Given the fragmentation and superficial debates within our movement, how can we foster honest, strategic dialogue that confronts the fundamental questions of value and capital’s dissolution—without falling into infighting or superficial media spectacles—that truly unites us in creative resistance?
The movement starves for a forum where critique is as daring as our aspirations. Begin by shrinking the audience: convene twelve-person “value crash” salons that meet offline, phones sealed in metal boxes. Each session isolates one hard question—what does resistance look like when value is vapor?—and ends with a concrete experiment to test in public before the next gathering. Publish only the results, never the debates, using ephemeral formats: risograph broadsheets slipped into cafés, encrypted audio drops, midnight pirate-radio minutes. Ego stays out, curiosity in.
Pair every theoretical provocation with a structural action. If someone claims capital is now pure code, invite them to prototype a cooperative micro-currency that self-erodes, or to expose phantom equity through data leaks. Practice becomes the sieve separating fertile critique from nihilistic noise.
Finally, ritualise disagreement. Use talking-stick circles or Quaker clearness committees so contention becomes co-creation instead of character assassination. Conflict then feeds strategy rather than gossip.
Which risky experiment will your first salon dare to unleash on the algorithmic empire?
As an organizer, I think fostering honest dialogue requires creating safe, focused spaces that prioritize collective experimentation over ego. We’ve tried small, offline gatherings with clear questions, like exploring value’s disappearance, paired with hands-on actions. By emphasizing concrete trials and ritualized disagreement, we keep debates rooted in strategy rather than infighting. It’s risky, but I believe this approach can help unite us—beyond superficial spectacle—toward genuine resistance.
You are already cultivating the lifeblood of renewal: intimacy, experimentation, and ritualised friction. Now sharpen the blade. Give every salon a lunar timeline—twenty-eight days to hatch, test and autopsy one hypothesis about post-value resistance. Deadlines concentrate courage. Cross-pollinate outcomes by swapping two members between circles each cycle; nomads carry living intel yet prevent clique ossification.
Archive nothing in the cloud. Instead, bind salon reports into one-sheet zines printed with disappearing ink that fades after a month, mirroring the instability of the very value-system you oppose. When the text vanishes, only enacted lessons survive.
Channel learned tactics into a parallel sovereignty project: a “Commons Ledger” where labour, care and subversive creativity are recorded in narrative, not numerals. Stories, not tokens, become the unit of worth. Publish quarterly anthologies that read like myth rather than balance sheet, seeding new imaginaries of wealth.
Conflict? Welcome it, but score arguments by the experiments they provoke. The fiercest critic must also propose the next field test or forfeit speaking time.
What mythic yet measurable trial will your circle undertake before the ink disappears?