Towards a Theory of 'Commonization' - Nick Clare and Victoria Habermehl

This chapter focuses on anarchist spatial politics and radical praxis. Here we argue that a productive debate can be had between communization theory and anarchist geographies (broadly conceived). By bringing these different theories and approaches together, and focusing on the abolition of the value and commodity form, we hope to promote a theoretically engaged form of spatial praxis. In addition, in keeping with recent debates we wish to open and pluralize discussions (see Clough 2014; Gibson 2014; Springer 2014a, 2014c). Not only can anarchist geographies gain from engagement with communization theory (and vice versa), but they should also seek to build on their commonalities with areas such as autonomist Marxism (see Clough and Blumberg 2012; Ince 2014; Mudu 2012; Purcell 2012), in order to foster a more productive and holistic approach to radical, anti-capitalist geography.

To begin, a brief overview of communization theory will be provided. We argue that it contains a number of key insights despite its seemingly nebulous, stultifying, and ‘hermetic’ nature (see Noys 2011a; Derick Varn 2013a). But in tracing its contours, the underdeveloped spatialities of communization theory become apparent. This then leads into a discussion around anarchist approaches to space and territory. There is an immediate resonance with important ideas surrounding the commons, but we also engage with the inherent limitations of certain brands of ‘commonism.’ Therefore, the concept of ‘commonization’—an explicitly spatial brand of communization— will be developed as a means to help combat the respective weaknesses of communization and commonism. In so doing, this chapter will respond to criticisms of the commons found within the communization literature. Finally, contemporary examples of potentially commonizing struggles in Argentina are discussed, and, to conclude, we will argue that the lens of commonization provides insights into how anarchist and communization theories can be productively combined.

COMMUNIZATION THEORY: A TALE OF TWO TENDENCIES

Communization theory is a broad church. While this breadth has led to productive debate, it also contributes to definitional difficulties. Crudely speaking, it is possible to separate communization theory into two main ‘tendencies,’ which we shall call analytic communization and prefigurative communization. The former adopts a rigorous critique of political economy, while the latter is more influenced by prefigurative and insurrectionary politics. Although both tendencies are far from homogeneous, the differences between them are striking. However, we acknowledge that this dichotomy is not perfect, and we do not wish to (re)produce unnecessary divides between different approaches to communization—particularly given the animosity from the analytic tendency towards the prefigurative. Instead, much like our intention to broaden and create a ‘messier’ anarchist geography, we believe there is more to be gained from engagement with rather than ownership of ideas (see Ince 2014) and argue that both tendencies can engage productively with each other. Therefore, communization theory is perhaps best understood as a ‘problematic’ as opposed to a fully formed and coherent theory (Noys 2011b). Accordingly, rather than providing a full overview of every facet of the theory/theories, this section will instead draw out key debates and highlight their main strengths and weaknesses, in order to demonstrate what anarchist geographies can gain from engaging with communization.

ANALYTIC COMMUNIZATION: TROPLOIN, THÉORIE COMMUNISTE, AND ENDNOTES

The emergence of communization theory can be traced back to discussions within the French ultra-left following the events of 1968. These critiques— exemplified by the debates between the groups Troploin and Théorie Communiste (TC)—focused on what were seen as the failings of the workers’ movement, particularly the councillist and workerist currents (see Endnotes 2008, particularly chapter 1). While, as we shall see, communization theory has since taken a number of different turns, throughout this initial period work was grounded in rigorous historical analyses of twentieth-century revolutionary movements and struggles, in addition to the changing nature of capitalism. According to these groups, changes to the capital-labour class relation—the moving contradiction (see Bernes 2011; Endnotes 2010, chapter 5)—meant that affirmation of workers’ identity could no longer lead to the emergence of communism: The proletariat’s struggle as a class had become its own limit, and it was now truly a class against itself (Sic 2011, 6–7; R.S. 2011, 117; Woland 2011, 52). Therefore this ‘crisis in the class relation’ (Endnotes 2010, chapter 1) means that the transition to communism is not something that happens after the revolution. Rather, the revolution as communisation is itself the dissolution of capitalist social relations through communist measures taken by the proletariat, abolishing the enterprise form, the commodity form, exchange, money, wage labour and value, and destroying the state. Communisation, then, is the immediate production of communism: the self-abolition of the proletariat through its abolition of capital and state. (Endnotes 2008, 209)

But while this opposition to a ‘transitional period’ was central to both groups (and in fact communization theory more generally), their analyses of the ‘historical production’ of the conditions for revolutionary movements differed. Troploin mapped on to a more traditional ultra-leftist discourse of an ‘ebb and flow of class struggle’ where communization was always latent, even if never realized (ibid.). But TC argued that the particular shifts in the capital-labour relation meant that the possibility of communization only emerged in the 1970s with the consolidation of real over formal subsumption (Endnotes 2008, chapter 7). The exact ‘periodization’ of the class relation is contested (see Endnotes 2011, chapter 6; Screamin’ Alice 2011; Woland 2011), but such rigorous, historical analysis of capitalism as a dynamic, contradictory totality underpins this tendency of communization theory, exemplified contemporarily by the journals Endnotes and Sic. So while the range of work found in these journals emphasizes the different currents and cultural specificities of analytic communization theory, they focus on themes such as specific working-class formations, the study and critique of historical trends, periods, and moments, and the value form. What is more, they all maintain the central belief that ‘proletarian self-affirmation can never beget proletarian self-negation and [therefore] negation of capital’ (Endnotes 2011, 146).

It is important, however, not to portray all analytic communization theory as merely historical in its analysis. While much focus has been placed on clearing/laying the ground for future analyses, recent work has considered ‘communisation in the present tense’ (Théorie Communiste 2011) and provided analyses of, among other things, recent riots across Europe (Endnotes 2013, chapter 4; Rocamadur 2014; Woland 2014), the Occupy movement (Mansoor et al. 2012; Rust Bunny Collective 2014), and the Arab Spring (Endnotes 2013, chapters 1 and 2). It has also been used a framework within which to extend theorizations surrounding the roles of gender (Endnotes 2013, chapter 3; Gonzalez 2011) and race (Chen 2013) in capitalism, as well as important discussions around ‘surplus populations’ (Endnotes 2011, chapter 2).

However, as Toscano (2011) notes, such ‘value-theoretical rigour’ is both the ‘promise’ and the ‘limitation’ of this analytic tendency. While lauding this return to explicit discussion of class, revolution and the abolition of commodities/value, he ruefully remarks that such refinement of revolutionary theory seems to have made revolutionary practice ‘inconceivable.’ The analytic tendency, given the extent of real subsumption communization, cannot be done by halves (Endnotes 2010, 94–95); it has to exist at the level of the totality. Therefore, if there is ‘no “outside” or “line of flight”’ (Noys 2011b, 10), it is hard to see how change can happen at all—especially given this tendency’s animosity towards prefigurative politics (discussed below). These concerns are not helped by a reticence to discuss how to enact communism through communization. Responses to such questions refer to the abstract notion of carrying out ‘communising measures’ (de Mattis 2014; Troploin n.d.), but specifics are rarely spelled out, instead typically being defined tautologically as ‘those measures which communise.’ As such, there is a cyclical element to much of the work, as communization can only be brought about by itself: ‘[C]ommunisation is thus not a form of prefigurative revolutionary practice of the sort that diverse anarchisms aspire to be, since it does not have any positive existence prior to a revolutionary situation’ (Endnotes 2011, 28). So, as Toscano (2011) puts it, communization faces the problem of happening now and never.

Similarly, there also seems to be a tension regarding the role of the proletariat. Although communization theory importantly acknowledges that ‘every affirmation of the class of labour becomes, by necessity, an affirmation of capital’ (Bernes 2011, 158), the proletariat remains central to all theorization—after all, it is only they/we who can negate themselves/ourselves. But given the supposed crisis in the workers’ identity/class relation, it is difficult to know who/what the agent of revolutionary change can/will be (Brassier 2014; Noys 2011b, 14). Seemingly it has to, yet cannot, be the proletariat, something which belies a latent workerism, precisely that against which the ideas were initially formulated (Bernes 2011, 172; Toscano 2014). Similarly, concerns remain surrounding the lack of agency and subjectivity, making the tendency at times alarmingly disempowering (Cunningham 2009; Derick Varn 2013b; Noys 2011b). Finally, no real consideration is given to the spatial/territorial, with processes seemingly happening on the head of a pin. Interestingly, despite having many of its own problems, the prefigurative communization tendency has a much greater engagement with geographical ideas. Therefore, to help elaborate on some of the issues above, this current will now be discussed.

PREFIGURATIVE COMMUNIZATION:
TIQQUN AND THE INVISIBLE COMMITTEE

This second communization tendency is best associated with the short-lived French journal Tiqqun and the associated group the Invisible Committee, perhaps most famous for their links with the Tarnac 9 and the texts The Coming Insurrection (2009) and The Call (2004). Across these various texts a very different communization theory is elaborated, grounded in activities that ‘enact communism now, within capitalism’ (Noys 2011b, 9). Drawing from a range of anarchist, insurrectionary, and post-autonomist theories, these visions of prefigurative communizing politics rely on the creation of communes through the withdrawal from capitalist activity. These communes are areas where non-/anti-capitalist logics and social relations can flourish: ‘[A]s we apprehend it, the process of instituting communism can only take the form of a collection of acts of communisation, of making common such- and-such space, such-and-such-machine, such-and-such-knowledge’ (Invisible Committee 2004, 66). Communes therefore need to then be expanded and joined up, challenging state control through this creation of new and alternate territories (Invisible Committee 2009, 107–9). Underpinning all of this is the need to create new, anonymous subjectivities, or what Noys refers to as a ‘clandestine or “invisible” identity of the militant that escapes capitalist control and capture.’ This new and elusive revolutionary subject is there- fore able to carry out spectacular forms of insurrection and subversion which can challenge and undermine the state and capital (2011b, 10). In unison, such communizing activities, carried out by groups of anonymous militants, can therefore bring about new forms of life and ways of being. Outside of France these ideas arguably found their most significant support in the 2009 wave of student protests that took place in California (Occupied California 2010).

At first glance the two currents of communization theory seem to have relatively little in common. In fact, such are the apparent differences that members of the analytic tendency have repeatedly distanced themselves from the prefigurative usage, claiming that in such usage the term is merely a ‘buzzword’ (e.g., Endnotes 2011). The extremely baroque and evocative writing style of prefigurative theorists such as Tiqqun is a world away from the more measured and rigorous approach found in the analytic communization theory of Endnotes, TC, and Sic. In addition, as opposed to the seemingly disempowering conclusions of the analytic tendency, texts coming from the prefigurative tendency such as The Call and The Coming Insurrection problematically find resistance and communization everywhere (cf. Cress- well 2002, 259)—while their examples of sharing and friendship are certainly necessary parts of communism, they are far from being sufficient in leading to an end of capitalism. As such, this prefigurative tendency is open to criticisms of naivety and its unfortunate propensity to imply that ‘the desire to establish different relations [through communization] suffices to start producing them.’ Further, such work has a habit of ‘eating its own tail’ and providing tautological and cyclical definitions of communizing measures (de Mattis 2011, 61–64)—something arguably shared by both tendencies.

Prefigurative communization is therefore open to the same criticisms as ‘lifestyle anarchism’ (cf. Bookchin 1995; Davis 2010). Further, this more optimistic depiction can overlook one of the most important insights of communization theory itself: the need to challenge the value-form (Intosh 2012). This is a real problem given that far from challenging capitalism, some purportedly communizing measures can actually end up supporting it (de Mattis 2011), something discussed below in more detail with regard to the commons. In many ways, therefore, this prefigurative tendency is the opposite of the analytic. It has a wide-ranging, vague style which focuses very much on singularities and possibilities, as opposed to more narrow consideration of the totality. However, if rather than conceiving of communization as a singular theory, it is understood as a ‘problematic’ (see Derick Varn 2013b; Noys 2011b), it is possible to draw out some important points from both the analytic and the prefigurative perspectives. And while there are of course tensions and debates surrounding the specificities of communization, it is argued that it can play a role as an extremely powerful heuristic when conceived accordingly. As such, anarchist geographical ideas can not only productively engage with many of ideas of communization but also potentially complement them and their limitations.

There is much to be commended in the way in which communization theories have sought to recalibrate debates around the simultaneous importance and limitations of class. While many of the conclusions can at first seem paradoxical and disempowering (Brassier 2014), they consistently emphasize capitalism’s dialectical nature (see Endnotes 2010, chapter 5). In this sense, the work is underpinned by a ‘traditional,’ yet ‘innovative,’ discourse of class (Derick Varn 2013b), one that with further work could be compatible with anarcha-feminists/queer-anarchist conceptions of ‘class-struggle intersectionality’ (e.g., Shannon and Rogue 2009; Rogue and Volcano 2012) and further extend work on the role of social reproduction (e.g., Endnotes 2013, chapter 3; cf. Federici 2012). It is also deeply in opposition to any form of transitional period, emphasizing that ends and means must be commensurate. As discussed, in communization theory there is a difference in opinion regarding the efficacy and desirability of prefiguration, but the insistence that communism can only be reached through communization resonates with anarchist thought (Collective Action 2012)—even if certain proponents of communization dispute this (e.g., Endnotes 2008, chapter 1). But most important, as Toscano (2011, 98–99) notes, despite some of the issues discussed above, contemporary communist—and we argue anarchist—thought should engage with communization theory for a number of reasons:

To have forcefully emphasized and rigorously investigated two indispensable elements of communist theory—the character of capitalism as a system of abstract domination based on the value-form and the vision of communism as the revolutionary self-abolition of the proletariat—is a great credit to communisation theory. That it has tried to think these elements in their unity, and to do so with an attention to the present possibilities of emancipation, as well as its historical trajectory, makes it a position worth engaging with for anyone preoccupied with the question of communism as a contemporary one.

By acknowledging the benefits of both analytical communization’s reflections on the value form and class structure and prefigurative communization’s engagements with enacting communism now, we wish to develop an insightful combination of communization and anarchism. This will be achieved by exploring how communization could be carried out, arguing that in order for communization theory to have any purchase it needs to properly consider its spatiality. This is something that we feel anarchist spatial approaches are particularly well placed to do.

UNDERSTANDING COMMUNIZATION SPATIALLY
The above section has engaged with some of the key debates of communization theory, demonstrating their breadth across the analytic and prefigurative communization tendencies. However, the focus of this chapter is not communization theory per se, in that we are not aiming to provide a complete exposition and critique of communization. Instead, we recognize the number of insightful and useful issues raised by communization theories—something even acknowledged by many of its critics (see Noys 2011a)—and engage with its powerful potential. We therefore wish to reflect on how communization might be enacted spatially. While much analysis from the analytic tendency has an explicit temporal focus—in terms of its historical analysis and insistence that communization cannot happen after the revolution, instead being woven into its very fabric—it is alarmingly aspatial. Given the tendency’s proclivity to abstracted, rigorous critique of political economy, as well as its reticence in providing practical examples of communization’s enaction, this is perhaps unsurprising. Nevertheless, to be anything more than a heuristic, communization has to take such considerations seriously because, as will be argued, hegemonic conceptions of space and territory are incompatible with the project, given that they (re)produce capitalism and the state, and underpin the commodity and value-form. On the other hand, as we shall see, while the prefigurative tendency touches much more on spatiality, it can fail to provide the analytical rigour that is seen as communization’s strongest point.

Geographers (and some non-geographers) have long recognized that capitalism and anti-capitalist resistance are inherently spatial processes (e.g., Harvey 1982; Lefebvre 1991). However, as Soja (1971, 9) notes, ‘conventional Western perspectives on spatial organization are powerfully shaped by the concept of property, in which pieces of territory are viewed as “commodities” capable of being bought, sold, or exchanged at the market place.’ More recently, mainstream work on territory as a form of political space has emphasized its links to value and sovereignty (Elden 2010, 2013)—although, as discussed below, much important work challenged these ideas. Therefore, predominant spatial understandings are typically linked to the state, the commodity form, property, and exchange value, all of which are anathema to communization and anarchism. Accordingly, such spatialities are central to the (re)production of capitalism (Reyes and Kaufman 2011), often with seeming neutrality (Delaney 2005). Armed with such capitalist understandings of space and territory, communization would therefore be frustrated. Not only do these spatial relationships naturalize/normalize precisely those things communization is fighting against, but under such understandings space and territory are also commodities themselves, and in fact a necessary precondition for the emergence of capitalism. Accordingly, it is necessary to outline an alternative spatial understanding that is compatible with communization and, more generally, anarchist ideas.

Within the recent (re)turn to anarchist geographies, particular focus has been placed on radical understandings of space which emphasize how it can be created from the bottom up, in a non-hierarchical, horizontal manner (e.g., Barker and Pickerill 2012; Ince 2012; Newman 2011; Springer 2012, 2013, 2014b). Understanding space, and its relationship with (anti)capitalist social relations, is therefore crucial to any engagements with communization. In particular, it is possible to highlight these radical approaches towards space in the context of understandings of territory in Latin America which are grounded in communal use value, eschewing property, exchange value, and territory as a commodity (e.g., Porto-Gonçalves 2001; Surrallés and Garcías Hierro 2005; Escobar 2008; Wainwright 2008; Hennessy 2012). As Zibechi puts it:

Latin American social movements . . . advance a new organization of geo- graphic space, in which new practices and social relations emerge. They see land as more than a means of production, thereby going beyond a narrow economist conception of it. Territory is the space in which to build a new social organization collectively, where new subjects take shape and materially and symbolically appropriate their space. (2012, 18–19)

Zibechi highlights the way in which prefigurative politics are enacted spatially to create radical territories—something which we will argue combines both the analytic and the prefigurative tendencies of communization. The ideas of ‘subaltern territory’ (see Stratta and Barrera 2009) that Zibechi mentions are in contrast to capitalistic spatial understandings, and it is only with the former theorization that ideas of communization could become enacted.

Spatializing Anarchism and the Commons

The radical understandings of space that have been briefly mentioned above find a resonance with spatial manifestations of ‘the commons’ (e.g., Caffentzis 2010; De Angelis 2007, 2010; Hoedemækers et al. 2012; Midnight Notes Collective and Friends 2008; Neill et al. 1996; Roggero 2010) and how resistance can emerge from ‘cracks’ in capitalism (Holloway 2010). While autonomist Marxists have adopted these ideas most frequently, recent work has started to develop explicitly anarchist understandings of ‘the commons’ (e.g., Collective Autonomy Research Group 2014; Springer 2014b) and has even connected with earlier anarchist traditions (Shantz 2013; Springer 2013). However, while commons are a necessity for any form of (anarchist) communist society (Draper 2014; Linebaugh 2014), they are not inherently anti-capitalist (see De Angelis 2013, 2014; De Angelis and Harvie 2014), and it is therefore important to differentiate between different types of commons, and ensure that those developed are anti-capitalist (Caffentzis 2010; Roggero 2010).

Caffentzis and Federici define the anti-capitalist commons as ‘autonomous spaces from which to reclaim control over the conditions of our reproduction, and . . . bases from which to counter the processes of enclosure and increasingly disentangle our lives from the market and the state’ (2014, 101). However, even large, anti-state territories such as those controlled by the Zapatistas inevitably overlap and are in tension with capitalist territorial claims (Reyes and Kaufman 2011). Therefore, examples of anti-capitalist commons such as temporary autonomous zones need to be read with caution and through a class-sensitive lens if they are to realize any radical potential and not lapse into an insular form of ‘dropping out’ (Bookchin 1995). A critical understanding of space is therefore fundamental to class struggle/ communization, and vice versa. Unfortunately, ideas of ‘commonism’ which emphasize the need to circulate struggle through the expansion of commons (see Dyer-Witheford 2006, 2007) do not always engage with these limitations, and they can fail to demonstrate how the commons can fundamentally challenge the value-form (see Neary and Winn 2012). As with the debates surrounding prefigurative communization, not engaging with value theory is therefore a fundamental problem in these analyses.

In addition, discussion around ‘the commons’ can be alarmingly backwards looking and parochial, invoking bucolic images of a halcyon, pre-enclosure Britain (Martel 2014), something that has led to critcism of the idea from an analytical communization standpoint (Williams 2011). However, in order to combine the commons with communization (commonization) it is important to recognize work showing that the emergence of the commons was global and radical, with explicit links to (proto) class struggle (e.g., Linebaugh 2014; Roggero 2010). Crucially, then, it should not be a case of returning to the commons but instead creating them (Caffentzis and Federici 2014). The commons, like communization, are something to be produced, not reached. Therefore, we feel that communization requires not only a radical understanding of space but also the creation of the commons— it must be a form of commonization.

Towards Commonization

As mentioned, most communization theory fails to properly engage with any form of space, let alone an anarchist/anti-capitalist approach. Therefore, following our engagement with the commons, we wish to develop a theory that engages with these spatialities in producing communization: commonization. In so doing, following an understanding of ‘subaltern territory,’ we want to engage with the potential to explore and claim these spaces when producing communization. However, before doing this it is important to focus briefly on the attempts to spatialize/territorialize communization theory that can be found in some of the prefigurative tendency, demonstrating that, while it is important not to fall into the aforementioned trap of conflating desire/intention with outcome (de Mattis 2011), Galloway (2011, 247), it is wrong to assert that the above quote (and communization more generally) has nothing to do with a reimagining of space, as, although this alone is clearly not sufficient, as has been argued, it is necessary.

The Coming Insurrection, for example, has a section entitled ‘Create territories. Multiply zones of opacity’:

Today’s territory is the product of many centuries of police operations. People have been pushed out of their fields, then their streets, then their neighbourhoods, and finally from the hallways of their buildings, in the demented hope of containing all life between the four sweating walls of privacy. The territorial question isn’t the same for us as it is for the state. For us it’s not about possessing territory. Rather, it’s a matter of increasing the density of the communes, of circulation, and of solidarities to the point that the territory becomes unreadable, opaque to all authority. We don’t want to occupy the territory, we want to be the territory.

Every practice brings a territory into existence—a dealing territory, or a hunting territory; a territory of child’s play, of lovers, of a riot; a territory of farmers, ornithologists, or flaneurs. The rule is simple: The more territories there are superimposed on a given zone, the more circulation there is between them, the harder it will be for power to get a handle on them. Bistros, print shops, sports facilities, wastelands, second-hand book stalls, building rooftops, improvised street markets, kebab shops and garages can all easily be used for purposes other than their official ones if enough complicities come together in them. Local self-organization superimposes its own geography over the state cartography, scrambling and blurring it: it produces its own secession. (Invisible Committee 2009, 107–9)

The passage highlights that ‘[t]he territorial question isn’t the same for us as it is for the state,’ emphasizing how different spatial understandings are employed by different groups, and to different ends, and echoing Rancière’s ideas of ‘police’ as rigid control and striation of socio-spatial order (Rancière 2006, 2010; see also Stavrides 2010). This is seen elsewhere in the text where discussion of state response to unrest is centred on not only ‘police surveillance of . . . territory’ but also the need for it to be ‘partitioned into ever more restricted zones’ in order for it to be controlled and defused (Invisible Committee 2009, 27). Resistance therefore needs to ‘liberate territory from police occupation’ (ibid., 126). This reinforces the important idea that territory is not pre-given, instead constructed and contested, the exact nature of which is intimately linked to the type of politics that is being enacted. Radical territory’s dynamic and processual nature is demonstrated in the discussion of how ‘[e]very practice brings a territory into existence.’ Of course, such a claim can lead to the banality of territory and space. The important point is not simply that all things are territorial but also that there is a need to ask what types of territory and territorializing activities are compatible with communization.

However, the most interesting points are contained in the claims that struggle (and thus communization) is ‘not about possessing territory’ but instead ‘increasing the density of the communes’ to the point that we can ‘be the territory.’ With obvious allusions to autonomist Marxist ideas of (geographical) ‘circulation of struggle’ (see Cleaver 2004; Dyer-Witheford 2008; Marks 2012; Wright 2002), this quote reinforces the idea that, unlike state or capitalist understandings of territory, a sole focus on ownership of territory is problematic (Walia 2013). But beyond this, it also makes the important point that struggles are territorial in a number of ways. That is, struggles do not only take place in territory but also for, through, over, and because of territory. Territory both shapes and is shaped by struggle; it is both medium and agent (see Stavrides 2010). Or, as the Invisible Committee put it in typically romantic style, ‘[u]rban space is more than just the theatre of confrontation, it is also the means’ (2009, 58). These all demonstrate the necessity to engage with how and what is being produced in a space, and how this relates to communization.

Communization is incompatible with dominant spatial understandings, as space and territory become commodities themselves that play a central role in the (re)production of capitalism. Processes of de-commodification that can start to challenge the value-form can therefore only take place in de-commodified spaces and territories. Communization must therefore be commonization, with the production of new spaces and territories being an integral part of its process. But in order for communization to move beyond the level of an immanent, ultra-left critique—however powerful it may be—such de- commodified territories need to be created and maintained, something much more difficult in practice than theory. In order to develop this idea we now focus on Argentine struggles.

ARGENTINA: COMMONIZATION IN PRACTICE?

In the wake of its 2001 economic crisis Argentina has come to represent something of a ‘political laboratory’ for many on the left (Colectivo Situaciones 2002, 2014). With, among other things, hundreds of occupied and worker-run enterprises (Lavaca 2007), horizontally organized neighbourhood assemblies (Sitrin 2006), and the unemployed workers’ movements that emerged from the piqueteros (Chatterton 2005; MTD Solano and Colectivo Situaciones 2002). These projects have been motivated by a wide range of prefigurative, anti-state, and anti-capitalist resistance (Sitrin 2012). However, while undoubtedly inspiring and in many situations incredibly effective (Souza 2006), the question here is: What can these movements tell us about the possibilities of communization/commonization?

Unsurprisingly, given the scale and diversity of the resistance, much communization inspired writing has engaged with examples from Argentina. For instance, in The Coming Insurrection admiration is expressed towards the piqueteros because they ‘collectively extort a sort of local welfare conditioned by a few hours of work; [they] don’t clock their hours, [but] put their benefits in common and acquire clothing workshops, a bakery, putting in place the gardens that they need’ (2009, 103). These movements are seen to be perfect exemplars of ‘commune creators,’ carrying out what is seen as the necessarily prefigurative politics of communization and commonization.

However, not all of the reflections on these prefigurative projects identify them as examples of communization in practice. An example of these tensions is the occupied factory movement, which consistently came up against issues of cooptation and self-exploitation (Atzeni and Ghigliani 2007; Ranis 2005). From the analytic tendency Dauvé and Nesic have even argued that in many situations the occupation movement was not about transforming capitalism but instead ‘a means of survival’ (2008, 131). Further, while examples of self-management immediately face the limitations of organizing as a class against itself, similar concerns can be raised around the unemployed workers’ movements, where refusal to work still represents an affirmation of the workers’ identity (cf. Tronti 1980). However, after acknowledging the ‘extremely fragmentary responses’ of Argentine social movements with regard to the realization of communization, Théorie Communiste note that ‘the most interesting [of these responses] is without doubt . . . [their] territorial organisation’ (2011, 57). Therefore, it is these attempts at spatial-communization (commonization) that should be focused on.

Recent work has explored the way in which social movements, particularly in Buenos Aires’ urban periphery, have moved away from their identity as ‘unemployed workers,’ instead focusing on organizing territorially in their neighbourhoods (see Mason-Deese 2012). Although certain groups had long recognized the limitations of the piqueteros movement (MTD Solano and Colectivo Situaciones 2002), this territorial shift has become more common and is underpinned by the understandings of territory expressed above (see Stratta and Barrera 2009; Zibechi 2012). As said, for these groups territory is not simply something to be struggled over, but its re-creation and reimagining fundamentally underpins their activity—it is both medium and agent— leading to a rise in ‘territorial subjectivities.’

This important, morphogenetic relationship between territory and political struggle was emphasized in a conversation with one such group, the MTD Oscar Barrios (see Clare 2015). Their analysis of different types of territory and the role these types play in different political projects bears quoting at length:

For us [subaltern] territory plays a central role in the construction of autogestive power at this particular juncture . . . [Neoliberal] territory is controlled by a certain type of power which is trying to impose a particular world view, but this is not imposed without resistance. Territorial disputes are not only related to injustices that stem from unemployment, housing, health, social resources, ecological deterioration, and so on, but these disputes are also to do with certain forms of social relations, values, and symbols.

While the dominant neoliberal, capitalist territoriality is configured in a particular form of territory . . . alternative forms of territory have become a central terrain of political construction, and are increasingly significant and important spaces in the lives of much of the population, [and] different territorial constructions can help articulate new forms of the social, the political, the economic, and the cultural.

These sorts of [subaltern] territorial organisations build, inhabit, found, [and] struggle over significant spaces . . . [Subaltern territories] are produced by everyday class struggles, but they are complex spaces which are both constructed by and help generate new identities, senses of belonging, and distinctive forms of sociability grounded in autonomy and autogestión. Thus as workers, the young, women, people of colour, the LGBTQ community, the elderly, the marginalised, the excluded, indigenous people, migrants, etc. . . . we are building a ‘territorial subject’ that is open and varied, and constructs itself through struggle against the [dominant] territorial system.

As discussed above, dominant neoliberal understandings of territory are therefore incompatible with anti-capitalist projects more broadly—let alone communization in particular. But, in addition to subaltern territorial politics being compatible with an anti-capitalist future, they can also help pave the way for rich, diverse and intersectional struggles, as mentioned in the quote above.

Of course, this does not mean that those involved with territorial struggles have somehow escaped the class relationship, simply that actions are no longer grounded solely in affirmation of the workers’ identity. Organizing in this neighbourhood fashion therefore meant that the focus was not building workers’ power but instead attending to people’s needs and requirements— something emphasized by Argentine movements’ understanding of the neighbourhood as the new factory (Mason-Deese 2012). Exchange value is jettisoned as production takes on a different meaning underpinned by communal use value, and therefore ‘the determinations of the proletariat as a class of this society (i.e. property, exchange, the division of labour, the relation between men and women . . .) . . . [are] effectively undermined by the way productive activities [are] undertaken [and it] is thus that the revolution as communisation becomes credible’ (Théorie Communiste 2011, 49). This analysis from the analytic tendency therefore provides a spatial/territorial example which joins together rigorous value critique with prefigurative ends and means.

Reinforcing the need for an understanding of commonization, such activities not only take place in but also help produce de-commodified territories (see Sitrin and Azzellini 2014)—although it is necessary to be cautious about the extent to which these territories can really be classed as ‘free territories.’ This spatial understanding can therefore underpin broader processes of de-commodification, such as those which Zibechi describes taking place across certain neighbourhood-run enterprises (2012, 253–57). These projects can be seen to be building collective resources, or commons, such as in the example of a community bakery in the neighbourhood of Barracas, through which Zibechi explores how these collective processes have also developed through processes creating de-alienated labour through a refusal to produce commodities: ‘[T]he duality of the commodity, as carrier of use value and exchange value has been—or rather, is being—deconstructed in favour of use value, or, products that are non-commodities’ (ibid., 254). Again, like the discussion from TC, this demonstrates serious engagement with the challenge of understanding rigorous value critiques in tandem with prefigurative action. Returning to the analytic tendency, Bernes’s (2013) work on anti-capitalist, ‘counter logistics’ and communization provides opportunities to ‘scale up’ such de-commodification and commonization.

For instance, one of the author’s research focuses on processes of neighbourhood de-commodification and territorial organizing, including terrains that have not traditionally been thought of as political in Argentina, such as neighbourhood struggles in Mercado Bonpland in Palermo, Buenos Aires (Habermehl 2015). This neighbourhood reclaimed retail market operates as a connection point for different projects of autogestión, from worker-reclaimed factories to small family producers and cooperatives, yet it also operates as a market in a wealthy barrio of Buenos Aires. The aim of this market is consequently to challenge the process of creating value, from production to exchange. The challenge of this is to address each stage of the production process in order to regain worker control. Yet in so doing the organization is grounded in the difficulties of everyday organizing, how to sustain oneself despite living within capitalism. Territorially the space has been reclaimed for the neighbourhood; yet who conceives themselves as (or is perceived to be) a neighbour is dependent on their organizational history, class, and political identities (Colectivo Situaciones 2002; Simbiosis Cultural 2011). Thus Mercado Bonpland highlights the need to connect the multiple neighbourhood approaches and tactics that bridge divides between politics of subsistence and de-commodification. As a neighbourhood market space reclaimed for autogestión, this demonstrates the possibilities in connecting multiple autogestive networks. These complexities highlight the potential in engaging in the production of de-commodified territories, while the everyday difficulties the market faces demonstrate how this is not a simple process. Nevertheless, the example of the Mercado Bonpland not only begins to demonstrate how the processes Zibechi describes in the paragraph above could begin to be ‘scaled up’ but also indicates that if communization’s potential can possibly be realized, it has to be alongside a wholesale re-imagination and re-enactment of territory. To phrase it simply, it must be understood as a form of commonization.

These examples highlight the importance of these Argentine cases as examples of struggles which can begin to challenge the value-form, and attempt to side-step the limits of the class relation. To this end they can be seen as at the very least examples of communist/communizing measures (de Mattis 2014), if not ‘embryonic’ forms of communization (B.L. 2011, 160; Holloway 2012). But given the inherent and concurrent spatial element to these struggles (see Trigona 2014), they are better understood as examples of commonization that can help produce a theoretically rigorous and engaged politics.

CONCLUSIONS

This chapter has helped create a ‘messier’ communization theory (Derick Varn 2013a) and contributed to debates surrounding the various currents/ tendencies and their discontents (see Noys 2011a). However, instead of necessarily debating communization theory per se, we have tried to bring into contact analytic and prefigurative communization tendencies. Whilst not wanting to create an artificial divide, it is important to recognize the two predominant traits in communization theory and their respective strengths and weaknesses. So while the analytic tendency has an important value- theoretical rigour, it often lacks real world examples, and by the same token, although prefigurative communization theory is arguably closer linked to contemporary struggle, such important insights can drop out. In bringing analytic and prefigurative communization theory into dialogue, we aim to highlight the potential benefit of both approaches but show that they must be understood in specific spatialized/territorialized contexts. It has been shown that anarchist spatial approaches are well suited to this and have been manifested in Latin American understandings of territory that share similarities with ideas of ‘the commons.’ It can therefore be understood as commonization, where space and territory are de-commodified in order to facilitate the process of communization. While the insights afforded by anarchist geographies can complement work from communization theory, we also feel that anarchist geographies can productively engage with communization theory. The central tenets of analytical and prefigurative communization that were explored in earlier sections should underpin anarchist activity and theory, especially given the shared commitment to consistency between ends and means. This chapter is therefore also part of a move to broaden the focus of the welcome (re)turn to anarchist geographies (e.g., Clough 2014) and seek to enrich debates by moving them out of their comfort zones.

However, despite the final section giving some potential examples of commonization in practice, this is very much a work on progress—it is a first step towards a theory of commonization. Nevertheless, while admittedly rudimentary and nascent, we believe the ideas expressed here deserve further exploration, as do the activities of such communizing/commonizing social movements in Argentina and beyond. Therefore, more work needs to take place into the nature of radical approaches to space and territory, and the struggles that are associated with these. In particular, greater focus needs to be placed on issues surrounding the role of power immanent to alternative spaces and territories, the possibilities and limitations of a relational understanding of territory, and how this affects the ability to extend processes of commonization. Whether or not communization can ever be anything more than a problematic is still up for debate, but understanding it through the form of commonization is useful for both anarchist theory and practice.

REFERENCES
Astarian, B. 2009. Communization as a Way Out of the Crisis. http://libcom.org/library/communization-way-out-crisis-bruno-astarian
Åström, P. 2011. Crisis and Communisation. Sic: International Journal for Communisation 1. Atzeni, M., & Ghigliani, P. 2007. Labour Process and Decision-Making in Factories under
Workers’ Self-Management: Empirical Evidence from Argentina. Work, Employment & Society 21: 653–71.
B.L. 2011. The Suspended Step of Communisation. Sic: International Journal for Communisa- tion 1: 147–69.
Barker, A. J., & Pickerill, J. 2012. Radicalizing Relationships to and through Shared Geogra- phies: Why Anarchists Need to Understand Indigenous Connections to Land and Place. Antipode 44(5): 1705–25.
Bernes, J. 2011. The Double Barricade and the Glass Floor. In B. Noys (ed.), Communization and its Discontents: Contestation, Critique, and Contemporary Struggles. Brooklyn, NY: Minor Compositions.
———. 2013. Logistics, Counterlogistics and the Communist Project. Endnotes 3: 172–201. Bookchin, M. 1995. Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: The Unbridgeable Chasm.
Edinburgh: AK Press.
Brassier, R. 2014. Wandering Abstraction. Mute: http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/wandering-abstraction.
Brown, B. 2013. On ‘Communisation’: A Response to Sic No. 1. http://www.notbored.org/sic.pdf: Not Bored.
Caffentzis, G. 2010. The Future of ‘The Commons’: Neoliberalism’s ‘Plan B’ or the Original Disaccumulation of Capital? New Formations 69: 23–41.
Caffentzis, G., & Federici, S. 2014. Commons Against and Beyond Capitalism. Community Development Journal 49:i92–i105.
Chatterton, P. 2005. Making Autonomous Geographies: Argentina’s Popular Uprising and the ‘Movimiento de Trabajadores Desocupados’ (Unemployed Workers Movement). Geoforum 36: 545–61.
Chen, C. 2013. The Limit Point of Capitalist and Equality. Endnotes 3: 202–23.
Clare, N. 2015. Territory, Intersectionality and Class Composition: ‘Neighbouring Migrants’ in Buenos Aires. PhD Thesis. Department of Geography, University of Sheffield.
Cleaver, H. 2004. From Operaismo to ‘Autonomist Marxism’: A Response. Austin: University of Texas.
Clough, N. 2014. Praxis, Ontology, and the Pursuit of an Anarcho-Geography. Dialogues in Human Geography 4: 293–96.
Clough, N., & Blumberg, R. 2012. Toward Anarchist and Autonomist Marxist Geographies. ACME 11: 335–51.
Colectivo Situaciones. 2002. 19 & 20: Notes for a New Social Protagonism. New York: Minor Compositions.
———. 2014. Crisis, Governmentality and New Social Conflict: Argentina as a Laboratory. ephemera 14: 395–409.
Collective Action. 2012. Terrain for an Encounter: Social Anarchism and Communisation. http://libcom.org/blog/terrain-encounter-social-anarchism-communisation-08112012.
Collective Autonomy Research Group. 2014. The Anarchist Commons. ephemera 14: 879–900.
Cooper, D. 2014. Everyday Utopias: The Conceptual Life of Promising Spaces. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Cresswell, T. 2002. Falling Down: Resistance as Diagnostic. In R. Paddison, C. Philo, P. Routledge, and J. Sharp (eds.), Entanglements of Power: Geographies of Domination/Resis- tance. London: Routledge.
Cunningham, J. 2009. Invisible Politics—An Introduction to Contemporary Communisation.
Mute 2.
Dauvé, G., & Nesic, K. 2008. Love of Labour? Love of Labour Lost. Endnotes 1: 104–53.
Davis, L. 2010. Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unhelpful Dichotomy. Anarchist Studies 18.
De Angelis, M. 2007. The Beginning of History: Value Struggles and Global Capital. London: Pluto Press.
———. 2010. The Production of Commons and the ‘Explosion’ of the Middle Class. Antipode
42: 954–77.
———. 2013. Does Capital need a Commons Fix? ephemera 13: 603–15.
———. 2014. Social Revolution and the Commons. South Atlantic Quarterly 113: 299–311. De Angelis, M., & Harvie, D. 2014. The Commons. In M. Parker, G. Cheney, V. Fournier, and
C. Land (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Alternative Organization. Abingdon: Rout- ledge.
de Mattis, L. 2011. Reflections on the Call. In B. Noys (ed.), Communization and Its Discon- tents: Contestation, Critique, and Contemporary Struggles. Brooklyn, NY: Minor Composi- tions.
———. Communist Measures. Sic: International Journal for Communisation 2: 14–29. Delaney, D. 2005. Territory: A Short Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Dell’agnese, E. 2013. The Political Challenge of Relational Territory. In D. Featherstone and
J. Painter (eds.), Spatial Politics: Essays for Doreen Massey. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
Derick Varn, C. 2013a. The Main Currents of Communization: Interview With Benjamin Noys (online). The North Star. Available at http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=9042 (accessed De- cember 1, 2015).
———. 2013b. Occupation and/or Communization? Daniel Spaulding on Communization, Occupy, and the Spectre of Aesthetics (Online). The North Star. Available at http:// www.thenorthstar.info/?p=9719 (accessed December 1, 2015).
Draper, S. 2014. Within the Horizon of an Actuality: The State and the Commons in the Eternal Return of Communism. South Atlantic Quarterly 113: 807–20.
Dyer-Witheford, N. 2006. Species Being and the New Commonism: Notes on an Interrupted Cycle of Struggle. The Commoner 11.
———. 2007. Commonism. Turbulence 1.
———. 2008. For a Compositional Analysis of the Multitude. In W. Bonefeld (ed.), Subverting the Present, Imagining the Future: Insurrection, Movement, Commons. New York: Autono- media.
Elden, S. 2010. Land, Terrain, Territory. Progress in Human Geography 34: 799–817.
———. 2013. The Birth of Territory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Endnotes. 2008. Endnotes 1: Preliminary Materials for a Balance Sheet of the Twentieth Century. Endnotes 1.
Endnotes. 2010. Endnotes 2: Misery and the Value Form. Endnotes 2.
Endnotes. 2011. What Are We to Do? In B. Noys (ed.), Communization and Its Discontents: Contestation, Critique, and Contemporary Struggles. Brooklyn, NY: Minor Compositions.
Endnotes. 2013. Endnotes 3: Gender, Race, Class and Other Misfortunes. Endnotes 3.
Escobar, A. 2008. Territories of Difference: Place, Movements, Life, Redes. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Federici, S. 2012. Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle.
Oakland, CA: PM Press.
Galloway, A. R. 2011. Black Box, Black Bloc. In B. Noys (ed.), Communization and Its Discontents: Contestation, Critique, and Contemporary Struggles. Brooklyn, NY: Minor Compositions.
Gibson, K. 2014. Thinking around What a Radical Geography ‘Must Be.’ Dialogues in Human Geography 4: 283–87.
Gonzalez, M. A. 2011. Communization and the Abolition of Gender. In B. Noys (ed.), Commu- nization and Its Discontents: Contestation, Critique, and Contemporary Struggles. Brook- lyn, NY: Minor Compositions.
Habermehl, 2015. Antagonism and Possibility In-Aganist-and-Beyond Crisis: Organising Eve- ryday Life in Mercado Bonpland, Buenos Aires. PhD Thesis. Department of Geography, University of Leeds.
Harvey, D. 1982. The Limits to Capital. London: Blackwell.
Hennessy, L. A. 2012. Re-Placing Indigenous Territory: Villagization and the Transformation of Amerindian Environments Under ‘Cooperative Socialism’ in Guyana. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103: 1242–65.
Hoedemækers, C., Loacker, B., & Pedersen, M. 2012. The Commons and Their Im/possibil- ities. ephemera: theory & politics in organization 12: 378–85.
Holloway, J. 2005. Change the World Without Taking Power. London: Pluto Press.
———. 2010. Crack Capitalism. London: Pluto Press.
———. 2012. Variations on Different Themes: A Response. Journal of Classical Sociology
12: 332–48.
Ince, A. 2012. In the Shell of the Old: Anarchist Geographies of Territorialisation. Antipode
44(5): 1605–24.
———. 2014. The Shape of Geography to Come. Dialogues in Human Geography 4: 276–82. Intosh, M. 2012. Communization Theory and the Abolition of the Value-Form. Internationalist
Persepctive: 11–16.
The Invisible Committee. 2004. The Call.
———. 2009. The Coming Insurrection. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e).
Lavaca 2007. Sin Patrón: Stories from Argentina’s Worker-Run Factories. Chicago: Haymar- ket Books.
Lefebvre, H. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
Linebaugh, P. 2014. Stop, Thief! The Commons, Enclosures, and Resistance. Oakland, CA: PM Press.
Mansoor, J., Marcus, D., & Spaulding, D. 2012. Occupy Response. October 48–50.
Marks, B. 2012. Autonomist Marxist Theory and Practice in the Current Crisis. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 11: 467–91.
Martel, J. 2014. Division Is Common. South Atlantic Quarterly 113: 701–11.
Mason-Deese, L. 2012. The Neighbourhood Is the New Factory. Viewpoint Magazine. Midnight Notes Collective and Friends. 2008. Promissory Notes: From Crisis to Commons.
New York: Midnight Notes.
MTD Solano and Colectivo Situaciones 2002. La hipótesis 891. Más allá de los piquetes.
Buenos Aires: Ediciones de mano en mano.
Mudu, P. 2012. At the Intersection of Anarchists and Autonomists: Autogestioni and Centri Sociali. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 11: 413–38.
Neary, M., & Winn, J. 2012. Open Education: Common(s), Commonism and the New Com- mon Wealth. ephemera: theory & politics in organization 12.
Negri, A. 1991. The Savage Anomaly: The Power of Spinoza’s Metaphysics and Politics.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Neill, M., Caffentzis, G., & Machete, J. 1996. Toward the New Commons: Working Class Strategies and the Zapatistas. New York: Midnight Notes Collective.
Newman, S. 2011. Postanarchism and Space: Revolutionary Fantasies and Autonomous Zones.
Planning Theory 10: 344–65.
Novak, P. 2011. The Flexible Territoriality of Borders. Geopolitics 16: 741–67.
Noys, B. (ed.). 2011a. Communization and Its Discontents: Contestation, Critique, and Con- temporary Struggles. Brooklyn, NY: Minor Compositions.
———. 2011b. The Fabric of Struggles. In B. Noys (ed.), Communization and Its Discontents: Contestation, Critique, and Contemporary Struggles. Brooklyn, NY: Minor Compositions.
Occupied California. 2010. After the Fall: Communiqués from Occupied California. http:// libcom.org/files/afterthefall_communiques.pdf.
Porto-Gonçalves, C. W. 2001. Geo-grafías: Movimientos sociales, nuevas territorialidades y sustentabilidad. México City, Siglo Veintiuno Editores.
Purcell, M. 2012. Gramsci Is Not Dead: For a ‘Both/And’ Approach to Radical Geography.
ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 11: 512–24.
R.S. 2011. The Present Moment. Sic: International Journal for Communisation 1: 95–143. Rancière, J. 2006. The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible. London: Continuum.
———. 2010. Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics. London: Continuum.
Ranis, P. 2005. Argentina’s Worker-Occupied Factories and Enterprises. Socialism and De- mocracy 19: 93–115.
Reyes, A., & Kaufman, M. 2011. Sovereignty, Indigeneity, Territory: Zapatista Autonomy and the New Practices of Decolonization. South Atlantic Quarterly 110: 505–25.
Rocamadur 2014. The Feral Underclass Hits the Street. Sic: International Journal for Com- munisation 2: 94–128.
Roggero, G. 2010. Five Theses on the Common. Rethinking Marxism 22: 357–73.
Rogue, J., & Volcano, A. 2012. Insurrections at the Intersections: Feminism, Intersectionality and Anarchism. In D. S. Collective (ed.), Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-feminist Reader. Oakland, CA: AK Press.
Rust Bunny Collective. 2014. On the Oakland Commune: Under the Riot Gear. Sic: Interna- tional Journal for Communisation 2: 130–77.
Screamin’ Alice. 2011. On the Periodisation of the Capitalist Class Relation. Sic: International Journal for Communisation 1: 171–96.
Shannon, D., & Rogue, J. 2009. Refusing to Wait: Anarchism and Intersectionality. Fordsburg, South Africa: Zabalaza Books.
Shantz, J. 2013. Commonist Tendencies: Mutual Aid Beyond Communism. Brooklyn, NY: Punctum Books.
Sic. 2011. Sic no. 1. Sic: International Journal for Communisation 1.
Simbiosis Cultural, 2011. Vecinocracia: (Re)tomando la ciudad. Taller Hacer Ciudad. Buenos Aires: Tinta Limón.
Sitrin, M. 2006. Horizontalism: Voices of Popular Power in Argentina. Oakland, CA: AK Press.
———. 2012. Everyday Revolutions: Horizontalism and Autonomy in Argentina. London: Zed Books.
Sitrin, M., & Azzellini, D. 2014. They Can’t Represent Us! Reinventing Democracy from Greece to Occupy. London, New York: Verso.
Soja, E. W. 1971. The Political Organization of Space. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers.
Souza, M. L. de. 2006. Together with the State, Despite the State, Against the State: Social Movements as ‘Critical Urban Planning’ Agents. City 10(3): 327–42.
Springer, S. 2013. Anarchism and Geography: A Brief Genealogy of Anarchist Geographies.
Geography Compass 7: 46–60.
———. 2014a. For Anarcho-Geography! Or, Bare-Knuckle Boxing as the World Burns. Di- alogues in Human Geography 4: 297–310.
———. 2014b. Human Geography without Hierarchy. Progress in Human Geography 38: 402–19.
———. 2014c. Why a Radical Geography Must Be Anarchist. Dialogues in Human Geogra- phy 4: 249–70.
Stavrides, S. 2010. Towards the City of Thresholds. Trento: Professional Dreamers.
Stratta, F., & Barrera, M. 2009. El Tizón Encendido: Protesta Social, Conflicto y Territorio en la Argentina de la Posdictadura. Buenos Aires: Editorial El Colectivo.
Surrallés, A., & Garcías Hierro, P. (eds.). 2005. The Land Within: Indigenous Territory and Perception of Environment. Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.
Théorie Communiste 2011. Communization in the Present Tense. In B. Noys (ed.), Commu- nization and Its Discontents: Contestation, Critique, and Contemporary Struggles. Brook- lyn, NY: Minor Compositions.
Toscano, A. 2011. Now and Never. In B. Noys (ed.), Communization and Its Discontents: Contestation, Critique, and Contemporary Struggles. Brooklyn, NY: Minor Compositions.
———. 2014. Lineaments of the Logistical State. Viewpoint Magazine 4.
Trigona, M. 2014. Argentina’s Movements Against Austerity and the Politics of Space. In
D. Shannon (ed.), The End of the World as We Know It? Crisis, Resistance, and the Age of Austerity. Oakland, CA: AK Press.
Tronti, M. 1980. The Strategy of Refusal. In S. Lotringer and C. Marazzi (eds.), Autonomia: Post-political Politics. Boston: Semiotext(e).
Troploin. n.d. Communisation. http://libcom.org/files/Troploin-%20Communisation.pdf.
Wainwright, J. 2008. Decolonizing Development: Colonial Power and the Maya. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
Walia, H. 2013. Undoing Border Imperialism. Oakland, CA: AK Press.
Williams, E. C. 2011. Fire to the Commons. In B. Noys (ed.), Communization and Its Discon- tents: Contestation, Critique, and Contemporary Struggle. Brooklyn, NY: Minor Composi- tions.
Woland. 2011. The Historical Production of the Current Period. Sic: International Journal for Communisation 1: 41–55.
———. 2014. The Uneven Dynamics of the Era of Riots. Sic: International Journal for Communisation 2: 6–13.
Wright, S. 2002. Storming Heaven: Class Composition and Struggle in Italian Autonomist Marxism. London: Pluto Press.
Zibechi, R. 2012. Territories in Resistance: A Cartography of Latin American Social Move- ments. Oakland, CA: AK Press.