{"id":861747,"date":"2022-10-30T20:06:01","date_gmt":"2022-10-30T20:06:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/radiofree.asia\/?guid=c82b7895dd93910d20ffc2523f61618b"},"modified":"2022-10-30T20:06:01","modified_gmt":"2022-10-30T20:06:01","slug":"whats-the-problem-with-taking-state-power","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2022\/10\/30\/whats-the-problem-with-taking-state-power\/","title":{"rendered":"What\u2019s the Problem with Taking State Power?"},"content":{"rendered":"
In 2002, in the midst of a wave of global resistance to corporate globalization that would produce major protests at trade meetings from Seattle to Genoa to Hong Kong, a book appeared that captured much of the spirit of the period\u2019s activism. Written by John Holloway, an Irish-born political theorist who had long made his home in Mexico, it was entitled \u201cChange the World Without Taking Power.\u201d The volume, which argued that \u201cthe radical change that is so urgent cannot be brought about through the state,\u201d made Holloway a prominent voice on the international left. A decade later, U.S.-born anthropologist David Graeber gained a wide hearing while championing the anarchist elements of Occupy Wall Street and defending the movement\u2019s suspicion of engaging with established political institutions. \u201c[T]he refusal to make demands,\u201d he would write, \u201cwas, quite self-consciously, a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the existing political order of which such demands would have to be made.\u201d<\/p>\n
In staking out such ground, these two thinkers took firm positions on a question of perennial concern to social movements: Should we maintain independence and function as a critical force outside of mainstream politics, or should we attempt to take hold of the levers of institutional power in order to create change?<\/p>\n
In the period between the end of the Cold War and Occupy\u2019s emergence in the Obama years, a pronounced anarchist disposition held sway on the left, both in the U.S. and internationally. This was particularly true in the mass protest movements that produced some of the era\u2019s defining confrontations. This sensibility was profoundly distrustful of the American two-party system and wary of mainstream politicians who might attempt to co-opt movement issues and energies. For thinkers such as Holloway and Graeber, the price of playing the game of insider politics was simply too high. Movements, they believed, did better to work from the outside.<\/p>\n
Recently, however, the prevailing mood on the left has changed \u2014 especially since the unexpectedly successful 2016 presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders, who presented a vigorous challenge to Hillary Clinton while running as an open socialist in the Democratic primaries. Subsequently, interest in mounting radical drives from within the electoral system has greatly increased. In recent years, organizations ranging from Justice Democrats and People\u2019s Action to the Sunrise Movement, Our Revolution and the Democratic Socialists of America have entered electoral politics with new vigor. The dividends of this changed approach are already becoming evident with the rise of \u201cThe Squad\u201d in Congress and with a variety of high-profile wins in city and state politics throughout the country. Veteran activists who have lived through earlier periods when the left\u2019s political marginalization was taken for granted have noted the altered strategic orientation, as well as the reanimating spirit that has come with it.<\/p>\n
There is certainly cause to celebrate this shift. And yet, a move toward insider politics cannot be undertaken lightly. While writers with anarchist or <\/span>autonomist<\/a> <\/span>leanings such as Graeber and Holloway may have been unduly fearful of cooptation and overly pessimistic about the possibilities of creating change through entering the system, they also voiced some valid concerns. In fact, their critique of bureaucratic institutionalization presents a critical challenge to progressives looking to chart a path forward in the coming decade that involves entering mainstream politics. Their central warning: As much as activists may seek to transform the state, the state may succeed in transforming them instead.<\/p>\nBreaking Out of Anarchist Self-Isolation<\/strong><\/h2>\n