A-Infos (en) Spaine, EMBAT: 2026 situation - 2026 Economic Analysis (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Anarchism before the multidimensional crisis of the 21st century ---- As 
we have said on other occasions from Embat, the current crisis in the 
production 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
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en