the idea that dual power is a strategic orientation we build, rather than a very specific historical artefact of the concrete historical conditions particular to Russia in the early 1900s is itself an error I also don't see many people correctly grasping at! whoever distorted the concept of "dual power" as like this thing you pursue has also, in my view, contributed a lot to the confusion
I think there’s some truth in what you’re saying, in that “dual power” originally described a very specific situation in Russia where two competing centers of political authority existed simultaneously. A lot of people flatten the term into basically meaning “mutual aid,” which absolutely creates confusion.
At the same time, I don’t think that means the concept has no strategic relevance outside that exact historical moment. The underlying dynamic, people building independent institutions that both meet material needs and develop political capacity outside the state, is something that appears repeatedly across revolutionary history.
When I organized in Jalisco, for example, our community built a volunteer fire and EMS structure because the state effectively provided nothing and the nearest services were nearly an hour away. What mattered wasn’t just the service itself, but that people learned through practice that functions abandoned by the state were things they could collectively organize themselves. That process raised political consciousness, created durable organization, and built confidence in institutions rooted in the community rather than the government.
I’d agree that this is not “dual power” in the exact same sense as Russia in 1917. But I also think treating dual power purely as a historical artifact risks missing the broader strategic lesson contained within it.
the idea that dual power is a strategic orientation we build, rather than a very specific historical artefact of the concrete historical conditions particular to Russia in the early 1900s is itself an error I also don't see many people correctly grasping at! whoever distorted the concept of "dual power" as like this thing you pursue has also, in my view, contributed a lot to the confusion
I think there’s some truth in what you’re saying, in that “dual power” originally described a very specific situation in Russia where two competing centers of political authority existed simultaneously. A lot of people flatten the term into basically meaning “mutual aid,” which absolutely creates confusion.
At the same time, I don’t think that means the concept has no strategic relevance outside that exact historical moment. The underlying dynamic, people building independent institutions that both meet material needs and develop political capacity outside the state, is something that appears repeatedly across revolutionary history.
When I organized in Jalisco, for example, our community built a volunteer fire and EMS structure because the state effectively provided nothing and the nearest services were nearly an hour away. What mattered wasn’t just the service itself, but that people learned through practice that functions abandoned by the state were things they could collectively organize themselves. That process raised political consciousness, created durable organization, and built confidence in institutions rooted in the community rather than the government.
I’d agree that this is not “dual power” in the exact same sense as Russia in 1917. But I also think treating dual power purely as a historical artifact risks missing the broader strategic lesson contained within it.