Postcapitalist Geography: Commons & Praxis

The paper begins by acknowledging that capitalism, while a useful analytical concept, is a limited tool for understanding the complexities of inequality. Factors beyond capitalism, such as patriarchy, hierarchy, and racism, also significantly contribute to global inequities. The authors emphasize that capitalism and postcapitalism are not mutually exclusive, static categories; instead, they exist as dynamic, interrelated tendencies. Drawing on John Holloway's work (2010), postcapitalism is presented not as a replacement, but as a multifaceted set of activities and ideas that exist within, against, and beyond the current capitalist framework. This involves navigating the realities of living under capitalism while simultaneously creating and enacting alternatives. Prefigurative action, creating future possibilities in the present, is highlighted as a key element of this process, referencing Springer's work (2014).

The core argument pivots around the interplay between the crisis tendencies of contemporary capitalism and emerging postcapitalist trends. Three key terrains of transformation (Wright, 2010) are identified: the dynamic between capitalist enclosure and the creation of postcapitalist commons; the tension between commodification and the emergence of socially useful production; and finally, the conflict between alienation and the concept of 'doing' – activity that is self-determined and outside the confines of alienated labor. These three terrains of transformation are interconnected and represent the core areas of the paper's focus. The authors aim to raise the profile of postcapitalist analysis within geography, offering 'radical hope' and examples of 'concrete utopias' as a counterpoint to the status quo.

The inherent flaws of capitalism are further detailed, extending beyond its role in generating inequality. The document argues that capitalism undermines democratic principles and individual freedom through unequal distribution of wealth and resources. It highlights inefficiencies such as a lack of public goods, overconsumption of natural resources, the creation of negative externalities, tendencies toward monopolies, and the costs associated with social inequality. The text also underscores negative social and environmental consequences stemming from the emphasis on consumerism and the erosion of values such as community, safety, and spirituality. These negative aspects are contrasted against the promotion of militarism, privatization, and competition under the capitalist model, reinforcing the need for alternative systems.

This section explores the Community Economies perspective, a critical approach that challenges the dominance of capitalist discourse. It draws heavily on the work of JK Gibson-Graham, advocating for a move away from 'capitalocentrism' – the tendency to view the capitalist economy as the sole dominant force. The approach uses a methodology of 'reading for difference,' emphasizing that diverse economic practices coexist alongside capitalism. The Community Economies Collective highlights the importance of resubjectivation and meso-level organizations, such as cooperatives and community development organizations, as pathways to challenge capitalism. This involves fostering alternative subjectivities that move away from the commodified and alienated aspects of capitalist systems. However, the paper acknowledges limitations, questioning the scalability of these initiatives and their ability to fundamentally challenge abstract labor and the creation of capitalist value. The crucial role of the state and the broader project of radical municipalization are also discussed, noting their influence on the success of meso-level postcapitalist innovations.

The second perspective, closely aligned with accelerationism (a term initially coined by its critics, Noys, 2010, and later embraced by proponents like Williams and Srnicek, 2013), advocates for accelerating technological evolution to overcome the limitations of capitalism. This approach, rooted in the philosophy of Deleuze, Guattari, and Lyotard, seeks to speed up societal complexity, believing that the only way out of capitalism is through it. The Accelerationist Manifesto (Williams & Srnicek, 2013) is referenced as a key text. A central concept is the potential for full automation and the implementation of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) to create a post-work society. However, the paper critiques this perspective, arguing that a simple reliance on UBI doesn't equate to meaningful postcapitalism. Critics like Pitts and Dinerstein (2017) label it an 'anti-human, pro-machine philosophy,' highlighting the risk of neglecting concrete, grassroots projects and consolidating capitalism rather than transcending it. Concerns are raised about technology's neutrality and the potential perpetuation of unsustainable consumption patterns.

The third perspective focuses on autonomous approaches, drawing on anarchism, autonomism, feminism, ecologism, Open Marxism, and Italian Operaismo. This approach prioritizes self-management, self-valorization, and politically autonomous forms of social reproduction, emphasizing the importance of social movements and civil society actors. The Autonomous Geographies Collective's work (Chatterton et al., 2010; Clough & Blumberg, 2012) is cited as influential. This perspective highlights interstitial and prefigurative strategies, developing postcapitalist practices within the existing system while actively challenging it. Examples include community gardens, radical social centers, and tactical interventions. These micro-level experiments are seen as 'seedbeds' for innovation and learning about alternative futures, but their success is contingent on supportive macro-level environments and the potential for larger-scale political movements and organizations to protect them from repression. The example of the Syriza movement in Greece is used to illustrate the complexities faced by such movements in navigating state power.

This section introduces platform cooperatives as a contemporary example of postcapitalist praxis. These cooperatives aim to create a more equitable and worker-controlled digital economy, contrasting with the corporate-dominated landscape. The rapid growth of the digital economy in the UK (double the rate of the overall economy) is highlighted as context. The fundamental rationale of platform cooperatives is to redistribute financial and social value among participants, creating a more just system. The authors draw on Marx's (1990) work on cooperation, noting that while cooperation exists within capitalism, cooperatives represent a distinct response to the antagonistic relationship between labor and capital (Neary, 2017). They emphasize the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, and solidarity, presenting cooperatives as an alternative model based on self-management. Several examples of existing platform cooperatives are mentioned: Fairmondo (an eBay alternative), Loomio (a collective decision-making tool), Stocksy (a worker-owned stock photography platform), CoLab, and the Data Commons Cooperative. FairCoop, an online platform aiming to build a new global economic system based on cooperation, is particularly highlighted, with its use of the FairCoin cryptocurrency.

The discussion moves beyond purely online digital commons, exploring the potential of integrating digital platforms with place-based community wealth-building initiatives. The limitations of focusing solely on online platforms are addressed. The Cleveland model in the USA, which established large-scale employee-owned enterprises for local economic development, green job creation, and neighborhood stabilization (Alperovitz, 2004), is presented as a successful example. The Catalan Integrated Cooperative, with over 2,500 members involved in autonomous initiatives such as housing, transport, and healthcare, and its physical hub ‘AureaSocial’ in Barcelona, serves as another illustrative case. This model, described as an 'alternative economy capable of satisfying the needs of the local community more effectively than the existing system' (Dafermos, 2017), is suggested as fertile ground for postcapitalist experimentation when combined with an infrastructure of platform cooperatives. The combination of digital tools with localized, community-focused initiatives is presented as key to creating truly impactful change.

This concluding section addresses the ongoing challenges and uncertainties surrounding platform cooperatives. Issues of ownership, control, and the potential for corporate buyouts or demutualization are acknowledged. The authors emphasize the need to explore the vision of work that emerges from these platforms and how they facilitate 'doing' that actively opposes capitalist value creation. While there is a strong desire to make work less alienating and precarious, the fundamental question remains whether these cooperatives can truly undermine the commodity form and market structures inherent in capitalism (Scholz, 2016). The paper highlights the need for careful scrutiny of how platform cooperatives navigate existing institutional resources and structures while simultaneously experimenting outside of them to prevent their assimilation into new logics of capital accumulation. The ultimate success hinges on combining disruptive tendencies with strategies that leverage existing resources and foster genuine, ethical collaboration.

The final section reflects on the social and spatial landscape of a potential postcapitalist future (Mason & Whitehead, 2012). A fundamental aim is to reverse the deep social and spatial unevenness created by capitalism. Postcapitalist formations must actively inhibit the accumulation of surplus value, individualization, commodification, and enclosure, while simultaneously building commons, promoting socially useful production, and facilitating 'doing'—self-determined activity outside alienated labor. This spatial politics is complex and multi-layered, unlikely to follow a single blueprint. Instead, it will involve geographically dispersed, localized clusters of activity connected through what Katz (2001) terms 'counter-topographical networks.' The scale of these postcapitalist geographies will not be uniformly defined by nation-states (Marston et al., 2005), but rather encompass archipelagos of experiments across various scales, linking networks, places, and sectors. Hybrid platforms that broker services, skills, and tools across these diverse entities are also anticipated.

A critical aspect of the envisioned postcapitalist landscape is the relationship between the state and meso-level initiatives within civil society. While there's a desire for a more participatory, enabling, and self-critical state form (Wainwright, 2018), the extent to which the state can effectively counter capitalist excesses and act as an ally for a radicalized civil society remains uncertain. The section emphasizes the importance of collaborative networks that link experiments in commoning both online and offline. The interplay between these meso-level initiatives and the state will be crucial in shaping the success of postcapitalist projects.

The discussion concludes by revisiting the example of platform cooperatives, highlighting their potential to create a more humane and ethical digital economy. However, unresolved questions remain regarding the form and function of the commons (virtual and real) arising from these initiatives. The paper examines the extent to which the production methods within platform cooperatives undermine the accumulation of surplus value and the expansion of commodification, and their capacity to create socially useful 'doing' rather than precarious labor. Potential pitfalls are mentioned, including a naive focus on localist folk politics or an over-reliance on technological solutions and state involvement. The authors emphasize the need for continuous critical analysis to assess the long-term impact and sustainability of platform cooperatives and their ability to remain genuinely independent of capitalist structures.