We need a digital shock doctrine for the left

Resilience is not necessarily a good thing¹. In systems, resilience is the capacity to survive crises, disruptions, shocks, and attacks². It determines whether disturbances result in some form of systemic transition or whether the old system persists. A resilient system absorbs shocks.

Capitalism is a system, a very complex and very adaptive system³, and, unfortunately for society and for the planet, one that is both endlessly prone to generating crises⁴ yet remarkably resilient in surviving them⁵. Capitalism has caused havoc for centuries yet still persists. But its interminable existence is not because we've reached 'the end of history'⁶. We're just stuck in a bad system state, and systems can always be changed.

How to puncture capitalism's resilience and steer towards a better system state? No small task, but one part of a strategy is to plan for moments of chaos and use them so that they become points of leverage to achieve emancipation rather than consolidation of existing power structures⁷. This is a shock doctrine, and as contended by Graham Jones: the left needs one⁸.

A shock doctrine is a political strategy for navigating crises; a way of using (and creating) shocks as points of leverage and transition.⁹. Unfortunately, to date shocks have been used most effectively for completely the wrong ends - to consolidate neoliberal power. This neoliberal shock doctrine was first documented in detail by Naomi Klein. There are some stark examples in the 21st century: the second Iraq war was exploited by the neoliberal shock doctrine¹⁰, as was the financial crisis of 2008¹¹. Climate distasters are regularly exploited by the neoliberal shock doctrine¹².

What would a socialist shock doctrine entail? In Jones' formulation, a shock doctrine for the left contains elements of both smashing and taming (capitalism), building (alternatives) and healing (each other)¹³. These are a respin of Erik Olin Wright's four types of anti-capitalism¹⁴.

In 'smashing', the left should take disruptive actions to create chaos as points of leverage¹⁵. The direction our world takes in moments of chaos is defined by the ideas and institutions that are already available¹⁶, so the left needs a programme building and promoting alternative institutional forms¹⁷. In all of these actions we need to make constant space for healing. And, along the way there's likely the necessity for interaction with and attempts at reforms and regulation of existing power structures.

The shock doctrine of the left ties these strategies all together in an attempt to make capitalism less resilient and socialism more able to replace it.

Digital technologies and ICT are a core component of modern economic activity. Control over information flows is a vital factor in modern class conflict¹⁸. And they have been almost entirely captured by the right. A small cabal of capitalist firms ('Big Tech') have near total control over these commanding heights of society¹⁹. They accumulate obscene amounts of wealth, capital and power through digital technologies²⁰. Control of information vectors, social media, big data, and artificial intelligence have accelerated the dominance of capitalism to a new level.

Digital capitalism is accelerating existing shocks such as climate change. And with digital capitalism come specifically digital shocks. The end of Windows 10²¹, the Trump administration's use of American tech dominance in trade wars, the boom of AI²², the global memory shortage crisis²³: all points of crisis that the left needs to respond to to our advantage, not ceding further control to the forces of capital.

Digital ecosocialism - the application of digital technologies for ecosocialist ends²⁴ - is the counter to runaway digital capitalism²⁵. We need a digital shock doctrine, a shock doctrine for the hacker class, as part of a transition strategy to digital ecosocialism.

What might it entail? Following Jones' outline, a digital shock doctrine for the left would combine smashing (digital capitalism), building digital alternatives, caring for those affected, and taming the existing dominant structures on the path to transition. This is similar to the triad of digital transition strategies outlined by James Muldoon in Platform Socialism - we must resist, we must regulate and we must recode²⁶.

Many elements of these strategies are already in place and some shocks we seem prepared for. European governments are now taking digital sovereignty seriously and have ready-made alternatives like Linux to turn to thanks to libre software movements building alternatives for years. Of course, libre software is not automatically liberatory software²⁷, but embedded in a wider ecosocialist political ecology it can be.

The premature ditching of millions of functional computers from the end of 10 and the strict requirements of Windows 11 is a potentially environmentally catastrophic act of waste. Again libre software provides an opportunity to nudge people away from the capitalist technology that is Windows, and into the use of libre technology such as Linux. Capitalist resilience is strong however, and a return to business as usual with record purchases of new machinesand migration to Windows 11 is happening.

With the cost of consumer prices increasing as a result of memory being commandeered for AI. Tech companies are raking it in, while individuals are left facing more costs of living. Here, keeping the equipment you already have lasting for longer seems like the sensible choice. Preexisting solutions for this - such as Linux again, and networks of repair cafes helping people navigate this - highlight the need for preexisting infrastructure to weather a shock.

Some shocks we seem entirely unprepared for. The boom of AI is currently restructuring society almost entirely to the benefit of the capitalists. The left seems on the back foot in this development - some are resisting AI, some are looking to reform AI, and some are looking to rebuild AI, none with much success and generally with internecine conflict along the way. Meanwhile the silicon empires consolidates more power and capital. If not the boom, perhaps we can be better prepared for the bust.

Different shocks will need different strategies. We need a systemic picture of how to approach these shocks when they occur, and use them as moments to steer our digital ecosystems towards something better. We must intervene informed by a map of how things are and how our interventions can shape them productively²⁸. It seems clear that part of any strategy for transition from capitalism to ecosocialism will require something akin to a digital shock doctrine for the left.

I hope to explore this further in future posts.

I recently read What is and how do we achieve a resilient digital democracy? by Christian Fuchs. It's a great article, outlining the tools we might need to build leftist digital infrastructures that can withstand attempts to destroy it from the right.

But beyond resilience, we also need a programme for transition - how do we get from the current stage of digital capitalism to something better?

We could be instigating our own shocks too.