↓ Skip to main content
Collective for Embodied Dialectics
Collective for Embodied Dialectics CED
  1. Gasts/

Strategies

Clear lines of effort that guide our collective towards our goals. Each line serves one goal and breaks it down into sub-goals we can work through, step by step.

How we plan
#

Good intentions are not a plan. To get from commitment to lasting effect, we borrow the planning logic of joint planning doctrine (United States Government US Army, 2020) and strip it down to four questions. Each section of this page answers one of them:

Two ideas from the doctrine shape everything below. First, planning is recursive, not linear: what we learn in a later step regularly sends us back to an earlier one. Second, a plan starts from the situation as it is, not as we would like it to be: contentious issues are not assumed away.

Understanding the operational environment
#

Strategy starts with an honest look at where the left stands. Left organizations put strong commitment and countless hours into the struggle, yet their impact stays small, few members stay active for long, and groups with similar goals work side by side without coordinating. No organization acts in a vacuum: each is one part of a system of people, groups, places and resources that all affect each other. Limited time and energy have to be aimed somewhere, and the most useful question is not what could we do? but what matters most in this system? To answer it, we use a simplified version of the Vulnerability Assessment Method (Schnaubelt et al., 2014), a planning tool for finding an organization’s centre of gravity and the weak points around it. Its central idea translates well: rather than chasing thousands of worker bees, find the queen.

It works in three steps: first find out who and what is out there, then work out how they are connected, and finally decide what matters most.

Step 1: Taking stock — who and what is out there
#

Every environment can be broken down into six domains, known as PMESII: political, military (for us: security), economic, social, infrastructure and information. To find the actors and resources in each, the method crosses these domains with six practical categories, known as ASCOPE: the areas where things happen, the structures (buildings and facilities), the capabilities actors have, the organizations involved, the key people, and the events that change the situation. Each cell asks a concrete question, for example: which buildings matter economically? Which events shape the social life of a neighbourhood?

The table below is an example for a mid-sized city. Every local group should fill in its own: the empty cells are often the most revealing.

P Political

A · Areas Electoral districts, council wards
S · Structures Town hall, party offices
C · Capabilities Petitions, citizens’ initiatives, local voting rights
O · Organizations Left parties, councils, NGOs
P · People Councillors, candidates, local politicians
E · Events Elections, council meetings, referendums

M Security

A · Areas Protest routes, contested squares, heavily policed areas
S · Structures Police stations, courts
C · Capabilities Legal aid, awareness teams, operational security
O · Organizations Police, legal collectives, far-right groups
P · People Lawyers, legal observers, police liaison
E · Events Demonstrations, raids, trials

E Economic

A · Areas Industrial zones, gentrifying districts
S · Structures Factories, warehouses, job centres
C · Capabilities Strike funds, mutual-aid funds, membership fees
O · Organizations Unions, works councils, employers’ associations, landlords
P · People Shop stewards, employers, landlords
E · Events Strikes, wage rounds, rent increases, layoffs

S Social

A · Areas Neighbourhoods, campuses, housing estates
S · Structures Community centres, social centres, cafés, sports clubs
C · Capabilities Neighbourhood networks, childcare, language skills
O · Organizations Tenants’ and migrant associations, sports clubs
P · People Tenants, neighbours, students, elders
E · Events Festivals, holidays, school terms

I Infrastructure

A · Areas Transit corridors, districts without meeting rooms
S · Structures Meeting rooms, print shops, servers
C · Capabilities Encrypted messengers, shared calendars, rented rooms
O · Organizations Housing co-ops, tech collectives, funders
P · People Venue owners, sysadmins, caretakers
E · Events Venue closures, platform policy changes

I Information

A · Areas Poster walls, local forums, news catchment areas
S · Structures Notice boards, local radio, print shops
C · Capabilities Social media reach, newsletters, translation
O · Organizations Independent media, corporate media, platforms
P · People Journalists, influencers, translators
E · Events Campaign launches, anniversaries, news cycles

Step 2: Relating the actors — the system
#

A list of actors is not yet a system. The second step takes the most important entries from the inventory and asks how they are connected: who depends on whom, who supports or works against whom. The map below follows the systems view used in joint planning doctrine. Its subject is not our collective but the organized left as a whole: local groups, national networks, unions and electoral efforts alike, each fighting on its own front. It sits in the middle, surrounded by the six PMESII domains from step 1. The dots are nodes (the actors and resources found there) and the lines are links between them. The thick links are the ones the left relies on most.

Our collective appears on the map too, as one supportive actor among many in the information domain. We provide tools, workshops and mentoring from the outside; we are no platform or party, take part in no decisions and coordinate nothing ourselves.

Not every actor is on the left’s side. Following the method, we describe actors by their behaviour rather than by fixed labels: supportive, neutral or hostile. Hostile actors have a dashed red outline. Actors move along this spectrum over time, and good work can move them towards the supportive end.

The organized leftPoliticalSecurityEconomicSocialInfrastructureInformationActive organizers – The doers across all left groups — local, national, union, electoral: the people who plan, mobilize and carry the work. Every advance is made through them.ActiveorganizersMembers' time – What organizers use up to act. Strong commitment and countless hours, but few stay active for long: burnout and turnover drain the left faster than it grows.Members'timeDecision making – Needed to act together, but long, unstructured meetings turn it into the biggest drain on members' time.DecisionmakingKnow-how – Without a shared culture of practice, experience stays in a few heads and every group starts from zero, often re-enacting historical blueprints instead.Know-howShared goals – Most groups share similar overarching goals, but describe themselves through labels that divide instead of comparable goals that would show where they can work together.SharedgoalsLeft parties (supportive) – The electoral front: one of many legitimate avenues towards shared goals.LeftpartiesGovernment (neutral)GovernmentFar right (hostile)Far rightPolice (hostile) – Can disrupt actions and gatherings; a reason to keep organizers protected and roles replaceable.PoliceLegal support (supportive) – Legal aid and know-your-rights training keep organizers safe enough to stay active.LegalsupportSurveillance (hostile) – Monitoring of digital channels makes operational security part of every practice.SurveillanceEmployers & landlords (hostile)Employers &landlordsPaid work (neutral) – Long hours, care work and precarious jobs leave little time and energy for organizing.Paid workUnions (supportive) – Organized workplaces with experience, resources and reach across many fronts.UnionsNeighbourhoods – Where new organizers come from; recruitment keeps a few people from carrying everything.NeighbourhoodsFriends & familyFriends &familyCommunity groups (supportive)CommunitygroupsMeeting spaces – Affordable rooms to meet, train and organize in.MeetingspacesDigital tools – Async tools let people contribute whenever they have time, without another meeting.DigitaltoolsFundingFundingOur collective (supportive) – Us: we provide tools, workshops and mentoring from the outside. We are no platform or party, take part in no decisions and coordinate nothing ourselves.OurcollectiveResearch – Decades of organizational and systems research that can be translated into practice.ResearchSocial media (neutral)SocialmediaCorporate media (hostile)Corporatemedia
  1. EndsWhat we want to achieve
    A diverse but coordinated, self-organized left: a coalition of effective movements that builds real alternatives and a society that meets everyone’s needs.
    G1G2G3
  2. Critical capabilityThe way we achieve them
    Organize people and coordinate across fronts — sustained over years, not weeks.
  3. Centre of gravityThe doer that has this capability
    Active organizers The organized leftThe doers across all left groups — local, national, union, electoral: the people who plan, mobilize and carry the work. Every advance is made through them.
    Test If the left’s active organizers burned out or drifted apart, could any manifesto, label or platform still reach these ends? No — so they, not the ideas or the labels, are the centre of gravity.
  4. Critical requirementsWhat it needs and uses up to act
    • Members' time
    • Decision making
    • Know-how
    • Shared goals
    • Legal support
    • Neighbourhoods
    • Meeting spaces
  5. Critical vulnerabilitiesRequirements that are deficient — where effort pays off most
    Members' time The organized leftG2 What organizers use up to act. Strong commitment and countless hours, but few stay active for long: burnout and turnover drain the left faster than it grows.
    Decision making The organized leftG2 Needed to act together, but long, unstructured meetings turn it into the biggest drain on members’ time.
    Know-how The organized leftG1 Without a shared culture of practice, experience stays in a few heads and every group starts from zero, often re-enacting historical blueprints instead.
    Shared goals The organized leftG3 Most groups share similar overarching goals, but describe themselves through labels that divide instead of comparable goals that would show where they can work together.

Strengths to build on

  • Unions Economic Organized workplaces with experience, resources and reach across many fronts.
  • Digital tools InfrastructureG2 Async tools let people contribute whenever they have time, without another meeting.
  • Our collective InformationG1 Us: we provide tools, workshops and mentoring from the outside. We are no platform or party, take part in no decisions and coordinate nothing ourselves.
  • Research InformationG1 Decades of organizational and systems research that can be translated into practice.

Step 3: From the system to the critical factors
#

With the system mapped, the last step asks what in it matters most. The chain under the map is the core of the method. It reads from top to bottom:

  1. Ends – what we want to achieve. Here, these are our goals .
  2. Critical capability – the main way to get there, phrased as a verb: what we must be able to do.
  3. Centre of gravity – the doer that has this capability. It has to be something tangible: people, a group, a resource, never an abstract quality like “morale” or “the will of the people”. Qualities like these are what the doer needs, which makes them critical requirements. The test: if this were weakened or lost, could the ends still be reached? If not, it is the centre of gravity. For the left, that is its active organizers.
  4. Critical requirements – what the centre of gravity needs and uses up to act: time, decisions, know-how, allies, spaces.
  5. Critical vulnerabilities – the requirements that are deficient or exposed. They are where a limited effort has the largest effect, and where the organization is most at risk.

Most effort goes into what is most visible, which is rarely what matters most. The method makes the choice explicit: protect the left’s vulnerabilities, build on its strengths, and act where the system is weakest. That is exactly how our goals are set: not as targets for our collective, but as the support the left needs most. Each critical vulnerability names the goal that addresses it: members’ time and decision making (G2), scattered know-how (G1) and the missing shared language for goals (G3).

This is a starting point, not a finished picture. The value of the method lies in doing it together and repeating it as things change: a centre of gravity that was right last year may not be right today.

Defining the problem
#

Knowing where we stand and where we want to go is not enough: we also have to name what stands in between. Joint planning doctrine treats this as a step of its own (United States Government US Army, 2020), and with good reason: even small differences in how a problem is understood lead to very different plans. Its first rule is to tell symptoms from root causes. Treating symptoms keeps an organization busy without changing anything; in the doctrine’s own example, fighting insurgents seldom addresses why there is an insurgency.

Symptoms what we see

  • Low impact despite strong commitment
  • Burnout and high member turnover
  • Long, exhausting meetings
  • Splintered groups and sectarian infighting

Root causes what produces it

  • No clearly defined, comparable goals. Groups describe themselves through labels, not through what they want to change, so neither progress nor common ground can be seen.
  • No shared culture of practice. Methods are not written down, tested or passed on; every group starts from zero or re-enacts historical blueprints.
  • Organizational forms not adapted to their context. Structures and routines are inherited rather than chosen, and they consume the time and energy of the people carrying them.

The second rule is to describe the tension between the current and the desired conditions: what has to change, and in which direction. Each gap names the goal that closes it.

Current conditions Desired conditions Goal
Commitment drains away in burnout and turnover. Organizers stay active for years, with a workload they can sustain. G2
Decisions take long, unstructured meetings. Decisions are made efficiently, and much of the work moves asynchronous. G2
Experience stays in a few heads and leaves with them. A shared, field-tested toolkit that groups adapt to their own situation. G1
Groups with similar goals work side by side without knowing it. Goals are written in a shared format; groups coordinate directly. G3

Finally, everything is summed up in one problem statement: a short answer to the question what’s going on here? It is a working hypothesis, not a verdict, and it is revisited as we learn more.

Problem statement
The left does not lack commitment; it lacks the means to turn commitment into lasting effect. Without clearly defined, comparable goals and a shared culture of practice, its active organizers — its centre of gravity — spend their limited time in long meetings, relearn what others already know, and work beside groups with similar goals without coordinating. Energy drains faster than it is replenished. The tension is not only with opponents outside: the left’s own ways of organizing wear down the people it depends on.

Lines of effort
#

With the problem defined, the remaining question is how to address it. A line of effort connects what we do day to day with where we want to end up. Read each line from left to right: every sub-goal builds on the ones before it, and together they establish the end state on the right. The badge there (G1, G2, …) links to the goal the line serves, and sub-goals are numbered after it: SG1.1, SG1.2, … belong to goal 1.

LOE 1 Open toolkit

  1. SG1.1 Collect and annotate the literature (done)
  2. SG1.2 Draft exercises and protocols (in progress)
  3. SG1.3 Field-test them with partner organizations
  4. SG1.4 Publish the open-access toolkit
  5. SG1.5 Translate into five languages
G1
Organizations run, adapt and extend the toolkit on their own

Most of what organizers need already exists, scattered across organizational research, systems science and the history of the movement. This line turns it into exercises and protocols a group can pick up without reading the literature first.

Every exercise is field-tested with at least one partner organization before it is published, and the toolkit stays modular: groups adopt one piece at a time, in the order that fits their situation.

LOE 2 Sustainable organizations

  1. SG2.1 Make contact and assess needs together (in progress)
  2. SG2.2 Measure retention and meeting load as a baseline
  3. SG2.3 Introduce GAST goal-setting
  4. SG2.4 Streamline meetings and move work async
  5. SG2.5 Mentor members in key roles
  6. SG2.6 Review the results after 12 months
G2
Healthy retention and workload in partner organizations

This line runs once per partner organization. It starts with listening: the organization names its own problems, and we measure a baseline together so that progress can be shown rather than assumed.

We never take part in decisions or votes. Members choose which changes to adopt; we support with materials, mentoring and an outside view. See the FAQ on how collaborations work.

LOE 3 Coordinated left

  1. SG3.1 Define a shared format for goals
  2. SG3.2 Publish our own goals as an example
  3. SG3.3 Bring organizations on board to publish theirs
  4. SG3.4 Map the overlaps between groups
  5. SG3.5 Pilot a joint cross-organization action
  6. SG3.6 Step back from the mediating role
G3
Groups coordinate directly, without a mediator

Groups on the left often share more goals than their labels suggest. Once goals are written down in a shared, comparable format, overlaps become visible and groups can coordinate directly.

We go first by publishing our own goals, then help others do the same. The line ends with us stepping back: success means nobody needs a mediator, us included.

The sub-goals along each line are what the method calls decisive points: steps that, once reached, give a clear advantage and bring the end state measurably closer. Their order is a plan, not a law.

Assessing and adapting
#

No plan survives contact with reality unchanged. Joint planning doctrine therefore treats assessment not as a final step but as a continuous activity that runs alongside the plan and feeds back into every other step (United States Government US Army, 2020): it compares the conditions we wanted with the conditions we actually see, and adjusts the plan accordingly.

  1. 1 Monitor Collect what is happening: sub-goals reached, the goals’ metrics, changes in the environment.
  2. 2 Evaluate Compare it with what we expected. What works, what doesn’t, and why?
  3. 3 Adapt Adjust the sub-goals, reorder them, or change the line of effort itself.
…and back to monitoring: assessment never stops while the plan runs.

Measures of performance

Are we doing things right?

Did we do what we said we would? These track our own actions.

  • Sub-goals reached on each line of effort
  • Exercises published, workshops held

Measures of effectiveness

Are we doing the right things?

Is it changing anything? These track conditions in the environment.

  • Member retention and meeting load in partner organizations
  • Groups publishing comparable goals, joint actions between them

Time to rethink the approach when…

  • A goal is reached, or turns out to be out of reach.
  • The centre of gravity or a critical vulnerability has shifted.
  • Lines of effort make progress, but the conditions don’t change.

Assessment asks two different questions, and both matter. Ticking off sub-goals shows that we are busy; only the goals’ metrics show whether anything is changing. Adjustments range from reordering a few sub-goals to a completely new approach, when the problem itself turns out to be different from what we thought. That is the loop back to the start of this page: understand the environment again, and redefine the problem if necessary.

References

Schnaubelt, C., Larson, E., & Boyer, M. (2014). Vulnerability assessment method pocket guide: a tool for center of gravity analysis. RAND Arroyo Center.

United States Government US Army. (2020). Joint Planning (Joint Publication 5-0). Joint Operations.