Anarchism before the multidimensional crisis of the 21st century ---- As
we have said on other occasions from Embat, the current crisis in theproduction of mineral and energy resources is a complex and
multidimensional challenge that reflects the tension between the
economic growth imposed by our hegemonic model and environmental
sustainability, social justice or human ethics. In other words, the
conflict lies in how we position ourselves before the world and life.
The current system of infinite growth and material development is, in
all respects, unsustainable for our planet, and this has now become
evident in many ways. "Infinite growth" seeks its justification in the
increase in the world population, as well as in the development of
emerging countries. It also seeks to enrich the Western population,
which mostly considers itself "middle class", given its aspiration not
to depend entirely on its workforce to survive and guarantee the
well-being of its people, whether through living on income, investments
or assets or through the intervention of the welfare state. Only in this
case, this middle class is already in crisis, its purchasing power
having declined for years, if not decades. In any case, the effect of
all these factors is that demand intensifies and becomes widespread.
Almost all of humanity wants to live as advanced capitalist societies
do. This is especially palpable in Asia, where its standard of living
already rivals - or even surpasses - that of Europe, which was once the
model to follow.
As infrastructure is built and all kinds of goods are manufactured,
production accelerates. Capitalism has managed to decouple the product
from production. While we focus on the utility, novelty, sophistication
or beauty of a product, we forget how it is produced and what impact it
has. Of course, this accelerated progress clashes with the geological
limits of the planet. On a finite planet, resources are finite. And this
applies to both minerals (lithium, cobalt or rare earths) and energy
(uranium, coal, gas and oil). There is concern about how the needs of
the market and the population will be met in the long term, but for now
only the easy way out has been taken: replacing fossil energy with
"green" energy (solar or wind), without understanding that they also
have an impact and that their current availability depends to a large
extent on oil. It is a problem of the economic model.
The environmental and climate impact of our way of life is highly
destructive to the planet. Mining damages entire ecosystems, pollutes
the air, water and soil and, to make matters worse, displaces
communities. We could recall the ecological and social disasters caused
by the exploitation of coltan in the Congo, the tar sands in Canada, or
lithium in the South American salt flats or the hundreds of thousands of
drums full of radioactive waste that populate the bottom of the
Atlantic. Furthermore, since fossil fuels dominate global energy
production, global warming continues to accelerate. With Donald Trump in
the White House, US environmental policy is suffering a sharp setback
due to its lack of concern for climate change. In other words,
capitalism is stepping on the accelerator straight towards the cliff.
Nature is now considered a mere resource and is disconnected from life.
Regarding these supposedly "clean" energies, it should be noted that
they are heavily dependent on minerals such as copper, lithium or
nickel. There is nothing clean about them. The supply chains of this
"green" energy have a high socio-environmental cost from the mines to
the solar panel factories or to the slopes in the middle of the mountain
to erect giant mills with enormous cranes.
There is a whole geopolitics of inequality - at a macro level - that is
based on the fact that there are some countries that control essential
resources (China rare earths, Saudi Arabia oil, etc.), generating
tensions and disputes over mineral resources, water or gas and oil
pipelines, ports, railways, dams and canals. But in addition, the
companies that exploit the resources are sources of labor exploitation
and surreptitiously favor armed conflicts, generalized misery and the
displacement of communities that oppose the extractivist model.
Although in study centers, in city council campaigns, in the EU or even
in the UN there are good intentions and there is talk of circular
economy, technological innovation, the fight against planned
obsolescence, responsible consumption and others, everything remains in
a Christmas party and proposals for the gallery that will not achieve a
lasting impact among students. The truth is that the crisis is not only
caused by physical scarcity, but because we have an unsustainable model
of production and consumption. The one responsible is none other than
the globalized capitalist model, based on the extraction of surplus
value, infinite growth, extractivist exploitation and the
commodification of nature.
Climate scientists warn us that by 2050 (in just 25 years) reaching 3ºC
is not only plausible, but likely due to feedback loops and political
inertia, as demonstrated by the recent commitment to the
remilitarization of Europe or Trump's denialist policies. Exceeding 2ºC
in itself can trigger irreversible feedback loops that would make 3ºC
(or more) inevitable, even with rapid emissions cuts. In this way, hope
lies in a large-scale mobilization to decarbonize, restore albedo,
assuming that our climate will be destabilized for decades. Scientists
assure us that if we do not do this, the planet's ecological and
climatic systems will take civilization beyond its adaptation limits by
mid-century. We sincerely hope that they are wrong, but given the
historical moment we are living in, we can grant them a lot of credibility.
Faced with this threatening situation, it is vital not to obsess over
the negative - the collapse, the end of civilization, the extinction of
humanity and life - and to propose alternative models that seek to
prioritize the reproduction of life, ecological sustainability, social
justice and the satisfaction of basic needs without devastating the
planet. Therefore, at Embat we believe that a balance is required
between innovation, global cooperation, socio-environmental justice and
viable proposals for the radical transformation of social relations as
well as production. The challenges are very great, we must consider
severe measures and give everything for them.
The alternatives currently on the table
Currently, there are a number of alternatives in vogue - let's call them
"post-capitalist" - that promote another approach to the eco-social
disaster of the 21st century. We will list and briefly define some that
seem to us to be the most relevant:
Decline
It questions the dogma of infinite economic growth and proposes to
reduce the material consumption of rich countries, while focusing on
non-commoditized well-being (health, education, culture, community
fabric and care). Degrowthist proposals seek to reduce or eliminate the
dependence between subsistence and wage labor, which in the Western
world is almost absolute. Towards this goal, proposals are made such as
reducing the working day, redistributing jobs, or universal basic
income. It also proposes the relocation of production, establishing
shorter production chains and eliminating luxury goods.
Degrowth is also postulated as a transformation of life and to detach
the world, our well-being, leisure, and even our reason for being, from
the dictates of the capitalist market. In this line, the proposal of
"voluntary simplicity" stands out, a philosophy that invites us to avoid
superfluous mass consumption and focus on what is strictly necessary to
"live well". As a criticism, we should recognize that this model
requires a profound cultural change and hegemonic "common sense".
Without this, it is presumable to think of a resistance of the upper and
middle classes to "living worse" that could lead to serious social
shocks. Opposition to a voluntary cut in living standards would be
easily instrumentalized by a far-right political movement, as is already
happening in many places.
In Catalonia there is a consolidated associationist and self-management
tradition that could potentially be the seed for building a degrowthist
popular culture. However, there is very little indication for now that
this process is underway beyond isolated cases. On the economic level,
more and more companies have carried out small reductions in working
hours, and the universal basic income pilot plan initially approved in
2021 was defeated in Parliament before it could take off.
Cooperativism and social and solidarity economy (ESS)
It is a self-management model in which workers (and in some cases also
members or the "community") control the means of production.
Cooperatives limit the privatization of dividends with the aim of ending
labor exploitation and democratizing the economy. In addition, many
cooperative proposals are also based on social equity and environmental
sustainability. We will highlight cooperative networks, ethical banking,
service cooperatives (energy, communications, etc.), cooperatives and
ecological consumer groups, among others. Traditionally, they have been
proposals very rooted in the territory, since they have a mostly local
scale, which has allowed the consolidation of a cooperative culture in
various parts of the territory. In recent years, the social and
solidarity economy movement has made a strong commitment to
collaborations with the public sector, with significant results in terms
of legislation and financing in several countries.
Its weak point is its limited scale compared to global corporations,
which limits its competitiveness and scope, often making it a niche
proposition. The SSE has also been instrumentalized by certain
institutional parties that seek to covertly privatize sectors of the
welfare state without causing social alarm. In addition, the state
apparatus has seen the cooperative movement as a strategy to reduce
social conflict, providing means of subsistence to people who are
sometimes militants and grassroots activists, distancing them from
politicized proposals while legislating the activities of cooperatives.
Finally, and given the integration of this economy into the current
capitalist system, there is a risk of reproducing current productive
relations, perpetuating exploitation and inequality and displacing the
interest in being an instrument of radical transformation.
In the last decade, Catalonia has experienced a boom in the SSE
movement, driven largely by the public administration, which has
promoted a territorial network of cooperative athenaeums and urban
communalities. However, and although some of the specific proposals have
been able to propose relatively transformative models, the public
sector's commitment to the SSE has not been reflected in a consolidation
of the model, clearly exposing the limits mentioned above. Institutional
support has therefore been a double-edged sword, since we can say that a
large part of Catalan cooperatives have a great dependence on public
subsidies. This puts them in a position of fragility in the face of
possible political changes and problematizes their role within a
transformative strategy.
Ecosocialism
It updates the Marxist critique of capitalist exploitation with the
recent postulates of political ecology, pointing to the intersections
between structures of domination and environmental destruction. It
proposes a planned and democratic economy, in which production is
adjusted to human needs and the limits of the planet and not to
capitalist profit. In the practical field, it is articulated in various
proposals such as the nationalization of the energy sectors and their
placing under popular control, the reduction of the working day to
reduce travel, energy consumption and waste; or the energy transition
towards renewable energies, always taking into account decent
employment. It also proposes the decommodification of basic needs, such
as housing, transport, basic supplies, health or education. In contrast
to previous proposals, ecosocialism offers a model of ecosocial
organization of a state and even supra-state nature, environments where
transformative alternatives have a very limited influence. This is one
of the reasons why, to date, municipal administrations have been much
more prone to the implementation of ecosocialist proposals. However,
this limits their chances of success, as they aim to influence political
spaces with many interests at stake. Other possible weaknesses are the
technical and practical difficulties of coordination and participation
on such a large scale, as well as the risk of bureaucratization and/or
authoritarianism if there is no real participation from the grassroots.
In the Catalan context, we can identify as ecosocialist proposals the
Aigua És Vida campaign , which has promoted the remunicipalization of
water supply in some municipalities, or the creation of Barcelona
Energia , a public energy marketer based on energy efficiency and the
use of renewables. At a national and European level, some of the
proposals for new green pacts that emerged during the economic recovery
after the Covid-19 pandemic contained ecosocialist elements. However,
and as expected, these pacts are completely absent from the Next
Generation fund proposal that was finally approved, highlighting the
difficulty of influencing high levels of governance.
Communalisms and community economy
It consists of an update and contextualization of the tradition of
common goods, with great weight in pre-capitalist economies and even
currently in rural and indigenous environments. It proposes the
decommodification and self-management of basic resources, placing
subsistence in the hands of communities based on direct democracy and
cooperation. One of the advantages of this proposal is its adaptability,
since it is easily implemented in different contexts and situations. At
a practical level, in recent years this alternative has been structured
in communalist proposals, especially in rural and peri-urban
environments, which propose networks of communities of coexistence with
great ecological awareness and a reduced environmental impact. These new
communities focus on the development of community infrastructures
(gardens, housing, workshops, etc.) that allow their members to reduce
dependence on wage labor and thus build popular sovereignty.
Another type of proposal that emerges from this alternative are the
community economies, which propose proximity economic models that place
the well-being of people and the environment at the center of economic
activity. The main objective of these economies is, therefore, to
communalize goods and reproductive tasks, questioning the hierarchy of
productivism. At a practical level, community economies include
everything from DIY networks and self-managed culture to consumer groups
and cooperatives, clearly showing the intersections between the
communalist alternative and other previous proposals .
As for the limitations, it is usually pointed out that it is difficult
to imagine a leap in scale beyond very localized projects, although
there are occasional experiences of regional networks. Another possible
risk is the formation of hermetic communities focused exclusively on
their own activity, preventing the access of new members and limiting
their potential for social transformation. Finally, it is also fair to
recognize that the expansion of this proposal clashes with the
consumerist and individualist common sense that is hegemonic in current
Western society.
In Catalonia, the clearest example of communalism is the informal
network of intentional communities, formed by almost a hundred
experiences that combine different types of collective housing, popular
infrastructures and (re)productive projects. In a more formal context,
the Emprius Foundation has recently been established as a project that
seeks to consolidate and expand this network. In urban environments, the
clearest example would be the buildings occupied to facilitate access to
housing and to establish self-managed social centers that host a
multitude of functions linked to the community's livelihood: popular
schools, gyms, gardens, food networks, etc.
Beyond these four comprehensive proposals that simultaneously encompass
the economic, sociocultural, ecological and political dimensions, it is
worth highlighting two other concepts that, although less complete in
the Western context, contain noteworthy elements.
Ecofeminism
It proposes systems in which life is at the center and denounces that
capitalism exploits both nature and reproductive work, which is mostly
female. Without reproductive work, this base that allows the
reproduction of capital, necessary for the hegemonic system that we
suffer from, would not exist. Among its proposals we would have the
economic valorization of care work, food sovereignty based on
traditional knowledge (often treasured by women) or the
depatriarchalization of decision-making by integrating community
perspectives. Since nothing is easy in this life, its weak point is in
the difficulty of getting these postulates across to the general
population, so dominated by patriarchal education. A very profound
cultural transformation is required. And, as a positive counterpoint,
this system is very compatible with other alternative models to capitalism.
Over the last decade, we have seen the emergence of a more political
ecofeminism at an international level, with proposals such as the All
Women's Strike, which contributed immensely to the growth of the global
feminist movement. Some of its tactical proposals were included in the
programs and methods of left-wing parties and unions, as well as social
movements. Some of its postulates have even been adopted by some public
administrations.
Indigenous models and non-Western worldviews
They are diverse systems, depending on each territory and each community
that proposes them. In Latin America we have Buen Vivir, in Africa
Ubuntu, and there are others similar. They are characterized by
understanding that humanity is part of nature, and not its owner. Among
their proposals are community economies (in the plural) based on
reciprocity and not on accumulation. These models are famous for
achieving the legal defense of some sacred territories for their
peoples, thus also achieving the protection of biodiversity. Some of
these rights are even included in the constitution of some states. The
risk of this model is the co-optation of popular leaders and their
integration into the capitalist state or also the possible reaction of
states and large extractivist corporations, which do not hesitate to use
state repression, or if this is not possible for them, paramilitary bodies.
As can be seen, in all these alternatives to current capitalism there is
no single model, but some common principles are observed: ecological
limits, redistributive justice, participatory democracy and
decommodification of life. The transition from capitalism to one of
these systems or others will require combining elements of the different
proposals according to the context and will require a major cultural
change. We must move from consumerist individualism to an ethic of
interrelation with nature and responsibility towards future generations.
The key question is not which system we propose, but who decides, and
how to ensure that it is the majorities who lead the change and not the
elites. Because if it were up to them, we would have ecofascism, green
capitalism or techno-dystopias.
As we see, these cases do not suggest revolutionary changes, understood
as sudden overthrows of governments, but rather profound social and
political transformations that could occur in the long term. The
viability of each model will depend on factors such as political
culture, the degree of inequality existing in this territory, the
accumulated collective strength or the institutional capacity to adapt
to popular pressures from below.
There are systems of this kind that allow progress without significant
ruptures, taking advantage of existing democratic frameworks. This would
happen in the countries of northern Europe, due to their institutions
and citizen awareness, more inclined to participation in public
policies. Ecofeminism could benefit from this. Another possible
beneficiary would be Cooperativism, since it is an alternative economic
system that coexists with the hegemonic capitalist. The model of
indigenous peoples has also achieved progress based on parliamentary and
legal struggle in certain Latin American countries.
On the contrary, there are others that will require structural changes
that challenge the establishment, which could involve revolutionary
processes. For example, Ecosocialism is usually proposed by left-wing
political options with aspirations to control the state apparatus. Many
times, to achieve this, they will require a massive mobilization and the
gradual conquest of institutions (first at the local level, then
regionally, etc.). Degrowth would be in a similar situation. Depending
on which degrowth theory is used, there are some types of ecosocial
transition that would be applicable to advanced European states due to a
high level of awareness. However, their large-scale application would
almost certainly produce strong resistance from economic elites and an
evasion of capital that would undermine the viability of the project,
turning the most vulnerable layers of society against it.
In all likelihood, the key to making alternative models viable on a
large scale would be a crisis that legitimizes them. For example, an
energy collapse would weaken support for the current system. Any kind of
change would require very strong popular movements, aligned trade
unions, and international solidarity networks. It would also require
control of critical materials, resources, energy, and trade routes to
withstand external pressures. It seems logical to us that these models
would also require the existence of political and economic sectors
willing to make deals with these alternative popular movements. Again,
the key question is how to accumulate enough popular power to impose an
alternative model to capitalism in such a way that it cannot go back and
reinstate injustice by overcoming the authoritarian temptation of global
elites who are beginning to adopt ecofascist or technofeudalist goals.
Of course, even the most moderate model will require mass mobilization
to impose itself.
Another question that arises is whether all post-capitalist alternatives
are some kind of socialism - except ecosocialism. The answer is that it
all depends on who owns the means of production and how governance is
developed.
Similarities between anarchism and alternative models
Reading the above, you may be thinking that anarchism is quite similar
to these models presented above. We can even recognize that these models
already include some aspects of traditional libertarian ideas. They all
have some basic similarities: they criticize capitalism, seek autonomy,
self-management and promote democratic decision-making. However, the
aforementioned models are not equivalent to classical anarchism or
anarcho-syndicalism, although they share some principles. Here are the
key differences:
Appearance
Anarchism/Anarcho-syndicalism
Proposed Models (Eco-socialism, Degrowth, etc.)
State
Total rejection of the State and all coercive hierarchy.
Some accept reformed States (e.g. eco-socialism with democratic
planning) or propose their gradual dismantling.
Strategy
Direct action, self-management and building power from below without
institutional intermediation.
Varies: from legal reforms to revolutions (radical eco-socialism).
Property
Total collectivization (means of production managed by the Commune or
unions).
Some models allow mixed ownership (e.g. cooperatives + public sector).
Scale
Emphasis on the local level and voluntary federations of communities.
Some propose global scales (e.g. international climate governance).
Relationship with capitalism
It seeks to abolish it completely, without intermediate transitions.
Some propose to coexist with it (the majority of cooperatives) or to
reform it (Green New Deal).
Table. Anarchism vs. Other Models: Basic Principles
Looking at the table, we can see that these systems are not the same as
anarchism. Anarchism is openly anti-state, while most of the models
presented accept some type of institutionality, even if it is
transformed. These systems tend to be rather hybrid, leaving a role for
the state or the market in coexistence with popular institutions. The
key would be to see whether each popular movement seeks to reform,
replace or ignore the state and the market. Anarchism would be little or
not at all favorable to negotiating with the current system. In any
case, although they are not the same, all these movements could ally
themselves in common struggles against inequality or extractivism as
well as in the construction of local counterpowers and the extension of
popular power.
Analysis of statist communist models
Among the previous alternatives, we have not talked about classical
communism. Statist communism, usually linked to Marxism - although not
always - is based on state power to promote structural changes that are
made from above, from the government. For this reason, it was relabeled
as "state capitalism" by libertarian currents and other Marxists.
Broadly speaking, the possibilities of implementing these changes depend
on many factors such as the historical context, the revolutionary
strategy, the degree of strength of the counterrevolution and the
relationship with other political and social actors or movements in the
country that makes that socialist revolution.
Historically, the Soviet Union or Mao's China managed to modernize very
backward agrarian economies in a few decades. However, the human and
environmental cost was very high, as is well known. They managed to
improve social indicators, such as health, housing or education, and
reduced inequality despite the blockades and wars they were subjected
to. In return, they liquidated internal dissent brutally and without
consideration and subjected certain ethnic and social minorities to
great penalties. The Soviet bloc dominated or had influence on half the
planet, supporting the anti-colonial movements of the Global South,
which positioned it as a counterweight to capitalism.
However, it had recurring structural problems, such as authoritarianism
and repression. Its centralization of power in single parties was always
problematic, and dissent was persecuted no matter how small. In
addition, the bureaucracy was not efficient, as it was undermined by
corruption. All this meant that there was quite a disconnect between the
elites and the popular needs.
The state was the sole owner of the means of production and this meant
that workers were emotionally distant from the productive needs that
were demanded of them or that intermediate technical cadres manipulated
production figures, creating a structural imbalance between what was
demanded, what was on paper and what was actually manufactured. And,
finally, they had a strong dependence on charismatic leaders as the
driving force of the system, making peaceful generational transitions
difficult.
The geopolitical issue would be another factor. The capitalist bloc
declared a war without quarter for decades, the Cold War. This made many
socialist states strengthen the army to survive. The situation of global
conflict made international trade difficult, delayed the adoption or
adaptation of technological innovations and even isolated many socialist
countries from the rest of the world.
As if that were not enough, socialist or state capitalist models were
just as productivist and predatory as liberal capitalists, and they
exploited nature without mercy, causing serious environmental disasters.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, communism reinvented itself. In the
West, some of it was integrated into the Western party system, quickly
abandoning its positions. They adopted progressivism in some cases and
social democracy in others. The result was their adaptation to the
system, while parties that did not were marginalized. And where they
have managed to reach government (in recent decades in Greece, Cyprus,
Moldova, Brazil, Nepal, Chile, Colombia, Spain, etc.) they have never
been able to implement significant changes, which has discouraged their
bases.
On the other hand, the socialist states that have survived (Cuba, China,
Laos, North Korea and Vietnam) maintained their socialist orientation on
paper, but they showed strong economic pragmatism, adapting to global
capitalism despite the imperialist boycott and blockade of some of these
states.
Historical experience leaves us with the question of whether a
democratic communism from the state is possible to promote
post-capitalist transitions as proposed by figures on the American and
European political left. This would require a radical democratization of
state institutions, an alliance with popular movements, and a foreign
policy independent of global or continental institutions - which would
put it in the crosshairs of global militarism. Let us think of the
global challenges that any socialist alternative must face: ecological
crisis, capitalist globalization, and, above all, individualistic
political culture.
Given their political legacy, it is understandable that a hypothetical
future government led by neo-communists would have a certain
authoritarian temptation, even if it were a well-intentioned and
sincerely democratic government. Another temptation would be to end up
managing a deregulated, ultra-technological neoliberalism, in the
Chinese style, which can hardly be called socialism. Another possibility
would be that they would govern with fear of breaking social peace and
not take any groundbreaking and beneficial measures for the social
majority, as happens very often. And finally, the permanent bureaucratic
inertia, since state structures tend to perpetuate themselves.
For statist communism to have a future, it should tend towards
ecosocialism and learn from historical mistakes (reject
authoritarianism, be careful with bureaucracy, integrate the ecological
perspective, etc.), combine state power with social autonomy,
emphasizing community governance of certain public services, without
interfering in people's daily lives, and be internationalist, which is
at least something they have always defended.
The dilemma is the same as ever since the First International: the state
is an instrument of class domination and cannot be used to abolish
social classes. Can a real decentralization of power from the state to
its disappearance be achieved? So far, no communist party has answered
this question in the affirmative.
Sharpening the libertarian alternative
Anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist models, with their emphasis on
workers' self-management and decentralized economic planning, could be
integrated with social ecological, communalist, ecosocialist or
cooperative models through flexible and horizontal structures. The key
is how to articulate collective planning of the economy without falling
into ineffective centralisms or reproducing hierarchies or without
leaving areas of the territory uncovered, which go completely their own way.
Thus, for example, the anarcho-syndicalist model is based on the union
as the management unit. According to this model, it would be the unions
(or industry federations) that would manage factories, land or services.
These would be coordinated under sectoral assemblies and congresses that
would elect local, regional, national or sectoral economic councils
according to needs. Their function would be to cover basic needs taking
into account available resources and ecological limits. The model
promotes transparency in data on resource reserves, so that the councils
and all interested citizens have verified information to make decisions.
Anarcho-syndicalism could meet and mix with other models, such as those
we have seen above. For example, together with environmentalism,
degrowth models and communalism, eco-social transition could be planned
according to local ecological capacities and extraction quotas or limits
on consumption could be implemented. Bodies such as an Economic Council
or a hypothetical "confederation of unions and communes" could decide to
reduce the extraction of minerals if they damage aquifers, prioritizing
reuse, recycling or "urban mining". It is essential that anyone who sees
their job threatened by industrial reconversion has a voice in the
process. This is the role of a socio-political unionism such as
anarcho-syndicalism.
Therefore, the union goes from being a demanding body to designing the
reorganization of the entire system of production, consumption and
distribution. Today, unions that want to bet on that future society can
plan conflicts and their collective action based on eco-social criteria,
in addition to purely economic ones. Today's transformative unionism can
already promote economic units of production within the framework of a
new model that advocates a new society. This could be a point of contact
between unionism and cooperativism or the social economy.
With social ecology, communalism or grassroots municipalism, an alliance
could be developed by defining the scope of functions between each
entity (union or commune/municipality). Each municipality or
neighborhood could manage the commons through open councils or
assemblies, and would coordinate with the unions for technical needs.
The confederation of municipalities could decide on regional objectives
or specific projects (such as building a dam, or demolishing it,
managing forests, planning land production or importing necessary
consumer goods).
Unions have the potential to create or link themselves to consumer
cooperatives. Today, these cooperatives are created to agree on fair
prices and short circuits and to avoid dependence on the global
capitalist market, as well as to provide some income to people with
connections to left-wing and environmentalist social movements. But in
the future, these consumer cooperatives, also at a local level, could
replace the large shopping centers that make up market capitalism. What
is important in this equation is that the union also has a community
vision, that it is a space for sociability beyond the strictly
labor-related and that it converges with the entities in its area.
In any case, mechanisms for mass participation and also decentralized
coordination are required, such as sectoral and territorial congresses.
The positions of economic councils, unions or communes can be appointed,
supervised or rotated. This can be done in order to coordinate better
and to avoid the fragmentation of the territory or the isolation of
certain communities. Open digital platforms can also be used to map
resources, needs and productive capacity in real time. In this way,
anyone could audit the data and propose adjustments and changes. Another
mechanism could be direct mutual support contracts. For example, a
fishing union could commit to supplying an agricultural community with
fish in exchange for vegetables, without further intermediaries. The
possibilities are multiple.
In the model there may be room for an environmental audit, to call it
something like that. That is, citizens would assess the ecological
damage and propose reparations. Similarly, a collaborative science could
be built to monitor ecosystems or map biodiversity. Collective ethics
must also be promoted through education and public debate, so that no
commune or union violates environmental agreements.
As you can see, this system that we propose from Embat is very
adaptable. Decisions are made from the bottom up, allowing agile
responses to possible ecological, geopolitical and social crises. With
less bureaucracy, structures are less rigid, reducing the risk of
corruption and waste. On the other hand, if there is not sufficient
coordination, regional imbalances could arise (some communities would
have surpluses and others would lack products) and, perhaps, make
decision-making on scales that exceed the local level more difficult.
And, of course, just as with the state communist model, enemy capitalist
states could sabotage this society built in this way.
Anarcho-syndicalism or anarchism is a credible alternative to the
capitalist collapse. They have the capacity for scalability and for
interrelation and integration with other alternative models to
capitalism. Their organizational flexibility and solidarity ethic stand
out. The model would require tools of direct democracy, non-hierarchical
coordination mechanisms and an ecological and communitarian political
culture.
We are talking more about anarcho-syndicalism and not about other
anarchist models, such as communalism or libertarian municipalism,
because we understand that we live in a complex society, mostly urban
and where there is an enormous diversity of interests and functions in
any community we study. For this reason, it is necessary to integrate
the productive factor into the equation. A commune could manage all
production by itself, but up to a certain scale. When the community is
too large, it becomes necessary to divide the work by branches of
production or by phases and sections. A cooperative or network of
cooperatives could manage large-scale production, as demonstrated by the
well-known Mondragón cooperative group, but perhaps its interests would
be far removed from general interests, as this Basque cooperative
business group is accused of. The union or workers' council is the body
missing from this equation. And since we already have functioning
unions, they will be the ones to manage this part of the economy that is
now dominated by private profit motives.
The real challenge is whether this could grow enough before the
ecological and social crisis overtakes us.
The challenges of communism and anarchism
Both are socialist political ideologies and traditions that emerged in
the 19th century and reached their peak in the 20th century. Both
traditions draw on the communal, those traditional rural societies that
were dismantled by liberalism, which ended up as cheap labor in
factories. The remains of those community traditions still exist. We
should also contextualize that these traditions coexisted with the rise
of the ideas of the Enlightenment, an era with great aspirations for
humanity. Another factor that contributed to socialist ideas were the
artisan guilds, also destroyed by liberalism at the beginning of the
19th century. In their subsequent reconstruction, the guilds gave rise
to mutual societies and cooperatives. In each country the traditions
were different, but more or less they had these mixed parameters of
being daughters of the European Enlightenment, defending communal goods
and having a post-guild craft combined with the intrinsic need of the
proletariat to organize itself to defend its conditions amidst the
ruthless exploitation that reigned in the factories.
Now let's return to the challenges of the 21st century and evaluate what
is good about each socialism.
As we have seen, state communism has the ability to plan the economy to
prioritize basic needs in contexts of scarcity. It is based on a strong
state apparatus, which could resist embargoes or military attacks, and
the centralized state could massively redirect resources, depending on
the strategic needs of the state.
But, it also has its risks - and that is why at Embat we move away from
this model - such as the excessive concentration of power, which
degenerates into repressive bureaucracies, the dependence on charismatic
leaders and an unsustainable productivism, which would rival the
unsustainability of capitalism itself. These problems would make
traditional statist communism a model that is not very adaptable to the
current civilizational crisis, in which grassroots participation is key.
Anarchism, on the other hand, implies decentralized resilience. Its
self-managed systems can adapt to local crises. It is also more likely
to have a logic based on local cycles and reciprocity with nature. And,
of course, without a state monopoly on power, corruption and the
creation of elites are more difficult (but not impossible). However, we
also recognize its weaknesses, such as its reliance on a cooperative
political culture, something rare today that was quite common in the
19th century with those societies rooted in the land and communal
traditions. The greatest challenge of the anarchist model is scalability
and its ability to defend its liberated society. It is not for nothing
that all our revolutions have been defeated by arms.
Consequently, statist communism could impose drastic measures very
quickly, for example in the face of a climate crisis or an external
invasion, but the population could see them as totalitarian measures,
while anarchism could regenerate ecosystems from below, but there would
be no guarantee of coherence, since each community could do things its
own way or, perhaps, would not make changes quickly enough. But if we
observe current capitalism, we see that it is also burdened with
bureaucracy and is subject to large lobbies that act against any type of
change beneficial to the planet or to people.
We believe that it could make a difference in terms of coherence and
speed of implementing drastic social changes if the model we choose were
of the anarcho-syndicalist type, as long as the majority of the
population is a member of unions or productive associations and,
therefore, we could assume that to some degree it would be impregnated
with the ways in which they function.
Continuing with the differences, statist communism would replace global
capitalism with an international system based on socialist states, which
they had between 1945 and 1990. The tendency of anarchism, on the other
hand, would be to create bioregional economies and international
networks of liberated zones, following a confederal model. This would
clash with the current interdependence, in our world of globalized
trade, communications and exchanges. In a hypothetical
post-revolutionary libertarian society, it would perhaps not be too well
received to have to produce almost everything on a reduced scale in an
almost autarkic way. The logic is that what is already produced
efficiently and cheaply elsewhere, should not be produced at home as
long as it does not violate environmental factors, ecological footprint
or labor rights. But this could vary if the liberated zones are multiple
and develop in several places in the world far from each other.
In terms of political culture, communism requires the population to
faithfully follow the guidelines of state institutions, something in
decline in the connected, diverse and rather distrustful societies of
our time, unless they are indoctrinated with propaganda, while anarchism
has the opportunity to fit the demands of horizontality, transparency
and participation, but at the same time would demand a radical change in
the prevailing individualistic values in which loyalty to the community
and social responsibility seem to be lacking.
In a scenario of generalized global collapse - we imagine that it will
take place in a few years or decades - hybrid models in line with
economic democracy will most likely emerge that would be based, for
example, on communal structures of a local nature, relocated industry
mediated through anarcho-syndicalism and cooperativism, services
articulated around municipalism, cooperativism and mutualities and
networks confederated by the regional and global. This system could be
combined with limited public institutions (municipalities, justice
system, transport, social services, health, education, pensions,
security, defense, etc.). We cannot propose a binary answer, either one
or the other, since survival will probably require taking complex
alternatives, combining several models, as previous generations
experienced during the Civil War of 1936-39.
As we have said, this could be one of the various forms that a liberated
society would take according to libertarian and communist theses.
However, everything will depend on the social strength we have to impose
our model of community.
The great challenge
The possibility of an alternative model gaining ground in a context of
widespread disenchantment with current political and economic systems
depends on several factors. These will include the capacity of popular
movements and trade unionism to connect with the immediate needs of the
people, to build viable alternatives and to escape defeatism by knowing
how to communicate a hopeful projection without falling into abstractions.
Today we live in a crisis of legitimacy of the liberal capitalist model.
Economic and geopolitical indicators tell us of growing inequality
despite a visible economic rise in the countries of the Global South. We
have an unprecedented climate crisis. And in the West we have an
increasing discrediting of governments and the entire system in general.
Populism is the typical reaction of disenchantment. But equally, when
this populism has government positions it ends up falling back into
extractivism, inequality, corruption, governmental despotism and the
disempowerment or criminalization of the subaltern classes. Populism
carries the seeds of its own self-destruction.
Other factors also converge on this disillusionment, such as the fall in
purchasing power, with the speculative increase in the price of basic
goods and services such as housing. For the Spanish state, industrial
policy is decided in Brussels, as has happened with the current
commitment to rearmament in Europe. National governments and large
companies are participants in these strategic decisions, but the unions
are never asked, which have ceased to be relevant actors beyond
negotiating early retirement and job relocations, much less in the
community.
We say that a democratic system in which people vote with emotions, and
politicians govern with their wallets in mind, is not viable. Citizens
see governments of one sign or another as the lesser evil, they vote
without the slightest enthusiasm so that the other side does not win.
Fear radicalizes to the right and this disorientation is taken advantage
of by the options of the radical right to attract new discontented
masses. The reaction grows by the moments.
We add that the options of the new left have had their opportunity and
have squandered it: Lula and Dilma in Brazil, Morales in Bolivia,
Tsipras in Greece, Boric in Chile, Petro in Colombia, Iglesias in
Spain... all the progressive governments squandered the hopes placed in
them because they did not break with capitalist logic. They have been
inept when it comes to promoting structural changes that really benefit
people.
This and nothing else has created the basis for the reactionary rise of
our time. Otherwise, if progressivism had minimally covered popular
expectations, there would not have been such a reactionary wave, even
though social networks are co-opted by the most recalcitrant reaction.
However, this crisis of legitimacy is also an opportunity for the
transformative or revolutionary left. We need to find a way to reach all
of this discontented population. To do this, we need to engage in a
dialogue from diversity, without trying to impose a "correct line," but
rather build bridges between unions, social movements, environmentalism,
feminism, the neighborhood movement, and all the others. We need to
demonstrate that mutual support is the best option, and that it is also
the most transparent and effective way to function to guarantee the
survival of life.
We need to focus on what can be gained and not so much on what can be
lost. It is important to appeal to hope and illusion and not to the fear
of collapse and fascism. Real examples can be disseminated to show that
these are not impossible dreams. There is no point in dwelling on the
fact that the current system is doing very badly if a credible
alternative is not disseminated. In this sense, it is also important to
celebrate triumphs. These celebrations reinforce collective identity and
spread a positive image of popular movements.
Tangible alternatives must be built, wherever possible, everywhere. But
these new projects, whether alternative, communalist, ecosocial,
anarchist, or whatever, should take on a clear identity. They should not
only demonstrate the power of self-management in action, but also
demonstrate that another world is possible here and now. This identity
and this "other possible world" must be connected to what is happening
elsewhere and considered part of the same global movement as in the days
of the First International or, at least, as the Global Peoples' Action
of the late 1990s and early 2000s did.
We work from everyday life to connect with local struggles and promote
solutions from below. Solidarity networks, popular assemblies, mutual
support groups, truly transformative unions serve to build trust and
social fabric. We need to promote spaces to debate and learn about new
models. It is essential to disseminate novel ideas in an accessible way
and all doubts must be resolved and space must be given for new
contributions.
No matter how negative the geopolitical context, we cannot lose sight of
the fact that history does not end here. On the contrary. Autonomies
make their way in contexts of political collapse. Thus, the Mexican
crisis in the 1990s gave rise to a Zapatista movement that controlled a
third of the territory of Chiapas. Or the erosion of the MAS in Bolivia,
during the past decade, has given rise to debates around indigenous
autonomy and post-capitalist models such as those described above. Or in
Syria, in the midst of the war, the autonomy of the northeast of the
country flourished, or in Libya or Mali that of the Tuareg and Amazigh
peoples.
There are serious risks. We know that. In a context of growing
militarization and suffocating social control, it will be difficult to
build stable networks of liberated areas without receiving repression or
attacks of some kind. Another risk is co-optation by political parties
or institutions. For example, accepting funding or subsidies makes it
difficult to maintain autonomy and compromises horizontality, under the
premise that "whoever pays, rules". Cooperativism, municipalism or the
neighborhood movement have always had these burdens, being relatively
easy to be co-opted. There is also the danger of fragmentation and
isolation. For this reason, we must always keep in mind our objectives,
regional coordination and confederations in order to create a body large
enough to face the state or capitalism.
As they say, we must act locally and think globally. But we must do it
now. The combination of a multi-system crisis and widespread
disillusionment open windows of opportunity, but these will not last
forever. Alternative models must thrive, take root in the territory and
consider a leap in scale. And they must do so in a few years! The
challenge is very great and is on par with the serious problems of our era.
Onslaught, October 2025
https://embat.info/conjuntura-2026/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten