Dual Power

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 room
for us to act for ourselves, we form institutions conducive not only to catalyzing
revolution, but also to the present conditions of a fulfilling life, including
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 organization 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 power.
First, there is the classical notion of the relationship between (1) the current
establishment and (2) the second social infrastructure pitted in opposition to it.
Here the status quo consists of a market capitalist economy, an authoritarian republic,
patriarchy, adultarchy, judeo-christian eurocentricity, white supremacy, etc. These are
the ideologies and institutions which make up the oppressive system according to which
our society operates. By necessity, then, our oppositional dual power, our alternative
infrastructure, must be based on decentralized socialist economics, a participatory
democratic polity, feminist and youthist kinship, and a secular yet spiritual,
intercommunal culture. Those will be the building blocks of our new society, and the
masonry has already begun.
The second duality is between (1) the creative force of forming new social institutions
and transforming oppressive ones into liberatory, and (2) resisting or destroying what is
useless and oppressive to us in the current establishment. In other words, we need to
approach revolutionary social change with constructive and a destructive tactics in our
toolbox. We cannot build until we make space, but our alternative social infrastructure
will not make itself, so we must establish 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 contemporary, grassroots
approach, but there are also a number of tendencies within the latter framework.
Essentially, the most popular alternative to the strategic outlook 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 holistic dual power because a main tenet of the
approach is that we need to form alternative and resistance infrastructure in all spheres
of social life (where libertarian 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 industrialized world. These
conditions, they assert, are the technologically advanced forms of production which place
the ability, just not the authority, to meet all people's material needs in the hands of the
workers. In other words, if only the workers 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, marxists 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 contemporary
marxists tend to organize ideologically, spreading propaganda, instead of practically, as
in establishing the grassroots organizations necessary for fulfilling the immediate and
future needs of the people, including popularized political and economic selfmanagement. For them, dual power comes about when their party establishes the
strength and wherewithall to reorganize and run society from the top down.
Marxists generally deny the necessity of popular, grassroots organization, precisely
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 allegiance to marxism and the
vanguard party of their choosing. The party will "provide the necessary leadership" to
guide the revolution and rebuild society in the wake of insurrection. It is not imperative,
then, to build grassroots institutions and form a democratic framework in the preinsurrectionary period. Nor is it important that the people, seen as "masses," develop
the skills required to self-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 information,
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 struggle. Without the practical, day-to-day
projects which build toward revolution, in the meantime providing essential living space
and protection from the effects of oppression, our propaganda is baseless. It is simply
false to claim the solution to our collective woes can be found in turning to elites and
leaders as our "activism," whatever their ideological persuasion or their power.
The essence of a grassroots dual power strategy is captured in the above quotation from
EZLN leader Marcos. It illustrates the very different concept of revolution professed by
the Zapatistas, and beginning to be understood by radicals in various movements
throughout the world.
As we discussed in the last chapter, the social power of "the masses" is currently on loan
-- rented by elites. We forfeit our prerogative to manage our own political and economic

lives, defaulting to the role of passively accepting the established manner of social
functioning. The limited access to politics afforded by the status quo, such as voting and
petitioning, amount to nothing more than reaffirmations 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 overturning of the status
quo. Indeed, even passive acceptance of the status quo, when coupled with participation
in everyday social functions as defined by that same status quo, is still active support of
it. Even in the case when a new, alternative political force seizes power at the top, the
relationship of authority and subordination persists. Only when people actually
participate in an alternative 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 responsive to the
actual will of the people. I will say nothing herein about morality, 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 by those affected by them: citizens and
workers. This strategic idea is still a threat, of course. It does take a stance against the
inordinate amounts of authority presently reserved for politicians and their private
backers. It does call to task the hierarchical arrangements of the workplace, the family,
the school, the church, and so forth, which directly contradict and resist the exercise of
power 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 issues need
to be decided, much less which conclusions should be favored, in a democratic society,
or a society aspiring toward real democracy.
Such is the essence of grassroots dual power. It is foremost a revolutionary strategy, the
procedure by which we can sustain radical social change during and after insurrectionary
upheavals -- even to manage those upheavals; but dual power is also a situation we
create for ourselves as communities. Whether the insurrection happens in the next
decade or takes 3 more generations to occur, we can create revolutionary circumstances
now, and we can exercise power to the greatest possible extent. Dual power recognizes
that waiting until after the insurrection to participate in liberatory political and economic
relationships means postponing 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 collapse 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 room for us to act for
ourselves, we form institutions conducive not only to catalyzing revolution, but also to
the present conditions of a fulfilling life, including economic and political selfmanagement 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 alternative institutions which
provide for the needs of the community, both material and social, including food,

clothing, housing, health care, communication, energy, transportation, educational
opportunities and political organization. The dual power is necessarily autonomous from,
and competitive with, the dominant system, 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
revolution, that during which there exist two social systems struggling for the support 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 essentially self-sufficient
manner. Autonomy and relative independence from the state and capital are primary
goals of dual power, as is interdependence among community members.
And, again, while a post-insurrectionary society which has generally surpassed the
contradictions indicated by the term "dual power" is the eventual goal of this 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 situations in the present which reflect the
principles of our eventual visions. We must make for ourselves now the kinds of
institutions and relationships, to the greatest extent possible, on which we'll base further
activism. We should liberate space, for us and future generations, in the shadow of the
dominant system, not only from which to build a new society, but within which to live
freer and more peaceful lives today.
But where does the role of resistance fall among all this construction? During the 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 must first make space within
the still-dominant system in order to have room in which to build society anew.
Therefore, not only must we form alternative institutions, but also counter institutions
(XIs) to resist and assault the status quo. Counter activity includes everything from
protest to direct action, but is defined 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 deeply reassess what have become common, almost default, practices
among radical activist groups. Successfully melding the counter activity of XIs with the
proactivity of AIs requires a new level of strategic and tactical comprehension and
coordination.
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 alternative and counter
institutional structures within the community; (2) the expansion 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 stable, participatory support); (5) the

identification of the community within the context of a world-wide revolution.
We'll handle the last directive first. Once we have generally identified and defined 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 global revolutionary struggle.
Communities revolting in isolation will fail. And while 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 can grapple.
Direct democracy, at this stage, lends itself best to the community or smaller unit. A
single city may have to be divided into several dual power municipalities, 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, etc) could function as a directly democratic dual
power community, where face-to-face 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 revolution 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 community, they must be put together after
the autonomous units (ie, neighborhoods, municipalities, etc) are defined.
Should we decide to set up an elaborate system of strata (eg, neighborhood,
municipality, county, state, region, nation, etc), each unit must come about, from
smallest and most intimate, first. And then we can affiliate with other so-developed units
to form networks. For example, we organize our neighborhood into a dual power
network, and that neighborhood association seeks out nearby neighborhoods 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 list.
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. This approach
still lends itself to direct democracy. However, we cannot form a Continental 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 themselves
variously. This will cause a lack of uniformity between various communities, even among
communities which "border" each other as defined; it will even cause confusion and
conflict, or so it can be assumed. But if the alternative is centralization 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 revolution should
be world-wide vs. community-wide. Of course it must be global, as critics of most
grassroots organizing projects constantly insist. The real question is how we are going to

develop the elaborate social system(s) necessary for ground-up, popular selfmanagement of revolutionary struggle. Therefore, without precluding -- indeed
recognizing! -- the need for over-arching, inter-networking organization of the
revolution, we insist on an organic, grassroots process by which "umbrella" structures
can come about, forming holarchies in place of hierarchies.
Here we run into an unusual but very simple concept. A holarchy is a model of
organizational structure which provides various levels of social strata for administrative
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, republican model of federal government
used by the United States, there are several levels of authority. The president, at the top
of the pyramidal hierarchy, obviously has inordinant amount of power compared to
everyday citizens. And there are various 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, decision-making power (ie,
authority) decreases as administrative function increases. That 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, regional, industry-wide, etc) "representatives" are
mandated to vote again, proportionately representative of their "constituents'" wishes.
We will see more examples of holarchical organization when we discuss the specifics of
economic and political dual power. For now, the abstract concept is important 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 community-wide
institutions, the second stage of internal development (the first being the formation of
alternative institutions and counter institutions). Community-wide institutions such as an
alternative economy and political forums, and programs like policing and sanitation, are
an enormous step, but a vital one if our communities are to become anything more than
loose amalgamations of collectives and 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,
however, as a result of individuals and organizations willingly deciding to participate 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. Unenthusiastic 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 clearlydefined mission, and structures which ensure the community's consistency with the
mission. The mission should be explicit about it's desire to change society structurally,
and not just to provide a comfortable alternative to the dominant system. This will
certainly limit the number of people enthusiastic about joining. Most of the yuppie types
now affiliating with food co-ops will shy away or even be opposed. This is where class

divisions will become more obvious, and those content with leftist lip-service will duck
out. Those less interested in rhetoric but eager for practical change and action will take
their places, hopefully several-to-one.
This obviously implies that existing AIs and XIs which consider becoming official member
institutions of the new dual power community will often undergo internal strife
themselves. But this is a necessary stage in the development of revolutionary
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 choosing either a
different revolution, or no revolution at all. Unfortunately, not every 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, others maintaining the current direction.
When we talk about forming dual power institutions, we don't simply mean organizing
them from scratch, or radicalizing existing AIs. Especially where economic institutions
are concerned, we are talking in many cases about transforming existing 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 opposition to management/ownership.
A radical union seeks not only cosmetic and quality-of-life gains for workers, but also
more power structurally. As bosses' control of the workplace decreases, workers' power
increase. And when this can be done structurally, such as through the formation of
various kinds of workers' councils, a radical change has occured. A firm undergoing such
structural alteration may be well on its way to becoming a workers' cooperative,
collectively managed 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
political/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 conceptions and relationships
of kinship and culture as well. A hybrid kind of institution, 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 forms 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 the application of skills is the
best course for their development. Activist skills can be applied in activism, in the family
setting, in radical workplaces, even in cultural and leisure activities. Most truly radical
activism itself is empowering and enlightening, but managerial and leadership roles are
even more so.
Another major aspect of developing subjective change among people involves reaching
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 reintroduce the idea of revolution, this time as a
desirable possibility, not a frightening, ominous ideal or a commodified buzzword.
One of the most important kinds of dual power institution is the alternative media. 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 community, etc. It must
facilitate communication and help those who've become accustomed to silence find new
voices. The alternative media is not about negating the 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 strong
emphasis on collectivism, the application of non-authoritarian principles and practices in
everyday social situations, from home and family to workplace and economy.
Collectivism demands, beyond the distribution of power equally among individuals, an
emphasis on participation and diversity of ideas. Therefore, not only are actors given
equal weight in the making of decisions, but the options themselves are given attention.
The greatest defining factors of well-organized collective institutions are: (1) the valuing
(not merely tolerance) of dissent; (2) emphasis on democratic process; (3) elicitation of
maximum participation from all members; (4) sense of unity and common purpose; (5)
encouragement of interpersonal familiarity among members; and (6) the development
and sharing of skills among members.
So the individual is the primary unit of social change, and the collective is the secondary
unit. But just as the individual cannot self-actualize in a void, the collective must
recognize the larger movement context and its place therein. It is for this reason that
individual institutions, collectively organized if revolutionary, must affiliate with other like
institutions. Toward this end, networks connect alternative institutions for purposes of
communication, planning and mutual aid. At the same time, federations unite counter
institutions around common tactics and objectives. Coalitions are essentially temporary
federations which focus on a given issue or goal. Unlike collectives, which typically rely
on limited scale for face-to-face encounters, networks and federations, while always
emphasizing communication and relativity, can be based on a range of scales, from
neighborhood to intercontinental -- as long as their purpose is to connect collectives
which share similar intents. In the interest of remaining consistent with the principles of
collectivism (and therefor of individual member collectives), networks and federations
must value decentralized, democratic processes, encourage 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 principles, are joined with
interconnected economic institutions such as worker and community cooperatives,
alternative social infrastructure is on its way to fruition, 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. Dual power is not an
ideology, and as a theory or strategy, it is not even a program. It may become a
program if it is popularized within a given community. But by the very notion of dual
power as an idea, or a set of suggestions, or a context 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 pressures of actual circumstance. As a general
guiding idea, dual power has been relevant, in various forms, for some time now. In
order for it to stay relevant, it must remain non-specific.
So far I have defined dual power generally, as I see it to be most relevant in North
America at this time. Others from other societies or other points in history 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 organizing dual
power institutions, including workplaces, families, neighborhoods, media, and so forth.
We will also deal with networks such as municipalities and beyond, as well as economic
systems, federations of counter-institutions, and the like. 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 chapters, we will develop a more concrete, stable vision
of the kind of society we 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 point of
evolution," it can be said that insurrection is the boiling point of revolution. It is a period
more likely to be brought about by the state, its agents acting 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. Putting the violent aspects of the insurrectionary
ordeal into perspective, Berkman also wrote, "the fighting phase of [revolution] is the
smallest and least significant 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, and so forth. Eliminating prisons and garrisons, while necessary targets of
insurrectionary acts, are not what insurrection is about. Instead, the primary destruction
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 much 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 dual power movement can hope to deal with conflict
and insurrection.
The establishment of dual power is offensive in a very subversive sense: it seeks 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 defenders 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 well in
advance. This means agitating and organizing among the ranks of the agents of the old
order. It means demoralizing the police and the military, encouraging them to make
changes in their institutions as we are in various others. Indeed, it means encouraging
them to become us. More often than not, because of the rigidity of hierarchy in such
institutions, transformation will mean abandonment more than conversion. But make no
mistake about it, when the violence heats up because the once-comfortable authorities
recognize the threat to their status, and to the very social framework which gives rise to
that status, we will not be able to beat an army that is at full strength, or police forces
which are functioning smoothly. Resistance, refusal, sabotage, desertion -- these will all
need to 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 lose the rug
from beneath their feet, we must dispose of as much of that rug as possible, and replace
it with our new foundation, the dual power, before they recognize a significant threat.
Yes, I am saying we must actually postpone the insurrection until we are most prepared
to fight, and most prepared to fill those voids left behind by our toppling of society's
oppressive apparatuses. This doesn't mean pretending our new institutions are not in
competition with their oppressive counterparts. No, we can make no secret of our
intentions lest we forget them ourselves! Instead, we need to be careful to attack only
those targets which are ready to fall, which we can replace without petitioning for
permission or relying on state and capitalist hand-outs.
Reappropriation, of both wealth and political power, must be done carefully, without
exposing our weaknesses. A simple example: rather than having 15% of community 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 institutions for a smaller
fraction of its needs. Because then we could start taking more drastic steps to shut down
commercial grocers, or force them to yield ownership and management to workers and
the community. We will have bided our strength well, and staged a mini-insurrection in
the local grocery industry. If we cause too much of a fuss by attacking an institution
while we are still weak, we will be crushed.
Another key to insurrectionary success is the ability to use the attacker's strength
against itself. This happens on the small scale of actual physical confrontation, and also
on the larger range of the ideological battlefield. When a better-armed attacker advances
on a weak opponent, the latter must somehow make use of the former's power, to turn
the tide of advantage. On the ground, in street confrontations, we will use Aikido and
other martial arts which rely on this concept. We will also sabotage the machinery on
which the agents of order depend. When their computers and their helicopters do not
function, they lose their edge over us, and in fact they begin to decay from within. When
those not yet aroused to 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 win?"
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 the 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 methods do we stand the best chance of
winning?
That's really what we should be looking for, what we should be trying to accomplish: and
the answer is in strategic and tactical outlook. If we are struggling against a weakened,
demoralized enemy; if our movement size, strength and discipline are at peak levels; if
our goals our clear; if we are unified in our resistance 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 be 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
fight is lost before it begins.
If you need to know you're going to win before you get involved, we won't be seeing you
around anyway. However, it does make sense to know how you're going to try 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 perhaps in a decade or a
generation. Let us only hope we will have warning, and some reasonably better
prediction of how it can be dealt with. Later on in this book we will discuss at some
length the more applied elements of resistance and conflict, including how to organize
for (mostly nonviolent) offensive and defensive manuevers without resorting to
traditional military methods of organization or combat.
*There are several problems with these notions and the projects they breed. First of all,
they repeat the obvious flaws of classical revolutionary theory. Marxists refuse to learn
the primary lesson of historical revolutionary failures, instead 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 only 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!), but also necessary is political and economic organization
capable of managing the complexities of mass scale social relations, including the
allocation of resources and products equitably among entire populations.