Add new comment

First I'll recognize that this text is from 2015 and that this person has written and done better things than this text.
Also that what the FAGC has done and is doing provides interesting experience to learn from.

That being said, let's examine this last paragraph:

"I don’t care about caricatures; it’s not the first time I’ve been called “slum anarchist” or “anarcho-lumpen”. I only care about results. Street anarchism has been the best method of introduction to our practices in years. The biggest housing occupation of the Spanish state hasn’t been accomplished by a party, an electoral coalition or an organisation of the system. It was started by an anarchist organisation using anarchist tools and making an anarchist model work without needing everyone involved to be one as well. ,That neighbourhood anarchism has given 71 homes to 71 families which account for more than 250 people. We don’t need theory to show it, the facts speak for themselves, the obstinate reality speaks for itself."

I can see that the valid point is made that endless chatter does not solve people's basic needs, like housing. I'm even inclined to agree with the sentiment of "fuck theory, let's just do stuff".
But if you really narrow it down to "I only care about results." and results are to be measured in amount of people housed, or of housing units built, then the obstinate reality speaks for itself; capitalism and communism, or even smaller organizations and corporations of different kinds have succeeded in building and housing far more people. In fact, the housing units they're currently self-managing and occupying were not built by their neighborhood anarchism, which is not a thing that should even matter, but it looks weird if you're claiming housing units as a measure of effectiveness of anarchism.

Before that paragraph he says: "We need to detect what they need, see if our praxis can provide it, adapt our tools to the moment, come up with a program that gives theoretical support to our conquests and, once the path forward becomes clear, share those tools and collectivise them (knowing when to step aside)."

So neighborhood anarchy is about innovating in services and applied technologies to serve the needs of those who anarchists consider non-anarchists? And then retroactively finding rhetoric to justify it("gives theoretical support to conquests"?)? Again, I think that centering this metric of "satisfying needs by quantifiable units" as efficacy of anarchism just misses the point of anarchy altogether. Since the point of the article was more about being against sectarian petty squabbles, it doesn't go into detail into the more interesting aspects, of which they go into elsewhere, of how the relationships between the people in their day to day are anarchic or not.

To summarize the comment, yes, an anarchism that does stuff and serves people's needs seems obviously looks better than an anarchism that does nothing and is useless. But by that measure capitalism, communism, both of them of the F.A.L.C. variety, would do far better by those criteria. Cuz look at how much it do! It do very much big fast!

I'd like to end by underlining that their project/livelihood/living arrangements is inspiring and it would be cool to see more people try it.