To understand how social movements organise themselves here, it’s necessary to take into account the fact that, unlike other countries such as Italy or France, in the Catalan territories there aren’t large, strong organisations with a significant capacity for mobilisation, rather that the movement is structured in small groups. Even in the case of organizations that could be considered “large” (national coordinating networks, alternative trade unions, federations of associations, etc), we find that their members in different zones have a very high degree of autonomy, since they often follow centralised directives only to a very limited degree. This dynamic, while it may make it more difficult to organise massive demonstrations — these are more common in Italy, for example — is capable of organising surprising actions, such as the Social Consultation for the Abolition of the Foreign Debt in 2000, when a million people voted against the debt in an unofficial and prohibited referendum; the social response on13 March 2004 after the Madrid bombings; or the Popular Legal Initiative over recent months for a Catalonia free of genetically modified foods.

These successful experiences show us that, here, great events happen not when big organisations decide they should but when a generalised feeling of motivation and empowerment grows from below. The triggers of these processes are small “hubs” (individuals and collectives), not very representative in numerical terms, but very connected between each other.
Faced with different issues and calls for action, local groups react by reproducing and amplifying the signal, thus spreading and broadening the “spiral” of contact. This doesn’t follow from organisational discipline, but rather from each group’s own judgment, freedom and autonomy.

So if a few words can characterise these new social movements, they are decentralisation and autonomy, as methods of acting which allow both the freedom of action of each individual and collective element — so that they can carry out their own activity — and the capacity to generate collective, plural and useful alternatives for social transformation, in a coordinated manner.

Another of the values of these new social movements is “horizontality”, that is to say the absence of hierarchies, given that is has been demonstrated historically that leaderships, when they accumulate power, end up taking advantage of it to perpetuate themselves and to benefit their own private interests, instead of the collective good.

With horizontality and autonomy, it is possible for decision making spaces to be multiple and for consensus to be the norm when facilitating meetings and activities. This mechanism means that the movement can’t easily be destroyed. Since there are no absolute and formal leaders, these social movements aren’t easy to stop, because there isn’t a president or representative to corrupt or arrest. They try to empower every one of the individuals and collectives within the movement, so that no single one is indispensible. The mass media often try to convert spokespeople into leaders, and social movements avoid this with strategies like the rotation of spokespeople.

However, it is very important to avoid decentralisation and horizontality being accompanied by atomisation or dispersal.
We understand that diversity is part of our strength; we reject the single message, and we want to make it known that we have many different messages that respect and enrich each other. But for this very necessary coordinating capacity to exist, we have to promote spaces for the different participants to meet and get to know each other, and share the resources that each group has or knows of.

Exactly these were among the conclusions and proposals of the “Social movements’ meeting: put degrowth into action and build counter-power” in which 350 people came together last July.

Out of the Social movements’ meeting came the project of creating a bank of resources of all types: material for sharing; houses that are empty or have free space; land to cultivate; knowledge for day to day self management; proposals for degrowth; among others.

Building these elements of social cooperation allows us to optimise efforts and energies, connecting spaces and extending the network more and more, so that it becomes stronger and more dynamic.

Now, all these characteristics and wills are not enough to really build an alternative society, beyond the projects of small collectives that we explain in previous pages. In order to carry forward new ways of living, a lot of dedication is needed and material resources are required. In the capitalist system, dedication and resources are bought with money; and of course, money is something that those of us who are against this system tend to have little of, which means that this becomes a problem limiting the consolidation of alternatives. For that reason, historically there have been expropriations of banks and also there are those who try new action strategies such as that described in the centre pages. Apart from that, it’s necessary to go further and create a system of access to necessities which can be in itself part of the alternative society, and not just an instrumental means for achieving it.

After many workshops and diverse proposals, at the Social movements’ meeting in July it was agreed to go ahead with the Public Autonomous Space, a project to construct an economic alternative which could help consolidate the diverse projects for transformation.

This Public Autonomous Space would consist of a network of people and resources in which the basic necessities of the persons participating would be guaranteed, to enable them to stop working in the capitalist economy and dedicate themselves to projects of the alternative society.

Proposals such as these are a contribution towards people organised in social movements becoming a real counter-power to the powers that be, so that we can oppose the plans of those on high, at the same time as putting into practice an embryo of what could be a new form of organisation of society.

Evidently that doesn’t go down well with those in power, so they respond with strategies which, despite being quite varied, are already well known. The first of them is integration, usually applied to the more moderate collectives or those that are economically dependent. The strategy is to finance them and allow them in to participate in some way in the actions of the Government, in exchange for them abandoning their potential for transformation.

When this doesn’t work, there are many others. One of them is the repression which also comes from the state. This may hold back specific mobilisations and projects, at the same time as trying to frighten or dishearten us. One variant are the more and more frequent fines with which they try to put us out of action economically. Another is the criminalisation to which we are subjected by some of the mass media. This is aimed at making society reject both the social movements and everything we do, as well as at breaking our bridges with other social sectors. When none of these work, they simply censor us.

But none of these strategies will stop the social movements. Now, in the context of the structural crisis of the capitalist system, it is the moment, more than ever, to make an effort and to keep struggling for the freedom of peoples and individuals, to continue building a new society, to practice a better way of living.

While we go along this road, it is important to remember that no parliamentary party can represent the proposals of social movements who are calling for another way of doing politics.

On the contrary, we call on citizens to organise with their neighbours in neighbourhood assemblies, to establish assemblies at the universities and at work.

We invite everyone to participate directly in the transformation of society, starting from their own immediate living environment and to connect, in debates and actions, the concrete immediate problems with the structural causes which produce them, and the alternatives in the here and now.

To sum up, we call on everybody to participate in politics, directly and without go betweens. Because living in another way is in our hands, of each and every one of us.