Across the globe, millions of people have participated in protests and marches, donated to political groups, or lobbied their representatives with the aim of creating lasting social change, overturning repressive laws, or limiting environmental destruction. Yet very little seems to improve for those affected by rapacious governments. Replace the State brings new hope for social justice movements by looking to progressive campaigns that have found success by unconventional, and more direct, means.
Sasha Davis is a Professor of Environmental and Sustainability Studies at Keene State College in New Hampshire. He is author of "Replace the State: How to Change the World When Elections and Protests Fail", "Islands and Oceans: Reimagining Sovereignty and Social Change" and "The Empires’ Edge: Militarization, Resistance, and Transcending Hegemony in the Pacific."
I have really mixed feelings about this book! On one hand, it was really interesting to read about the author's experiences in different protest movements throughout the last few decades, from anti-nuclear testing in the 90s to the Indigenous Hawaiian fight to protect Mauna Kea from an ecologically damaging telescope. And I agree with his general premise that protesting to demand things from the current institutions of power isn't enough, and we need to build/continue building our own structures that allow people to make decisions about things that affect their lives in a much more democratic way.
On the other hand, I felt like the author was making up an unnecessary new framework for concepts that already exist: anarchism, direct democracy, prefiguration, direct action, etc. It kinda feels, to me, like a white guy going to a lot of encampments led by BIPOC, in particular Indigenous communities, and then making up his own framework to describe their strategies, when they already have multiple perfectly good ways to describe them.
A few other criticisms: I felt like he was leaning way too hard on occupations/encampments as a panacea, when they tend to be high-risk, and take a lot of energy and resources. They can be really incredible, but they're not the right strategy for every protest movement at every time.
Also, in the last chapter, I felt like he fell a bit into respectability politics while talking about how movements should try to appeal to everyone. That's just not how protest movements have ever worked - they don't need to have the full support of the general public in order to make material change. It's one thing to be inclusive, particularly of people who may share your values but don't know all the activist lingo, and another thing to water down your message to try to appeal to the broadest possible audience - and he went way too far in the latter direction for me.