From the title to the end, this work calls for a change in the order of today's things. But to make things clear: What is it for you to dazzle the world again?

For me, to re-fascinate the world is to reunite a number of things that capitalism has differentiated. Both in terms of society and the relationship of individuals with nature.

The essay talks about the policy of the commons, which has become a very important issue, at the heart of the policy of various social groups. I have also referred to how this policy relates to feminism and feminism in favor of the commons.

The toilet policy is back. What has it caused?

Neoliberal policies have led to the impoverishment of the mass, which affects women in particular. There is talk of the feminization of poverty, of expropriation, of displacement or of migratory waves, among other things. In practice, an attack is taking place on all communal property and relations, the result of which has developed awareness of community spaces and public space. Because public space is increasingly being reduced, with strong privatisation affecting all aspects of life. The living areas under our control are being commercialized. Consequently, the state or capital is developing the awareness that it does not guarantee our survival. I think that's why the discourse of the commons returns.

Despite the boom, there have been displacements on the part of the discourse of the commons, in terms of being at the center of revolutionary movements.

It's curious. Until the 19th century the discourse of the commons was very basic in the movements revolucionarios.Por example, around the 16th and 17th centuries, we can find the Diggers, a radical group of England dedicated to the occupation and planting of land, who faced the privatization of the land and the expulsion of the peasants. Also in the days after the French revolution there were revolutionaries using the concept of the commons, claiming that the land was of all and not privatizable. But from the 19th century on, and because of industrialization, there was a change. I am trying to recognize the moment of transition when the discourse of the commons is no longer the basis, as I would like to work on it in another work. At the time of the development of socialism, of the factory, of the industrial revolution, of the proletariat and of Marxism, the discourse of the commons disappeared. None of this in the struggle for wages or the reduction of working hours to eight hours. The revolutionary discourse varies greatly between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and the discourse of the commons is coming back now.

Come back, but new toilet visions are being created. This is positive in view of what you advocate: that we have to go beyond the ideas of the previously thought out and obsolete commons.

To imagine the return to the past when we think about the bathroom today makes no sense. The past is not repeated. In addition, there is no universal model in common. The models are developed through the struggle, they have to be a consequence of the struggle and explain what is possible. Fighting is also a process of experimentation.

For many aspects, services are essential.

Creating the commons is important not only for survival, but also for struggle and resistance. This is an organizational priority that allows the creation of organizations capable of transforming relations and production models. It is a powerful road that can strengthen the construction of the bathrooms, allowing us to create solidarity. Not only solidarity with the living, but also with the dead: recovering history, placing our experience of struggle in a broader context, in something bigger. The bathroom can also be a way to recover the past and historical memory, avoiding both individual and historical isolation.

It says that services, if there is anything, are social relationships.

When we think in common, we do not think of a piece of land, but of a principle of social organization, of a social system, of a very different logic of the state and of the market. When we think together, we reflect on how to share the natural wealth and the wealth produced, making ourselves responsible for the lives of others and overcoming individualism, and propitiating collective and assembly decision-making. That is what I find common: An organised society with a very different logic of the State and the market, in which the construction of elements of self-government is addressed.

You are a supporter of a society based on organisational assembly. But you're also critical of consensus.

Although consensus seems democratic, it is often not. For example, if we start from a different relationship with reproduction, we cannot all be immersed in ten-hour debates. That is why it is often said that, although consensus seems propitious, it helps the strongest: to those who do not have family duties, to whom it can dedicate the whole night to the discussion. It is important to raise all these issues.

You confirm that the discourse of the commons will continue to spread further.

I think it will inevitably spread, because more and more people realize that the state, capitalism and the market do not guarantee survival. Just as he realizes that we are on the verge of a brutal reproductive crisis. In fact, the logic of working away from home, buying on the market after the job is done, and after that, cleaning and cooking is not sustainable. We can buy precooked food, OK, but if we have a baby, what is the market going to do to ensure its survival? On the other hand, taking advantage of the fact that we have mentioned prepared food: this cheap, racitic food destroys our bodies and our lives, new diseases emerge as epidemics of cancer. And with this, I'm not saying that the woman who buys food ready to lead her life forward is guilty. What I'm saying is that we need different forms of reproduction.

Women are the ones in charge of the tasks of reproduction, the fundamental role to create the workforce, and that is why, in their words, the “zero point” of the revolution. In his day, as part of the Wages for Household Tasks movement, you claimed the salary for the tasks of reproduction.

Undoubtedly, the claim for domestic work was very important in the 1970s. The feminist movement had a great force at that time, it had the strength to contract new relationships: between women, between women and men, between women and capital, between women and the state. We had the strength to make accomplishments that could change our lives. Paid work is a double day, beneficial to capitalism, which allows it a great wealth. Today, 80% of women work outside the home and yet they are the poorest and therefore the most feared. We therefore demand a wage for domestic work, it is enough to do unpaid work. We demand payment for the work that capitalism is doing. Not because you're a woman, but because of the jobs that men don't do.

Today, the conflict is continuing. Do you hold the same position?

On the one hand, the problem of resources. People work and work, and they have to buy all the needs outside the workplace with whom they win at work: also a person who takes care of children and the elderly. In EE.UU. Many women have two jobs, and yet they are indebted for the difficulty of making ends meet. In these situations, there is a conflict in the access to resources.

On the other hand, we have the problem of the reorganization of work. There's a chance to share jobs with men, but what if we don't have a man next to them? If we live alone? Or another woman? Of course men have to share jobs with women, but that's not the solution. It is a more community and collective way of organizing the keys. The creation of more community-based forms of reproduction strengthens the social network and relations between women. Moreover, it allows for more power of resistance to the State and more forms of re-appropriation of wealth. That is my current position.

With a view to the construction of a new toilet model, the restructuring of reproductive work should be a basic task. In her view, it is a job that women have to do.

Women should be the ones doing this work, as it is women who suffer the most lateral damage. Men will not take care of this work. Do you know a group of men who are responsible for restructuring the growth of children? Anyone who inserts a debate on childcare within their social agenda? Well, no. So if we're waiting for that work to be done by men, we can die. In addition, I believe that women have an acquired experience from generation to generation. We are the most educated and interested. This does not mean that men cannot participate in the restructuring process, but decision-making power should be for women.

What Marx called primitive storage is still in force today, and the return of the discourse of the commons is present in the context. In addition, with globalization and neoliberalism, he says that not only has it normalized, but it has moved to the extreme. In what ways can we detect it?

Today, there is talk of primitive accumulation to indicate that it was not something limited to the last phase of capitalism. It is maintained and given at crucial moments, moments of return, in crises that force capital to rebuild its bases. The present is a savage capitalism that is taking advantage of different forms of expropriation. The expropriation of land is taking place. The tremendous mass displacement is repeated. We are talking about a total expropriation that leads millions of people to a very vulnerable labour market and that necessarily makes us dependent on the production market. So they expropriate us and make us increasingly dependent on the market. This means that we will increasingly see ourselves in the need to earn more money to sustain life and create situations of slavery, impoverishment. That is why we are talking about the return of primitive accumulation, which mainly affects women.

Primitive accumulation affects women in various ways, such as expropriation of land. Proof of this is that in many parts of the world women are the majority in the front line of the struggle against the expropriation of land. Are these overseas companions making us aware of new models of resistance?

Yes, of course. Today, as in the past, in many places women are the protagonists of the struggles to create, defend and protect the land. Because they are aware that once the land is contaminated, the whole community is lost, when an oil company intervenes, for example: it prevents them from continuing to grow and avoid living in it. On the other hand, with the impoverishment and urbanization of society, new bathrooms are being created. The expulsion of people from the countryside to the city has created new forms of more collective reproduction: popular canteens, urban orchards,… that create a complete community network. In the book I refer to the women of South America and Africa, who occupy the public space in the urban centers, who sow in that land and start harvesting. This is a new phenomenon that eliminates the distinction between city and rural area. In this sense, it is interesting to observe these examples to understand how they reinforce both the resistance and the capacity of resistance to the State, and how they allow moving from the situation of vulnerability to a position of greater strength. It serves them to defend what is there and to organize regeneration processes.

Even though the idea of getting together, organizing and living in community is spreading, along the way you've identified a big obstacle: attracting technology.

I have a conflict with the vision that celebrates everything related to digital technology, mobile, iPad and other things like a construction community. In fact, social relations are becoming more individualistic, they're moving us away from each other. With regard to the subject, one has to look at another very important aspect: the production of this tenology destroys many communal assets, since the destruction of natural resources is at the basis of production. Although this is not mentioned above, these new technologies are produced by working slaves, by the workforce of workers living in violent helplessness. A lot of blood is poured into the production process of these technological devices. So how can we celebrate the use of these technologies? We should rethink what we call wealth, what is value and what we give.