“All Power to the People!” cried the Panthers in 1966, themselves directly influenced by Vladimir Lenin’s 1917 demand: “All Power to the Soviets!” These two demands mobilized major sections of their respective populations, drew in broad and diverse groups of people, and in the case of the Bolsheviks, led to the direct seizure of power by the oppressed.
What made “All Power to the People” such a good demand? The answer is this: Crystallized within this simple demand is every single revolutionary struggle, and with them their respective demands.
There exist among us many so-called radicals, so-called organizers, and even so-called socialists who, refusing to acknowledge the necessity of the seizure of power by the working and oppressed peoples, engage in “single-issue reformism.” They spend their days drafting petitions and calling senators — they may even be quite educated on the topic at hand — but in terms of their practice, they seldom reach outside of their given bubble, and do little to connect their “issue” to others. They truly believe in the notion of pushing the existing apparatus toward progress, accepting the grueling and oftentimes unrewarding nature of this praxis as simply “playing the game.”
Time and time again, single-issue reformism has been proven to be a dead end. Yes, it functions as a fantastic lifeboat, working to keep us alive and ready to fight another day, but it is unable to truly bring an end to oppression. It fails to recognize that the system we live under was designed for a specific purpose, and to defend a specific group: the people with the power. When it does recognize this reality, it simply lets out a cowardly sigh and explains to us that, “There’s simply no other choice!” Time after time, the reformists demonstrate their own status as being divorced from reality.
To be sure, reformists often mean well, setting out passionately in pursuit of a changed world, but soon enough find themselves devoid of any actual passion or energy to be directed toward far-reaching concrete change. One might hear them say things like, “Sadly, the only way to make any real change is to work within the system” — but when you ask them for a concrete example of these so-called “real changes,” they have nothing to offer. A curious paradox indeed.
One would think that such a poor return on investment would be enough to convince our aforementioned “single-issue reformists” of the futile nature of their practice, yet many of our dear friends continue to work diligently, dedicating themselves to a strategy that seemingly lacks the ability to fundamentally change anything.
Imagine, if you will, Fred Hampton, deputy chairman of the Black Panther Party until his 1969 murder by the Chicago Police Department, is brought to us in 2025 by the magic of a time machine. Excited by this miraculous and timely appearance, we elect to ask him for his thoughts on today’s situation. We ask him:
“How do we end the genocide in Palestine?”
He says to us: “All Power to the People!”
We ask him: “How do we prevent ICE from harming our communities?”
He says to us: “All Power to the People!”
We ask him: “How do we protect reproductive rights?”
He again says to us: “All Power to the People!”
As regards any progressive struggle, regardless of what its focus may be, the answer remains the same. “All Power to the People” is the only viable, permanent solution. Indeed, I must put it bluntly: If your long-term fighting strategy consists of anything less than demanding the seizure of power by the powerless, then your efforts are in vain. Regardless of if you choose to admit it, the people need power — power to determine their destiny, power to build a world free of oppression, power to pursue communities driven by love. Power to make history, and not simply experience it.
“All Power to the People!” is such an important demand precisely because it cuts through all of the mystique and so-called complexities that the powers that be try to convince us stand in the way of our freedom. It makes it known that the situation is actually quite simple; that those who benefit from the oppression of the masses do so because they have all the power, and they are not interested in sharing it. Therefore, if we desire any change in our situation, we need power, and since the rulers aren’t interested in sharing, we must take it from them.
Yes, change needs to start somewhere. Such is the oft-quoted axiom repeated time and time again by our reformers. True, there is a time and a place for petitioning and other parliamentary activities, but only insofar as they serve the wider goal of people’s power. Petitions, letters, and calling representatives: these are fantastic tactics*,* but they are not themselves a substitute for a long-term strategy. Our strategy, our end goal, must be power — anything less is selling the masses short. It amounts to a half-baked attempt at enacting real world change.
We must, in the first place, acknowledge the inherently oppressive nature of the existing state. We must acknowledge the common root of the various “issues” plaguing our current social order. No amount of reform can fix a system which was never meant to serve us in the first place. If reformism possessed the ability to end the occupation of Palestine, it would have; if it possessed the ability to protect immigrants from ICE, it would have.
The fact of the matter is this: when a state is inherently designed to keep certain people oppressed, no amount of reform can make any real structural difference. Indeed, sooner or later our reformists must accept that the politicians they beg for scraps are not their friends, and in fact, are their enemies. The sooner they accept this and turn not to the powers that be, but to the community at large, the sooner we can begin speaking the same language and building real power.
With modern fascism in its embryonic form, now is the time to start thinking bigger. It is no longer enough to put band-aids on the ever-growing wound — we must wrest the knife from the hands of the oppressors. Reform, while a perfectly respectable tactical choice, can no longer be an end in and of itself.
So I say to the reformers: will you be content with begging the powers that be for small-scale, short term concessions? Or will you join the hungry masses in their quest for people’s power?
A continuation of this article, “On power: What’s in a demand?” will be published March 24 in The Mass Media.