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 complex 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. This is not because we've reached 'the end of history'⁶. We're just stuck in a bad system state.

How to puncture this resilience and steer towards a better system state? One approach is to plan for moments of chaos so they become points of leverage to achieve emancipation rather than consolidation of existing power structures⁷. As stated by Graham Jones: the left needs a shock doctrine⁸.

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. The neoliberal shock doctrine was first outlined 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 exploited by the neoliberal shock doctrine¹².

In Jones' formulation, a shock doctrine for the left contains elements of smashing (capitalism), building (alternatives), healing (each other) and taming (capitalism)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.

What might this shock doctrine look like when considered in the digital realm?

Digital technologies and ICT are a core component of modern economic activity, and a small cabal of capitalist firms ('Big Tech') have total control over these commanding heights¹⁸. Digital capitalism is the meditation of capitalism (the accumulation of capital and power) through digital technologies¹⁹. So total is the domination of Big Tech that some theorise them as a new, worse evolution of capitalism - such as vectoralism, or technofeudalism. There's no doubt that control of information vectors, social media, big data, and artificial intelligence have accelerated the power of capitalism to a new level.

These tech firms generate plenty of shocks of their own. And we could be instigating our own shocks too.

Digital ecosocialism is the counter to runaway digital capitalism²⁰. Digital ecosocialism is the application of digital technologies for ecosocialist ends²¹. 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 - resist, regulate and recode²².

Many elements of these strategies are already in place and some shocks we seem prepared for. Libre software movements have been building alternatives for years. Now that the shocks of digital capitalism are coming thick and fast - like the End of Windows 10²³, and Donald Trump's use of American tech dominance in trade wars - European governments are taking digital sovereignty seriously and have ready-made alternatives like Linux to turn to. Of course, libre software is not automatically liberatory software²⁴, but embedded in a wider ecosocialist political ecology it can be. The End of 10 is 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 Windows 11 is happening.

Some shocks we seem less prepared for - like the boom of AI²⁵. 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. Meanwhile the silicon empires consolidates more power and capital. If not the boom, then

The global memory shortage crisis is another digital shock²⁶. 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.

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 productively²⁷. We need a digital shock doctrine for the left.

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?