A Cyber-Memetic Model of Revolution

While the VSM was developed primarily to assess viability of systems within capitalist markets, authority is one level of abstraction removed from that. Whereas the money is a primary factor of the fitness of an entity within the market, the currency of authority is in the memetic space: legitimacy. It is belief about the relative viability of a system, rather than a quantifiable measure of the viability of the system, that determines the success or failure of a revolutionary project. Perception is a function of viability, assessed within the VSM, but perception is not itself VSM viability.

This gives us 4 factors of revolution within this model:

  1. The viability of the dominant system
  2. The viability of the revolutionary system
  3. the environment within which these systems compete
  4. the memetic space of the interactions of the previous 3

Then, within this model, revolution occurs when the dominant power is perceived as not optimally viable, and the perception of the viability of a counter-power exceeds the perception of the viability of the dominant power. As people choose to participate in the counter-power and reject participation in the formerly dominant power, the dominant power collapses and the counter-power becomes the dominant power.

The ability or inability to project viability is a function of the actual viability of a system, but is not determined directly by the actual viability of said system. While a collapsed system that cannot ensure the population has food also cannot pretend food into existence, propaganda can minimize the impact of this fact by hiding it from some portions of the population. Viability is a function of the environment, which for each power, includes the alternate. A counter-power is part of the dominant power's environment, and vise versa, mutually affecting systematic viability of each.

Critically here, a system is measured by it's function, not it's intention. To have revolutionary potential, the oppositional system must be the same class of system. A system that blows up oil infrastructure, for example, would be an environmental factor that would absolutely negatively impact the viability of the dominant system. However, that system is a different class of system than the dominant system. It would have no revolutionary potential in and of itself. It may weaken the dominant system, it may starve the machinery of oppression of vital resources, but it can't bring that system's collapse. The urban guerilla movement never threatened the dominant power structure. Rather, these groups increased the power of the state because they were the wrong class of organization to challenge it.

The purpose of the capitalist state is to prop up the capitalist order, to maintain property rights, and to otherwise maintain existing systems of oppression. But the perceived class of the system is determined by the function relative to the environment. The state is the metasystem of a given nation. Metasystems organize systems to fulfill needs. To replace the dominant metasystem, the revolutionary system must be the same perceived class (which isn't to say it must do the same things, but that it must fulfill the same systemic niche).

The Black Panther's Free Breakfast Program was more dangerous than any other thing they did, because it did what people thought the state should do. While the perceived function of the state is to organize people to fulfill needs, it usually fails to do so since this is not it's actual function. The Free Breakfast Program highlighted this disconnect. The state then adopted a similar program, after destroying the Panthers, in order to again obscure the actual function the state fulfills.

The state cannot ever be optimally viable within it's perceived systemic niche because (1) because of hierarchy it can't be optimally viable at all, and (2) the perceived systemic niche (organizing the people to optimally fulfill the needs of the people) is literally the opposite of it's actual function (perpetuation of hierarchy and thus prevention of needs fulfillment for some).

The VSM provides us a rich toolkit to analyze both the vulnerabilities of systems we oppose, and the viability of systems we propose to build in opposition. It hints at weakness and opportunities. It appropriately positions our thinking within the context of other systems and the environment. It gives us tools to control complexity and leverage that complexity to our advantage. This reading of the VSM tells us that if we build a more viable counter-power, we will win, given that we spend the time to actually understand what “viability” means.