'Big society' can give power back to communities

Yesterday, David Cameron launched his "big society" initiative – which will, he says, liberate individuals from the "dead hand" of the state and reinvigorate communities. This seems odd: up to now, the Tories have shown themselves to be unconcerned with, even fearful of, real people and their power. They have no concern for those on low incomes – the IFS concludes that the budget will hurt those worst off most , and the Financial Times concurs . And one of this government's first acts was to allow Boris Johnson to clear that irksome example of people power from outside parliament . It is difficult to believe their rhetoric of the big society when the Tories seem intent on impoverishing society proper with macroeconomic measures that will conclude in a double-dip recession and mass unemployment . Most of the slack from the cuts will not be picked up by civil society but outsourced to companies, shovelling money into a minority of already wealthy hands. The Tories remain a party of property ownership and corporations. The big society is clearly a mask for cuts For those with longer political memories, the bromides of the big society seem quite familiar, a little reheated. Minus the snappy name, New Labour suggested the same mix of localist empowerment and civil society regeneration couched in the rhetoric of community. Requiring the third sector of charities and volunteer groups to provide public services was a distinctive element of the third way . In 2002, Tony Blair wrote that we need to "rebuild a strong civic society where rights and duties go hand in hand", advocating renewal in the hands of local people. The differences are superficial: Cameron might chuck in a reference to Burke where Blair threw in a William Morris quote. In Blair's Community , Sarah Hale shows that New Labour's communitarianism largely meant market-like relations with nice words attached. More vitally, critical sociologists have argued that New Labour reforms tended to be an example of the "roll out" of neoliberalism , the installation of market values where they were previously absent. With the New Labour case in one hand and the budget in the other, why should anyone believe the Tories' big society? Yet there is something in the proposal that is ripe for a spot of political détournement . The things it advocates – community self-organisation, co-operation, local direct democracy – have always been aspects of the left in its anarchist, democratic socialist and Marxist forms. The idea of "dual power" where autonomous organisations stand alongside but opposed to the state has a long history. There are many instances in South America which have provided inspiration for the anti-globalisation movement – the Zapatista organisation of autonomous municipalities is the best known example, where people control their local area and production through democratic communities, ignoring local councils entirely or requiring these councils to recognise them as the real power. Whereas the big society attempts to suppress dissent, providing a sop and cover for cuts and the market, these forms of organisation – anything from solidarity networks to food co-operatives – are communities of dissent. They provide what is materially vital for its members, while being boldly political. Their internal politics – egalitarian, horizontal, consensus-based – promote dignity and real community, reflecting the form of organisation they wish to see throughout society. Their external politics are directed against capital and the state – they know the cause of their exclusion, and organise themselves against it. These principles naturally spill into the workplace, in worker-controlled organisations. Factories across Argentina run themselves " sin Patrones " , without bosses. Each member directs the organisation in weekly meetings, all positions or roles are rotated and wages are equalised. Despite their gestures in the public services, worker control in the private sector is something the Tories fear and unionism was something Thatcher sought to crush – it would be a brilliant irony if with a Akido-like reversal the big society led to their revival. The Tories are opening a crack for us. If using "dormant" money in the banks is permissible, why repurpose "dormant" property? As in Paris, where the rents had skyrocketed , the homeless and those on social provision could simply take over unused property. Then we can start talking about the redistribution of the other "dormant" money lying around. Perhaps we can create networks of solidarity and mutual aid that will allow people to survive austerity and job losses, while directing their proper anger against the forces that created that situation and destroyed their communities in the first place – ultimately, the system of capitalism itself.