💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › jean-desta-is-another-world-possible.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:13:53. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Is Another World Possible? Author: Jean Desta Date: July 23, 2020 Language: en Topics: COVID-19, communalism, social ecology, democratic confederalism Source: Retrieved on 2020-08-10 from [[https://anarchiststudies.org/is-another-world-possible-pandemic-communalism-as-a-cure-to-corona-capitalism/]]
As millions of people around the globe went into isolation, we started
asking ourselves how we should react to this situation. Many felt the
need to go and help, while others blindly followed the guidelines and
restrictions imposed by governments. At the same time, the system’s
contradictions—even during an enormous public health crisis—emerged ever
more clearly. As these types of calamities are happening more
frequently, this is becoming our new reality. And it is increasingly
clear that there is a need to find an alternative that puts people and
nature back at the center of politics.
When a society is confronted with an unexpected catastrophe, be it
warlike conflict, a sudden scarcity of resources, or a natural
phenomenon, human empathy, mutual aid, and solidarity tend to come to
the fore. Despite the ideological dominance of capitalism, humans still
possess an almost reflexive tendency to come together and develop
spontaneous forms of support and collective organization even during
times of deep agony. Humans are fundamentally social animals. Coming
together is also a means for us to deal with stress, uncertainty, and
insecurity in a changing environment. This trend has happened so often
and in such different circumstances that it has been granted its own
name: “Disaster Communism.”[1]
For centuries, liberals and other preachers of the state system
persuaded people through psychological, social scientific, and
philosophical theories to believe that humans need to be under
centralist control to prevent falling into a state of perennial war
against each other. According to these theories, in the case of
disaster, citizens would only think for themselves selfishly looting and
preying on others. The whole of “official history” has been written to
support these perspectives, most of which have their roots in Thomas
Hobbes’s ideas about the “State of Nature.” In Hobbesian speculations,
statelessness equals a so-called “state of nature” in which “man is a
wolf to man” and “a war of all against all” mentality would prevail. In
this way, statehood, centralization, and institutionalized hierarchies
are rationalized.
Nevertheless, since the 17^(th) century, political philosophers and
social movements have contested Hobbesian theory and the liberal
paradigm. In the 19^(th) century, Karl Marx, Mikhail Bakunin, and Peter
Kropotkin among other leading socialist theorists of the emergent
workers’ movement argued for a more social, empathic, and communal view
of humanity. In his book Mutual Aid: Factor of Evolution Kropotkin, for
example, countered the Social Darwinism that was prevalent at that time.
Kropotkin advanced a view that mutual aid and cooperation determine the
natural world, including survival of species and evolution, as much as
competition between individuals. These ideas have been developed further
in the 20^(th) century and reinforced with the methodology of new social
sciences, particularly anthropology and sociology.
Within the discipline of anthropology, researchers such as Pierre
Clastres and Viveiros de Castro have written about communities that are
not only stateless but have also organized themselves into communal
structures that actively prevent the emergence and formation of
centralized state. Anthropologist researchers David Graeber and James C.
Scott observe that many stateless societies have actually been based on
communal values of sharing and reciprocity and haven’t remotely
resembled Hobbesian ideas of the “state of nature.” In fact, Graeber and
Scott agree that those communities have steadfastly adhered to their
communal lifestyle and actively resisted the emergence of state,
centralization, and class society.
In his book Debt: The First 5000 Years, Graeber argues that these
communal values and practices live in the people’s consciousness and
praxis even long after state formation. As he explains, this “everyday
communism” forms the basis for all human sociability even in capitalist
societies. According to Graeber, the existence of capitalism is
dependent on a vast amount of everyday interactions that follow
distinctively communistic ethics of sharing and reciprocity instead of
the liberal market logic of individual benefit and exchange value. As
most of everyday social interactions fall in this category, society
should be recognized as independent from state and capital. Similar
analyses have been put forward by Murray Bookchin in his book The
Ecology of Freedom and Abdullah Ă–calan, who attracted global attention
with his five volume book Manifesto for a Democratic Civilization.
Applying the research of the above referred theorists to the question of
Disaster Communism: Disaster Communism must be viewed as liberation,
intensification, and expansion of the communal and communistic practices
of society in a situation where unexpected disruption (natural or
human-generated catastrophe) loosens the pressure of liberalism, the
state, and capitalism.
Having researched human response to earthquakes, wildfires, explosions,
terror attacks, and hurricanes in the 20^(th) century, in her book A
Paradise Built in Hell Rebecca Solnit also argues that practical
evidence supports the communal view on human organizing rather the
Hobbesian constructions. According to Solnit, in situations where the
state suddenly becomes dysfunctional, or where statist and capitalist
governance breaks down, humans show more solidarity and responsibility
towards other humans and the environment, not less.
Epidemics, however, are a catastrophe of a unique nature. They force us
to reevaluate not only our understanding of ourselves, human
relationships and our societies, but also our comprehension of crisis
behavior and organization. Epidemics disrupt not only the material but
also the social basis of a community. Indeed, epidemics seem to be the
most anti-social of all crises, striking directly against our social and
communal character while exacerbating inequality within society. Because
of the coronavirus, people in several countries cannot even mourn their
loved ones together. For months funerals have been forbidden and family
and friends of the deceased have had to grieve alone.
The coronavirus has brought huge disruptions to everyday life, social
relations, and most importantly, conventional ways of mobilizing
political and humanitarian initiatives. It is clear that Covid-19 is
just a symptom of a much larger and systemic problem that points to the
capitalist system and its domination of nature. Climate change and its
effects will be more and more present in our lives if states do not
change course and try to reduce carbon emissions effectively.
As we navigate this new pandemic world, it is clear that human behavior
resulting in Disaster Communism will not emerge spontaneously on a scale
sufficient to face epidemic crises. Yet, a lack of meaningful and
communal participation may have enormous humanitarian, psychological,
and societal consequences given the need to go beyond the material
concerns and to provide answers to our socio-emotional and even
spiritual needs in times of agony. Epidemics affect every aspect of
society; therefore, also disaster relief and solutions must holistically
reflect all of society. Instead of the often spontaneous and local
Disaster Communism, we may call this approach “Pandemic Communalism” to
highlight its organized, societal, and federal nature.
The term communalism originated in the Paris Commune of 1871, when
Parisians took up arms to defend a confederation of cities and towns
they had created as an alternative to the republican nation-state. It
has gained currency more recently in the writings of Murray Bookchin who
describes it as an assembly form of grassroots democracy in which
autonomous confederated municipalities collaborate in creating a
powerful political and economic network that stands in opposition to the
nation-state.
Pandemic Communalism should be the inspiration, which gives concrete
political and organizational frame for organizing society facing
pandemic disaster. In fact, we should use this moment as an opportunity
to transcend the limits imposed by the established system and to bring
politics back to the center of community life, thereby regaining its
original meaning as the self-administration of a community. The Pandemic
Communalism perspective aims to establish new institutions outside the
state, built within and around communities wherever there is a void left
by governments unable to understand and to meet the real needs of
communities in time of a disaster. Moreover, Pandemic Communalism
challenges the current system by offering answers that are outside the
state framework, empowering communities to advance their own
organizational capabilities. In order to pursue this path, there is need
for a high degree of commitment, responsibility, and creativity.
In the past few months there have been several movements around the
world trying to tackle issues that the pandemic has aggravated. Doctors
went to the streets of California to take care of homeless patients.
Housing activists called for rent strikes.[2] From Spain to the United
States more and more people (up to one third of households just in the
US [3]) have not been able or willing to pay their rent. Other
solidarity campaigns and actions have started around the globe, with a
varying degree of organization as each country and movement has tried to
face the crisis in different ways. Pandemic Communalism simply means a
federative umbrella under which all such initiatives become an organized
social power and reclaim a continuously widening part of social life
through popular self-administration.
In Milan, Italy, as soon as the outbreak hit the city, “solidarity
brigades” were established. In the course of two months almost 1,000
people joined the brigades to support others and almost fourteen
brigades started operating in the city. These brigades helped elderly
people who were advised not to leave the house with their grocery
shopping and medicines and supplied people who lost their jobs with
food. And another brigade was established to provide psychological
support to anyone struggling emotionally during this time of isolation
and hardships.
As the brigades started working, it was clear there was a need to
approach the crisis in a very different way from the past. Valerio, one
of the representatives of the Milanese Solidarity Brigades, explained
that “everything needed to be re-evaluated” and a certain amount of
discipline established in relation to hygienic measures, performance of
tasks and other routines.[4] Milan set an example and soon The brigades
spread well beyond Italy.[5] Similar groups formed in France, Spain, the
United States, and Brussels. At the moment there are fifty-four brigades
around the world. “We are talking to one another and sharing experiences
and perspectives,” said Clara who is working in the coordination group
for the Milanese brigades. As the pandemic appears to come under greater
control, most of the countries are lifting some of the very restrictive
measures, and most of the brigades are asking themselves what will be
next and how they should approach the so-called “Phase 2.”
Unlike conventional forms of organization that have emerged in past
crises, Pandemic Communalism is not born from semi-spontaneous networks
that develop in mass meetings, protests and gatherings. In this crisis,
the starting point is extreme physical isolation. During epidemics, it
is organization, trust, and discipline that allows larger and larger
gatherings, not the other way around. The first mission in constructing
Pandemic Communalism is, therefore, to develop a form of organization of
mutual aid that can break the isolation and bring people together.
Fundamental for Pandemic Communalism is a mentality that each and every
human can have a positive influence on the well-being of people in their
environment. So far, the state mentality has pushed a single narrative:
everyone is a potential virus carrier, so it is better to stay home,
isolated, and if anyone dares to step out of their homes, he or she is
singled out and accused of not caring for their own community.
Meanwhile, thousands of non-essential factories and industries have
continued working, and effectively continued as the hubs of contagion.
Most of the times workers were not provided with the right protective
equipment. In so doing, the state intent is to blame citizens if the
virus doesn’t halt the spread while failing to recognize its own
responsibilities in the crises.
This view that salaried work as the only legitimate way to participate
in society is severely limited. There are multiple other ways to be
active and to contribute to the good of society by voluntary and
self-organized means. Even rudimentary collective structures can protect
people belonging to risk groups. Groceries have often been cited as a
simple and concrete example: if neighbors divide shopping in shifts,
they can have foodstuffs with minimal close contacts. Such division and
rotation of tasks and responsibilities can be established for most
everyday needs. Thus, human contacts and the epidemic growth speed can
be decreased while simultaneously building community organization.
The main characteristic of Pandemic Communalism is to expand primarily
in the field of reproductive labor—all forms of labor that reproduce the
work force, and the material and social basis of production. Child
bearing, education, health care, cleaning, cooking and other housework
as well as different forms of care work are often cited as examples of
reproductive labor. Studying can also be seen as reproductive work when
people prepare and educate themselves for what the system calls “real”
or productive work. In capitalist societies reproductive labor is
performed mainly by women, whether it be in non-salaried work at home or
wage labor. Therefore, it has become a field of analysis, critique, and
resistance for revolutionary feminists such as Silvia Federici and Selma
James.
Housing, education, upbringing, child care, and care work in general as
well as feeding are precisely the basic questions to which the Pandemic
Communalism perspective attempts to provide new solutions that are not
based on the state or patriarchal family. Pandemic Communalism is,
therefore, oriented towards feminism and women’s liberation. Communal
structures have the possibility – and even the duty – to overcome
traditional gender roles and the resulting barriers and division of
work. The problems of households are also not limited to the questions
of economy and sustainability, but to problems such as alcoholism and
substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental health issues that are
central in times of quarantine. Solutions for these issues must be
formulated and provided.
There is no need to be an organized group to start working toward
Pandemic Communalism. Depending on the neighborhood, an apartment
building, or even a tiny group of smaller houses, could be the context
in which to start organizing relevant responsibilities, roles, and
tasks. A community of some dozens of people should be enough to take
care of most basic everyday needs. These needs could include, for
example: helping people running errands (groceries, post office,
library, pharmacy); sharing responsibility for children in case schools
and institutions are shut down; making the internet, cars, common
spaces, and other basic resources available for common use; even
purchasing and distributing prime necessities collectively should they
become scarce in the future.
When apartment complexes, or whole neighborhoods become organized, the
primary question is then how can they coordinate with other similar
units. Committees or working groups for autonomous health care, food
supply, domestic problems, and other logistics can be established to
confront issues that are common for all. Each region, city, and
neighborhood will organize itself as defined by its own characteristics,
depending on the level of social organization prior to the epidemic and
other factors. In some cities there are plenty of existing mutual aid
groups, neighborhood organizations, and other groups whose role is
boosted in these times. Other cities and neighborhoods have started to
organize themselves virtually from scratch, from the informal
connections and ties between the inhabitants. However, every locality
faces the same questions: how to take over more responsibilities and
expand the functioning of these self-administered structures and
networks? How to unify all the different initiatives into an organized
and coordinated entity? How to build social power beyond reciprocal
mutual aid with limited resources? These are the main questions that
arise when initiatives start to federate their activities and
structures, bringing to life the societal and confederal perspective of
Pandemic Communalism. At this point, Pandemic Communalism transcends the
limits of single relief efforts and starts to take shape as an
alternative communal fabric of everyday life and to reveal its systemic
character.
In the time of an epidemic, social self-organization should be based on
the principles of decentralization and compartmentalization.
Compartmentalization means dividing a crowd of people into small
“compartments” and minimizing close contact between the different
compartments. Such organization is developed to prevent the spread of
sickness to other units and to protect the whole, if one of them is
contaminated. The state’s curfew policy is using the same logic, trying
to control movements – and thus contagion – between different districts,
cities, and even neighborhoods.
However, if state-imposed compartmentalization and isolation is fully
implemented it will destroy the decision-making structures, production,
and societal logistic and thus, at the end of the day, the whole
society. The compartmentalization of a city, for example, is practically
limited by the fact that people tend to not work in the area where they
live (not even in the same city sometimes), that local groceries cannot
feed the people of the neighborhood, and on the neighborhood-level there
are no decision-making structures that would guarantee the continuation
of social life.
Rigid centralized governments and companies that follow the irrational
logic of markets with their grocery stores and miles long supply chains
are thus becoming obstacles to the counter-epidemic policies. The
ability to adapt to new circumstances and resilience can be increased
with a combination of decentralization and coordination, i.e. with more
local democracy and federalism. This is the true meaning of Pandemic
Communalism. Local democratic structures increase people’s capability to
make decisions about their lives and react to emerging material problems
rapidly and therefore empower the society – regardless of whether any
epidemic and mass quarantine are in place or not.
A natural foundation of social crisis organizing is mitigation of the
humanitarian consequences of a crisis with self-organization and
mobilization of local communities and their resources. It differs from
the state approach in that social organizing doesn’t only seek to heal
the symptoms, but also to empower local communities and, as a result,
the whole society. With the creation of locally-rooted and self-governed
structures of decision-making, security, care, and logistics, a society
shall be not only “restored” but transformed. From the perspective of
Pandemic Communalism it is not enough to seek to return to the
pre-crisis state, but to construct solutions that will not result in yet
another crisis, whether economic or environmental in nature.
At the same time, the economic repercussions of the coronavirus pandemic
and its counter-measures are just beginning to be understood. It is
clear already that we are entering a new economic crisis; only its
magnitude is uncertain. Many analysts are talking about a global
recession that might reshape the economic sector for a long time. In the
first weeks of the corona outbreak, financial markets around the world
sank, while investors and banks were hoping for a quick fix which
worked. Production stopped, and so did consumption. We have seen a
severe rise in unemployment, and the economic crisis is far deeper than
the stock markets indicate. Economists are warning that there is a
historically wide gap between the indicators of the real economy and the
expectations of stock markets.[6] It is a superficial result of the
cheap money that central banks pumped into markets very rapidly in the
beginning of the pandemic. However, we should not delude ourselves that
the system will collapse by itself with no viable alternative. After
all, capitalism is the most dynamic system of all times and therefore it
will try to adapt to this crisis and move on. Corona has already shown
us how certain corporations, such as Amazon, took advantage and made
large profits while forcing their workers to operate without adequate
protective gear.[7]
While unemployment, inequality, and difficulties to pay rent and other
bills increase, and institutional social security becomes overwhelmed,
material problems will reach a level that require organized and broad
forms of collective action. Material support can be organized up to a
point with the more or less informal networks of friends, relatives, and
neighbors. Housing, electricity, water, and other fundamental needs, on
the other hand, cannot be guaranteed with the deeds of individuals or
small networks and require wider social organizing. At that point, the
question is not only of social organization, but also of explicitly
political organization; that is, organizing ourselves and our
communities for political struggle. Sooner or later questions will
emerge: who will be saved? Who will pay the bill at the end of the day?
Will finance companies, industry, and banks be saved as happened after
the 2008 financial crisis at the expense of lives, homes, and the
savings of common people? Or the other way around? The answers to these
questions depend only on our capabilities to organize ourselves to
defend our lives in all sectors of society.
The political perspective of Pandemic Communalism is to organize the
emerging practical solidarity into a political force that can defend the
interests and wellbeing of society against both the pandemic crisis and
political threats emanating from it. Bank and corporate owners are
already in attack-mode, ready to blackmail for more money for
themselves, while demanding “flexibility” and “sacrifice” from workers
to secure their wealth. Sooner or later, their demands will intensify to
include lower salaries, longer working hours, degenerate working
conditions, and an obligation to work despite risking one’s health and
life.
When the epidemic starts to wither away defending workers, the
unemployed, and tenants against these attacks requires solidarity to
take a form of coordinated action, such as strikes, protests, and
blockades. Mutual aid can be developed in self-organized “counter
logistics” that serve social needs regardless of the pressure from
companies and their interest organizations.[8] The groups and neighbors
that came together via instant messaging and other apps can be the first
step to organizing local structures of self-governance that are able to
administer the life of the area’s inhabitants and coordinate communally
organized services.
It is important to point out that a Pandemic Communalism perspective is
not only about the mitigation of crisis’ symptoms. Instead, it is
seeking a holistic solution based on the empowerment and defense of
society by organizing and federating social initiatives, continuously
expanding the sphere of democratic self-governance. To this end, the
predominantly social nature of the pandemic must be analyzed correctly.
What is today called the coronavirus crisis is a multi-faceted
phenomenon and much deeper than the pandemic itself, which basically
encompasses the whole of social life. The virus is from a biological
source, but the development of COVID-19 from a local infection to a
global crisis has mostly been due to social interactions and dynamics.
The main dimensions of the corona crisis have been health care and
social reproduction in general, economy, governance, and the
relationship between nature and human (society). Above all, these four
fields determine the ongoing pandemic dynamics but also witness a deep
and severe crisis. More precisely, the coronavirus revealed built-in
malfunctions and flaws in the capitalist organization of these sectors
of society and brought them to a premature dead end.
Unlike regional disasters such as earthquakes or hurricanes, a pandemic
is not local, but affects whole societies. In the case of a pandemic,
there is no wider functioning society that can give relief to a single
community or locality hit by a disaster. A pandemic is too big and
severe of a crisis for local and regional efforts or isolated relief
initiatives of the people to handle. Meanwhile, it has also become clear
that the ongoing crisis and the economic and ecological disasters
looming just ahead of us cannot be solved by a superficial crisis
management in the existing framework of states and markets. A
sustainable solution must see the crisis as a whole and set in motion a
profound transformation of society, and in the four central dimensions
mentioned above. Lack of transformative development will inevitably lead
to partial and inconclusive attempts that will not grasp the severity of
the situation. Furthermore, any partiality or inconclusiveness in these
critical times will only lead to continuation and repetition of
economic, ecological, and health related crises while states of
exception, lock downs, technological surveillance tools, and other ad
hoc measures will become a new normality.
Pandemic Communalism is a proposition for such a conclusive solution. It
is a perspective that is not limited either to the confines of states
and markets or to the relative weakness of isolated relief and charity
efforts. Pandemic Communalism can be thought of as a third way, not
surrendering to either side of this false dualism. It obviously emerges
from local initiatives and builds itself around them, but if developed
correctly, it will expand and take over more complicated social
responsibilities and increase the sphere of popular self-administration
in a democratic and federative way. Meanwhile, its relationship to the
state system is a more antagonistic than a symbiotic one, although the
two can also find temporary mutually beneficial relationships.
The communal character of Pandemic Communalism begins to be realized
when different initiatives of mutual aid and community organizing link
up with each other and relate to other initiatives of popular
self-organization in a coordinated way. Federating different initiatives
in a mutually beneficial, strengthening, and meaningful way is the real
art of Pandemic Communalism and source of its power. Such an approach
can be understood in the words of Murray Bookchin in his description of
the “Meaning of Confederalism:”
Confederalism, in effect, must be conceived as a whole: a consciously
formed body of interdependencies that unites participatory democracy in
municipalities with a scrupulously supervised system of coordination. It
involves the dialectical development of independence and dependence into
a more richly articulated form of interdependence […] A choice between
either self-sufficiency on the one hand or a market system of exchange
on the other is a simplistic and unnecessary dichotomy. [9]
Pandemic Communalism can be thought of as the application of
confederalist principles to our current situation of popular crisis
organization. The centers or hubs of federalist coordination offer it a
distinctive identity that can integrate a growing amount of people,
community initiatives, civil society organizations, and other popular
actors under a common roof. The resulting constellation is more than the
sum of its parts and, therefore, the social power of federated
initiatives does not increase linearly, but exponentially. The emerging
communal and federal structure – and it alone – can lead Pandemic
Communalism to become a real alternative that can reach a level of
social organization required to overcome the ongoing crises.
Pandemic Communalism, as a federative and ever-expanding system of
interdependencies, offers a framework in which different initiatives can
connect with each other and coordinate their activities through popular
self-management. When different initiatives federate themselves
directly, without the mediation of state and market forces, the
corrupting influence of capitalism weakens. It cannot approach each
initiative individually and integrate them to the restoration of the old
order. Instead, capitalism has to deal with a federated entity that has
already started to establish principles, practices, mentalities, and
even culture of their own. Thus, the question is no longer one of aiding
the system, but rather constructing an alternative system while
supporting people and communities. The development of an alternative is
the true measure of Pandemic Communalism’s development.
At the end of the day, going back to “normalcy,” and how capitalism has
transformed every aspect of our life, would be the worst outcome of the
corona crisis. Therefore, instead of figuring out how to return to a
“normal” capitalist order, now is the perfect moment to start
constructing an order of own— one of wellbeing, freedom, and social
ecology. People and nature can both be the winners of this crisis so
long as we are able to reclaim our ability to self-govern our communal
matters and relate to our environment in an ecological way.
---
Jean Desta is a pseudonym for a collective of European comrades working
and focusing on different areas and social struggles. They are writers,
academics and researchers who are deeply influenced by Murray Bookchin,
Abdullah Ă–calan and other authors in the quest for a revolutionary,
libertarian socialist and internationalist perspectives for the 21^(st)
century.
[1] Out of the Woods, “The Uses of Disaster,” Commune Magazine, October
22, 2018
https://communemag.com/the-uses-of-disaster/
[2] “Rent Strike? A Strategic Appraisal of Rent Strikes throughout
History—and Today,” transl. Crimethinc., March 30, 2020
[3] Alicia Adamczyk, “32% of U.S. households missed their July housing
payments”, CNBC, May 5, 2020.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/08/32-percent-of-us-households-missed-their-july-housing-payments.html
[4] Commune, “It’s Time to Build the Brigades,” Commune Magazine, March
27, 2020.
https://communemag.com/its-time-to-build-the-brigades/
[5] Solidarity Brigades website:
[6] Economist, “The market v. the real economy,” The Economist, May 7,
2020
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/05/07/the-market-v-the-real-economy
[7] “Coronavirus: Amazon workers strike over virus protection”, BBC,
March 31, 2020.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52096273
[8] Anonymous, Short Circuit – a Counterlogistics Reader (No New
Perspectives, 2015).
[9] Murray Bookchin, “The Meaning of Confederalism,” Green Perspectives
20 (1990).