OPE-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

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

You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.

Title: Re: [OPE-L] the state,  self-defense, and  power
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 “taking”. 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.

    John
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]