Re: [OPE-L] the state, self-defense, and power

From: John Holloway (johnholloway@PRODIGY.NET.MX)
Date: Thu May 26 2005 - 10:41:39 EDT

> Jerry,
>     You ask:
> To quibble a bit with the title of John's book:  one can take and make
> power without seizing  _state_ power.  The Zapatistas in Chiapas truly
> have power even though they don't have state power, don't they?  The
> Soviets had power before they were disbanded, didn't they?   Isn't the
> identification of power with state power (i.e. that the only legitimate
> claim to power is by the state)  the state perspective on power?

        In relation to your question, the significant word in the title of
the book (Change the World without taking Power) is łtaking˛. The power of
the zapatistas or of the soviets is a power that can be constructed, but not
a power that can be taken. In other words, it is a radically different type
of power, what I call a power-to rather than a power-over.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 27 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT