There is much criticism about capitalism and the patriarchy, but little discussion about the alternatives. Democracy is no alternative because we already have that. With the exception of a few regulations, nearly all decisions are made by capitalists. Think about that. The buildings that get constructed, the news reported, the movies filmed, the airports serviced, the clothes sold, most of modern life — all decided non-democratically. There is a reason capitalists do not use democracy to organize themselves and the reason is that they insist on being effective.
Capitalists use alliances. These alliances have specific purposes, like passing or thwarting certain laws. An ally in one domain may be an adversary in another, such as publishers who are competitors in the domain of selling books, but allies in extending copyright beyond its original limits.
This obviously works, so there is no point in arguing against it. To argue against it is to submit to it. To refuse to be effective is to be dominated by those who are effective.
In fact, alliances are nothing new to popular movements. Unions are the most notable example. There are many more opportunities to use them (cooperative day-care, cohousing, food clubs), but we lack the reflex, the vocabulary, and intuition about them. They are not our go-to solutions.
Common Goals
The first thing to note is that an alliance is based on common goals. Alliances are therefore impermanent, and ought to be accepted as such. When a goal changes or disappears, so does the alliance.
An alliance is not necessarily a partnership. Partners commit themselves to be allies in all matters regarding the partnership. Allies work on specific goals or projects as long as it suits them.
An alliance is not based on shared philosophy. The US had an alliance with the USSR during WWII, for the specific purpose of defeating Germany, although the two countries were philosophically quite disjoint. Immediately upon the end of war in Europe, the USSR and the US became enemies. It shows that their alliance was simply about defeating a common enemy, and nothing more.
How to Choose an Ally
It is possible to recruit inactive people to be helpers, but until they prove themselves in action, there is no real alliance. It is something else, be it fealty, an apprenticeship, or a partnership. Who can be a real ally? Again, not necessarily someone with similar views or philosophy. It is someone who is already actively working on your common goal and is seeking an alliance only to augment effectiveness. Why? There are any number of reasons why a person might express an interest in a common goal, but nevertheless be inactive due to laziness, craziness, or disorganization. A proper ally seeks to be attractive as an ally by doing. Allies are therefore peers, at least regarding the goal.
Transparency
Hierarchies can easily afford to be tricky. Generals must use secrecy and deception when battling an enemy, and the same is true for corporations. However, they needn’t use it for coordinating subordinates, because there are already control and enforcement mechanisms in a hierarchy.
Alliances must also be tricky in dealing with external adversaries. For example, an environmental group might act surreptitiously to obtain sensitive documents or to launch a blockading action. However, here there are no restrictions within an organization. Allies are not necessarily forthcoming with each other. Actors can work in multiple alliances. An ally might change priorities without telling you. For example, if your ally is facing a crisis in another alliance, they might not inform you of the depth of the crisis, for fear of scaring you off as an ally. In other words, they might try to put you in the refrigerator for later use. You always have to worry about whether this is happening to you. This is, in fact, how alliances evolve or dissolve.
An ally might be thinking about switching camps. An example of this would be the alliances and betrayals among medieval dukes and barons. While this is extremely uncommon among activist groups, it is a stronger possibility between individuals.
On one hand, there is no way to know whom to trust: It is not possible. While a hierarchy gives a higher level of security, you can never be 100% sure in an alliance. On the other hand, the problem is moot if you bear in mind the definition of an ally: someone who is already working on your common goal.
There is no way out of this quandary: Once you have over-come the uncertainty of loyalty, you’re in a hierarchy.
The disadvantage of a hierarchy is that you don’t control how the goals and methods are chosen, unless you are the leader. Otherwise, you simply take orders. In an alliance, you have to keep track of people and the methods used in pursuing their goals — that’s the trade-off, but the advantage is that you don’t get ordered around and you are not responsible for giving orders. You and your allies each chose your own goals and methods.
Define Your Goals
Alliances are not weird. Life is weird only when people are not in alliances. When they have no clear goals, they tend to look toward institutions that are self-justifying, like religion, democracy, or market logic. Instead, we must stay focused on effects. We must stay focused on reality. The core idea is to have priorities and goals, and to ditch anything and everything that interferes with them.
When people can see your goals and methods, then morality, principles, and righteousness are unnecessary. The latters are often used as a smokescreen for mischief, like “we value your privacy.”
Transparency is easier to evaluate. Alliances are better than membership in a self-justifying institution.