60
REVOLUTIONARY SOCIAL CHANGE IN COLOMBIA
Revolutions, by their very nature, cannot come through those already empowered, but are made real only through the conscious and organized action of the unempowered. Hence, revolutions can best be defined by the extent to which those exploited under the dominant paradigm of capitalism are emancipated (Löwy, 2005b: 24). Marxism-Leninism then emphasizes the potential power of the powerless to respond to the contradictory social relations of productions as the important factor when concerning revolution. It is not solely the political in which the majority is exploited; therefore, it is more than the state that must be altered (see Engels, 1990b: 59; Draper, 1978a: 180–1; 1992; Marx, 1975b: 184; 1975c: 205–6; Avineri, 1968: 193–4). Although it might appear simplistic, it is useful to categorize revolutionary theories into two modes: those that sustain order and those that create change (Naiman, 2004; Sacouman, 1999; Greene, 1990). Instead of accrediting statebased power transfers as the defining act of a revolution, broader analyses consider whether peoples experience societal transformation, which created such conditions, and what, if any, these changes entail for those marginalized. THE POTENTIAL FOR DUAL POWER IN COLOMBIA Emphasizing the role of the state in revolution is shared by both “state-centered and Marxists analysts alike, even though the latter are otherwise keen to emphasize how class struggles are supposedly the driving force behind revolutions” (Goodwin, 2001: 42). Some state-centered theories have even utilized the work of Lenin as a vehicle to justify top-down revolution (Goodwin, 1997: 15; Skocpol, 1979: 26). True, Lenin’s contribution had a consistent theme, that a revolution must, to be successful and sustained, incorporate and consolidate state power (Paige, 2003: 20). However, what these theorists who employ Lenin as a proponent of top-down approaches tend to leave silent is Lenin’s lifelong contribution to how a truly emancipatory revolution comes to fruition. As clearly noted in Dual Power, Lenin argued that a true revolution does not occur from above through the consolidation of power through a preexisting sociopolitical class system, but rather from below though an alternative class-based construct (both governing and militaristically prepared), which exists beyond the conventional model (Lenin, 1964g: 38–9). Some have tried to define dual power as the existence of “two or more political blocs (including, typically, extant state officials and their allies), both or all of which claim to be the legitimate state, and both or all of which may possess significant means of coercion” (Goodwin, 2001: 12). According to Charles Tilly (1978: 191–3), the situation of dual power, or what he labels “multiple sovereignty,” occurs when contending groups vie for authority over a given population, thereby weakening one “state” power in favor of another.20 However, this is not what Lenin said. He argued that an alternative state must exist in dismissal of, not competition toward, the existing model. Within such a situation people “set up their own organized power without having achieved political independence” (Lenin, 1969: 401). Dual
