From the outset, I would like to apologise for the frequent use of the word 'community' in this text. The reasoning behind this is largely personal, but also contains some political principle. For the former, in the shit-infested waters of contemporary society it is impossible to know what the word means. The dictionary gives a definition as 'a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage', but this sheds light on nothing in a discussion on the creation of alternative 'communities' as a method of struggle. With regards to political principles, it feels wrong to use a word so corrupted and devoid of any meaning by the state, warlords, businessmen and ruling classes. They talk of, among others, the European, economic and banking 'communities', all of which need to be destroyed due to their role in a society of systematic exploitation and oppression. They have abused the once powerfully positive connotations of the term to, as always, achieve their own ends in a more politically diplomatic way. One could talk of autonomous communities based on principles of mutual-aid and solidarity, but even these words are thrown around so much by the anarcho counter-culture that to define and use them would clarify little in a definition of the term. That said, in true hypocrisy, the word community will appear regularly in this text with reference to a social grouping sharing similar principles and desires, as well as similar ideas of how to achieve them.

Why is – and I am referring to England here – the creation of alternative communities such a popular method of combating the social relationship that is Capitalism? Be they rented, squatted, negotiated or otherwise, there seems to be a deluded notion that within a physical structure or proximity we can create an alternative to the existent and break down the relations imposed upon, but also perpetuated by us, and thus extend a social ethos that we would like to see.
My opposition to such an activity with the intention of combating state and capital is that alternatives is exactly all they are. Thanks to the multitude of choices available to us in this theatre of consumption we can choose an image of whatever we want. Fashion, food, drink, language, housing, work etc. have all been commodified to the point where those consuming can, depending on some variables e.g. salary, pick and choose as to what they want to look like, sound, eat, drink, and sometimes even feel. The only thing that sets these radical alternative communities aside is that, generally speaking, they claim to do away with the bullshit of the mainstream. A worthwhile cause, but we have to be aware of the limitations.
These alternatives we exert so much energy trying to create are in fact nothing but another choice on the market. They are providing for a clientèle just like every other pub, club, cinema and café. The walls we reside in are not being paid for. The beer is cheaper and food is for a donation. There is a free shop and artwork painted directly onto the walls rather than hanging from them. Mutual-aid and solidarity do not necessarily entail any of these things. Discrimination and hierarchy often still runs rife, but it is ignored due to the physical and financial differences being obvious. I do not want to engage with that old criticism of the anarchist scene that it is simply just another social clique, another subculture, but its a valid point. The same old faces, wearing the same old clothes, having the same old conversations turn up time and time again.
As has been said before, these alternatives in many ways simply supplement what the mainstream lacks. To have a place that provides many of the services a more legitimate establishment would otherwise have to, but for free or significantly cheaper, is actually quite useful to those in power as it keeps alternative consumers content in the alternatives and radicals content in occupation. Those wanting to believe they are doing something for social change (whatever that means) can opt out of a gross culture of excess into a bubble of supposed political tension that does little more than fuel the state's power games and justify their repressive measures.
One sentence repeatedly springs to mind when considering this topic: nothing is legal that is genuinely damaging to state power. Squats are social housing, peaceful protests project an image of freedom and alternative communities are but another subculture to reside in and be capitalised upon. We've all seen the merchandise branded with the encircled 'A'; the compilation CDs promoting the spirit of May '68 or the ready-stained combat trousers: it is profit from the marketisation of another subculture.

So why is such an activity so popular? I see a number of reasons, admittedly largely relating to the creation of squatted spaces, but not limited to such.
There is no significant risk of legal security in the creation of a new community. In the occupation of a potential squatted space one might be arrested for breaking and entering or criminal damage, but neither of these charges will result in much more than frustration at having to spend up to twenty-four hours in a cell. With this lack of risk comes a lessened importance of secrecy. Those who initiated the occupation and subsequent creation of their community can be very vocal on the subject, leading to a (they might hope) positive perception of them as being 'on it' and active within supposedly radically political circles. This then pays off for the often massive amount of workloads required to bring a space into desirable living and social standards and many will know the amount of time and energy it takes to organise a once uninhabited building into whatever desired result. The results can be impressive however, which provides for the point that such ventures are easily measurable in a quantitative manner. This space of whatever size was occupied, in whatever location, with this amount of activities and events on offer, with this many people coming through the door on a popular evening, and so on. The local media can get on board and give this new community good coverage, justified by the fact that this aids the spread of a radical new alternative, regardless of how much those involved claim to detest the corrupt mainstream media. The positive connotations of creation as opposed to destruction aid the building of popular support: but are we missing the forest by looking for the trees?
Finally, when a space comes to an end, everyone can sit around and reflect on what worked, what could have been done better, how they can spread the word, how they can break their next venture out of the social clique, all the time rubbing their egos that something important has happened. The reality is that we have simply maintained our own status quo and perpetuated our self-prescribed specialised existence. At the doors of the cathedral squatted for the purposes of Co-Mutiny this was beautifully summarised by someone not even knowing it: 'I feel like we've just created another pub.'

This text is by no means disregarding many of the principles alternative communities are built on, but their practice must not only manifest in publicised events or contained within specific vicinities. Someone very close to me once said they thought the most important thing was to be an anarchist in your everyday relations with others, and I think there is a great deal of truth in this. As great a need as there is for revolutionary solidarity, it must also be practised on a day to day basis in individual instances of domination, oppression and exploitation. As glamorous as autonomy sounds when used with regards to the organisation of an event, it means nothing if we do not – given the constraints imposed upon us – create our own lives according to our own principles. Mutual-aid should not be set aside for a week of events constrained within the multifaceted structure of an old cathedral, but be taken for granted in our daily lives. On top of all this, we must do away with the monotones of resistance, and embrace a mentality of attack.

Something new can only be built on the ashes of the old. If we are ever to be truly free we must destroy the existent, its defendants and, why not, its false critics.