A-Infos (en) Spaine, Regeneracion: The Anarchic Culture of the Commons - The Foundation of a Subversive Collective Imaginary (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Let's begin with the obvious: in capitalism, common issues are rarely 
resolved by the people directly involved. While the hegemonic 
relationships in our society-those that shape the dominant social 
models-are structured on the basis of political domination, they are 
not, however, the majority relationships. The majority relationships are 
what we could call, in broad political terms, anarchist relationships; 
that is, relationships not mediated by command and obedience.

In our daily lives, we participate more in the collective creation of 
rules (explicit or implicit) than in the drafting of laws, and we assume 
more responsibilities than orders. This is not usually considered in 
this way, of course, not even by those around us. For most people, the 
Aristotelian assertion that in the world something always commands and 
something obeys seems irrefutable.

This preeminence given to relationships based on domination operates 
within a paradigm of just domination that pervades almost all political 
philosophy, with very few exceptions. According to this paradigm, 
relationships of domination, of leadership, are inevitable. It doesn't 
matter if they are forever, given that "man is a wolf to man," or only 
for a period, while leading him along the "path of truth," but political 
domination would be just and necessary.

This view, challenged time and again by the ideas and practices of 
self-institutionalized spaces, tends to render invisible the 
multiplicity of existing relationships. And it is precisely in this 
multiplicity that we can find support to dismantle its established 
assumptions. Although rendered invisible, self-institutionalization, 
that series of processes through which the commons are produced and 
sustained without hierarchical mediation, is a fundamental part of 
antagonistic struggles and the daily life of communities.

In politics, however, there has been no greater fear than that of the 
downtrodden, the rabble, the poor. The idea of the need for 
representation of the will and for leadership has found support, time 
and again, in this fear. Even for most critics of current populism, the 
real problem, as if it were a malignant essence, a sleeping monster, 
resides in the subordinate classes. The "sin" of populist parties, in 
any case, would be to exacerbate, to unleash, this evil.

To reject any elitist and paralyzing vision that turns anarchy into the 
preserve of an enlightened minority, we need to re-examine the notions 
from which we define ourselves. Today, even in our initiatives, there 
seems to be less clarity-or agreement-about exactly what we are defending.

Two Ways of Understanding the Commons

An identity-based conception of community-understood as a stable set of 
characteristics shared by a human group, ultimately, a shared 
property-is contrasted with a broader notion understood as a way of 
being in common. In this more dynamic and relational conception of 
community, people are not merely passive recipients of a property, but a 
fundamental part of a continuous and collective process of construction. 
Therefore, the community is not something external, nothing "outside" of 
the people themselves. Nor, it is understood, is it an immutable, owned 
asset that must be defended.

Instead, the community arises through the relationships in which people 
establish the commons and in which, at the same time, those same 
relationships establish them. Establishing, then, refers to the 
processes by which people sustain collective life: they give it meaning, 
protect it, and organize its continuity. To act as if all these 
processes somehow belonged to the State-that is, to identify society 
with the State-is as mistaken as thinking they are free from the 
interference of state mechanisms.

The identity-based political paradigm, then, reproduces a rather limited 
view of these processes and of the role of individuals in the creation 
of the common good. While in the process of jointly instituting reality, 
the new does not emerge from nothing, but rather from what has been 
previously established, it is never an exact reproduction of what 
already exists. Each person, in relating to the world and to others, 
recreates it, always modifying it. The new inevitably emerges, although 
fundamentally transforming what has been historically established is not 
easy.

The common good is never something static, separate from, or superior to 
the people who comprise it, as the identity-based perspective suggests. 
The common good is a co-presence, a being together, a sharing that 
becomes an ethical responsibility toward others. It might seem obvious, 
but people living together means they are involved with one another, not 
just standing next to each other. This distorted view of how reality is 
established contributes to the reproduction of the current order by 
generating an idea that disconnects us from the process.

Otherness and Co-involvement

In the identity-based paradigm, otherness-any relationship with the 
other-is also considered a negative process. The relationship is not 
productive; rather, it is always a relationship of stagnation. To the 
passive role assigned to people in the construction of the common good 
is added the interpretation of social interaction as a continuous 
conflict between individuals negotiating their survival.

This individualistic ontology, largely associated with the liberal 
idea-independent subjects or, at best, intersubjective 
relationships-fails to adequately describe the relationships between 
people. Even when it is suggested that something ultimately positive 
might emerge from the negation of the other, the view of limits is 
always negative. This has led to the erroneous interpretation that 
anarchism is merely a mirror image of established political power. This 
error explains, at least in part, a certain false antagonism and 
reductionism between the destituent and instituting capacities of 
antagonistic and anti-authoritarian movements.

However, it is possible to conceive of otherness from a different 
perspective that implies a different experience of limits. We are not 
obligated to outlive others; rather, our singularity, ourselves, emerges 
from a vast series of relationships-not only of negation-that we 
establish with them. Contrary to what those who stoke fear of the other 
claim, other people are the very condition of possibility for all our 
possible developments, both good and bad. Those around us are part of 
who we are, and in otherness we increase or decrease our own potential.

The relationship between individuals and their environment, then, is one 
of co-implication and co-functioning, not separation or mere negation. 
What is common is what emerges from this relationship. Thinking about 
community and its relationships from the perspective of difference and 
otherness challenges a certain authoritarian pretension of uniformity 
and homogeneity within communities.

An Anarchic Figuration of the Common

By abandoning the idea of an always negative otherness and of 
substantial subjects, we can move on to the challenge of thinking about 
the common as the very condition for anti-authoritarian collective 
developments, where difference becomes productive. The common is the 
terrain of conflict and the condition of possibility for anarchic 
creation: self-institution. The uniqueness and vitality of this type of 
creation lies in practices that dispense with both external and internal 
leadership, as well as any form of representation or passivity.

The culture of the commons must emphasize the contingent, relational, 
and transformative nature of being together. The inherent contingency of 
life reinforces this proposition. In practice, self-institution, for its 
part, implies the rejection of representation and any connection to 
abstract, universal principles that are placed above people. Therefore, 
while proposals of all kinds are extremely important, there is no place 
for models with universalist pretensions that seek to replace those 
involved or attempt to encompass all social complexity.

An anarchic figuration of the culture of the commons can emerge in the 
collective imagination as the affirmation and maximum possible 
enhancement of collective power.

Establishing Difference

We shouldn't worry about the common, in the sense that it simply already 
exists, but we should worry about the possibilities that open up when we 
think about it differently. Why cling to an idea of otherness that 
doesn't recognize the infinite possibilities of interaction? Why adhere 
to an elitism that reduces anarchy to the exceptional?

The antagonism between construction and destruction is false. Anarchism 
cannot be reduced to the simple negation or specular reaction of the 
established order, which, while conditioning it, cannot determine it. In 
practice, negation, as the partial or total destruction of the 
established world, is inseparable from the institution, and at the same 
time, from other worlds. Even from an insurrectionary perspective, there 
is no end to capitalism without more "anarchist institutions," that is, 
without generalizing this support of collective life in an 
anti-authoritarian key. Therefore, rejecting the need for an anarchist 
projection is already tantamount to failure.

At the same time, anarchism cannot be reduced to a parodic construct 
where, in some way, a future ideal is lived out. Anarchist practices 
affirm and amplify common powers, transformations, and conflicts in the 
present. The projection of movements, the projective impulse of the 
capacities of the grassroots, does not entail creating unique models or 
fighting monsters with monsters. Self-instituting creation is always 
provisional, open, and changing. It is the battleground of the possible.

What we defend does not belong to the future, nor is it abstract, nor is 
it outside of or above us. There is no anarchism without getting our 
hands dirty; the struggle to generalize the self-institution of the 
commons does not guarantee results, but precisely for that reason, it 
makes everything possible.

Regino Martinez, Member of the Anarchy movement and newspaper of Montevideo

https://regeneracionlibertaria.org/2026/02/11/la-cultura-anarquica-de-lo-comun/
_________________________________________
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
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en