Add new comment

In Marxist theory, it's assumed that, usually, a single class has "power" (including control of the state and economy) in a given unit (nation-state, region, world-system...) So for example, a particular unit can be characterised as "bourgeois", "feudal", "proletarian". (Of course there is also struggle among individual feudal lords, capitalist companies, etc; or between "fractions" of a class, e.g. financial and industrial capital - that's not dual power, because it happens within a particular mode of production controlled by a single class). In some cases, no class has enough power to dominate the situation and two class regimes coincide, usually in a situation of conflict. For example, capitalists continue to control parts of the economy but workers' councils seize control of other parts. This kind of situation is called "dual power". Russia between February and October 2017, France in 1968, and China during the civil war (c. 1930-1949) are some of the examples I've seen given of dual power. It's a loaded concept (one has to accept the idea of normal unitary class power for it to work), but I can see it being useful if we tweak it towards ideas of dispersed vs concentrated power (as in Zibechi's work on Bolivia). Autonomous zones and liberated spaces (e.g. social centres) are little hubs of dispersed power which challenge the exclusive dominance of concentrated power. If they become powerful past a certain point, they create the possibility to replace concentrated power with dispersed power. In the meantime, they coexist as a kind of very localised dual power.

I think the situation is more complicated than Marxists allow anyway, because the state is a class-like force in its own right (this is very clear in Bakunin and Kropotkin, but also suggested in Marx's Eighteenth Brumaire and in scholarship on neo-patrimonialism and crony capitalism). There are also other classes allied with the ruling elite, so even "normal" capitalism isn't a unitary power-system, it's rule by a coalition of classes - capitalist, statist, and other elite and intermediary groups. Most Marxists have a weird investment in state instrumentality even though they don't believe the state is just a neutral tool. They want to situate "real" power in social classes and see the state as somehow a tool of one or more classes, even if they assign it more or less autonomy. I think this reflects the fact that they actually internalise statist thinking in their own thought, i.e. they'd like to imagine they're expressing a proletarian class position, but in fact, they're combining elements of such a position with elements of a state-class position. This isn't just a political issue, but embedded quite deep within Marxism, in the assumption that people form a collective unity and therefore should be organised on a mass scale. It's only if we Stirnerise Marx that we get away from this entrenched statism.