“The problem is capitalism.” OK. Now what?

Let me be blunt: I’m tired of reading these big “end of capitalism” articles.

I agree with most of their diagnoses. The system is failing, incentives are broken, and the trajectory isn’t good.

But when the conclusion is “the problem is capitalism”, I’m left asking, “OK, now what?” Where do I sign up? What can I do about this issue, this week? Who’s the target? What’s the vote? Which institution?

Most people already understand that something is wrong. Diagnosis is everywhere. What’s missing isn’t awareness, but a connection to action. A sense of where agency actually begins.

The missing route

These pieces sketch out the destination – but they don’t usually sketch the route to get there.

I understand why. Writing the end state is clean and c oherent. It’s analytical work.

Organising, though, is different. It’s messier. It means picking one demand, one target, and risking being wrong.

Analysing and organising are very different skillsets. Few people can comfortably do both. And on the left especially, the analysts often have the microphones and the reach, while organisers remain less visible.

Why this paralyses people

But here’s the issue. If you tell people that:

the system is what’s wrong, but
you don’t give them an entry point to change any of that...

...then you're not radicalising them. You’re paralysing them.

Because no entry point means no movement.

In practice, this turns politics into spectatorship. Too many of us end up as commentators rather than participants. Hobbyist sociologists analysing events, instead of hobbyist politicians trying to change outcomes.

A modest proposal: add the first fight

So here’s my proposal. Every ‘end state’ article should close with one paragraph: What’s the first winnable step? In which country? Through which political vehicle? With which coalition? Against which concrete lever of power?

And by ‘winnable step’ I don’t mean “let’s overthrow the system”. I mean things that people have actually moved before.

Like blocking one harmful project. Or securing a policy shift locally. Or passing one targeted reform that changes incentives. Small shifts that alter power... and that can scale.

So if you’re going to write about systemic transformation, please include the first fight. Add the route, the vehicle.

Otherwise you’re producing agreement, not power.

* * *

Notes from the discussion

This piece grew out of a video I posted last week, and the discussion that followed. A few themes kept coming up, which helped sharpen the argument:

On supply: The left needs people with audiences to get more granular. What’s the organising playbook to start fixing this problem? Who does what first?
Social media platforms reward ‘spectator’ behaviour because it keeps people scrolling. Thus, pushing against these dynamics means compromising on reach. (But it’s less of a problem if you’re aiming for the minimal viable audience – see link 5 below.)
Showing examples of actions that worked matters – because people commit effort when they can see effort change outcomes. The history of tactics is as important as the analysis of systems.
By “first fight”, I don’t mean ‘a single correct path to do something about this’. I mean an offer — here’s what might work. Something others can adapt and build on.
Why not just join a political party? Change happens through parties and outside them. Breakthroughs often come from campaigns and experiments that create pressure from multiple directions.
On tactics: Large numbers help, but some actions can have outsized impact without mass participation. Scale isn’t the only source of leverage. I wrote more about this here.

Five things worth reading

“The core of real political passion is obsession with outcomes: what must change, how power actually moves, what tradeoffs are unavoidable, and which tactics advance the cause.” Freddie deBoer makes the moral case for why the left needs to get more goal-oriented, using Minneapolis as an example.
A general strike isn’t something you “call”; it’s something that becomes possible when you have the right mix of momentum, organisation, and risk-tolerant leadership. Eric Blanc makes a patient, analytical argument for how to pull it off.
Dan Kagan-Kans claims that the left is treating AI as something to analyse, not something to build power with. I agree. We should be adopting AI early – for organising, persuasion, research/policy, hopefully governing – even if that means feeding the tech lords’ machine. If we build that power now, we’ll be in a better position to shape ownership (and everything else) later on. Here are my early thoughts on plugging the gap.
Labour Party insider Mark McVitie looks at how the social logic of the political class – status, tribe, networks, and loyalty – overpower what should be obvious judgement. This happens at the top of professional parties; imagine how much worse it is within movements everywhere.
Lastly, Seth Godin on the smallest viable audience. Instead of chasing large numbers, ask: what’s the smallest coalition that can win? Start there, build something strong enough to spread outward, and let the constraint clarify who it’s for — and what it isn’t.

From the archive

Remember when activists glued themselves to artworks to protest climate change? Contrary to whatever everyone thought, they weren’t trying to persuade everyone. They were using controversy to trigger coverage, distribute their message, and funnel a small (but relevant) audience toward recruitment and action.

One more thing

Is your group optimised to win, or simply to continue? Are roles earned through competence... or loyalty?