UPDATE: This article has now been extended into a book, recently released by Polity Press, read the blurb and buy it here: http://politybooks.com/bookdetail/?isbn=9781509528547

This was a scrappy first draft bashed out on Facebook, of an article now published at Red Pepper, so go read that there. I’ll keep this post up just cos, but the final article reads much better (though my ultra high quality diagrams didn’t make the cut, dang):

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/shock-doctrine-of-the-left-a-strategy-for-building-socialist-counterpower/

The left continues to engage in a variety of different strategies that are usually taken separately, or even seen as opposed, such as:

SMASHING – direct action to disrupt systems

BUILDING – creating alternatives today which aim to take over

HEALING – spaces and practices which enable people to survive capitalism and all its overlapping oppressions (without necessarily aiming to take over)

TAMING – the electoral social democratic route

Already today I’ve seen people clashing over how is the best way to move forward – do we put all our energies into supporting Corbyn, or is the rise of fascism the final nail in the electoral coffin? Do we focus on care, or smashing the state? Here is a proposal for how these might be combined to form a coherent meta-strategy that actually works together. This comes out of the complex systems course, combines ideas from social movement theory (including the Egyptian April 6 Movement), intersectional feminism and bits of Marxist/anarchist analysis. Basically the last chapter of my yet-to-be-written book. It’s not a blueprint to be dogmatically followed, it’s an initial idea to be tried, tested, adapted.

The vehicle for this metastrategy is an ECOLOGY OF ORGANISATIONS

CORE ELEMENTS OF THE ECOLOGY

– includes groups struggling against the system and building alternatives

– both ecology and constituent groups have a clear ‘DNA’

– mechanisms for virally replicating that DNA (education / training / induction)

– preparedness for moments of chaos both planned and unplanned

The ecology of organisations is a network of autonomous groups both struggling against existing systems and also creating alternatives which will take over.

Crucially, each group has an explicit DNA – this means a clear and simple layout of the shared Story (what is wrong with the world and what would be right), Strategy (what we’re going to do), and Structure (principles, how decisions are made). An organisation’s DNA is used to virally replicate it without a hierarchy or command-and-control structure. The method of growth is through bringing people into face-to-face training. It must be comprehensive enough that they can leave the training with the confidence to start their own subgroup of the organisation immediately, without any top-down control. (The DNA also helps to avoid the ideological drift and lack of clarity often seen in rapidly growing organisations, e.g. Occupy)

The ecology itself also has a DNA, to ensure all groups are working in common, without having to give up their autonomy, and without the ecology needing a leadership. The ‘unity’ is instead inscribed in the organisations themselves and their interactions. It should for example make it clear that your alternatives refuse to be sucked into the existing capitalist system, and intend to replace it (see for example the FairCoop principles).

[There should however be one or more autonomous groups whose task is to help keep the ecology healthy and resilient, find where there are gaps, direct new people through the ecology – but they should have no decision making power over other groups whatsoever]

Chaos is a final critical part of the mix, and is what makes this a ‘Shock Doctrine’. This usually means where neoliberals use moments of chaos to privatise public services, start wars, and spread their ideology. We should be equally prepared for these moments, but use them to strengthen our ecology, and eventually (once at an appropriate size and breadth of function) use that ecology to shut down failed capitalist systems. Moments of both planned chaos (such as the buzz around a successful direct action and large media coverage) and unplanned chaos (from political events, like Trump today) are *the* moment for people to be brought into the ecology through training, for new organisations to be formed, for new links between disparate groups to be established. We should constantly await these moments, and create them ourselves.

THE META-STRATEGY

The ecology’s DNA must take the four sub-strategies into account (Smashing, Building, Healing, Taming). It must:

allow for direct action (where done specifically to create public support for the ecology)

facilitate support to that direct action through alternative organisations (e.g. delivering free food to strikes, providing spaces to organise in etc)

involve a caring atmosphere / mental health support / anti-oppression culture

allow people to engage with the state *but only on the basis of gaining reforms which support the ecology* (roughly what Gorz called ‘non-reformist reforms’).

The latter might be things campaigning for decriminalising squatting, removal of laws against solidarity strikes, or lowering the working week. The ecology refuses to formally support any specific candidate or party – there is even no mechanism which would allow anyone to make that decision for the whole ecology (though individual groups are free to support whoever they like). But it is clear about its demands from any government, as encoded in its DNA. Autonomy from the state and political parties is crucial, otherwise it will almost certainly be derailed in the long run.

With this in place, these four strategies can then become four self-amplifying feedback loops which all strengthen the ecology:

→ direct action (where done for the purpose of gaining public support for the ecology) creates moments of crisis/chaos, allowing new people to be brought in

→ the ecology helps to support and establish alternatives, which in turn provide material solidarity to those taking direct action (‘solidarity economy’)

→ establishing an ethic of care from the get-go (in the DNA), along with accountability processes, awareness of power relations, and also a FUN, makes for a more resilient movement, where those who normally drift away or become marginalised on the left can instead thrive

→ as the ecology grows, it gains legitimacy as a political force. This means it is more likely to see the reforms it wants, specifically those which help to strengthen the ecology.

Each strategy is then pumping energy into the ecology. That energy is quickly absorbed and new people are empowered. People aren’t drifting away – entropy is reduced, growth can happen. Common goals, strategy and structure are set in the ecology’s DNA, without interfering with the autonomy of individual groups or individuals.

GRAND STRATEGY

So what then? How does our ecology become dominant? It might grow and grow and grow, but so might our enemies. This is where mass non-cooperation comes in – or if you prefer, the ‘general social strike’

Once the ecology is large enough, it demands that the state cedes control. The ecology must include local alternative democratic councils outside the state, so this bears some resemblance into ye olde strategy of dual power. But here, decentralisation through DNA is again crucial to help prevent these being sucked back into a new authoritarian state.

If this doesn’t happen, we perform mass non-cooperation to shut down those systems. In the meantime, we support our alternatives to take over completely. Showing our alternatives are capable of running without a centralised state or capitalists will provide them greater legitimacy, and embed them more deeply in the fabric of society. We can reiterate strikes if necessary to allow consecutive deepening of institutions and crushing of capitalism.

Just ‘organising a general strike’ might sound like wishful thinking, but a very similar model of DNA + replication + catalyst to build a movement in this way was successfully used in the Arab Spring and also by the Otpor movement to topple Milosevic (just don’t make the latter’s ridiculous error of accepting funding from the fucking US government). See the book This is an Uprising for more info. Both of those movements failed partly because they had no strategy for what to do *after* the toppling of a government, and so existing powerful actors took their place. In this alternative strategy, we have coherent alternatives ready and waiting to take over at the moment of a revolutionary rupture.

If you’re interested in this and want to get working on it, get in touch, it’s a project we’re going to be working on with Radical Think Tank and the new Revolution and Complex Systems group over the coming weeks and months: @onalifeglug

x