From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Fri May 27 2005 - 07:56:46 EDT
> 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: Well, I see your point ... sort of. I'm sure you are not opposed in principle to the tactic of factory occupations -- also called factory _take_-overs -- or student occupations, also known as _take_-overs -- or squatters _taking_ possession of abandoned buildings or landless peasants _taking_ possession of (dare I say -- seizing?) land. It's hard for me to see how 'power-to' isn't, or doesn't become, 'power- over'. The squatters that I know would certainly say that they have 'power-over' -- their own lives (at least to some degree). If workers occupy factories they also, at least temporarily and to a limited degree, have some 'power-over' capitalists. When workers resist speed-up they build 'power-to' and 'power-over' -- just as the 'power- over' workers is enhanced when capital succeeds in speed-up. Etc. Workers fight both _for_ themselves and _against_ capital: hence, I think that 'power-to' and 'power-over' are inter-related and inter-connected. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 29 2005 - 00:00:03 EDT