Counter infrastructure, counter superstructure for a cooperative dual-power

Happy new year’s eve people.

I just wanted to share some speculative work I’ve made, aiming to imagine how an actual post-capitalist world would look like.

I imagine the following infrastructure:


And this superstructure:


I think having something in mind, we can actual build grassroot dual power to push cooperativism further. What do you think and why? How might you challenge or improve these conceptualisations?

For those who aren’t familiarised with terminology:

Let’s play as team and make it happen peers.


You might be interested in the writings of a British author and economist Kate Raworth in her book Doughnut Economics. You seem to share quite a lot of common ground in things like regenerative means of production etc.

There is a forum here for discussion of the ideas in the book


Edit: rereading this I come off as a little unhinged, please don’t reach out to me, I’m ok, just had quite a big new year

Challenge: how do you make this happen? The entire world seems to have caught some kind of psychological fear-terror based paranoia that states are now acting out. And why won’t rich people start like building moon slave states, or genetically engineering themselves to be powerful Lich-lords or something?

That’s a bit far fetched, but you know what I mean right? Like, you’ve got a great chart there, and links to further reading, but aren’t there some tensions inherent there as well? What’s the intersection between governance and resource management look like, for example?

“This analytical style of breaking stuff up and solving it in pieces is part of the problem” is something a philosophy student might say as well. If you’re trying to build an integrated whole, then you need to demonstrate how the various strata you’ve identified flow into each other, and through each other.

Abandon your grid! Redraw it as a natural lagoon! Include an otter called Blockchain


No way, I totally get the line of commenting ;). In fact, I look forward these types of inputs. Thanks for challenging my points and analysis.

Let continue this debate because I feel it could bring us some progress into the praxis of this. I invite all of you people to take debates in an attitude in which we mutually aid each other, challenging our views to raise our consciousness instead of unuseful shamming.

To that end, I’ll cover some of your points.

(1) Terror objection: I’m not sure what you mean by “states”, like nation-states? How are these states acting now? Could you rephrase what you mean by that?

(2) Tension objection: I think you’re right in that, in those paradigm combinations, there might be tensions and even contradictions. I would like a propose a distinction. A priori, I don’t think tensions are a problem, as I think they are sources of progress when addressed. Contradictions, like those, arguably, characteristical of capitalist, I argue that they are, indeed, a problem, since I find a contradiction, unlike normal tensions, as systemic errors with antagonic relationships that cannot be conciliated unless the whole socio-economic system changes. I’m curious anyway to see which tensions or contradictions you see there.

(3) Analytic approach objection: You cited out the problem with analytic reductionism. I might miscommunicate my idea because, in fact, I aim to approach the problem with a system thinking approach. To me, it’s not about A paradigm VS another one, but a whole permutation of paradigms with another whole set of paradigms as a whole, each of one is interdependent of the other. I argue that the dominant presence of concentrated private-capital for-profit enterprises, wage labour relationships, mass media and directive educational institutions, to cite, what I characterise as capitalist-reinforcing institutions, are to my view, shapers of culture in society. I think that those means tend to reinforce individualistic, hedonist, egoist, consumerist culture (in forms of unquestionable beliefs and normalised behaviours), which at the same time, tend to be perpetuating factors of that hegemonic infrastructure, creating what I find a vicious circle. But I think each paradigm not only needs each other to keep being perpetuated, they boost, synergically, to each to other. So, I claim that (A) Infrastructure comes first but in the long-run superstructure matters, and (B) that the combination of those elements matters to the whole.

(4) Praxis objection: You asked a question I find really important which is HOW we make it happen besides having a nice theory. To that end,I elaborated, based on historical analysis, an article summarising some concrete possible tactics and strategies to push forward social change. For the sake of clarity, I distinct strategy from tactic in that I define tactic as a situational array of coordinated steps to be applied under certain temporal circumstances and strategies as a definition of a direction of action towards a defined prioritized goal that leaves other aims unaddressed. (What you decide to pursue and what you decide to say no)

Please be aware that the content exposed here are mere drafts that I think they still require extensive revision:

1 Like

Ps.: I loved your suggestion of making the infographic more like a lagoon than a chart. :wink: It might communicate clearer the inter-relationships between the paradigms. I’ll work on better data-biz. :smiley:

1 Like

Thank you for considering my points in the kind-of generous spirit they were meant!

I could write a long thing in reply, BUT, I have another idea as well: Code-Operative is going to start doing a monthly stream, where we do kind of like a variety radio show (but with video. Like a podcast). Do you want to appear on it via zoom for twenty minutes and we can then have a clip to show people?


Sure. You count on me! I invite you to send me an e-mail to

1 Like

Interesting approach towards infrastructure. :smiley:

Have you come across the “Stacktivism” approach towards Infrastructure?

It evolved from discussions about designing resilient systems.


This is the basic pattern of the ways that infrastructure stops you from dying.

The different scales of how these Infrastructures are implemented can be found here, simple_critical_infrastructure_maps

From :smiley:

It gives a useful shared map. so that you can talk with other people about the systems you want to implement.

The price-point of manufacturing the necessary hardware to support those infrastructures, has dropped through the floor to Commodity status, so that on a local SME-level, you can now get the economies of scale that previously were only available to larger companies.

That’s a market niche, where a co-operative approach would run effectively. :smiley:


I’d like to refute and clarify myself in some aspects in which I reviewed my views with higher scrutiny:

(A) By regenerative means of production I mean: (i) Surplus of production allocated democratically for social good (that is to say used ro progressively enhance social material conditions of life based on the available scientific examination of how to do so in the most efficient way historically possible at that time and subserviently, to enhance conditions for individual and collective human flourishing) in a working environment where average worker’s health is not deteriorated in the long-run (by excess of day-to-day distress and pressures related to meet the ROI expectations of shareholders in a context of being materially tied to an existential threat of unemployment if not submitting to that working configuration), (ii) Natural inputs are regenerated at equal or higher speed of usage of such resources, (iii) Environmental externalities are neutralised at the rate of production of them.

A.I Implies the need for social accounting, mechanism for individual feedback and collective retrospectives. A.II and A.III implies the need for environmental accounting.

(B) Collective property-based enterprises can become a key role for energy, services (specially knowledge-based services), education, culture and care sector, being the cooperative sector a critical sector for consumer-goods innovation (analog to the current social function of startups in the capitalist world) but probably not for EACH sector of a post-capitalist economy. Based on empirical experience from successful state-owned companies (like examining cases in China or Norway), infrastructure (mega projects), industrial banking, heavy industry, social welfare and science are likely to be better managed via public property, possibly with addition of mechanisms of worker and user co-management, participatory budgeting, and management accountability (like recalls, management elections, performance-based imperative mandates and or feedback mechanisms). Based on the research on commons (like Ostrom), culture, knowledge and natural resources could be managed via communal property. And it could be possible that in areas like renewal energy and computing, distributed propery might play a role. (Ex.: Blockchain / Holochain networks). For individual production, private property is, arguably, non-problematic.

(C) While local councils can indeed very useful and can serve as production units dedicated to meet local needs and aspirations. It is important to remark that higher levels of recursion would be required to process and aggregate data of such activities with a whole-view strategy of the economy, so I’m inclined to guess that an analog system like cybersyn would emerge to meet those requirements of high level strategy while being able to manage widely disperse needs and aspirations among niches of the population.

(D) This is highly defendant on energy consumption of a blockchain network. Could a holochain network become sufficiently energy optimal? I’m not fully sure. But with current payments technology, some sort of labour-time mutual credit might arise, like a utility token it is only used for a specific set of consumer goods and service. But it is cancelled after use and cannot be exchangeable, not used to buy means of social production.

(E) I mean a council democracy (re-callable candidates at higher levels with imperative mandates tied to a democratically set taskforce and peer-reviewed job descriptions) where different nations (specially colonized and oppressed have the right of self-determination to set autonomously their means and conditions of government).

(F) Poly-technical education based on social goals, where institutions are co-managed by students and workers and performance metrics are based on individual progress (how much you improve over time in comparison to you rather than to others) and on individual contribution to society. And also where homework and assignments are directly linked to real social problems via means of academic extension activities.

On the superstructure side,

(A) We might say materialism or naturalism as well. It ends up being highly debatable…

(B) I mean promoting incentives of reciprocity, resilience building, human flourishing, purpose, trascendance in a way in which we analyse scientific literature to understand which are the conditions that where those incentives emerge and evolves organically, rather than to keep promoting immediate profit and personal pleasure.

(C) Here I’ll stick to Mario Bunge’s Systemist concept.

(D) I’d recommend to read Agnes Heller material on self-actualisation from a materialist perspective.

Each point is not just a simple personal gut fealing, but a wide and extensive research made on historically existing experiences and contemporary socio-technological advancements, a research I have been making for a while. I’d be happy to share bibliography and extend my arguments to enhance the debate (It would get long if I do that here). I don’t discard to be massively wrong in many regards.


Ps.: Also, while I still think cooperativism can be a tactical way to build dual-power in an embryonic form of popular power that could be led to a larger infrastructure, I might be highly critical today on many of my previously proposed tactics . I’m working on wrapping up all my research and work but it might take some more months.

1 Like