Research Problem

This project, entitled "The Principle of the Commons: Between the Legacy of the Commons and the Counteroffensive of the Neoliberal Far Right," aims to create a political-philosophical map of the concept of the "commons" in Latin America and the Caribbean, establishing as key events the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre and the crisis of the commons due to the strengthening of right-wing movements in Latin America and the Caribbean. In an era that emphasizes the individual, but whose major problems—those that threaten planetary viability—point back to the commons, its study is not only relevant but urgent (Danowski, D. & Viveiros de Castro, E. 2019). The understanding and practice of the commons encompasses many layers of meaning. This research proposes a multi-scalar methodology for studying the "commons," seeking to understand and analyze it from a comprehensive and complex perspective, incorporating (1) the local, national, and global scales; (2) the ontological, epistemological, and political-economic dimensions of analysis; and (3) the philosophical-political approaches of commons theory, community theories, and distributive theories of the commons. This methodology will allow us to consider different “commons,” for example, normative visions of the commons, the understanding and practices of collectives regarding the commons, the contemporary social imaginary of the commons, the tensions between the individual and the common, and the processes of social construction (or destruction) of the commons. Acknowledging this theoretical, political, and cultural complexity, this program will delimit its research to the following points: (a) the legacy of the commons as a Latin American theoretical, political, and philosophical practice; (b) the reappropriation of the “national identity commons” by the far right in Latin America and the Caribbean; (c) the displacement of the commons by the individual within the framework of local-global and neoliberal culture; and (d) the recognition of the diverse conceptualizations of the “commons.” ("communal", the "commons", "common rights", the "community") as forms that describe affects and materialities that overflow the limits with which the neoliberal far right fences off the political.

Relevance of the common

The concept of the "common" has a long history in philosophy and politics worldwide. We can go back to Plato and Aristotle to find formulations of the "common" in their texts that would become part of the philosophical and political elaborations proposed to rethink democracy and equality in the 20th century (Rancière, J., 1996; Badiou, A., 2013; Esposito, R., 2003; Borón, A., 1999). In the question of the "common" in Latin American political philosophy, four distinct phases can be identified. First, the common is approached from the perspective of human rights (Roniger, L., 2018), and then from the perspective of rights to the common (Ostrom). Second, the common is considered from the reworking of citizenships due to a profound questioning of universalism and abstraction (Ciriza, A.: 2014; Cabnal, L: 2010); third, the "common" is described from the community, the communal and the (de) and anticolonial positions (Gutiérrez, R: 2017; Roca-Servat, D & J. Perdomo: 2020; Torres, R. 2018); and fourth, reappropriation of the common as the "national identity common" developed by the extreme right of the continent (Bolcato, A & G.Sourgeon: 2020).

1. From human rights to the rights to the commons

The most important of the democratic ideals championed in the mid-20th century is that political power should express a "common political will," that is, the true democratic will of a people. The attempt to establish how this common political will is formed has become the central theme of contemporary democratic and legal theories. The formation of a common political will can only occur within a reflective dialogue in which we discuss with others what we aspire to in common, what kind of world we want to live in together as part of a community (Villavicencio, S. 2025). This common minimum is articulated in the need to affirm human rights as the basis for the description of the commons (Gargarella, R.: 2021), guaranteeing the recognition of interdependence, the protection of diversity, and promoting participation (Acosta, a: 2013; Boelens, R & Vos, J. (2012). Guaranteeing life and equality implies guaranteeing and regulating rights of the commons; in this direction, the discussion of rights has advanced, incorporating the important question of common goods (Bailo, G., 2018; Grueso, D. 2020).

2. The common in alteration by the singular situated

Importantly, the transformation of the concept and practice of the commons stems from the questioning of its universalism. One of the most interesting challenges comes from feminism. If we were to map the commons from the late 20th century to the present, we would see that it is the policies linked to feminism (in a broad and complex definition) that have redefined the commons from situated (gender, race) and local (ethnicity, territory) perspectives. The implementation, with varying degrees of effectiveness, of policies aimed at expanding the boundaries of political representation will link this language to discussions about participation and equality (Alterman E. 2019; E. Medina: 2021). What in political theory was perceived as the debate between universalists and communitarians, in feminist discourse translated into a strong critique of the false universalism of rights. From a situated and concrete perspective, but moving away from liberalism, progress will be made in introducing differential ethics, community justice, and care policies (M. Salamanca: 2020; K. Batthyány: 2021). Another area of ​​challenge to the abstract universality of rights and citizenship stems from LGBTI policies; these intervene crucially in the modes of representation of the body and sexuality, as well as in the creation of a new non-binary legal order. These policies encompass areas as broad as the arts, literature, and institutional politics: image, text, and laws (Gutiérrez, A. et al.: 2021). This expansion and transformation of the commons is complemented by the emergence of anti-patriarchal feminisms. Taking up the feminist actions and positions of the eighties in the continent, this feminist emergence will assume as its main articulating node the critique of patriarchy and sexual violence from ecofeminist positions (Cumes, A..2012; J. Díaz: 2021) installing its discussion and policies in the relations of collective appropriation and the common goods imagining ways of relating guided by cooperation and solidarity (Fontánez, E.: 2023).

3. The common, communal and community-based aspects of Latin America and the Caribbean

It is not surprising that Christian Laval and Pierre Dardot's book "Common" identifies the "Battle for Water" in Cochabamba, Bolivia (Laval & Dardot, 2014) as a milestone in the transformation of political practice for 21st-century democracies. This is because it is precisely in Latin America where the most interesting political experiences have taken place, experiences aimed at transforming the liberal and individualistic nature of 21st-century democracies (Bonilla, 2018; Rueda et al., 2022; Massol, 2024). The commons attempts to describe a type of politics characterized by transversality, mutualism, and a commitment to current and future cooperation. Its geometry, articulated along horizontal lines, seeks to dismantle the hierarchies of high and low in order to rethink society and politics itself, describing it as increasingly closer to a "political ecology."

The philosophical and political theory scene addresses the concept of the commons from at least three perspectives: 1) crisis of the accumulation pattern; 2) legal-constitutional transformation; and 3) appropriation of the commons by the right wing.

1. The concept of "the commons" has evolved from a central notion in political theory on resource governance to a fundamental axis for the ecological critique of capitalism and for transforming the accumulation pattern (García Linera A.: 2011; Linsalata, L.: 2014). The concept of the commons reflects the need to propose theoretical practices capable of addressing the ecosocial crisis (Gutiérrez, R.: 2018). The current shift toward ecological thinking is not merely a thematic extension of political philosophy, but a radical reconfiguration of the understanding of capitalist accumulation (Toscano, A.: 2021). The neoliberal accumulation pattern has been characterized by accumulation by dispossession and disaster, that is, the privatization of goods and services that were previously public or communal (Fontánez, E.; 2023), affecting the configuration of the socio-political sphere, the production of knowledge, and life as a whole. The ecological crisis makes it clear that capitalism not only exploits labor but also depletes the natural and social systems upon which it depends. The notion of the "commons" emerges here as a counter-paradigm that challenges the logic of private property and its dominant relationship with nature. Nature is not simply a resource to be managed, but the vital system on which we depend. The policies that stem from an "ecological commons" are: (a) subversion of the accumulation pattern; (b) decommodification: removing essential goods from the logic of the market; (c) production of qualitative value, that is, replacing the quantitative accumulation of capital with the production of use value, focused on sustainability and the satisfaction of real needs; and (d) promoting forms of democratic governance. This last point implies replacing hierarchical and technocratic governance with one in which decision-making is collective and participatory. From these reformulations of the "commons," we have moved from an abstract political idea to one that necessarily links ecology and politics. This definition of political ecology provides a conceptual framework that not only attempts to mitigate the damage of the environmental and economic crisis, but also provides situated theoretical and political foundations for developing alternatives to the neoliberal capitalist accumulation pattern based on dispossession and the externalization of ecological costs. From this perspective, transforming the accumulation pattern is only possible through the establishment of commons practices that place the sustainability of life at the center of political theory and action.

2. The perspective of the common in the new Latin American constitutionalisms: the "new Latin American constitutionalism" is intertwined with the notion of "the common" by institutionalizing principles that challenge the liberal-individualist model and the traditional State-centric model, integrating historical demands of social movements, especially indigenous, feminist and environmental movements. Authors such as Boaventura de Sousa Santos and Carlos de la Torre analyze this phenomenon from a situated epistemology seeking to refound the State and its extractivist logic. De Sousa Santos argues that a "constitutional common ground" It gives legal visibility to marginalized social practices such as forms of community governance and their relationship with nature (Sousa, S., 2009). Carlos de la Torre, on the other hand, focuses on the tensions between radical democracy and institutional frameworks in these constituent processes (De la Torre, C: 2023). The main cases in Latin America where the "common" The Constitutional discussion turns to (a) Colombia (1991): The Colombian Constitution of 1991 was a pioneer in recognizing a "pluricultural" State and establishing mechanisms for citizen participation and collective rights (such as those of black and indigenous communities), laying the foundations for the inclusion of "the commons"; (b) Venezuela (1999): The 1999 Constitution redefined sovereignty to include popular participation ("participatory and protagonistic democracy"). Although it centralized state power, it introduced the concept of "public domain goods" and the role of the State in environmental protection, reflecting a rhetoric of reappropriation of resources for the "common"; (c) Bolivia (2009): The Bolivian Constitution is perhaps the most complete example of the institutionalized notion of "the common". It establishes the Plurinational State and recognizes the rights of Pachamama, granting legal status to nature. The principle of Living Well (Suma Qamaña) is a central axis that prioritizes community and ecological harmony over traditional extractive development (d) Chile: the proposed political Constitution (2022) places a strong emphasis on "natural common goods" (especially water) and a potential recognition of plurinationality. Although this constitutional project was rejected, the notion of the common good took on central importance during the debate. The articulation between "the common" and feminism in these constitutional debates is fundamental to understanding the nature of the conceptual change in theoretical and political bets in Latin America. The forms these changes take are evident in the critique of traditional forms of representation; the emergence of assembly-based decision-making as a type of collective decision-making; and the creation of spaces for self-management and care. On this last point, it is possible to highlight the practices of the commons of communal and community feminisms. Part of the essential bibliography for this discussion—in relation to social reproduction, extractivism, and the role of women in territorial resistance—includes the texts of Vandana Shiva, Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Survival in India (1991); Silvia Federici, Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation (1994); and Raquel Gutiérrez Aguilar, ¡A desordenar! (2013); and Lorena Cabnal, Diverse Feminisms: Community Feminism (2010).

3. The Perspective of the National and Identity Commons: The appropriation by the new right of the discourse of "the commons," or more precisely, of a "national identity commons," represents a strategic and electoral shift. The new right does not seek self-management or decommodification, but rather the defense of a homogeneous political and cultural community against what it perceives as external and internal threats: migration, globalism, and gender policies. The axes that describe these positions are: (a) cultural neoconservatism: "National identity" is presented as the supreme "commons" that must be protected. (b) right-wing populism: Far-right leaders use populist language, dividing society between a virtuous and homogeneous "people" (the nation) and "corrupt elites" (political and cultural) who betray this "national commons." Following this same logic of appropriation, the extreme right takes the notion of popular sovereignty to justify authoritarian measures in the name of defending national identity against internal enemies (progressives, minorities) and external enemies (international organizations, migrants); and (c) right-wing Gramscianism: there would be a conscious strategy on the part of the extreme right to influence cultural hegemony, creating "think tanks" for this purpose and using media architecture (images, networks and platforms) to make the common good a conservative and nationalist defense.