The Polar Blast || Human freedom is not universal, or automatically collective. It is fragile, uneven, and relational, shaped by material conditions, social histories, and networks of care. Political theory and radical practice often stumble over the illusion that freedom is a single, easily defined experience. Yet the lived reality of liberation is more complicated. People do not want the same freedoms, nor do individual liberties automatically expand the freedoms of others. Recognising this is essential to building movements and societies that are genuinely emancipatory rather than coercive in a new guise.
At the foundation of politics lies shared need. Human beings are dependent, not only in infancy but throughout life. We require food, shelter, care, knowledge, and social recognition. Capitalism, with its rhetoric of independence and self-reliance, constantly obscures this truth, portraying dependence as weakness. But the material reality cannot be erased, need asserts itself through illness, grief, poverty, and exhaustion. These shared conditions form the terrain where solidarity and collective action become possible.
Language emerges from the same material foundation. Communication is a tool for coordination, negotiation, refusal, and collective sense-making. It allows us to recognise one another, to articulate injustice, and to organise against domination. Yet language is never neutral. Words carry histories of power, oppression, and exclusion. Terms like “freedom” are shaped by liberalism, colonialism, patriarchy, and class structures. To navigate liberation effectively, movements must attend not just to the words themselves but to their meanings in particular contexts, histories, and communities.
Humans can relate to one another through shared experiences, but no two individuals are identical. Social position, history, trauma, ability, and identity shape how people experience the world and what they desire from it. To assume that everyone wants freedom in the same form is to risk imposing the experience of the most privileged as a universal standard. Revolutionary practice that neglects this difference risks reproducing the same hierarchies it seeks to dismantle.
Liberalism exemplifies this error. It imagines an abstract individual, detached from social relations, whose freedom is defined as the absence of interference. From this emerges the assumption that if each person secures their own autonomy, society as a whole becomes free. Radical critiques of capitalism reveal the falsity of this logic that the freedom of property owners is dependent upon the unfreedom of wage labourers. Yet even outside liberal frameworks, movements can replicate a similar error, assuming that the abolition of formal institutions guarantees a uniform experience of liberty.
Revolutionary history is littered with examples of this error. Emancipation has often been imposed through singular visions of the good life. Individuals who diverged from these visions were disciplined, silenced, or excluded. In these instances, freedom becomes synonymous with conformity rather than choice, and revolutionary language masks coercion.
The lived reality of liberty is complex and varied. For some, freedom may mean stability rather than constant mobility; for others, collective control over land rather than individual autonomy; for others still, safety and predictability after trauma. Not recognising these variations risks substituting one form of domination for another under the banner of liberation.
Individual autonomy does not automatically protect collective freedom. My ability to move, speak, or act may depend upon the constrained liberties of others. Borders, care responsibilities, structural inequalities, and social hierarchies mediate our capacity to act. Without deliberate attention to these relationships, freedom becomes unevenly distributed, and movements claiming liberation can inadvertently reinforce oppression.
This understanding demands a reorientation of ethics and politics. Freedom cannot be defended as a possession or treated as an abstract ideal. It is a social condition that must be collectively produced, maintained, and negotiated. Movements must attend to the material organisation of life – work, care, housing, healthcare, and access to resources – recognising that these conditions shape who can exercise autonomy and in what ways.
Conflicts over freedom are inevitable because people experience risk, opportunity, and security differently. Some can take risks that others cannot; some can embrace instability, while others require predictability to survive. Confronting these asymmetries requires both humility and intentionality. Effective liberation is not about universal agreement on forms of life but about building structures that enable difference without creating hierarchy.
Capitalism teaches us to misunderstand freedom by framing it as personal expression or choice within pre-defined options. Even resistance is commodified, marketed as lifestyle, or absorbed into consumer culture. This produces political subjects who prioritise personal comfort and disengagement, rather than collective accountability. Left unchecked, defending individual autonomy within this framework can reinforce privilege rather than challenge structural inequality.
Anarcho-communism offers an alternative where freedom is inseparable from material and social organisation. Housing, food, land, healthcare, and time are not secondary concerns; they are the terrain on which freedom is realised. Yet these needs manifest differently across social positions. Movements must attend to these differences. Housing campaigns that centre the needs of mobile activists may exclude families or elders. Workplace actions prioritising militancy may expose vulnerable workers to intolerable risk. True liberation requires careful attention to the distribution of resources, risks, and burdens.
This approach does not reject confrontation. Rather, it asks who bears the costs of action and how vulnerability is distributed. Freedom becomes a question not merely of rights or choices but of relational responsibility – who is empowered, who is exposed, and how power circulates within a collective.
Informal hierarchies and power relations are inevitable even in non-hierarchical movements. Charisma, cultural capital, and education shape whose vision of freedom dominates. Left unexamined, these dynamics can reproduce authority in new forms. To challenge this, movements must actively create space for those whose experience of freedom is constrained by trauma, oppression, or marginalisation, ensuring that their voices are heard and heeded.
Time is another axis of differentiation. Capitalism fragments and commodifies time, privileging speed, productivity, and flexibility. For some, freedom is rapid experimentation and constant movement; for others, it is routine, slowness, and the ability to rest. Movements that privilege one temporal experience over another risk excluding participants and entrenching inequities. A liberated society must accommodate multiple rhythms of life, recognising that engagement and struggle take different forms for different people.
Solidarity must also be reimagined. It cannot rest solely on identification or empathy. Real solidarity is commitment and acting to expand others’ freedom even when it does not immediately benefit oneself. This ethic demands limits, accountability, and openness to being transformed by collective struggle. It requires recognising that freedom is not a possession but a relational condition continually produced in social interactions.
Human freedom is not universal, or automatically collective. It is fragile, uneven, and relational, shaped by material conditions, social histories, and networks of care. Political theory and radical practice often stumble over the illusion that freedom is a single, easily defined experience. Yet the lived reality of liberation is more complicated. People do not want the same freedoms, nor do individual liberties automatically expand the freedoms of others. Recognising this is essential to building movements and societies that are genuinely emancipatory rather than coercive in a new guise.
At the foundation of politics lies shared need. Human beings are dependent, not only in infancy but throughout life. We require food, shelter, care, knowledge, and social recognition. Capitalism, with its rhetoric of independence and self-reliance, constantly obscures this truth, portraying dependence as weakness. But the material reality cannot be erased, need asserts itself through illness, grief, poverty, and exhaustion. These shared conditions form the terrain where solidarity and collective action become possible.
Language emerges from the same material foundation. Communication is a tool for coordination, negotiation, refusal, and collective sense-making. It allows us to recognise one another, to articulate injustice, and to organise against domination. Yet language is never neutral. Words carry histories of power, oppression, and exclusion. Terms like “freedom” are shaped by liberalism, colonialism, patriarchy, and class structures. To navigate liberation effectively, movements must attend not just to the words themselves but to their meanings in particular contexts, histories, and communities.
Humans can relate to one another through shared experiences, but no two individuals are identical. Social position, history, trauma, ability, and identity shape how people experience the world and what they desire from it. To assume that everyone wants freedom in the same form is to risk imposing the experience of the most privileged as a universal standard. Revolutionary practice that neglects this difference risks reproducing the same hierarchies it seeks to dismantle.
Liberalism exemplifies this error. It imagines an abstract individual, detached from social relations, whose freedom is defined as the absence of interference. From this emerges the assumption that if each person secures their own autonomy, society as a whole becomes free. Radical critiques of capitalism reveal the falsity of this logic that the freedom of property owners is dependent upon the unfreedom of wage labourers. Yet even outside liberal frameworks, movements can replicate a similar error, assuming that the abolition of formal institutions guarantees a uniform experience of liberty.
Revolutionary history is littered with examples of this error. Emancipation has often been imposed through singular visions of the good life. Individuals who diverged from these visions were disciplined, silenced, or excluded. In these instances, freedom becomes synonymous with conformity rather than choice, and revolutionary language masks coercion.
The lived reality of liberty is complex and varied. For some, freedom may mean stability rather than constant mobility; for others, collective control over land rather than individual autonomy; for others still, safety and predictability after trauma. Not recognising these variations risks substituting one form of domination for another under the banner of liberation.
Individual autonomy does not automatically protect collective freedom. My ability to move, speak, or act may depend upon the constrained liberties of others. Borders, care responsibilities, structural inequalities, and social hierarchies mediate our capacity to act. Without deliberate attention to these relationships, freedom becomes unevenly distributed, and movements claiming liberation can inadvertently reinforce oppression.
This understanding demands a reorientation of ethics and politics. Freedom cannot be defended as a possession or treated as an abstract ideal. It is a social condition that must be collectively produced, maintained, and negotiated. Movements must attend to the material organisation of life – work, care, housing, healthcare, and access to resources – recognising that these conditions shape who can exercise autonomy and in what ways.
Conflicts over freedom are inevitable because people experience risk, opportunity, and security differently. Some can take risks that others cannot; some can embrace instability, while others require predictability to survive. Confronting these asymmetries requires both humility and intentionality. Effective liberation is not about universal agreement on forms of life but about building structures that enable difference without creating hierarchy.
Capitalism teaches us to misunderstand freedom by framing it as personal expression or choice within pre-defined options. Even resistance is commodified, marketed as lifestyle, or absorbed into consumer culture. This produces political subjects who prioritise personal comfort and disengagement, rather than collective accountability. Left unchecked, defending individual autonomy within this framework can reinforce privilege rather than challenge structural inequality.
Anarcho-communism offers an alternative where freedom is inseparable from material and social organisation. Housing, food, land, healthcare, and time are not secondary concerns; they are the terrain on which freedom is realised. Yet these needs manifest differently across social positions. Movements must attend to these differences. Housing campaigns that centre the needs of mobile activists may exclude families or elders. Workplace actions prioritising militancy may expose vulnerable workers to intolerable risk. True liberation requires careful attention to the distribution of resources, risks, and burdens.
This approach does not reject confrontation. Rather, it asks who bears the costs of action and how vulnerability is distributed. Freedom becomes a question not merely of rights or choices but of relational responsibility – who is empowered, who is exposed, and how power circulates within a collective.
Informal hierarchies and power relations are inevitable even in non-hierarchical movements. Charisma, cultural capital, and education shape whose vision of freedom dominates. Left unexamined, these dynamics can reproduce authority in new forms. To challenge this, movements must actively create space for those whose experience of freedom is constrained by trauma, oppression, or marginalisation, ensuring that their voices are heard and heeded.
Time is another axis of differentiation. Capitalism fragments and commodifies time, privileging speed, productivity, and flexibility. For some, freedom is rapid experimentation and constant movement; for others, it is routine, slowness, and the ability to rest. Movements that privilege one temporal experience over another risk excluding participants and entrenching inequities. A liberated society must accommodate multiple rhythms of life, recognising that engagement and struggle take different forms for different people.
Solidarity must also be reimagined. It cannot rest solely on identification or empathy. Real solidarity is commitment and acting to expand others’ freedom even when it does not immediately benefit oneself. This ethic demands limits, accountability, and openness to being transformed by collective struggle. It requires recognising that freedom is not a possession but a relational condition continually produced in social interactions.
Effective anarcho-communist practice recognises these challenges. Freedom and equality are inseparable, but neither can be defined once and for all. They emerge through care, negotiation, conflict, and the ongoing reconstruction of social life beyond the state and capital. Success is not measured by capturing institutions or achieving ideological consensus but by expanding the actual possibilities available to those constrained by oppression and exclusion.
Ultimately, freedom is fragile, relational, and collective. It is not guaranteed by intention, formal declarations, or individual liberty. It must be actively nurtured, contested, and reimagined in response to material conditions, historical injustices, and the diversity of human experience. Liberation is not about imposing one vision of life upon all others, nor is it achieved through the mere absence of coercive structures. It is the ongoing, imperfect work of building conditions in which people can shape their own lives, collectively and autonomously, without reproducing domination in new forms.
Anarcho-communism offers a path toward this kind of freedom. It does not promise simplicity, certainty, or uniformity. It demands engagement, reflection, and responsibility. But it provides a framework for creating a society where difference is respected, collective care is central, and freedom is continuously produced rather than assumed. It is a politics that recognises human interdependence without collapsing it into sameness, that confronts structural power while fostering agency, and that understands liberation as an active, relational, and shared process. In this way, freedom becomes not a possession or a static condition, but a living practice, fragile, uneven, and profoundly human.
Discover more from Class Autonomy
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
