Anarchist Reflections (english version)

The State of Things (Introduction)

In the postwar period, and more markedly from the 1970s onward, Western societies have witnessed a progressive erosion, in social perception, of the clear division between classes and, consequently, of the associated class struggle. This phenomenon is driven by the current phase of development of the capitalist system and by the level of wealth accumulation it produces, whereby 10% of owners hold 90% of the total wealth: a concentration that grants this elite a particular form of social invisibility.

The current level of accumulation in fact allows capitalists to delegate, in a fragmented and globalized manner, the administration of their means of production through subordinate labor. For example, Western workers tend to direct the reasons for their dissatisfaction toward those who occupy roles as administrative delegates or sector managers—rungs of a hierarchical ladder that nonetheless belong to the same social class: that of subordinate workers.

Without opening a debate on revising the concept of social classes or on the precise indicators or requirements of class membership, we limit ourselves to reaffirming the existence of social classes and to identifying two classes as the optimal division, determined by the gap between population members in terms of actual or potential levels of consumption.

The historicization of capitalism enables the cultural perception of this dynamic as something consolidated and natural, thereby discouraging it from being questioned. In this sense, capitalism no longer presents itself as a historically determined system, but as the only possible horizon within which to imagine the organization of society.

At the root of the invisibility of the clear division between proletariat and bourgeoisie lies also the way in which the sense of belonging to a given social class is constructed: no longer through one’s relationship to the means of production, but through adherence to models of consumption. Bourgeois ideals are thus pursued, admiring those who have attained certain levels of consumption perceived as indicators of well-being, and tending to satisfy induced needs, or false needs, under the influence of what Gramsci defines as “bourgeois hegemony.”

Cultural capitalism plays a central role in this process, as it produces and disseminates symbolic representations that normalize inequalities and transform consumption into a primary criterion of social recognition. Well-being is no longer understood as a collective material condition, but as an individual experience measurable through access to goods, lifestyles, and symbolic practices that are fully functional to the reproduction of the system. In this way, consumption does not merely reflect the capitalist order, but actively fuels it, reinforcing the idea that personal fulfillment coincides with integration into its mechanisms.

At the same time, the proletarian class tends to disappear from the social perception of economically developed societies, not because labor exploitation ceases to exist, but because it is externalized. The least qualified and least protected forms of labor are in fact relocated to peripheral countries within the global capitalist system, where the workforce is made more vulnerable and less visible. This international reorganization of production further contributes to dissolving the idea of class conflict in Western societies, reinforcing the illusion of a society free of structural antagonisms.

The ideological lens through which most individuals observe the world is culturally shaped from the earliest moments of socialization: the family already transmits “mental constraints” that it has itself internalized; subsequently, school orients individuals toward adherence to rules that must not be questioned, under penalty of formal sanctions or humiliating disciplinary practices.

A public school system that incentivizes competition associated with a numerical score merely reproduces broader dynamics, reflecting the neoliberal society with which individuals will come into contact in later years; moreover, it promotes obedience to the system both through legal norms and through social codes that are internalized and perceived as natural. Integrated into “common sense,” such norms lead to the labeling of those who deviate from them.

Through the reproduction of these dynamics, what the social structure continues to transmit at the cultural level is reaffirmed: within this common sense, or ideological lens, the belief takes root that rebellion is unimaginable and that the existing order represents the only possible system. A system that commodifies bodies and art, and that also shapes the perception of well-being and of “taste,” considered personal and free but in reality constructed to homogenize individuals into a single model of satisfaction. Because it is quantitatively measurable in terms of consumption, such well-being is always relative, and the continuous competition among members of the same class generates a horizontal conflict that is dysfunctional with respect to genuine systemic change.

Abandoned Places (What the System Discards)

Places abandoned by the market are not simply unused spaces, but material traces of the misalignment between economic value and human value: the capitalist system no longer knows how to integrate them into its circuits of efficiency and profitability, while the local community has progressively lost the political, economic, and social tools to reclaim them. These are places expelled from the economic system because they are no longer compatible with the dominant logics of profit and productivity.

Drawing on Karl Marx’s distinction between use value and exchange value, abandoned places arise from the fracture between these two dimensions: when a space is still potentially useful for human life but no longer profitable for the market, it is expelled from the system and transformed into waste. This is the case, for example, of a decommissioned factory that could be reused as a cultural or social space but remains empty because it does not guarantee an economic return.

Abandoned places no longer host bodies.

Non-Places (What the System Produces)

According to Marc Augé, a non-place is a space designed for transit or consumption that does not foster lasting relationships, does not build identity, and does not allow for the production of shared memory. Shopping malls are an example of this, representing exclusively expressions of a consumerist lifestyle: the forms of aggregation that develop within them are inseparably linked to commercial transactions and refer to a temporary and functional identity, reduced almost exclusively to that of the consumer. Non-places do not produce historical memory, but a continuous present made up of superficial relationships instrumental to consumption.

Non-places host bodies without rooting them.

The problem for the community lies in the progressive increase of empty spaces, as waste of the system, and of spaces dysfunctional to social interests, as products of the system. This entails the gradual disappearance of places where it is still possible to build lasting relationships, memory, and critical spirit.

Political Solutions

Housing Occupation

To occupy today means to bring to life a space discarded by the capitalist system. It is a political act that restores to human beings the power to concretely confront the injustices and failures of the system and to self-determine their individual and collective lives. It also means resisting the homogenization of lifestyles that reduces us to mere consumers rather than creative protagonists of our time. Society offers us pre-packaged lives, displayed on neoliberal media shelves, while emptying out real possibilities of choice not oriented by the market. At the same time, it obscures and delegitimizes concrete political tools, labeling them as “terrorism” when they are used by those who step outside the tracks imposed by the system and defend their self-determination, their critical spirit, and their right to conceive themselves as free and different.

Occupation makes it possible to reclaim space and autonomy.

An occupied and self-managed place is not merely a shelter or a container for social activities: it is a powerful device for deconstructing the system-imposed concept of well-being. Instead of measuring value through economic growth, production, or profitability, occupation experiments with forms of life based on cooperation, care, and sharing.

This transformation makes it possible to generate alternative economies from below: systems of exchange and production that recover the original meaning of oikos, understood not as “enterprise” but as a common home, as the communal management of resources and needs.

The use of waste—material, social, and cultural—thus becomes a political practice for confronting the era in which we live: what the market considers refuse is converted into a resource.

TAZ (Temporary Autonomous Zone)

The concept of TAZ, developed by Hakim Bey, describes spaces and moments of temporary autonomy in which groups or communities experiment with alternative forms of life, withdrawing—if only for a limited period—from institutional control, market logics, and normative rigidity. What characterizes a TAZ is not merely the physical occupation of a space, but the creation of an ephemeral condition in which social relations can be reinvented, freed from the expectations and roles imposed by the system.

The Paradox of TAZs (Antagonism or Compatibility)

TAZs fit perfectly within the framework of supermodernity in terms of temporariness and flexibility of relationships, and this is precisely one of their most critical aspects, especially when TAZs lack a strong, shared political meaning capable of going beyond the single event. The risk is precisely that of reproducing the logic of entertainment as consumption. In cultural globalization, everything can be absorbed and transformed into aesthetics, imagery, and style. TAZs, if not supported by a strong political horizon, risk being recoded as events or experiences—that is, exactly the type of symbolic product that global capitalism knows how to integrate. The hope is that TAZs may act as warm seeds capable of generating a butterfly effect in the everyday lives of participants, as the fruit of a different way of thinking, beyond the boundaries of rationality understood as the foundational hypothesis of market theory.