Let's build a digital shock doctrine for the left

In systems of all kinds, resilience is the capacity to survive crises, disruptions, shocks, and attacks¹. It determines whether disturbances to the system result in some form of systemic transition or whether the old system persists. A resilient system absorbs shocks.

Resilience is not necessarily a good thing².

Capitalism is a system, a very complex and very adaptive system³, and, unfortunately for society and for the planet, a remarkably resilient one⁴. It is also a crisis-generating machine, as it ravages nature and labour, and with its own internal contradictions⁵. Capitalism has caused havoc for centuries yet still persists. But its seemingly 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.

If you think about it, the phrase "it's easier to imagine the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism" is suggesting that it's easier to imagine one phase transition (the end of the world) rather than another (the end of capitalism). How can we push for the phase transition that we want?

How to puncture capitalism's resilience and steer towards a better system state? Given the resilience, that's obviously not a small task. But one part of a strategy should be to plan for the regular moments of chaos, to use them so that they become points of leverage to achieve emancipation rather than consolidation of existing power structures⁷. This is a type of shock doctrine, and as contended by Graham Jones in The Shock Doctrine of the Left: the left needs one^{8, 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 of its implementation in the 21st century: the second Iraq war was exploited by the neoliberal shock doctrine¹⁰, as was the financial crisis of 2008¹¹. Climate disasters are regularly exploited by the neoliberal shock doctrine¹².

What would a socialist shock doctrine entail? In Jones' formulation, building on Erik Olin Wright's four types of anti-capitalism¹³, a shock doctrine for the left contains elements of both smashing and taming (capitalism), building (alternatives) and healing (each other)¹⁴.

Smashing: the idea is that the left should take disruptive actions to create chaos as points of leverage¹⁵. Building: 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. Healing: in all of these actions we need to make constant space for healing. Taming: along the way, there's likely the necessity for interaction with and attempts at reforms and regulation of the existing power structures.

Jones' 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.

I got a lot out of Jones' book. The combination of leftist politics and complex adaptive systems is right up my street, and the focus on real-world movement building rather than just theory is very important. I would like to apply some of the concepts to my thoughts around reclaiming the stacks.

Digital technologies and ICT are a core component of modern economic activity, and control over information flows is a vital factor in modern class conflict¹⁸. To the world's great detriment, they have been almost entirely captured by the right. A small cabal of capitalist firms (the ubiquitious '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, and the digital layer is accelerating existing types of shocks and creating new ones.

Some present examples come to mind: 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 social and environmental crisis that the left needs to respond to to our advantage, not letting them generate further control for the forces of capital.

Digital ecosocialism - the application of digital technologies for ecosocialist ends²⁴ - is a counter to runaway digital capitalism²⁵. As part of a transition strategy to digital ecosocialism, we need something like a digital shock doctrine, a shock doctrine for the hacker class. (Given the history of the word 'shock'²⁶, I wonder if there's a less negatively-laden phrase than shock doctrine, but the strategy is still good).

What might it entail? Following Jones' outline, a digital shock doctrine for the left would combine acts of smashing digital capitalism, building digital alternatives, caring for those affected, and taming the existing dominant structures while on the path to transition. This is very similar to the triad of digital transition strategies outlined by James Muldoon in Platform Socialism. We need to resist, we need to regulate and we need to recode²⁷.

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 software²⁸, 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 Windows²⁹, 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 are going to need different tactics. As Derek Wall said in his review of Jones' book, we must intervene informed by a map of how things are and how our interventions can shape them productively³⁰. We'll 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. 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. Let's explore what that could look like.