This book explores the complex relationship between urban commons – understood as a repertoire of collective action that fosters a politics of antagonism – and the local state. It critiques the dominant neo-institutionalist and neo-Marxist perspectives for their deterministic and siloed views, as well as the insufficient attention they pay to the municipal scale. The book proposes a more nuanced, urban-based, outcome-oriented approach rooted in assemblage theory. The analysis addresses a central question: can urban commons-local state assemblages benefit the politics of urban commons? The book argues that they can, provided they form rhizomatic assemblages. These allow urban commons to retain their self-governing autonomy, even as they lose some of their material autonomy. Conversely, it shows that assemblages can also take arborescent forms, allowing the local state to undermine the self-governing autonomy of the urban commons. Focusing on Barcelona, the book examines how rhizomatic and arborescent assemblages are constructed, as well as the strategies that urban commons can undertake to build rhizomatic assemblages. This book is essential for scholars, policymakers, and activists interested in urban governance, commons theory and transformative politics. It provides both theoretical insights and practical tools for harnessing the dynamics of the urban commons and the local state to drive meaningful socio-political change.

Table of Contents:
Acknowledgements 1 Introduction: Situating Urban Commons-Local State Assemblages 1.1 Introduction 1.2 An emerging political practice in European cities: the politics of the urban commons 1.3 Urban commons-local state interactions: a siloed and deterministic understanding 1.4 An epistemology for urban commons-local state interaction: urban commons-local state assemblages 1.5 Rhizomatic and arborescent assemblages: enhancing the politics of the urban commons 1.6 Researching urban commons-local state assemblages: Barcelona, case studies, and methods 2 Beyond Neo-Marxist and Neo-Institutionalist Dichotomies: Commons-State Assemblages in the Urban Context 2.1 Introduction 2.2 The re-emergence of the commons: the neo-institutionalist and the neo-Marxist perspectives 2.3 The commons and the state: the neo-institutionalist and the neo-Marxist perspectives 2.4 Bridging the two perspectives: towards a more nuanced understanding of state-commons interactions 2.5 The urban dimension of the commons: the ambivalent political possibilities of the urban context 2.6 Incorporating the urban dimension of the state: the political opportunities offered by the local state 2.7 Conclusion 3 Urban Commons-Local State Assemblage Regimes in Barcelona 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Urban commons-local state assemblage regimes: from the early 20th century to the 2000s 3.3 Urban commons-local state assemblage regimes: the 2007–2008 financial crisis, urban movements and the rise of BComú 3.4 The urban commons-local state assemblage regime under BComú: urban welfare and commons-sympathetic policies 3.5 Conclusion 4 A Rhizomatic Urban Commons-Local State Assemblage: Can Batlló Sociocultural Centre and the Citizen Assets Programme 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Building a rhizomatic urban commons-local state assemblages: neighbourhood struggles, the neoliberalisation of urban development, and the financial crisis 4.3 Practicing a rhizomatic urban commons-local state assemblage: the Can Batlló sociocultural centre under the conservative government 4.4 Consolidating a rhizomatic urban commons-local state assemblage: the Can Batlló project and the Citizen Assets programme under the BComú governments 4.5 Conclusion 5 An Arborescent Urban Commons-Local State Assemblages: The Puigcerdà Informal Settlement and the Alencop Waste-Picking Cooperative 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Building a rhizomatic urban commons-local state assemblages: migration flows, the financial crisis, and the rise of the Puigcerdà informal settlement 5.3 Dismantling a rhizomatic urban commons-local state assemblage: the eviction of the Puigcerdà informal settlement and the Informal Settlement plan under the conservative government 5.4 Rebuilding an urban commons-local state assemblage in an arborescent form: the Alencop waste-picking cooperative under the conservative and BComú governments 5.5 Conclusion 6 Conclusion 6.1 Strategies for enhancing the politics of the urban commons 6.2 Exploiting the local state’s rationalities and policy interventions: developing a strategically recalibrated approach to urban politics and building networks with social movements 6.3 Navigating the tension between urban commons’ autonomy and local state support: building both self-governing and material autonomy 6.4 Occupying the local state: leveraging New Municipalism to extend the politics of the urban commons beyond electoral cycles 6.5 Avenues for future research Index