Towards A New Anti-Capitalist Politics

The Greek riots of December 2008, the mass protests against austerity in Southern Europe, the Occupy movement in North America and the UK, the student mobilizations in Canada and Chile, the mass demonstrations in Turkey, Brazil, Mexico, and countless other countries of the Global South, the urban uprisings against anti-black police brutality in cities like Ferguson and Baltimore—each of these brief “insurrectionary” episodes constitutes a flashpoint in the emergence of a new politics, offering a collective vision of a radically different future that is being imagined in the very process of struggle.

Seen in this light, it becomes clear that the intense collective outrage and the immense social creativity expressed in these mobilizations is already breathing much-needed new life into a moribund left. As John Holloway argues in his contribution to this issue, the financial crash of 2008 and the popular uprisings of the post-2011 period can be seen as a rupture that has changed the very texture and content of contemporary struggles. Even if the movements do not yet seem to know the exact way forward, and even if the initial mobilizations themselves petered out relatively rapidly, it is self-evident that there can be no way back.

There can be no way back because—in the over-developed and deindustrialized societies of the Global North at least—the productivist and welfarist horizon of the traditional left has simply lost all connection with the social realities of ordinary working people and the concrete materiality of actually existing struggles on the ground. In this respect, the most recent wave of popular protest tells us something very important about the changing nature of capitalism and the evolving forms of class struggle under conditions of financialization; changes which in turn necessitate innovative new ways of thinking about anti-capitalist organizing and the transition to a post-capitalist world.

The recent wave of protest tells us something important about the evolving forms of class struggle under conditions of financialization.

Sadly, those who remain versed in the poetry of the past have struggled to understand the unfamiliar language of the movements. Incapable of detecting anything new in them, many have ended up reducing the political essence of recent mobilizations to what they do understand: the struggle against inequality and unemployment, the opposition to austerity and the defense of the welfare state, and so on. While such traditional leftist grievances were certainly there, what was largely obscured in this mainstream narrative—also among large parts of the institutional left—was the deeper political content.

EMERGING FORMS OF CLASS STRUGGLE

The only way to uncover the deeper political content of recent mobilizations would be to tune into the movements themselves and try to understand contemporary struggles on their own terms, while at the same time recognizing the embeddedness of each struggle within the context of the global political economy. Only by exploring the dialectic between the movements’ own subjectivities and the material conditions in which they arose can we begin to elucidate the common elements and intimate interconnections between them.

In this light, some of the main themes we can identify in the latest cycle of struggles include:

• The primacy of everyday life and questions of social reproduction;
• The centrality of the commons;
• The expression and enactment of a strong desire for democracy.

The traditional left has proven to be extremely poorly equipped, both theoretically and practically, to grasp these points—precisely because they go against some of its main ideological tenets.

THE PRIMACY OF EVERYDAY LIFE:

For one, the traditional left has long upheld the primacy of waged labor and struggles within the sphere of production. As a result, it has historically paid much less attention to the more fundamental forms of unwaged labor—including heavily gendered housework and care—that constitute the sphere of social reproduction; a point that has been powerfully developed by Italian autonomist theorists and Marxist feminists like Silvia Federici. Reproduction is always prior to production, as the latter cannot continue without the former.

All struggles under capitalism must start from the most elementary question of social reproduction.

All class struggles under capitalism must therefore start from the most elementary question of social reproduction: how to make a living and reproduce the “general conditions of life” without direct access to the means of subsistence. As Manuela Zechner and Bue Rübner Hansen show in their contribution to this issue, the recent transformations and crises of capitalism have pushed this question to the heart of contemporary movements: How do we sustain ourselves under conditions of austerity, precarity and unemployment? How do we provide care (personal, medical, psychological) in the face of a crumbling welfare system? How can we build social power by increasing our reproductive resilience?

Another way of approaching the same problem would be to shift attention back towards the related struggles taking place within the sphere of realization. As David Harvey has repeatedly argued, including in his interview in this issue, the left’s over-emphasis on Volume I of Capital at the expense of Volume II has led it to narrowly prioritize struggles over wages and working conditions at the point of production, while largely ignoring struggles over everyday life and living conditions at the point of circulation and consumption. “For conventional Marxists,” Harvey writes, “this poses the problem of how to wage class struggle against, say, the merchants, the bankers, currency traders and the like.”

While the productivist bias of the traditional left has long plagued and stunted broad-based popular struggles, its limitations become even more acute under neoliberal capitalism, which is marked—in the over-developed countries of the advanced capitalist core—by a decisive shift away from the productive sphere (which is increasingly being automated or outsourced to the Global South) and towards the sphere of realization; a development that is exemplified by the rising power of financial institutions like Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, the emergence of new merchant mega-corporations like Wal-Mart and Amazon, and the return of the rentier in the guise of the multi-billionaire Silicon Valley mogul.

The shift towards redistributive conflicts over realization is progressively taking class struggle in the Global North out of the workplace and into the city at large.

This broad shift towards redistributive conflicts over realization is progressively taking class struggle in the Global North out of the workplace and into the city at large, where it unfolds directly onto the terrain of everyday life. Interestingly, contemporary social movements turn out to be much more attuned than the old left to the dramatic consequences of this shift for the material conditions, lived experience and day-to-day concerns of working people and urban dwellers. This, in turn, has led them to be much more actively engaged in ongoing struggles over debt, housing, gentrification, transport, police brutality and the cost of living.

Urban space, in short, becomes a key battleground in the emerging forms of class struggle; a point that heterodox radicals like Henri Lefebvre and Murray Bookchin were already insisting on in the 1960s. More recently, Hardt and Negri have even wagered that “the metropolis is to the multitude what the factory was to the industrial working class.” Explosive urban uprisings like the Gezi Park protests in Turkey and the bus fare rebellion in Brazil are some of the clearest contemporary expressions of this development, as are smaller-scale struggles over housing, gentrification and transport in places like London and San Francisco.

THE CENTRALITY OF THE COMMONS:

The primacy of everyday life and social reproduction in contemporary forms of class struggle is in turn closely connected to the centrality of the notion of “the common” (or “the commons”)—defined by Silvia Federici and George Caffentzis as “autonomous spaces from which to reclaim control over our life and the conditions of our reproduction, and to provide resources on the basis of sharing and equal access; but also bases from which to counter the processes of enclosure and increasingly disentangle our lives from the market and the state.”

The centrality of the common is yet another important point setting the movements apart from the old left, which has tended to reduce its conception of class struggle to a simple tug-of-war between the public property of the socialist state and the private property of the capitalist market. What was somehow lost over the course of the 20th century was an appreciation of the liberatory and transformative potential of the “common in communism”; that which is held indivisibly and self-managed democratically by all members of the community.

What was somehow lost over the course of the 20th century was the “common in communism”; that which is held indivisibly and self-managed democratically by all members of the community.

For the Jacobin left, eternally agitating for greater state centralization and public control over the means of production, the notion of the common has often been derided as little more than a relic from a pre-capitalist past, closely tied to the somewhat dismissive category of “primitive communism.” This is not how Marx himself saw it—and it is certainly not how today’s social movements see it. For Marx, the ultimate objective of communism was always to establish a society in which the means of production were to be held in common, leading him to develop a strong interest in existing forms of communal ownership in later life.

As Kristin Ross recounts in her new book, Communal Luxury, Marx spent his final years working on two big projects: the first, of course, was his well-known study for Capital; but at the same time he was also engaged in another, lesser known study of the Russian peasant communes, starting with his reading of Chernyshevsky’s Essays on Communal Ownership of Land. “In the form of the Russian peasant commune,” Ross writes, Marx “saw the traces of the primary communism he had observed in the Paris Commune: ‘individuals [who] behave not as laborers but as owners—as members of a community which also labors.’”

Just a year before his death, in a move that marked a clear break from his earlier writings on the law-like progression of capitalist development, Marx decided to add a direct reference to the common in the final paragraph of his 1882 foreword to the Russian edition of The Communist Manifesto: “If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West,” he wrote with Engels, “the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.” In Marx’s own latter-day view, then, the notion of the common lies at the basis of the social revolution.

Today’s movements are once again placing the notion of the common back at the heart of broad-based popular struggles.

While they may not necessarily self-identify as communist, today’s movements are once again placing the notion of the common back at the heart of broad-based popular struggles, ranging from the creation and maintenance of common spaces (like the protest camps at Sol, Syntagma and Zuccotti), to the defense of the urban commons (like Gezi Park) and common resources (like struggles against water privatization in Bolivia and Italy), on to conflicts over the enclosure of the creative commons (like patent and copyright regulation in the TTIP trade deal) and movement support for recuperated workplaces (like Vio.Me) and other self-managed cooperatives in which the means of production are held in common.

Again, we can discern a clear connection here between the emerging forms of struggle and the systemic tendencies in neoliberalism. As Harvey has famously noted, the latter increasingly operates through “accumulation by dispossession,” or various forms of state-backed plundering of public goods and common wealth. Neoliberal state policies like austerity, privatization, bank bailouts, resource extraction and regressive taxation dispossess society of its ability to reproduce itself, leading to the enclosure and commodification of spheres of life that had previously been held firmly outside of the logic of the market.

Naturally, just as the commoners in early-modern England fiercely resisted the enclosure of their pastoral lands, and just as the levelers in the English Civil War struggled firmly for the common ownership of land, today’s neoliberal forms of enclosure and dispossession are unleashing a new wave of resistance across the globe. Essentially, what is being rediscovered in these ongoing struggles is something as old as the notion of communism itself: the powerful and “dangerous” idea that ordinary people are perfectly capable of collectively self-managing their own affairs by holding the land, the city and the means of production in common—without capitalist oversight or state interference.

THE DESIRE FOR DEMOCRACY:

The overarching theme that can be distilled from all the above is the strong desire for democracy; a desire that has both been expressed as a demand (“real democracy now!”) and directly enacted in practice (in the assemblies). Again, the contrast between the emerging forms of struggle and the old left is stark here. Against the hierarchical, centralized and bureaucratic institutions of 20thcentury socialism, the movements are counterposing their own dynamic, horizontal and decentralized forms. Against the constituted power of the Jacobins, they have aligned themselves firmly with the constituent power of thesans-culottes.

The concept of constituent power is foundational in this respect. As Michael Hardt writes in the foreword to his translation of Negri’s Insurgencies, “constituent power … is the essence of modern democracy and modern revolution. [It] names the democratic forces of social transformation, the means by which humans make their own history.” As such, it is “the locus of social creativity, political innovation, and historical movement.”

In contrast to the old left, the emerging anti-capitalist politics finds it more worthwhile to think in terms of “building power” and cultivating the social creativity, collective imagination and democratic aspirations of society as such.

In contrast to the old left, narrowly concerned with seizing the constituted power of the state, the emerging anti-capitalist politics is not necessarily opposed to the idea of taking power, but finds it much more worthwhile to think in terms of building power and cultivating the social creativity, collective imagination and democratic aspirations of society as such. It recognizes that the left cannot simply “take” power without first building it—democratically—from below.

While the latest cycle of struggles never really posed a threat to the constituted order as such, the real significance of the movements lies precisely in this: in their creative capacity to constitute new forms of organizing through an experimental, educational and embodied democratic praxis. As Marina Sitrin and Dario Azzellini put it in They Can’t Represent Us, “the mobilizations we have seen are laboratories for democracy.” The Greek WWII resistance hero and left-wing political activist Manolis Glezos once put it to ROAR in similar terms: “The assembly at Syntagma Square was not democracy; it was a lesson in democracy.”

In this respect, the desire for democracy and a new constituent process expressed in the latest cycle of struggles is indicative of an expanding political imaginary on the part of the movements that demands ever greater popular participation in (and direction of) processes of social transformation. As Hardt notes, constituent power is defined by “the inseparable connection it demands between revolution and democracy.” Just as the revolution of the 21st century must be democratic in nature, so the democracy of the 21st century must be revolutionary in its horizon.

BEYOND INSULARITY AND FRAGMENTATION

It should be clear by now that the expansive and democratic political imaginary of the movements makes the latter cast their social net much wider than the traditional left. Struggles are increasingly situated within the urban terrain and cross a broad range of areas that may, at first sight, make them appear to be separate single-issue campaigns over concerns like housing, transport or student debt. Nevertheless, upon closer inspection, such struggles often turn out to be connected in intimate and powerful, if not immediately obvious, ways.

One of the biggest questions facing the movements is how to turn a fragmented field of struggles into a coherent social counterpower.

The wide social net cast by today’s movements—with their plurality of concerns and complicated interrelations—therefore offers both exciting new possibilities for cross-sectional political agitation and at the same time throws up formidable new challenges to collective organizing. If it is not immediately obvious, for instance, how struggles over university tuition fees relate to urban uprisings against anti-black police violence or workers’ demands for a fair minimum wage, it will be difficult to bring such disparate movements together beyond superficial lip-service to “intersectionality” or ephemeral expressions of solidarity.

The result is that many struggles within the sphere of realization and social reproduction remain relatively insular in nature and defensive in character, failing to cohere into a broader political movement capable of striking out at capital by mobilizing and coordinating the collective energies of different groups in the pursuit of a common objective. This in turn reinforces the overwhelming climate of political isolation among activists, further exacerbating the perceived weakness and sense of futility experienced by many.

One of the biggest questions facing the movements, then, is how to turn a seemingly endless variety of issues and an often fragmented field of struggles into a more or less coherent social counterpower capable of tackling the many seemingly separate conflicts at their shared root. This would require nothing less than a common project to contest, subvert and ultimately dismantle the power of capital at its various levels of operation: the local, national and global.

THE PROBLEMS OF EXTENSION AND SCALE

Here, however, we encounter another difficult problem. It is not just the “objective conditions” of late capitalism—with its fragmentation and atomization of the social fabric—that throw up barriers to collective agency; as Harvey points out, the movements have also locked themselves into a mirror image of capital in some respects, often (consciously or unconsciously) mimicking and idealizing its networked organizational properties without always subjecting them to proper scrutiny. The result, in Wolfgang Streeck’s words, is that “disorganized capitalism is disorganizing not only itself but its opposition as well.”

This has led, on the one hand, to ephemeral explosions of mass protest that strangely resemble the boom and bust cycles of capitalist credit creation; and on the other to a more enduring but mostly defensive retreat into the “small” and the “local”—or what Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams refer to as “the political bunkers of immediacy and simplicity.” The movements still have to come to terms with the problems of spatial, temporal and social expansion, as well as the related problems of conceptual abstraction and systemic complexity.

The most pressing challenge is how to ensure the capacity of the struggles to spread, endure and become generalized. This requires us to think much more critically about the question of organization.

The most pressing challenge, Michael Hardt points out in this issue, is how to ensure the capacity of the struggles to spread, to endure and to become generalized, which in turn requires us to think much more critically about the question of organization. We may dislike the traditional institutions of the left, Hardt notes, but we have to recognize that at least they were capable of mobilizing a large cross-section of society and sustaining political action over prolonged periods of time to secure real material gains at the level of working conditions and social rights. We need to learn from this historical experience.

Today, by contrast, movements thrive on a powerful form of political spontaneity that closely parallels the affective economy of social media: their outreach is potentially unlimited and dissemination almost instantaneous, feeding into patterns of resonance that allow specific struggles to spread like “viral” memes. But once the collective self-expression of public grievances has exhausted itself or a degree of social recognition has been secured, the latest “status update” on the popular mood of the day swiftly recedes from view as the timelines and newsfeeds of the multitude of spectators move on to other pressing concerns.

Again, there are both opportunities and challenges here. While the movements have unprecedented access to technology, information and direct pathways of communication, the organizational capacity to transform our expressions of collective outrage into tangible material gains has yet to be developed.

OVERCOMING SELF-LIMITATION

Unfortunately, the absence of large-scale and long-term organizational capacity has—in some circles, at least—become fetishized as a political objective in and of itself. Even if most movement participants do take the organizational challenges seriously, there appears to be a certain self-limiting quality to many forms of contemporary activism that militates strongly against the type of concerted political action that would be required to confront the immense power of capital at its higher levels of abstraction—like crushing the state-finance nexus or dismantling the prison-industrial complex.

There appears to be a certain self-limiting quality to many forms of contemporary activism that militates strongly against concerted action.

More specifically, the strong emphasis on political process and strictly horizontalist modes of organizing imposes a raft of new rigidities and unnecessary restrictions that may actually stunt the development of the movements and limit their capacity to scale up, endure and extend into the social fabric. In this sense, the movements’ apparent difficulty in taking the “next step” following a period of spontaneous mass mobilization can be seen at least in part as a result of some of the ideological narratives circulating among a new crop of activists.

While many activists today rightly take inspiration from libertarian socialist struggles like the project of indigenous autonomy in Chiapas or the construction of democratic confederalism in Rojava, one crucial factor behind the successes of such struggles often tends to be overlooked: both the Zapatistas and the Kurds practice direct democracy, but neither movement has ever limited itself to a pure horizontalism. Indeed, the EZLN and PKK both originated in, and to some extent continue to function as, highly disciplined armed forces with inspirational leader figures—even if they have long since abandoned their Marxist-Leninist methods.

In contrast to the long-term projects of the Kurds or the Zapatistas, more loosely organized movements elsewhere—lacking a disciplined nucleus of militants like the EZLN and PKK—have not been able to develop a concrete project of their own. As a result, the ruptures they generated left behind a political vacuum for other, more organized forces to fill: reformists like Syriza at best; reactionaries like Sisi at worst. In an ideal insurrectionary situation, this space would have to be occupied by the organized forces of the social revolution, which would in turn require extensive organizational groundwork and advance preparation.

 

Of course none of this means that the latest cycle of struggles has been in vain—far from it. As we have already seen, its historical relevance resides principally in the creative impulse it has given to the broad left. The mobilizations of the post-2011 period should be seen in this light, not as failures or defeats, but as tentative first steps in a long-term process of reinventing and reconstituting the social opposition; a common political project that must ultimately build towards the creation of a broad-based anti-capitalist movement for the 21stcentury.

 

TOWARDS A COMMON POLITICAL PROJECT

 

The notion of a “political project” should be understood in the broadest possible sense of the term here: neither simply as the creation of an ordinary political party in the pursuit of state power, nor as the construction of another coalition of social forces, but more generally as the development of a set ofconvergence points for various pre-existing struggles to rally around and organize upon.

 

These points of convergence would have to be inserted directly into the deepening contradictions and crisis tendencies of financialized capitalism and situated firmly in the lived experience of working people and urban dwellers. Most importantly, they would have to build on the transformative potential of ongoing struggles. Only on that basis can the movements begin to formulate a shared narrative, political imaginary and transformative project rooted in the social reproduction of everyday life, animated by strong popular desires for democracy, and geared towards the collective self-management of the common.

 

How do we create political coherence out of a social field of struggles full of contextual particularities—and how do we do so without sacrificing the richness of a plurality of struggles?

 

In many ways, this is both the most important and at the same time the most difficult task confronting the left today: how to generate political coherence out of a field of struggles full of contextual particularities—and, more specifically, how to do so without sacrificing the richness of a plurality of methods. The only sensible way forward would be to actively build on the diversity of tactics, multiplicity of strategies and ecology of organizational forms that presently exist within society and that will undoubtedly be further expanded in future years.

 

The minimal prerequisites to generate such coherence would be to name thecommon enemy (capitalism), identify the common terrain of action (everyday life in the city) and develop a common project (the construction of a social counterpower geared towards the eventual establishment of a democratic post-capitalist society) that can unify the struggles through a shared narrative, with participants neither clinging on to their individual identities, nor giving up their unique particularities under the aegis of a single hegemonic force.

 

More concretely, the convergence point would have to take on an organizational form of its own; one that can accommodate the wide ecology of other organizational forms without imposing itself on them. The social movements in Spain have embarked on an interesting project, in this respect, by developing city-specific “confluence platforms of popular unity” that have fielded “citizens’ candidates” in municipal elections. The confluence platforms bring together a wide array of movement activists, left-wing militants and public personalities without developing the “organic internal life” of an ordinary political party.

 

The construction of municipal confluence platforms opens up a raft of new opportunities to act in common and build social power from below.

 

The political objective of such convergence points would be dual: first and foremost, to generate a confluence of social forces capable of exerting collective power through unity in action; and second, at a deeper and much more radical level, to actively transform the identities of individual participants in the very process of collective mobilization—broadening political horizons, overcoming sectarian divides and opening particular struggles up onto the wider social terrain. In this sense, the construction of confluence platforms opens up a raft of new opportunities to act in common and build social power from below.

 

A NETWORK OF REBEL CITIES

 

To insert themselves directly onto the terrain of everyday life, the confluence platforms would have to be urban or metropolitan in scope and would ideally be rooted in and responsive to a confederated structure of neighborhood and workplace assemblies—just as Bookchin envisioned it. Among their ranks, the platforms would include a broad ecology of autonomous movements, social unions, neighborhood organizations, popular initiatives, issue-based campaigns and even radical parties, as long as the latter remain on equal footing with the movements and are never allowed to hegemonize the platforms.

 

Beyond creating new capacities for mutual aid, dynamic coordination and collective mobilization, the platforms would field citizens’ candidacies (ideally in the form of recallable delegates) in municipal elections, as in Spain, with the short-term objective of taking back the city and putting it under movement control. Since public provisions like social security, social housing, refugee reception and public transport in many countries are administered by local municipalities, the “rebel cities” could begin to roll out pilot projects with basic income, free transit, refugee sanctuaries and cooperative housing; although they will initially lack the resources and powers to fully develop such schemes.

 

Once multiple municipalities are brought under movement control, the confluence platforms would have to confederate into a national (and eventually international) network of rebel cities.

 

This is why, once multiple municipalities are brought under the control of the movements, their respective confluence platforms would have to confederate into a national (and eventually international) network of rebel cities. The newest municipal platforms in Spain, for instance, have recently banded together to form the Network of Cities for the Common Good. These networks could in turn decide to create higher-order confluence platforms fielding citizens’ candidates in national elections. The latter would aim to oust reactionary elites and establish defensive positions in the state apparatus, especially in relation to the forces of order and the concentrated power of finance and big business.

 

Here we should immediately note that the capitalist state is unlikely to ever become an active agent of popular empowerment and social transformation, and the left should therefore always guard against tendencies to prioritize the state as the primary site of struggle. As Marx famously put it in his reflections on the Paris Commune, “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.” Even with the left in government, capital continues to be a social power, not just a personal one. It will operate on and through the state even when it is nominally in the hands of the movements.

 

The long-term objective of any meaningful revolutionary process should therefore be to dismantle the “ready-made machinery” of the centralized capitalist state and replace it with a decentralized confederation of communes. The state, however, is not simply a “thing” that can be declared out of existence by the assembled multitude. Like capital, the state is a social relation that can only ever be dismantled through a complex and prolonged destituent process rooted in popular struggle. The coordinated network of rebel cities we speak of here could serve as a short-term stepping-stone towards that ultimate post-capitalist horizon.

 

A POLITICAL PROGRAM OF THE COMMON

 

On the basis of this stepping-stone, the movements could begin to formulate a coherent political program of the common, pushing for substantive reforms geared towards increasing the reproductive resilience of society.

 

What would set such “substantive” reforms apart from a more traditionally reformist agenda would be their transformative political horizon: rather than seeking to reform capitalism, they would aim to expand and consolidate the power base of the opposition, allowing it to launch future attacks on capital from higher ground while generating new openings for the intensification and radicalization of the struggle.

 

The list of such transformative reforms is potentially endless. It could include the devolution of power away from the central state and towards the rebel cities, the socialization of finance and the democratization of money, the institution of a universal basic income and universal citizenship, working-time reduction, access to cooperative housing and free healthcare, the introduction of radical pedagogy into school curricula, the decentralization and decarbonization of energy systems, legal recognition of workers’ councils, and the declaration of a “charter of the commons” to enshrine open access to communal property into law, protecting it from enclosure and liberating new spaces for non-commodified social relations to prosper.

 

Where the 20th century left once envisioned a “mixed economy”, the 21st century left will have to envision a “cooperative economy”.

 

Where the 20th century left once envisioned a “mixed economy” of public control and private initiative, combining state regulation with market distribution to allow for the private accumulation of capital within a framework of political constraints, the 21st century left will have to start building a “cooperative economy” combining common ownership over the means of production with innovative forms of “hands-off” state support aimed atcreating space for autonomous circuits of social reproduction and self-organized social initiatives, ranging from legislation in support of workplace recuperations and worker self-management to the provision of interest-free credit to cooperative enterprises.

 

Crucially, all of the above would have to emanate from the constituent power of the movements and be channeled directly through the democratic processes of the confluence platforms. Since the basic outline sketched out here would be fiercely contested by those who retain their concentrated forms of economic power and privileged access to key nodes in the administrative apparatuses of the state, nothing will be given up for free. The conflicts will be fierce. Even with our friends in power, the movements can only ever win something like a “charter of the commons” through the concerted mobilization of autonomous counterpowers.

 

In the end, the construction of social power cannot be pursued in isolation from the consolidation of the power that has already been accumulated. As Bookchin put it, “social revolutionaries, far from removing the problem of power from their field of vision, must address the problem of how to give power a concrete and emancipatory institutional form.” That institutional form—the ultimate objective of the social revolution—he called the “Commune of communes.”

EXPANDING THE HORIZONS OF POSSIBILITY

Needless to say, we are still very far from the kind of pre-revolutionary situation outlined above—let alone the post-capitalist society it should eventually give rise to. The moment we put down our readings and get on with the difficult task of organizing ourselves on the ground, we find that same capitalist barbarity still staring us in the face. The sheer scale of the task ahead of us is daunting. Not only do we have to devise innovative new ways to defend ourselves from, and ultimately destroy, the voracious appetite of capital; we also have to reinvent the left and the very meaning of revolution in the process.

A dynamic and versatile left capable of rising to the challenges of our times will need to rest on a broad ecology of organizational forms.

By necessity, then, we are in it for the long haul. The common project of the 21stcentury left will inevitably unfold over the course of decades. It is therefore more fruitful to think of revolution as aprotracted process rather than a singular event with a clear beginning and end. This is not about storming the Bastille or the Winter Palace; we need to set our sights much further than that. No one has ever won (or survived) a marathon by sprinting to the finish line. In many respects, we will have to free ourselves from capitalist time and set our own political pace.

Unfortunately, however, there are some things that simply cannot wait. Pressing concerns like climate change and the refugee crisis compel us to act now, simply to save human lives and the planetary life-support systems on which they depend. This is another reason why a dynamic and versatile left capable of rising to the challenges of our times will need to rest on a broad ecology of organizational forms—each with their own strengths and weaknesses, and each operating according their own particular temporalities. At this point in history, obtuse left-wing sectarianism may quite well prove to be the end of humanity.

Yet it often seems that the future remains trapped between the internecine squabbles of two seemingly irreconcilable “lefts”: an old one centered narrowly on taking power, and a new one still struggling to come to terms with its own potential. Beyond the haughty impotence of the former and the apparent perplexity of the latter, the theory and practice of building power offers fertile and expanding political ground for a new anti-capitalist politics. We must now explode the tensions between them into a common project that can begin to give a concrete and democratic organizational form to the restive constituent potential that is craving to assert itself from below.

 

As we gather force and move along the process of construction, we will gradually notice the horizons of possibility expanding: the higher we rise, the farther we see; until, one day, all that meets the eye is the glorious sight of rebel cities everywhere rising up against the common enemy, humanity resolving at last to “throw its revolutionary broadsword into the scales.” Until then, you will find us in the streets, in the neighborhoods and in the working places: preparing the ground, laying the foundations—building power.