Joanna writes:
> "Resistance" is political action that refuses the possibility/desire
of taking power.
How do you arrive at this conclusion? To me power is part of human society. As soon as a human structure is created, power comes into existence. If one resists the power structure that exists, one is not refusing the possibility of taking power.
I think the deeper question is whether a consciousness that conceives of "taking power" is an enlightened one or a false one. Oppressors believe that they have taken power and are privileged to use it. This consciousness leads to creating particular structures that generate power in a particular way.
If radicals conceive of themselves as "taking power" they will create similar structures and generate power in the same way. Aren't the effects of power due in part to the ways in which it is generated?
Isn't part of the struggle not only wresting power away, but also generating it in new ways?
For example: wouldn't it be best for the power of marriage to be in the hands of individuals rather than the government? Shouldn't the power of marriage be generated by people rather than the state? (Didn't the Bolshevik revolution advocate the abolition of marriage, but then Stalin started a moral purity campaign?)
> It bestows the great gifts of "innocence" and "self-righteousness."
How and why does it bestow these gifts? I find self-righteousness more an attribute of those who have power and claim that they know the right way to use/handle it, e.g., Stalin's moral purity campaign.
> What more could any comfortable, middle-class leftist ask for?
A comfortable, middle-class leftist wants just the opposite -- a state of non-resistance where their views are in sync with those who have/ generate power. Comfort comes from being in agreement not opposition.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister