer and more pea ceful lives today. But where does the role of resistance fall among all this construction? During t he dual power phase, it is not only important to build the foundation of the new society, but also to diminish the strength and capacity of the old system. We m ust first make space within the still-dominant system in order to have room in w hich to build society anew. Therefore, not only must we form alternative institu tions, but also counter institutions (XIs) to resist and assault the status quo. Counter activity includes everything from protest to direct action, but is defi ned as activity which actively opposes the status quo. The intricacy of analysis demanded by the kinds of activity counter institutions engage in forces us to d eeply reassess what have become common, almost default, practices among radical activist groups. Successfully melding the counter activity of XIs with the proac tivity of AIs requires a new level of strategic and tactical comprehension and c oordination. Community For our purposes, community refers to a self-defined group of consciously active individuals located in local or regional proximity (that too self-defined). The main tasks of community development are (1) the internal development of alterna tive and counter institutional structures within the community; (2) the expansio n and diversification of the community itself (popularly, not geographically); ( 3) the subjective (personal) enhancement and education of community members; (4) constitution of a sovereign municipality (having reached a "critical mass" of s table, participatory support); (5) the identification of the community within th e context of a world-wide revolution. We'll handle the last directive first. Once we have generally identified and def ined our community (and this is an ongoing, unending process), we must recognize it, and have it recognized from without, as part of a larger, essentially globa l revolutionary struggle. Communities revolting in isolation will fail. And whil e dual power will develop at different rates in different societies, regions and localities, all dual power projects must be autonomously affiliated. We are trying to revolutionize society, but to do so on a scale with which we ca n grapple. Direct democracy, at this stage, lends itself best to the community o r smaller unit. A single city may have to be divided into several dual power mun icipalities, depending on its size and the wishes of its residential members. It 's generally inconceivable that a unit larger than a city (ie, state, region, et c) could function as a directly democratic dual power community, where face-to-f ace interaction and the potency of an individual's impact on pertinent decisions is imperative -- at least at any early stage. The problem of scale is a simple one, but one without easy solutions: we want to radically reorganize all of society, but in a decentralized manner. This means there can be no central committee on the national or continental or global level which dictates or directs the development of individual communities. The revolu tion must come about from the bottom up, from the outside in. If there are to be

institutions and associations which extend beyond the neighborhood and communit y, they must be put together after the autonomous units (ie, neighborhoods, muni cipalities, etc) are defined. Should we decide to set up an elaborate system of strata (eg, neighborhood, muni cipality, county, state, region, nation, etc), each unit must come about, from s mallest and most intimate, first. And then we can affiliate with other so-develo ped units to form networks. For example, we organize our neighborhood into a dua l power network, and that neighborhood association seeks out nearby neighborhood s and develops another network to form a municipal network, which networks with other local municipalities to form a city or county dual power, and on up the li st. Realistically, we have to expect that dual power networks will first form at the community/municipal level, at least in most urban zones, and will then break up into neighborhoods, or however the strata will be defined by those involved. Th is approach still lends itself to direct democracy. However, we cannot form a Co ntinental Dual Power Network, for instance, and then divide it down. We would be spending too much time traveling to meetings to develop our own communities! In any case, scales will be experimented with, and communities will define thems elves variously. This will cause a lack of uniformity between various communitie s, even among communities which "border" each other as defined; it will even cau se confusion and conflict, or so it can be assumed. But if the alternative is ce ntralization and loss of democratic control, we will have to go it the hard way, which is after all the grassroots way. The question when it comes to scale and association is not whether the revolutio n should be world-wide vs. community-wide. Of course it must be global, as criti cs of most grassroots organizing projects constantly insist. The real question i s how we are going to develop the elaborate social system(s) necessary for groun d-up, popular self-management of revolutionary struggle. Therefore, without prec luding -- indeed recognizing! -- the need for over-arching, inter-networking org anization of the revolution, we insist on an organic, grassroots process by whic h "umbrella" structures can come about, forming holarchies in place of hierarchi es. Here we run into an unusual but very simple concept. A holarchy is a model of or ganizational structure which provides various levels of social strata for admini strative purposes, but not various levels of authority. Abstractly speaking, it is a hierarchy without differentials in the amount of decision-making power the various levels of the "pyramid" have at their disposal. In the current, republic an model of federal government used by the United States, there are several leve ls of authority. The president, at the top of the pyramidal hierarchy, obviously has inordinant amount of power compared to everyday citizens. And there are var ious levels of power in between. In a holarchy, which is still shaped as a pyramid with fewer "officers" manning the top "ranks," as you go up model from citizen to the higher levels, decisionmaking power (ie, authority) decreases as administrative function increases. Tha t is, those at the "top" are charged with merely implementing, not choosing, the desired course on any given issue. Voters at the bottom (in their neighborhoods or workplaces, for instance) make the decisions, and at some levels (eg, region al, industry-wide, etc) "representatives" are mandated to vote again, proportion ately representative of their "constituents'" wishes. We will see more examples of holarchical organization when we discuss the specif ics of economic and political dual power. For now, the abstract concept is impor tant to introduce a fresh way of looking at large scale democratic action.

The most obvious reason to network local dual power institutions and define our dual power communities (thus forming a second power) is so they can form communi ty-wide institutions, the second stage of internal development (the first being the formation of alternative institutions and counter institutions). Community-w ide institutions such as an alternative economy and political forums, and progra ms like policing and sanitation, are an enormous step, but a vital one if our co mmunities are to become anything more than loose amalgamations of collectives an d co-ops. The dual power community must grow. It must accumulate more and more members and form more institutions to serve the expansion. The community can only grow, how ever, as a result of individuals and organizations willingly deciding to partici pate in the community. We cannot, like traditional union organizers, approach an organization and ask it to vote on whether to join us or not. We must use a far more organic approach, and participation must be based on consensus. Unenthusia stic members are valuable only as numbers, at best as means to an end, and this is simply not how to go about making revolution. Furthermore, the openness of the community must be limited. There should be a cl early-defined mission, and structures which ensure the community's consistency w ith the mission. The mission should be explicit about it's desire to change soci ety structurally, and not just to provide a comfortable alternative to the domin ant system. This will certainly limit the number of people enthusiastic about jo ining. Most of the yuppie types now affiliating with food co-ops will shy away o r even be opposed. This is where class divisions will become more obvious, and t hose content with leftist lip-service will duck out. Those less interested in rh etoric but eager for practical change and action will take their places, hopeful ly several-to-one. This obviously implies that existing AIs and XIs which consider becoming officia l member institutions of the new dual power community will often undergo interna l strife themselves. But this is a necessary stage in the development of revolut ionary organization. Those members which would opt not to become members of the new community, or would not have their organization become part of it, are choos ing either a different revolution, or no revolution at all. Unfortunately, not e very alternative or counter institution will be at the appropriate point in its development to embrace the dual power and become an integral aspect of it. Some institutions will split, certain factions opting to move on to the dual power, o thers maintaining the current direction. When we talk about forming dual power institutions, we don't simply mean organiz ing them from scratch, or radicalizing existing AIs. Especially where economic i nstitutions are concerned, we are talking in many cases about transforming exist ing firms and entire industries. Labor organizations are good, general examples of XIs. Their job, when they carry it out properly, is to represent labor in opp osition to management/ownership. A radical union seeks not only cosmetic and qua lity-of-life gains for workers, but also more power structurally. As bosses' con trol of the workplace decreases, workers' power increase. And when this can be d one structurally, such as through the formation of various kinds of workers' cou ncils, a radical change has occured. A firm undergoing such structural alteratio n may be well on its way to becoming a workers' cooperative, collectively manage d and thus eligible for membership in the dual power community. Finally, as has been suggested, the implementation of dual power is not merely a method of arranging objective social conditions such as institutions and the po litical/economic system in general, but also serves to facilitate the subjective , or personal, growth of the very individuals who will make the revolution. This is handled not only by economic and political institutions, but also by new con ceptions and relationships of kinship and culture as well. A hybrid kind of inst itution, both political and economic in its nature, is required for this type of

activism. Outreach and Education The cure for vanguardism is strengthened individuality. Grassroots strategy must provide education and skills development via several methods. The more formal f orms of instruction and booklearning will probably not be done away with anytime soon, but we now have at our disposal a plethora of tactics more applicable to liberatory education. And, as has been mentioned repeatedly here, practice and t he application of skills is the best course for their development. Activist skil ls can be applied in activism, in the family setting, in radical workplaces, eve n in cultural and leisure activities. Most truly radical activism itself is empo wering and enlightening, but managerial and leadership roles are even more so. Another major aspect of developing subjective change among people involves reach ing out to the population existing outside the dual power, in the throes of the dominant system. For this reason, any dual power community must maintain its own media. Propaganda involves public critique and ideological dismantlement of the dominant social notions and institutions, as well as promotion of revolutionary alternatives. That is, the propagandist's twofold goal includes destroying the perceived legitimacy of mainstream thought and structure, plus advertisement of the benefits of membership in the dual power community. Propaganda must reintrod uce the idea of revolution, this time as a desirable possibility, not a frighten ing, ominous ideal or a commodified buzzword. One of the most important kinds of dual power institution is the alternative med ia. Parts counter institution and alternative institution, the radical media is more than just propaganda. It operates as another form of education. Dual power media must be explicit about it's bias, its intentions to foster new forms of co mmunity, etc. It must facilitate communication and help those who've become accu stomed to silence find new voices. The alternative media is not about negating t he status quo, but about decyphering it and demystifying the alternatives. The Structure of Revolution In the spirit of participatory democracy, the dual power strategy places a stron g emphasis on collectivism, the application of non-authoritarian principles and practices in everyday social situations, from home and family to workplace and e conomy. Collectivism demands, beyond the distribution of power equally among ind ividuals, an emphasis on participation and diversity of ideas. Therefore, not on ly are actors given equal weight in the making of decisions, but the options the mselves are given attention. The greatest defining factors of well-organized col lective institutions are: (1) the valuing (not merely tolerance) of dissent; (2) emphasis on democratic process; (3) elicitation of maximum participation from a ll members; (4) sense of unity and common purpose; (5) encouragement of interper sonal familiarity among members; and (6) the development and sharing of skills a mong members. So the individual is the primary unit of social change, and the collective is th e secondary unit. But just as the individual cannot self-actualize in a void, th e collective must recognize the larger movement context and its place therein. I t is for this reason that individual institutions, collectively organized if rev olutionary, must affiliate with other like institutions. Toward this end, networ ks connect alternative institutions for purposes of communication, planning and mutual aid. At the same time, federations unite counter institutions around comm on tactics and objectives. Coalitions are essentially temporary federations whic h focus on a given issue or goal. Unlike collectives, which typically rely on li mited scale for face-to-face encounters, networks and federations, while always emphasizing communication and relativity, can be based on a range of scales, fro m neighborhood to intercontinental -- as long as their purpose is to connect col

lectives which share similar intents. In the interest of remaining consistent wi th the principles of collectivism (and therefor of individual member collectives ), networks and federations must value decentralized, democratic processes, enco urage participation and dissent, and so forth. Developing alternative social infrastructure is the ultimate goal of networking alternative institutions. When political organizations such as community forums, mediation councils and municipal structures, themselves based on collectivist p rinciples, are joined with interconnected economic institutions such as worker a nd community cooperatives, alternative social infrastructure is on its way to fr uition, at least at the community level. There is considerable argument with regard to just how explicitly "revolutionary " the dual power project should be. First, we recognize it as a community-based program. However, it is not expected that any community will adopt a formal dual power structure, as such. For instance, there will probably never be a Syracuse Dual Power Association, or anything of that nature. And this is likely best. Du al power is not an ideology, and as a theory or strategy, it is not even a progr am. It may become a program if it is popularized within a given community. But b y the very notion of dual power as an idea, or a set of suggestions, or a contex t for smaller programs, etc, instead of a blueprint or dogma, we see dual power as informal and relatively amorphous, always yielding to the demands and pressur es of actual circumstance. As a general guiding idea, dual power has been releva nt, in various forms, for some time now. In order for it to stay relevant, it mu st remain non-specific. So far I have defined dual power generally, as I see it to be most relevant in N orth America at this time. Others from other societies or other points in histor y may find it necessary to radically alter even these basic assumptions, and in the interest of human liberation I offer my fondest wishes. In the following chapters we will finally get down to the nitty-gritty of organi zing dual power institutions, including workplaces, families, neighborhoods, med ia, and so forth. We will also deal with networks such as municipalities and bey ond, as well as economic systems, federations of counter-institutions, and the l ike. Just as should be the case in real life, we will start with the smallest in each category and move outward to increasing scales. Hopefully, in the coming c hapters, we will develop a more concrete, stable vision of the kind of society w e are trying to achieve, at a much more intimate level. Conflict and Insurrection Twisting the words of Alexander Berkman, who said "revolution is the boiling poi nt of evolution," it can be said that insurrection is the boiling point of revol ution. It is a period more likely to be brought about by the state, its agents a cting on behalf of all manner of oppressive ideologies, trying once and for all to reassert the old order which the dual power has wrested from its grasp. Putti ng the violent aspects of the insurrectionary ordeal into perspective, Berkman a lso wrote, "the fighting phase of [revolution] is the smallest and least signifi cant part." Which is to say, even where the object is destruction, most of what is to be destroyed is ideological -- it is our understandings, our intentions, a nd so forth. Eliminating prisons and garrisons, while necessary targets of insur rectionary acts, are not what insurrection is about. Instead, the primary destru ction will be that of outlived ideas and oppressive ways. In order for any proposal for a revolutionary strategy to be convincing, it must contain a component detailing how revolutionary movements will handle conflict and, if they are sustainable, insurrection. I intend to deal with these issues m uch later in far more detail. For now, so that the strategy I've just described will be more believable, I am offering a cursory discussion of how a holistic du

al power movement can hope to deal with conflict and insurrection. The establishment of dual power is offensive in a very subversive sense: it seek s to encroach slowly yet fully the domain of those in authority, the status quo. And thus assaults on dual power institutions can be seen as defensive manuevers on the part of the state and its cohorts. Typically in any struggle, if defende rs are well established, they have a decided advantage over their attackers. So obviously the key is to become well established. Part of that preparation for the insurrectionary moment is weakening the enemy w ell in advance. This means agitating and organizing among the ranks of the agent s of the old order. It means demoralizing the police and the military, encouragi ng them to make changes in their institutions as we are in various others. Indee d, it means encouraging them to become us. More often than not, because of the r igidity of hierarchy in such institutions, transformation will mean abandonment more than conversion. But make no mistake about it, when the violence heats up b ecause the once-comfortable authorities recognize the threat to their status, an d to the very social framework which gives rise to that status, we will not be a ble to beat an army that is at full strength, or police forces which are functio ning smoothly. Resistance, refusal, sabotage, desertion -- these will all need t o be commonplace within the armed forces, or we will have no hope of success in the insurrection. Another major element of insurrectionary victory will be stealth. That is, since the insurrection will begin around the time elites discover they are about to l ose the rug from beneath their feet, we must dispose of as much of that rug as p ossible, and replace it with our new foundation, the dual power, before they rec ognize a significant threat. Yes, I am saying we must actually postpone the insu rrection until we are most prepared to fight, and most prepared to fill those vo ids left behind by our toppling of society's oppressive apparatuses. This doesn' t mean pretending our new institutions are not in competition with their oppress ive counterparts. No, we can make no secret of our intentions lest we forget the m ourselves! Instead, we need to be careful to attack only those targets which a re ready to fall, which we can replace without petitioning for permission or rel ying on state and capitalist hand-outs. Reappropriation, of both wealth and political power, must be done carefully, wit hout exposing our weaknesses. A simple example: rather than having 15% of commun ity fully dependent upon politicized, cooperative grocery providers for all its food and such needs; it is better to have a vast majority rely on dual power ins titutions for a smaller fraction of its needs. Because then we could start takin g more drastic steps to shut down commercial grocers, or force them to yield own ership and management to workers and the community. We will have bided our stren gth well, and staged a mini-insurrection in the local grocery industry. If we ca use too much of a fuss by attacking an institution while we are still weak, we w ill be crushed. Another key to insurrectionary success is the ability to use the attacker's stre ngth against itself. This happens on the small scale of actual physical confront ation, and also on the larger range of the ideological battlefield. When a bette r-armed attacker advances on a weak opponent, the latter must somehow make use o f the former's power, to turn the tide of advantage. On the ground, in street co nfrontations, we will use Aikido and other martial arts which rely on this conce pt. We will also sabotage the machinery on which the agents of order depend. Whe n their computers and their helicopters do not function, they lose their edge ov er us, and in fact they begin to decay from within. When those not yet aroused t o rise up see others resist nonviolently as the latter are brutally attacked by their fabled "protectors," victory for us is snatched from the jaws of defeat. I don't know how many times I have been asked that dreadful question: "Can we wi

n?" It's a useless thing to ponder. Most people, activists and authorities alike , think they know the answer. Most think No, a few optimists say Yes. I insist t he question is without value. As Noam Chomsky always implores, "by doing nothing , we only guarantee that we will lose." The real question, then, is by what meth ods do we stand the best chance of winning? That's really what we should be looking for, what we should be trying to accompl ish: and the answer is in strategic and tactical outlook. If we are struggling a gainst a weakened, demoralized enemy; if our movement size, strength and discipl ine are at peak levels; if our goals our clear; if we are unified in our resista nce efforts; if we are massive and foreboding; then I say we stand a chance. So we ask how to achieve these conditions as our preparation for the main event. We will not win without violence, but neither will we win with violence. We will b e attacked, brutally and viciously, and we will have no choice but to withstand, recover and fight back. But fighting cannot be our primary tactic in achieving any of the strategic goals discussed in this chapter. Without preparation, the f ight is lost before it begins. If you need to know you're going to win before you get involved, we won't be see ing you around anyway. However, it does make sense to know how you're going to t ry to win. Insurrection is the greatest wildcard. More can be said of it when we have a better idea of what it will look like. It is not coming tomorrow, but pe rhaps in a decade or a generation. Let us only hope we will have warning, and so me reasonably better prediction of how it can be dealt with. Later on in this bo ok we will discuss at some length the more applied elements of resistance and co nflict, including how to organize for (mostly nonviolent) offensive and defensiv e manuevers without resorting to traditional military methods of organization or combat. *There are several problems with these notions and the projects they breed. Firs t of all, they repeat the obvious flaws of classical revolutionary theory. Marxi sts refuse to learn the primary lesson of historical revolutionary failures, ins tead blaming the downfall of leninist communism (and other formalized brands) on outside intervention and counterrevolution. The fact is that a population must be not only intellectually but organizationally prepared for revolution. Not onl y must the capacity for economic stability be in existence (not a tall order for a species which once hunted and gathered to provide for its survival needs!), b ut also necessary is political and economic organization capable of managing the complexities of mass scale social relations, including the allocation of resour ces and products equitably among entire populations. - e-mail:: info@dualpower.net Homepage:: http://www.dualpower.net