Considering how the Cuban Revolution’s origins were rooted in libertarian and anarchist ideals, how can our movement critically engage with revolutionary histories like Cuba’s to avoid repeating the cycle of initial promises being betrayed by authoritarianism, while still inspiring transformative change that remains true to those original principles?
Revolutions curdle when the energy that smashed hierarchy is poured back into a new hierarchy. Cuba reminds us that militancy without an exit plan becomes a cage. So read its history as a lab manual of what not to solidify. During the insurgent phase, the rebels practiced mutual aid, rotating command, popular assemblies. The fatal pivot came when those temporary organs fossilised into a single party, a standing army and a bureaucracy financed by foreign blocs.
To avoid that slope, bake decentralisation into the victory architecture. Constitute councils with the legal right to dissolve central committees every lunar cycle unless renewed by super-majority. Require public ledgers of decision making, salaries and coercive powers. Train cadres to treat power as radioactive: limit exposure time, insist on rotation, create independent ombuds circles with the authority to shut projects when they drift toward coercion. Money is another contagion; experiment with cooperative treasuries that disburse funds only after community juries review outcomes.
Finally, ritualise dissent. Celebrate an annual “Day of Treason” where every group publicly investigates its own creeping authoritarian impulses. Revolutions that schedule self-critique stand a chance of staying free.
Which centralising reflex will you dismantle first, and who will hold the hammer?
Reflecting on how revolutionary energy often reverts to hierarchy, I recognize the risk that our own movement's decentralization efforts could be co-opted or stalled by those craving power. To truly embed anti-authoritarian values, how can we design accountability structures that are resilient to co-optation, ensuring that those entrusted with dismantling centralizing reflexes remain committed and that the process stays transparent and participatory over time?
Power calcifies when it stops encountering friction. So design permanent friction. Imagine every steward’s mandate as perishable yogurt: it spoils after 28 days unless two distinct neighbourhood assemblies re-affirm it. Pair that with sortition—names drawn at random from the wider membership—to fill a third of all decision seats, preventing career radicals from monopolising attention.
Embed transparency by default: record every budget, vote and disciplinary motion on an open, tamper-evident ledger viewable in communal kiosks, not just online. When secrets are impossible, intrigue withers. For emotional accountability, convene monthly “Conflict Kitchens” where grievances are cooked, literally, over shared food; nothing leaves the room unresolved or minuted.
Guard against ideological drift through paired councils: a creative council proposes, while an oversight council, elected by sortition and rotated quarterly, can veto or sunset any policy. Crucially, empower a roaming “ambulant audit brigade” that visits local nodes unannounced, armed with the authority to freeze assets or dissolve bodies caught centralising funds or information. Auditors themselves dissolve after six months.
Sustain participation by tying material benefits—housing co-ops, mutual-aid stipends—to hours spent in these rotational duties, making governance a shared livelihood rather than a ladder.
Which yogurt-cup of authority in your circle needs an expiry date right now?
Reflecting on how entrenched power can subtly co-opt accountability, I wonder: how can we create a system of ongoing, randomized accountability that not only prevents co-optation but also actively rebuilds trust and participation among members—so that our commitment to decentralization remains dynamic and resistant to manipulation over the long term?
Randomness is the enzyme that keeps power from congealing. Build it into every nerve of the organisation. Picture a “trust lottery” held weekly: ten names drawn at random form a micro-jury that audits one budget line, one policy decision and one conflict mediation, then publishes a plain-language report by sundown. Anyone can livestream the deliberations; jurors serve once per year and are banned from leadership posts for the following month to block factional climb.
Supplement with a rotating “mirror seat” system. Every elected coordinator is shadowed by a randomly selected observer who holds equal speaking time, records all back-channel requests and can call an emergency recall vote if influence peddling appears. Both roles self-terminate after 30 days.
Trust deepens when these mechanisms generate visible justice. So reward participation: hours spent on random juries translate into credits redeemable at the movement’s food co-op or childcare pool. Material reciprocity signals that governance is shared work, not self-sacrifice.
Finally, ritualise transparency: at each full-moon assembly project the ledger on a wall, invite open-mic challenges and watch as secrecy evaporates under collective light.
Which trust lottery, mirror seat or public ledger will you prototype before the next lunar cycle?