The Working Group on Anticapitalism and Emerging Sociabilities - ACySE, began its activities in 2010, in a regional context marked by the rise of so-called "post-neoliberal" (Sader, 2008), "populist" (Svampa, 2015), "progressive" (Modonessi, 2015), "socialist of the 21st century" (Chavez, 2005; Correa, 2010), or neo-developmentalist (Boito Jr, 2010; Feliz, López and García, 2016) governments; within the framework of a transitional and experimental moment (Santos, 2007), of civilizational crisis (Borón, 2009), of savage politics (Tapia, 2008), or of crisis of the coloniality of power and knowledge (Lander, 2003). 

The initial debates were shaped by the unique context and the different names or characterizations that the Latin American and Caribbean situation received within the various theoretical and political positions of those of us who participated in the Working Group. As a result of the meetings and work carried out during the first period of the Working Group, two collective publications stand out (Chaguaceda and Brancaleone, 2012; Fernández, Camara, Chaguaceda and Puente, 2015) that bear witness to the exchanges that took place around the characterization of what we have called “anti-capitalist struggles” in the period 2010-2015. These struggles were problematized from two complementary analytical axes: the description of the experiences “inward” (work that involved in each case a reflection on the existing political projects and practices “from below” and beyond the dominant institutionality); and the analysis of the counter-hegemonic disputes that these experiences faced both against the modern/colonial capitalist world system, and against the State in its most heterogeneous conceptualizations (mainly from Marxist and anarchist perspectives) and conjunctural characterizations. 

The relationship between the various anti-capitalist struggles and the dominant “progressive” institutions during the 2010-2015 period was central to our questions and analyses. In this regard, we shared research findings and developed a collective proposal aimed at describing how social struggles and emerging social movements in Latin America and the Caribbean took shape, their place within the main repertoires of action of the region's social movements, and the political advances they achieved in a context of relative permissiveness and the incorporation of social demands into the public policy agenda. 

In recent years, since 2015, we have witnessed a drastic transformation of the international landscape, within a context of strong US intervention in Latin America, supported by the political rise of right-wing groups in various Latin American governments (Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Argentina). The capitalist structure, accentuated and based on unequal economic development, has placed the burden of social adjustment on the working class, increasing rates of precarious and informal employment. An extractive system that attacks community spaces and a resurgence of institutional violence, perpetrated by security forces and paramilitary groups, have exacerbated their virulence against a bleak backdrop of human rights. 

In this sense, the Working Group focused, for the period 2016-2019, on interpreting and characterizing the reconfiguration of the Latin American and Caribbean political landscape, reconsidering the forms of resistance and anti-capitalist struggles of diverse collective actors, taking into account the consequences and repercussions, in terms of continuities and changes with respect to the previous period, both in the relationship of social organizations with capital and in their relationship with the State (and its public policies). This process motivated the writing of several articles on protest social movements and the collaboration of the Working Group with other academic groups in order to hold discussions and colloquia. Furthermore, there was an outreach to diverse communities and social organizations based on the individual research of Working Group members, which facilitated the collective recognition of intercultural diversity and the repertoire of collective actions of these groups.

These diverse studies motivated the publication of a third book, currently in press, which addresses self-organizing movements and struggles for re-existence through processes of subjectivity interwoven with the arts, communities, feminisms, and emerging political identifications in different spaces and territories of Latin America and the insular Caribbean. Another of the book's approaches involves the study of theories and conceptual tools for reflecting on counter-hegemonic praxis, which challenge conceptions of social movements, interculturality, and the processes of collective identity formation.

In order to obtain our fourth renewal, our proposal aims to examine and problematize the meanings and challenges of certain Latin American and Caribbean organizational experiences that stand out for proposing the construction of alternative spaces in the face of current dynamics of accumulation, exploitation, and discrimination. At the same time, we intend to promote a transdisciplinary, collective analytical perspective with contributions from sociology, political science, social and political history, anthropology, cultural studies, and other disciplines, in line with the challenges facing the social sciences in the region and the continental reality. The Working Group is currently composed of researchers and activists from Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, Cuba, and Mexico, many of whom have participated as fellows in various CLACSO programs, have been students and professors at the Virtual Campus, and have published some of the work carried out by the Working Group in CLACSO collections and journals. 

For this 2019-2022 call for proposals, some of the guiding principles for the discussions involve problematizing and examining how the current political landscape has altered the social foundations and strength of anti-capitalist struggles in our region. Therefore, this exercise, beyond analyzing local and historical contexts, aims to establish comparative frameworks between two distinct political moments, considering that one of the variables to take into account is the degree of influence of macropolitical scenarios on the dynamics of the "emerging socialities" analyzed here.

To address the relationship with global dynamics, we draw upon the existing body of Latin American and Caribbean theoretical production to offer interpretations and debates that will serve as our initial starting points. We refer to the continued relevance of dependency theories (Marini, 1999; Beigel, 2006; Cueva, 2012) and modern/colonial world-systems theory (Quijano and Wallerstein, 1992). Simultaneously, the comparative analysis will be developed among localities/countries that have experienced/are experiencing these two periods in diverse ways. This second level of comparison aims to highlight regional trends (both in the field of the State/Public Policy and in that of resistance movements) to account for the reconfiguration of the continent's roles in relation to global dynamics, within the framework of the world-system.

The current debates within the social sciences profoundly challenge us and allow us to reconstruct our perspectives in relation to dominant paradigms. In this sense, the commitment is to continue building ways of thinking about and conducting social research that offer new horizons of possibility. We opt for South-South epistemologies and the denaturalization of the Euro/hetero/white/centric perspective, as well as the ecology of knowledges (Santos, 2018). We emphasize the need to contribute spaces for reflecting on the emergence of social processes from social movements, collective action, higher education, interculturality, gender, feminisms, and racial perspectives, which allow us to construct a new paradigm of the subaltern where action research as a methodological orientation is a fundamental axis of work.

The field of studies on social struggles and movements and their connections within the dynamics of modern societies is well-established, supported by both long-standing research traditions and burgeoning conceptual and methodological innovations. Faced with this diversity of approaches and perspectives, the ACySE collective emerged a decade ago as a collaborative network of Latin American researchers and activists driven by a question that is simultaneously epistemological, theoretical, methodological, and political: what kinds of knowledge and experiences can arise from the dynamic intersection of academic research and social activism? In the search for answers to this complex, vast, and diverse problem, a crucial element was revealed for understanding not only the specificities of knowledge asserted in or derived from social struggles, but also any kind of knowledge-making process as an experience in the world, always situated in time, space, and the socio-biographical coordinates of those who produce knowledge. That is, considering the links between knowledge and politics; episteme and worldview; truth and ethics, being as relevant and crucial as the results or products of research activities.

The fact that modern social theory was largely constructed as an intellectual affirmation of the modern capitalist world is practically an incontrovertible assertion. However, this cognitive project also had its counterpart, expressed in a strong critical and reflective movement directed against capitalism. This latter dimension of modern social theory was the origin of many of the critical expressions and rationalizations known under the umbrella of socialism, whether in its anarchist or Marxist versions.

It was precisely within these versions that the anti-capitalist aspect of modern social theory manifested itself in the 19th century and throughout much of the 20th. The expression "anti-capitalism," initially delineated in the hegemonic version of Marxist language, is linked to specific processes of resistance to modernization and modernity that exhibit a historical character of past survival, a socially residual element. Thus, the term is used as an equivalent to "pre-capitalist," "anti-modern," and similar terms. In this narrative, the subjects who held this position were peasants, indigenous peoples, artisans, and the lumpenproletariat. These are some of the initial ideas that explain the meaning given to the term "anti-capitalism" by dominant currents within Marxist thought until almost the end of the 20th century.

In the 1990s, the struggles and movements of alter-globalization allowed for the emergence of a new enunciative position for the term anti-capitalism, beyond its exclusive designation as a militant perspective, ideology, discourse, or political project, by considering it as a specific empirical reality. The novel manifestations of resistance embodied in these movements were, of course, symptomatic of the metamorphoses experienced by capitalism in the second half of the 20th century. These were expressed, among other aspects, in new dynamics of accumulation within a global movement toward the flexibilization and narrowing of economic circuits, coupled with a reduction in the function and public services provided by the State (also called neoliberalism), particularly through a loss of effectiveness of rights that seemed to be consolidated gains in the traditional field of labor relations. All of these factors fragmented the very social construction of working-class identity as a driving force for collective action (Bell, 1991; Castel, 1998; Negri & Hardt, 2005).

Alongside the assertion of this capitalism of large financial and corporate conglomerates, the level of social interaction was reinforced by the “void” left by the dissolution of state-led socialist experiments and the bureaucratization of political parties and unions through their integration into the state, dominated by the messages of major brands and media oligopolies (Klein, 2001). This capitalism attempted, and continues to attempt, to instill in the social imaginary the arrival of a world without antagonists, and seems capable of incorporating into its renewal process a significant portion of the critical repertoires that persistently challenge it (Boultanski & Chiapelo, 2002; Virno, 2008).

This is precisely the capitalism that clashed with and was confronted by the Zapatista uprising of 1994 and the alter-globalization rebellions that followed. This conceptual framework has served as a stage for understanding and further complicating both the anti-capitalist struggles as of the emerging sociabilities within the framework of the reconfiguration of the Latin American and Caribbean political field; and it has allowed us to develop an analytically useful distinction, represented by two dimensions that can be located within the concept of anti-capitalism: first the discursive, normative or ideological dimension, linked to political discourse and to ideas that possess an operational power that, by influencing the social imaginary, configure the field of possibility of political action; and second the empirical dimension, understood as process, sociabilities, relations or social structure.

The distinction between these dimensions acknowledges that there is not always convergence and correspondence between them. That is, social agents who act politically under an anti-capitalist program or worldview do not necessarily enact or prefigure anti-capitalist practices. On the other hand, certain social interactions or processes initiated by social agents, without identifying with any anti-capitalist discourse, can in turn point toward dynamics that present significant anti-capitalist and emancipatory elements. This two-dimensionality of the concept of anti-capitalismLópez points out two aspects that may be interconnected, although not necessarily. On the one hand, there is the existence of a discourse of resistance aimed at overcoming capitalist societies; the intention, on the part of certain social agents, to reform or break with the existing social order. On the other hand, there is the set of social processes or phenomena in the spheres of society, economy, politics, and culture that prefigure social relations that can be considered a threat to the current dynamics of accumulation, domination, and exploitation, and which, in that sense, may point toward horizons of emancipation or possess emancipatory potential (López, 2015).

From the very content or expressions of these aforementioned representations and practices, we employ the concept of emergent sociabilities, but in a very particular way, to account for their more empirical than discursive elements. Here it is important to clarify that relationships of cooperation, horizontality, appropriation of use value, mutual support, respect for differences, etc., do not in themselves signify anti-capitalism and are not emergent sociabilities. They can be taken as emerging socialities only and to the extent in that stimulate, encourage, and promote certain interactive arrangements that, as a whole and articulation, empower subjects and self-organizing dynamics that materialize elements potential to constitute liberating socio-historical configurations (Brancaleone, 2015). While the most illustrative case, and one that has enjoyed a degree of stability to this day, is the Zapatista self-governance experiment, the various forms of collective control and management of labor in some worker-recuperated factories in Argentina and Uruguay, the experiences of communal living in peripheral territories and shantytowns, the rural settlements and lands recovered by peasants, Indigenous people, and quilombola communities, youth collectives engaged in cultural action in urban centers, the barter or exchange networks that regenerate community structures, etc., are no less significant (Zibechi, 2008). All of these point to various features and manifestations of the prefiguration of other non-commodified ways of life, or ways that struggle against commodification and heteronomy. Furthermore, the traditions and practices of the labor, peasant, student, and union movements have been fundamental in the development of imaginaries and repertoires of collective action throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.

We believe that the theoretical relevance of this distinction, as a research project, is self-evident, based on two fundamental aspects. First, because the modifications in the repertoires of resistance and in the forms taken by the agencies that give them life are closely related to the transformations of capitalism and its accumulation patterns (reconfigurations that account for the complex and changing realities of the region in relation to global dynamics). Second, because a deeper conceptual understanding of the two dimensions of anti-capitalism allows for a more precise account of the repertoires of resistance. In this sense, we maintain that the two dimensions proposed for addressing the phenomenon of anti-capitalism complicate its analysis.

Despite the transformations that have reshaped societies and social actors in the last quarter of a century, capitalism continues to produce its antagonists. While classism remains a relevant paradigm for organizing social struggles against capital, it is true that phenomena stemming from the fragmentation of the working class and the incorporation of many of its members into institutional spheres of power have opened up space for a new flourishing of movements that, at some level, share aspects we could call “anti-systemic” and “anti-capitalist.” Socio-territorial and environmental struggles occupy a fundamental place in this regard, having reshaped how we understand our ecological relationship with nature. These struggles entail issues of power and domination woven into community spaces and the various forms of extractivism incentivized by capitalism.

At this stage, it will be crucial to identify and characterize these emerging, renewed forms of social interaction in light of the transformations in the regional context, in order to understand their limitations and potential. Today, recovering these key elements is not merely fundamental, it is urgent. In its current phase, capitalism seems to be asserting itself as a hegemonic force through its dystopian, authoritarian, and de-democratizing effects, and observation from below the circuits of anti-capitalist struggle reveals a landscape of intense disputes and pockets of resistance against the market's attempts to control all aspects of social life.

For the next work period (2019-2022), we intend to discuss the conceptual framework we have developed over the past few years as a Working Group, seeking to broaden our analytical horizons with emerging and (re)configured collective categories and experiences as responses to the transformation of the Latin American and Caribbean political landscape (specifically the Cuban case), which presents an additional challenge to both anti-capitalist struggles and their study. Here, themes of autonomy, democratization, radical egalitarianism, transdomination, nature and justice, race, and feminisms find fertile ground for the renewal of practices, values, and social relations that point toward emancipatory horizons potentially constituting emerging social structures.

Reflecting on conceptual, methodological and theoretical tools (such as the notion/mediation of emerging sociabilities) makes it possible to delimit, situate and understand the anti-systemic dimensions of social struggles and movements, especially in what it implies in their constitution as phenomena of social self-organization starring subaltern and popular actors.

Based on the objectives set out in the new project, we intend to organize ourselves around lines of research, articulated with the core categories of the Working Group, namely Anticapitalisms and Emerging Sociabilities. The lines of research considered are: Transdomination, democratization vs. the advance of authoritarianism and proto-fascist repertoires; Interculturalities, racisms and feminisms; and Utopia, nature and justice. Utopian projects are ambivalent in their relationship with the capitalist system. The aim here is to study these projects using the utopian method (Ávila, 2019), which involves diagnosing and investigating alternatives and seeks to contribute to a liberated society in harmony with nature. The purpose is to explore utopian thought that subverts capitalism and its regimes of nature (Escobar, 1999).

Regarding the current renewal, it is possible to rethink the methodological approaches that underpin the relationship between the object and subject of study, revealing new ways in which qualitative and quantitative methodologies intersect, and the writing formats in which “discursive authority” is exercised, both for presenting results and for proposing work. In this sense, appealing to intercultural dialogues, as well as to composite forms of exposition that contain, and are shaped by, the othersThis will entail a new way of creating and recognizing academic knowledge as a collective endeavor that revalues ​​popular knowledge. Furthermore, the aim is to build a publicly accessible database that will systematically present studies on social conflict and on the economic and social structure of Latin America and the Caribbean.

The approach to the concepts of “Anticapitalisms” and “Emerging Sociabilities,” as well as the collective work derived from it, stems from different perspectives that reflect both multiple lines of individual research and diverse realities and multi-sited interests. This diversity, which defines and enriches us, represents a significant challenge for the Working Group's future. Methodologically, it necessitates a collective reflection on how to articulate the group's central categories and seek internal coherence from a political perspective that proposes framing academic work alongside social mobilization processes as complementary research endeavors. We assessed that the sub-chapter methodology worked well during the first year of the Working Group's final period; however, we intend to enhance it by developing lines of research articulated around categories that address current debates and scenarios of collective organization. This proposal will allow us to strengthen research analyses and knowledge production through annual meetings, virtual seminars, in-person lectures, and the collaborative production of articles by the Working Group members.