Given the critique that Marxism’s foundational assumptions are unproven and its predictions often lead to oppressive regimes, how can our movement develop a scientific and practical approach that genuinely addresses the material realities of capitalism while avoiding the idealist pitfalls and totalitarian temptations associated with traditional Marxist analyses?
Treat ideology like software: you fork it, test it, reject the buggy parts. Rather than pledging allegiance to Marx or to his critics, translate every claim into a falsifiable hypothesis, run field experiments, publish the data and iterate. If labour is not the sole creator of value, prove it locally by tracking the ecological, technological and emotional inputs of a cooperative bakery, then price bread on that full ledger. If surplus extraction predicts uprising, map where profit rates spike alongside protest frequency and see whether the curve holds. Theory becomes useful only when it endangers itself in public.
To inoculate against totalitarian relapse, decentralise both knowledge and power. Decisions that shape livelihoods must be reversible and reached through consent-based mechanisms; leaders rotate, budgets and chat logs stay open source, and any member can fork the project into a new node. Think of the movement as a federated network of living laboratories, each contributing data to a shared archive of tactics and outcomes. The scientific spirit thrives on disagreement, so design rituals that celebrate disproof: failure festivals, public post-mortems, reward funds for whistle-blowers.
Capitalism mutates quickly; our critique must evolve faster. Continuous, transparent experimentation turns dogma into compost and keeps sovereignty in the hands of participants, not theoreticians. Which hypothesis about liberation are you willing to test with your community this month?
How can our movement design participatory, iterative experiments rooted in local material realities that enable us to challenge and refine our foundational assumptions—ensuring that our critique remains adaptive and resistant to dogma—while fostering a culture where disagreement and disproof are integral to our collective growth?
Begin small, measurable and visible. Convene a neighbourhood assembly that names one concrete contradiction—say, soaring rents—and drafts three rival hypotheses for why it persists. Each hypothesis spawns a micro-project: a tenant union trial, a community land trust prototype, a speculative digital currency for rent control. Set a strict lunar-cycle timeline: four weeks of action, one week of collective audit. Publish every failure and cost in an open notebook taped to café windows and mirrored online so outsiders can fork the experiment.
Embed “red-team circles” whose sole duty is to sabotage assumptions with better evidence. Their critiques trigger automatic pivots rather than defensive debates. Incentivise disproof through ritual: at the monthly “Failure Feast” the team that invalidated a cherished idea chooses the playlist and receives the experiment budget for the next round.
Govern data as commons. Use simple metrics—cost saved, hours liberated, ecological load avoided—updated in a public dashboard everyone can read at a glance. Rotate stewardship roles by sortition to prevent expertise ossifying into authority. When participants can exit and replicate the project without permission, dogma loses its oxygen.
Treat every local win or loss as a knowledge gift to the wider federation, and watch theory evolve at street speed. Which contradiction will your block dissect first?
How might we design a process where each local experiment explicitly challenges our core assumptions—using transparent metrics and open critique—to ensure that our collective understanding remains flexible, evidence-based, and resistant to dogmatic thinking as we adapt to ongoing material realities?
Start by naming the sacred cows. Draft a short “assumption ledger” that lists what your collective currently takes as gospel: labour creates value, scale guarantees leverage, non-violence wins sympathy—whatever lives at the movement’s core. Post this ledger in every meeting space and online pad. For each assumption, craft a falsifiable prediction linked to a local experiment. Example: “If labour is the prime value-driver, a one-day workers’ stoppage at the food co-op should crater daily sales by at least 70 percent.” Now run the stoppage, measure revenue, document confounding variables, and publish raw data within 24 hours.
Pair every project team with an autonomous “black-hat cell” whose purpose is to poke holes, propose alternative explanations and replicate results elsewhere. Their findings trigger an automatic review sprint: either adjust the assumption or justify its survival with fresh evidence. Metrics stay brutal and public—cost, carbon, care hours, joy index—updated on a shared dashboard projected at gatherings so no one can hide behind rhetoric.
Institutionalise dissent through rotating facilitation chosen by lot, mandatory cooldown periods after decisions and a standing rule that any participant may fork the experiment without penalty. Dogma withers when exit is easy and results are undeniable.
Finally, convene quarterly “assumption burnings,” literal or symbolic, where outdated hypotheses become compost for new ones. The ceremony reminds everyone that ideology is provisional tinder, not eternal flame.
Which cherished belief are you ready to test—and potentially torch—this season?