This is going to be a long section. It can be easy to be overwhelmed by all the details here. But before you give up, take a moment to realize that you already know some of these things. If you've gotten friends together for a party, then you've already organized something. If you've worked together on a project, you've already organized something. Organizing larger things is different, but it's not radically different.

We're going in to a lot of detail because detail gets more important at scale. It gets more important when you want to think about longevity and stability. But nothing stops you from just starting. You can always restructure. You can always change things. You can always improve. You don't have to be perfect. This text isn't perfect. It's a start. It's something to work from.

I could spend the rest of my life reading up on theory, writing formal proofs, and making sure everything I never write is perfect. Instead, you have this. I decided to work in the open, let things be a bit messy, and fix them as needed. Something imperfect now, something you can learn from and improve on, is better than a perfect thing that never happens. The real world is always more complex than you can model, so any system you actually create is better than any hypothetical one.

You will always know more about your situation than anyone else. You will always be the expert in yourself and the expert in your situation. Some solutions will just come intuitively. Some can come more easily when prompted. Consider these prompts to help you build your own system. That said, this comes from my own organizing experience combined with the theory I've already discussed. So then, let's get to it.

With the operational units and structural anatomy laid out, it's time to return to the metasystem. Let's review. We are using the Viable System Model (VSM) as a model to identify the functional components necessary for a system to survive and change in a dynamic environment. These 5 systems are…

1. Operational Units
2. Conflict Management
3. Synergy (Regulation and Optimization)
4. Adaptation and Forward Planning
5. Policy and Identity

The operational units are the micro-bureaucracies that handle the 4 pillars of social reproduction. Each micro-bureaucracy is one operational unit. Since we've discussed these in a previous chapter, we won't go in to additional detail here, other than to point out that, since the VSM is a recursive model, these subsystems will themselves be expected to viable systems. This modeling can continue, recursively, until systems are simple enough to be managed intuitively. If there are problems with intuitive operation, the VSM can always be employed to troubleshoot and resolve problems.

Jon Walker's The VSM Guide is valuable for this troubleshooting. This framework is based on the guide, among other things, but we're deviating a bit since that document was written largely with existing systems in mind.

We've started with operational units and structural anatomy because, for small enough systems, the metasystem can “just kind of work.” But it can also “just sort of break” in ways that can be really frustrating and confusing. If we follow the VSM, we impose a functional, not anatomical, hierarchy. Let's briefly revisit this concept: anatomical hierarchy means that there is, structurally, a person or people who have authority over another person or people. The “anatomy” or “structure” of the organization is hierarchal. Functional hierarchy means that there is a procedural ordering. For some things to be operational, other things must be made operational first. Concretely, to put on shoes you first put on socks. You can't invert the order. There is a “functional hierarchy” to putting on shoes with socks. But we wouldn't argue about socks having “authority” over shoes.

Operational units do all the work. An organization without operational units, one that's just a metasystem with no function, does nothing (see most Marxist-Lenninist “organizing”). The metasystem is supported by and supports the work of the operational units: It is made possible by them, and exists to serve the them. In a way, it is subservient to operational units. This is the inverse of how management is imagined under capitalism, where “workers” are simple subjects who carry out the will of the metasystem. Yet, the metasystem aligns the efforts of all the organizational units. Any decision they make should align with the organizational objectives of the metasystem they are operational units within. In this way, the operational units are subject to the authority of the metasystem.

But the metasystem is not necessarily (or even optimally) a separate system that commands the organizational units. The components of the metasystem are functions. Conflict management could be resolved by a rotating committee of elected managers, or it could be resolved with a paper calendar posted on a wall. Each situation will inform specific solutions.

Functions may also be fulfilled by multiple actions or subsystems, while single actions or subsystems may fulfill multiple functions. A single meeting can fulfill part of the functions from systems 2 and 3, while both a budget and a calendar may be needed to fulfill system 2. Sections may overlap or bleed into each other. They do not need to be clearly delineated.

And that functional hierarchy does exist. Starting from system 5, working down, each element of the metasystem informs the system below while the metasystem coordinates to regulate operational units. Let's start from the top and work down.

System 5 (Identity)

System 5, policy and identity, necessarily derives from the fitness function we discussed earlier:

Maximize the number of people you can help escape from the dominant system, and keep them out of the dominant system, while these people are still able to leave your system.

Getting even one person out of the system temporarily might take a lot of resources. So we could define a precursor fitness function. If we agree that “voluntary” here as the opposite of “coerced” or “controlled,” then we could use “maximize the number and strength of voluntary social connections” as our fitness function. This is, of course, a technical way to say “build community.”

But let's be a bit more concrete about it. How do you actually form a shared identity as an affinity group or other social organization?

Unity, Identity, and Exclusion

Nations use names, flags, heroes, and other symbols to solidify a unified identity. These can be leveraged for great things, such as great public works and programs (the US space program and the moon landing specifically come to mind), as well as unspeakable evils. Likewise, religions have used symbolism to build communities of care and mutual aid but have also carried those same symbols into wars. Unified identity can cast a powerful spell over the human mind.

Group identity can be a complex thing. All sorts of oppression and conflict can be connected to in-group/out-group dynamics, but so can cooperation and resistance to oppression. Strong group identities can merge with individual identities, turning into oppressive personality cults. However, unified identity is also extremely useful for cohesive coordination. Community is little more than a shared identity built and realized through cooperation and mutual aid.

As Zizians showed, cult dynamics can emerge even in groups that identify as decentralized. What we are trying to build is the antithesis of a cult. But we are also surrounded by, and have been socialized within, authoritarian systems. So it is all the more important to make sure we are building compassionate and open systems. Tools like the Influence Continuum can help, but it's also important to understand things like healthy boundaries.

Cults, such as the cult of capital, force us to suppress our own emotional experience in order to continue. Ignoring feelings can become a survival mechanism under these oppressive systems, and this is exactly why our emotional wellbeing is the best indicator of the health of the communities we are creating. There is, perhaps, no better guide than that of conviviality. Community can be challenging. Humans can be hard to deal with, can be dramatic, can be annoying. But cooperation, community, can also be full of joy and a deeper contentment.

Before we build any sort of unified identity, we should take a moment to appreciate the risk and attempt to mitigate it.

As discussed earlier, there exists a continuum of privilege relative to sovereignty. Thought of another way, there is a gradient of exclusion that grows as we move away from the dominant class or individual in an authoritarian system. People within the dominant caste are “people” while everyone outside is continually less “people” as they approximate the dominant group less. It's a gradient of dehumanization. Dominant group identity is then defined against the dehumanized, such that any individual may slip into that group if they fall out of favor. These are the dynamics of a cult.

But what we're trying to build is the opposite of a cult. Explicitly identifying with other members of a group is not inherently a bad thing, but dehumanizing those outside of the group is. Dehumanizing those outside the group can ultimately trap people within the group (not to mention the horrible things that such dehumanization can permit people in the group to do to outsiders).

The gradient of dehumanization essentially says, from the perspective of the in-group, “the more you conform to these group properties, the more I see you as like me (a human, worthy of life).” An anti-cult must start from the assumption that everyone is a human worthy of life, care, and compassion. Even actions that must be taken in self-defense are taken against a human who is, at least in some way, like us. The inverse of a gradient of dehumanization is a gradient of responsibility. That is, from the perspective of the group, “the more I know about you, the more I can work with you, and the more responsible I become for your wellbeing as part of my own.”

A social organization built to change the world must center compassion as a core part of their identity or risk repeating the horrors of past revolutionary failures.

Defining a Vision

To build a healthy group identity, start with joy. What brings you joy? What brings others in the group joy? Write it down or talk it out. Share with each other. Prompted by reading the book Farming While Black, a group of folks I was organizing with wrote a questionnaire for each other, answered it, and read the answers together. This type of exercise can help identify shared goals, capabilities, and boundaries. Here is an example questionnaire for defining vision:

1. What brings me joy?
2. What kind of world do I want to exist?
3. Why do I want to form an affinity group?

Once each person has answered these questions, it's time to write down a collective answer that everyone agrees on. Take the same questionnaire and replace all the singular pronouns with plural, then fill it out together:

1. What brings us joy?
2. What kind of world do we want to exist?
3. Why do we want to form an affinity group?

Put this somewhere safe, you will want to refer to it at least once per year if not more. You may also update this later.

The answers to these questions (or other questions, if you decide to create your own or use another questionnaire) will help you define your group vision. These are local fitness functions (things that you want to all work towards, things that shape the evolution of your group). These do not need to be achievable, they are aspirational. The point is not to achieve them, that they should always guide you. Choose at least one, but try to avoid choosing more than 5.

These become your vision. When making difficult decisions, you can refer to your vision and talk about how any decision you make aligns or doesn't align with the vision. You can always change these if you find what you are collectively drawn to deviates from your vision. Sometimes people will grow beyond a vision. That can be a sign that the group should split (mitosis is described further down).

Building Group Agreements (Policy)

With a shared vision, it's time to define agreements and protocols. Group agreements are collectively defined rules that describe how members should interact. They may function to simplify interactions, ensure access needs are met, or to protect against the emergence of hierarchical behavior. They can also include boundaries and help to enforce healthy boundaries. You can use the following prompts, or define your own:

1. How should we interact with each other?
2. What are your access needs?
3. What would help you feel safe and respected?
4. How should we deal with conflict?
5. How do we deal with unanswerable questions?
6. What is the process by which we update these agreements?
7. How do we know we're working towards our vision?
8. How do we know our vision is still relevant?
9. What are we not OK with?

Write down these agreements. Edit them until you reach consensus. If it isn't possible to reach a consensus, the group may need to break apart to form separate entities.

Keep these available to refer to as they may be needed during meetings. These agreements will change over time. Keep them updated and be sure to check in regularly, perhaps even through a specific yearly ritual, to make sure they all still apply and no more are needed.

Some of these answers will inform or shape other systems.

Symbolism

With Solarpunk, both the name and iconography play a central role in aligning acolytes. It is a movement where aesthetics guide action in a ritual of the collective creation of reality. The words and symbols you use to identify yourself inform the reality you want to create.

With these things in mind, you should choose a name and glyph to identify your affinity group. Simplified glyphs can be useful for note taking, but they can also be useful to ritually unify a group. One type of glyph is called a “sigil,” common in occult ritual.

Both naming and glyph creation can be a fun challenge and an activity that builds trust. They can also help refine and test decision making processes in a situation with minimal stakes.

Choosing a Sigil

While I won't go into naming, it's worth touching on sigil creation for anyone interested. A sigil can be anything, it can be drawn any way you choose. The following method may help if you are struggling to come up with one.

1. Write down the names of members (names known within the group to other members, not necessarily legal or given names).
2. Write out the most important words for each agreement.
3. Write out the most important words from the vision.
4. Circle common or favorite letters from these words.
5. Break these letters apart in to common shapes.
6. Draw these shapes connected to each other.
7. Draw several different collections of these shapes and choose which everyone likes the most.
8. Modify them as esthetically appropriate, adding arrows or circles based on how the shape makes you feel.
9. Choose the symbol that feels best to the coven.

Remember, this is an opportunity to test and improve coordination. Use this practice to learn how members work together, identify gaps in agreements, and improve decision making protocols. But most importantly, be creative and have fun! This is also an opportunity for conviviality.

Cadence

Over time everything changes. How often will you revisit this identity to see if it needs to change? How often will you check in to make sure the protocols still work, the symbols still fit? Outside of the equator, there are clear natural cycles for change: the seasons. You should probably check in at least once a year, if not on each solstice and equinox.

System 4 (Adaptation)

I'm writing this from Western Europe, where war with Russia is a raising concern. I came from the Pacific Northwest (PNW) of the US, where wildfires were the most common disaster. While in the PNW, I organized with a group around wildfire preparedness. In 2018 and 2019 we ordered large amounts of n95 masks. When the COVID pandemic hit, we had several boxes of n95s purchased in the years before to donate to first responders and hand out to houselss people. Our preparation for one disaster had prepared us for another. But this wasn't entirely a coincidence. The threat of a pandemic had come up during our disaster strategizing meeting.

But wildfires are not as great of a threat here, not so great as systemic disruption from cyber attacks. Preparing decentralized communication is always valuable, but it wouldn't have helped me prepare for wildfire where i was in the PNW. Meanwhile, masks are valuable for a number of different situations but they don't help with infrastructure disruption. Disaster preparedness can only be as good as your disaster model.

It will not be possible for an affinity group to replace the entire dominant system immediately. Therefore, it's critical to prioritize filling the most urgent gaps via the aforementioned four pillars of social reproduction. Aligning the work of the operational units requires a group level strategy, and strategy requires external information gathering, modeling, and model testing.

For our disaster preparedness organizing, we had set of meetings. In the lead up to the first meeting, everyone researched local disasters to try to understand the risks. In our area this included volcanos, fires, and earthquakes. There are, of course, others. Massive solar flares can knock out communication and other infrastructure. Political instability and war can happen anywhere, even in places once thought to be stable. Asteroids continue to be a significant threat to life on Earth. But it's important to both prepare for the most likely scenarios and scenarios for which preparation is actually possible. You will not prepare for a gamma ray burst, nor is it as likely as another pandemic.

During the first meeting we listed threats that we identified. The meeting facilitator wrote these on a large paper, then we collectively ranked them. From here we talked through the impacts of each disaster and how we thought we should prepare for each. We looked especially for overlaps between multiple disasters and prioritized those overlapping preparations.

In a following meeting we took our ideas and ran them through a table top scenario. The general format of this is that there is a facilitator (commonly called a DM, for “Dungeon Master,” for anyone coming from the DND world or a GM for “Game Master” also coming from table top RPGs). The facilitator describes an event and the impacts of the event, then the players talk through how they respond. You should go through as many variations as possible. For example, if you keep supplies in a shed the shed may fall down in a hurricane or earthquake. The DM should notice this possibility and ask players what they would do in any given variation of a scenario. Dice can be helpful in deciding which branches to take through a scenario.

While going through these scenarios, players should expect to find gaps. Repeat these scenarios multiple times until there are no clear gaps. Then repeat this process, occasionally on the same scenario, regularly.

Strategy practices like these will likely manifest as a set of meetings and games. These games will give you insight into gaps. You will then develop a strategy to fill those gaps using the four pillars.

During the regular operation of systems 2 and 3, you will identify ways to reduce conflict and improve collaboration. Merge these with your gap remediation plan. This may involve decreasing the priority of some tasks and pushing others off until later. There's no easy way to do this, but one option is for each person to write out their own list of the top priorities. Each person then ranks each other list. The top 3 lists are chosen and then each person rewrites their list from the items on the other list (combining or changing a bit if it helps). Repeat this until time runs out (no more than 90 minutes) or you reach a clear consensus. Whichever has the highest rank becomes the priority. Use this process if it is helpful, adjust or abandon it if it doesn't exactly fit your needs.

Cadence

This type of strategy planning should be carried out more often than the Identity and Policy practices. If your group is checking identity on a yearly basis, then you should run strategy planning twice a year or quarterly. If identity is quarterly, then strategy should be monthly. The more often these are done, the faster they will be and the less they will need to cover.

Critical information from systems 2 and 3 may reveal a need to adjust strategy out of the regular cadence. Alternatively, strategic goals can remain the same, requiring less engagement during some periods. It may not be necessary to adhere strictly to a specific cadence.

System 3 (Optimization)

Strategy, as managed by System 4, identifies longer term and more generalized goals. System 3 operates more on the tactical level, identifying how to fulfill specific objectives. System 3 specifically deals with optimization. Within the VSM, there are two modes for identifying optimization: active and passive.

Active optimization requires specific actions taken by the metasystem. These can be audits or anomaly detection (in larger organizations). For active audits, the Tekmil process may help with this. Tekmil is a process of constructive criticism that can facilitate an individual to identify areas of improvement in themselves and for their group. This process can also help avoid engaging system 2 conflict resolution by preemptively identifying potential issues and resolving them.

Passive optimization opportunities can be gleaned from regular reporting or from chance conversations. It requires nothing other than a regular meeting schedule with regular topics. Regular meetings also provide an opportunity to identify something called “algedonics.” An algedonic signal is a piece of information so important that it bypasses the usual systems and immediately triggers system 5.

In the lead up to the COVID lockdowns, we had been focusing on wildfire preparedness. Some folks had been paying attention to COVID before it made it's way over to the US. Information about the arrival of COVID on the US mainland is an example of an algedonic signal. This information triggers an immediate re-orientation away from any other priority to full focus on pandemic preparedness and response.

The VSM maximizes the autonomy of operational units. No one needs permission for anything that doesn't require some form of coordination or somehow could threaten the stability of the organization. If each operational unit has a budget, for example, then actions within that budget require no permission and should generally not be reported on. However, if a operational unit needs to take some sort of action outside of the budget, that does require permission. Any operational unit may also identify an opportunity for optimization that requires cooperation. Such cooperation can be coordinated directly, but may be coordinated during a general meeting.

Coordination can use shared chat groups like those in messages like Signal, or Meshtastic conversations for off-grid coordination. Coordination can also just happen in conversations.

Cadence and Facilitation

General meetings should be held more regularly than strategy meetings. These can be weekly, or even daily for very active organizations. Meetings should be kept short. Humans tend to lose the ability to focus rapidly after 90 minutes. Anything beyond that is counterproductive. To keep things short, keep a clear schedule with times stated. Have a facilitator and a time keeper (separate roles). Take notes (also separate role) so people can refer to notes rather than having to request things be repeated.

Everything said in a general meeting should be actionable. Before saying something, ask yourself “what am I asking?” Then make that explicit so no one has to ask the question again. There are a few exceptions to this rule. One is that report backs can be helpful for accountability. It can also just feel nice to get recognition for good work. Report backs can provide an opportunity to do that. Another exception is the informational update. Such updates should only be raised if everyone, or at least the majority of people, need to know something for a reason. Both of these should also be kept short and minimal.

A well run meeting covering four operational units can and should take 15 minutes or less. Any remaining time can and should be used to just hang out and enjoy each other's company. What's the point of working with people you don't want to just socialize with anyway?

System 2 (Conflict Resolution)

The subject of conflict resolution will trigger most activists to immediately think about hard conversations and struggling through accountability circles. This can be one element of it, but part of the conflict resolution function is harmonization (which is conflict avoidance). Clear boundaries like budgets and calendars can prevent misunderstandings or conflicts over resources.

But even the best system will, at some point fail. Figure out how you're going to manage that failure before it happens. This is already mentioned in the system 5 section, but it's worth mentioning again. Conflict is hard enough to manage when you're ready for it. It's that much harder when you're not. What are the boundaries? What are the consequences for violating those boundaries? What is the process for resolving conflict?

Conflicts generally arise over shared resources. What are your resources? We are all limited in our time. Calendars and collaborative time budgeting can reduce conflicts around time. Within capitalism, money is a dominant resource. Monetary budgets maximize the autonomy of each operational unit. Shared funding accounts can increase the likelihood of mistakes that lead to conflict, so dividing up accounts across operational units decreases the probability of mistakes that impact the resources of other units.

Durables, such as tools or vehicles, and consumables, such as food or soil, are also shared resources. The dispensary and library units need to develop a conflict management system for these. Shared space can also lead to conflict. Most activists have either lived in a shared house and are familiar with conflicts arising from chores from their friends complaining. The Works Committee is responsible for managing these shared spaces and is responsible for coming up with and maintaining a conflict management plan.

All of these conflict scenarios really revolve around commons management. Shared time is a common. Shared money is a common. Shared infrastructure is a common. Fortunately, there's been research into successful (and unsuccessful) methods of common management. Markets are extremely bad at managing commons, but there are 8 rules, identified by Nobel Prize winning economist Elinor Ostrom, for successfully running a commons:

1. Clearly defined boundaries: Individuals or households who have rights to withdraw resource units from the CPR must be clearly defined, as must the boundaries of the CPR itself.
2. Congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions: Appropriation rules restricting time, place, technology, and/or quantity of resource units are related to local labor, material, and/or money.
3. Collective-choice arrangements: Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules.
4. Monitoring: Monitors, who actively audit CPR conditions and appropriator behavior, are accountable to the appropriators or are the appropriators.
5. Graduated sanctions: Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and context of the offense) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to these appropriators, or by both.
6. Conflict-resolution mechanisms: Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials.
7. Minimal recognition of rights to organize: The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities.

For CPRs that fire parts of larger systems:

1. Nested enterprises: Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.

This resource management is already nested (8) in the framework of the solarpunk fractal organizing we're talking about. This entire project is really about expanding the domain of the right to organize (7) through the concept of this “solarpunk fractal” project.

Clearly defined boundaries (1) are partially handled by defining specific resources within the domain of operational units, and others in a shared domain with a specific process for management. Group agreements are another way to define clear boundaries. Which resources are and are not shared, how they are shared, and how they will be managed needs to be explicitly defined as part of group agreements, if not explicitly defined elsewhere (such as operational unit definitions).

Sanctions (5) may not be necessary to ever use, but they are critical to define in order to avoid feelings of unfairness that can come from arbitrary sanctions developed when problems arise. Without auditing (4), problems can be difficult to detect until problems have become so bad they are difficult to fix. But items 2 and 3 also tell us that there can be no global solution to these problems. Each organization will have to solve them. Each organization will have to, collectively, define the rules and methods by which these needs are actually fulfilled.

The monitoring (4) process for collective level resources should be defined as part of group agreements, while monitoring for operational units must be defined explicitly by the operational unit.

Finally, there must be an arbitration (6) function at the group level. Arbitration must also be clearly defined, including a low-effort and clearly defined initiation process. This must also be defined as part of group agreements.

Not every conflict can be resolved. Determine in advance what you will do when conflict resolution fails. When it's not possible to agree on what to do with a set of resources, it is often possible to split the resources evenly. This may feel suboptimal since capitalism and centralized systems have trained us to think about efficiency, but there are a lot of benefits to this type of “cooperative competition.”

Open source software does this all the time, forking and splitting both the developer and user pool. While this can be challenging at times, and can even end projects, it can also make each project stronger. Development working separately can arrive at solutions that wouldn't have been possible if they'd been working together. Users notice features in other projects and request those features in their own fork or project.

As a personal anecdote, I use an editor called “Emacs” while I have friends who use a different editor called “Vim.” Both of these editors have a lot of functionality that's expandable via plugins, but the way they do those integrations are very different. By comparing what we do with each editor, we can find things in each that we want in the other. These two editors could never merge. The user bases of each are very different, even though they both do, fundamentally, the same thing. By taking different approaches, they are able to fulfill the needs of their users. But the existence of each editor also helps the other to improve.

Meanwhile, the users of these can sometimes also work together more directly. Each editor uses external tools to add functionality. So they have a shared incentive to push tools to expose “interfaces” (ways of interacting with software) that support the same type of integration. Working apart they end up working together.

We have come to believe that irresolvable conflict is inherently a negative thing, but it can be a positive thing (given that there is still shared ground to collaborate on). Splitting resources can make amicable separation lead to friendly competition and future collaboration.

Federation

While the above is written for an affinity group, it can easily be adapted to a collective, cluster, or any level of federation using something called “a spokes council.” Group agreements at different levels restrict the amount of decision making needed at higher levels, thus decreasing the complexity of coordination.

Addendum: Meeting Template (system 2 and 3)

Meetings can be useful for daily or weekly coordination. However, it can, sometimes, be challenging to start from scratch. Here's a basic meeting template that could serve as a starting point and adapted.

1. Announcments
2. Report Backs
   
   1. Dispensary
      
      1. New projects
      2. Completed projects
      3. Inventory Check
         
         1. What is critically low
         2. What is empty
         3. What is expiring
         4. What is needed

         
         

      4. Funds status

      
      

   2. Library
      
      1. New projects
      2. Completed projects
      3. Inventory Check and Items needing return
      4. Library acquisition requests
      5. Funds status and budget check

      
      

   3. Works Committee
      
      1. New projects
      2. Completed projects
      3. Upcoming projects
      4. Subcommittee updates (Following the Works Committee agenda)
      5. New committee formations
      6. Funds status

      
      

   4. Services Committee
      
      1. New projects
      2. New capabilities announcements
      3. Completed projects
      4. New needs requests
      5. Subcommittee updates (Following the Works Committee agenda)
      6. New committee formations
      7. Funds status

      
      

   
   

3. All committee blockers
4. Task Check

Closing

At this point, we have the theory and tools we need. We have identified the problem, understood it's structure, and developed a social algorithm, a genetic algorithm, to attack the problem. We have defined an initial population, it's functions, and talked about how to iterate and improve. We are far from solving the discovery problem, but I'll leave you with a good first pass beyond what I've already said.

There is not really much left but to dream of the world you want to exist, and then to create it. As you experiment and build systems, keep track of what works and what doesn't. Write about your experience. Revisit this and update your own copies of this text. Make your own version, and make it public. Learn and share, work in the public, and don't be afraid: you are not alone. This is a new reality that we are dreaming and weaving together.

The Spokescouncil: A decision-making process for large groups - Seeds for Change

The spokescouncil is a decision-making process that enables consensus decisions with hundreds and thousands of people, with the maximum number of opinions and ideas being heard in an efficient way.

^{Seeds for Change}

Kairos (work in progress)

2025-12-01 10:56:52

A Solarpunk Fractal: Microservices

Let's return briefly to the central problem of government commons management (at least as a monolithic systems). We're going to restate it a bit differently here so that we can walk through a way to mitigate it. Let's start by returning to the basic forms of domination as outlined in Dawn of Everything:

1. control over violence (sovereignty)
2. control over information (bureaucracy)
3. and charismatic competition (politics)

Government as a commons manager aligns with the second form of domination. Any organization that manages the commons has the power to restrict the commons. In order to keep such an entity from doing that, there may be restrictions placed on the organization. But whomever maintains and enforces the list of those restrictions could simply take over the system and bend it to their will, So there must be restrictions placed on the oversight group. This continues infinitely, thus there can be no real oversight. This is not a new problem, it was stated a thousand years ago as “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (Who will watch the watchmen?) But it dates back almost 400 years earlier still to concepts brought up by Plato in some of the earliest political writings.

Although this question points to the root cause of oppression and authoritarian collapse multiple times through history, it's largely ignored, suppressed, or treated as a curiosity. It is considered unanswerable, and thus rejected before consideration. In the previous section we solved this problem by inverting authority. This gave us the option to leave any system, which could then collapse it, if required. But it would be better if we could find a solution that doesn't risk systemic collapse.

Fortunately, there are additional steps we can take to mitigate the risk of facilitating coordination turning into a system of domination. In computer security, we think about the concept of “attack surface.” In essence, the more stuff a program can do, the more things can go wrong. The more complex a system, the harder it is to implement in a safe way. To reduce risk, we recommend minimizing the specific things any given application can do. We can, then, chain together small applications to make a larger application.

Rather than having to understand the whole system all at once, we can analyze each component as an individual piece, with specific focus interfaces. The more we can simplify interfaces, the fewer scenarios we need to analyze to determine the security of an application. An application that can do everything has an infinite attack surface and thus can never be secured. An application that can only do one very specific thing may be possible to not only secure, but to mathematically prove that security.

This is roughly the reason behind the concept of “microservices.” These are small and reusable systems that can be more easily understood than a large complex system. We can leverage a similar concept. In fact, this isn't even a new idea. It predates computers entirely.

The majority of the Netherlands is below sea level. Over the course of hundreds of years, the Dutch have reclaimed land from the sea and kept it dry using a series of pumps and dikes. Very early on people realized that water management was far too important to entrust in “normal” government. Political incompetence could wipe out entire towns. So, almost a thousand years ago, they created a distributed micro-bureaucracy with the sole purpose of managing water.

Because this micro-bureaucracy is extremely limited in scope, because it only exists to managed one shared resource, it can't really be leveraged for other power. But since it's outside of the normal government, it also can't be held hostage for other political projects (as Republicans hold SNAP and Social Security hostage to achieve their goals in US politics).

In the last section, we introduced a structure that included 4 such micro-bureaucracies:

• the dispensaryto provide consumable goods,
• the library, to provide access to shared durable goods,
• the works committee, to build, (own,) and maintain infrastructure such as housing, and
• the services committee, to identify and provide services, such as child care, for its members.

Using to the VSM (that we discussed earlier), these micro-bureaucracies would all be operational units of the social organizations (affinity groups, collectives, clusters, and federations) that we described in the last section. These organizations would themselves be systems with their own metasystemic functions (and the ability to autonomously create subsystems), while interactions between these systems would be managed at by metasystemic functionality at the level of the social organization.

Let's first talk through these micro-bureaucracies in a bit more detail, then talk through systemic interactions. Remember that these are only suggestions. Nothing that follows is to be taken dogmatically. These are based on my own organizing experience, historical research, and other sources. All of these have been filtered through my own perception. This list may not be complete. It divisions may be wrong for your situation. There may be any number of reasons these are not optimal. They should be considered a starting point for anyone who doesn't already have a better idea.

There can be no perfect recipe for every situation. You will always be the ultimate authority on what is best for you. Take what follows for what it's worth.

The Dispensary

A dispensary provides consumable goods. It can start simply as a shared pantry, stocked with the products of guerrilla gardening or food preservation by canning or pickling. It can be foraging, processing, storing, and sharing horse chestnuts for soap and acorns for flour to make acorn grits and bread. It can be as easy as shared bulk purchases from restaurant supply or warehouse store, or as crust-punk as rotating dumpster run shifts. It could even start as small regular potluck or shared dinners. It could simply be an agreement between members to volunteer with a local chapter of Food Not Bombs on a rotating basis.

As your network grows, so can the dispensary system. A federation of four or five covens could start a coop for themselves. A federation of 20 may even be able to open a storefront.

As much as people would like to live their daily lives without inflicting suffering on ourselves and others, capitalism cannot seem to provide for the needs of people without committing atrocities. From sweatshops to toxic byproducts, union busting death squads, unnecessary packaging, micro-plastics, and landfills full of fast fashion, simple participation is a minefield of harm.

One reason many of us wish to escape is so that we can live our lives without inflicting suffering on others. Since no similar objective can exist within capitalist markets, operating a collectively owned dispensary as a coop style business for non-members offers a harm-reduction opportunity that capitalist markets cannot fulfill. We can do what the market cannot: offer products that people can buy without having blood on their hands.

Taking notes from the successes and failures of the Russian revolution, a group of anarchists (including Nestor Makhno, a Ukrainian anarchist militant who was critical in defeating the Tzar's army and who later also fought the Red Army) wrote a document titled “Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists.” This document came to be known as “The Platform.” It remains one of the most important first-hand revolutionary documents, outlining a clear revolutionary plan. The Platform identifies the problems of production and consumption as core to the success of a revolution:

Without doubt, from the first day of the revolution, the farms will not provide all the products vital to the life of the population. At the same time, peasants have an abundance which the towns lack.

Within the capitalist system, production, acquisition, transportation, and distribution (logistics) are all handled by markets. As we move away from this system, the dispensary system (perhaps with the support of the services committee) will need to address production and transportation logistics. Starting within the capitalist market provides a low-risk proving ground from which we can iterate and improve. If a social organization can operate a business within capitalism while planning beyond it, there's a good chance it will be able to transcend its capitalist roots.

The technology that made the short supply chain-based capitalism, which dominates the world today, also makes capitalism itself irrelevant. By attacking this problem as a swarm, we will come up with multiple competing solutions. Good solutions will merge or replace bad ones and the best solutions will spread across the federation. Like the open source software movement, we may, and probably will, end up with multiple systems. This is not a problem as long as those systems can interoperate with each other.

The Library

A library is a shared set of objects, often (but not always) located in a specific repository. Americans are most familiar with municipal library systems where the objects are books and occasionally other media. The simplest library for us to build is a tool library. A library consists of inventory and a way to track that inventory.

The simplest library can be ma e up of tools owned by members and a simple spreadsheet to track them. A library could create a shared bank account for purchasing new tools for the library. Libraries will also maintain objects that belong to the collective.

While give-away or free-stores exist and do work in some situations (they are not uncommon in the Netherlands), these can be exclusionary in the US context. They can be seen as “charity” or “for people less fortunate” rather than a shared resource. While a library can choose to operate in exactly the same way as a free-store (not tracking what comes in or goes out), the conceptual framework of a library is more aligned with American sensibilities (outside of existing punk and anarchist spaces).

A library also doesn't need to be specific to a given organization. This is something that can be organized first outside of a social organization, or something that could be managed by a social organization but have open membership. There's no reason not to have a tool library shared with your neighbors, even if they don't share your politics. There's no reason not to share a media library with your friends (you probably already share books).

If you're wanting to convince people that things could be better, there is no argument more powerful than proof.

The Works Committee

Works Committee is responsible for identifying, acquiring or producing, and managing infrastructure needed for the operation of the organization and the lives of its members. The mechanism by which it does this is up to the social organization. Management of infrastructure such as vehicles or housing may be handed off to the library system once acquired.

The Works Committee is responsible for organizing work parties to maintain infrastructure. One easy example is a garden party where organization members design and implement a garden either on property they own or via guerrilla gardening. The Works Committee would then be responsible for regular maintenance, harvest, and delivery of goods (harvest, processing, etc) in coordination with the dispensary.

In most cities horse chestnuts (buckeyes) trees are common in parks. The nuts contain chemicals that can be used as soap. Four of these crushed and thrown in a sock can be used in place of commercial detergent. In the fall, these nuts are easy to collect from sidewalks and parks.In the spring and summer, their leaves can be picked and processed into hand soap. Many other soap producing plants are common, and invasive in much of the US, such as English ivy. A works committee could organize foraging and processing parties to make things for the dispensary.

The Services Committee

The two most critical permanent purposes of Services Committees are to coordinate leadership of regular meetings, either by a specific appointed member or by rotating ordination, and to organize collective defense. There may also be a third critical service if the social organization is also a legal entity: accounting. The committee must ensure taxes are filed on time and correctly, that any shared expenses are paid, and that all money has been accounted for.

Beyond these, the Services Committee identifies the needs and capabilities of its members to provide services. The Services Committee should operate on the principal “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.”

The most important goal of any entity that wishes to continue to exist is reproduction of itself. Therefore, the most important objective of the organization must be supporting the reproductive labor of the collective, especially supporting members with children.

For organizations with children, rotating childcare eases the burden on families, making the organization more stable, and setting an example for members too young to start their own organizations. Some members may have technical skills and can provide tech support or automation of tedious tasks performed by others. Those with mechanical skills may be able to repair objects for The Library.

Within an urban area, municipal services take care of many things that rural people have to take care of themselves. Trash collection and disposal may make sense for a rural organization where it wouldn't be imagined by an urban coven outside of a disaster.

As an affinity group grows to a collective or federation, new services will become available. At each coordination level, it becomes more and more important to provide a mechanism to discover capabilities and protect people with specific skills from being overburdened.

A Services Committee of a large enough federation could provide much more complex services that further free it from the constraints of capitalism. Insurance pools, banking via credit unions, and other services can all be organized by a Services Committee of a big enough federation.

As with the Dispensary, services may also be externalized to offer things unavailable under capitalism. A services committee may decide to take on organizing protests, gatherings, or other events where other community organizations are not taking on the task. The Services Committee may also identify external organizations that organization members can coordinate with to fulfill organizational objectives and fill operational gaps.

Systemic Interactions

Each of these operational units, these micro-bureaucracies, exist to fulfill specific objectives that align with the greater objective of the organization. In cybernetic terms, the (system 5) identity of each of the above organizations aligns with the (system 5) identity of the social organization.

As described in each section, these systems have a lot of interaction opportunities. But they can also conflict. There is a set amount of time that members have, so it's important to keep some kind of shared calendar to make sure actions of one don't conflict with others. There may be shared money, which could be claimed by one or another group, so they also may need to keep a shared budget.

The very most basic mechanism to support this type of coordination is a regular (perhaps weekly) meeting. Each operation unit gives a brief report on what they've done, a high level status of anything worth noting (low inventory, some blockers, etc), and any requests they have (money, time, etc). This must be kept short. Humans tend to lose focus after 90 minutes, so meetings over that tend to rapidly lose productivity. Most things should be handled locally, so there shouldn't be a lot to report. Anything beyond a high level report back must be something that requires action. Including the action as part of a request can make sure everyone understands what's being asked.

In the next section we will describe the metasystem in greater detail, including some recommended meeting outlines and structures.

Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists

Dielo Truda (Workers’ Cause) Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists 1926 First published France 1926. First Irish edition published by the...

^{The Anarchist Library}