The common pots served to raise awareness on the part of the popular sectors that, in the long run, will translate into opposition to the military regime, causing the residents to take a political stance towards their own reality; and as Clarisa Hardy points out, "urban subsistence organizations will be a scene of new social practices, prohibited in the daily life of sectors subjected, daily, to the demanding task of obtaining means for their reproduction and that of their families",[10]​ such that this permanent discomfort will lead to the identification of the problem with the same system that separated and particularized them.

In the political projection of the common pots, as a space for the residents, Gabriel Salazar, in a prologue to a book that describes and analyzes ten common pots in Santiago, characterizes the common pots as "cells with an anti-liberal and anti-dictatorial trajectory",[11]​ a question that opens the doors to these popular instances for their subsequent expression and, with it, to the very praxis of popular power.

Eugenio Tironi explains the reaction of the residents, pointing out that "frustration would lead the residents to protest, putting them on the front line of social mobilization that, as an inevitable result of the aggressiveness that the situation engendered in the population, would take increasingly violent forms,"[12] thus beginning to shape a more defined position of the residents towards the regime. In this way, Verónica Salas"), emphasizes that the moment the residents realized that "the specific solution to their initial problem is not enough, they began to consider other objectives, such as overthrowing the dictatorship."[13] Both quotes make it possible to establish the connection between subsistence organizations and the subsequent space for political coordination, since thanks to the need to obtain food and satisfy hunger, the residents realize that the problem covers more areas than just obtaining resources to From them, then, we see the emergence of political life in the common pots and their use as a pretext for organization.

Another important feature to analyze—after seeing the conversion of subsistence organizations into political spaces—is the impact of these organizations on the mobilizations that took place in the period 1983-1986; Gonzalo de la Maza and Mario Garcés,[14]​ raise the predominant role that the residents had in the days of national protests, explicitly referring to those who fought against hunger; from which we rescue the increasingly greater influence of the residents' organizations and their implications in national life. The way in which they were constituted and the way in which, gradually, they were inserted as a radical element in Chilean society, would end up triggering a larger process, such as the creation of the metropolitan coordinator of residents, the Coordinator of Population Groups and the Dignity Residents Movement.

In summary, the common pots would have acted as catalysts for popular organizations, thus allowing the articulation of spaces within the populations for their internal organization and subsequent political projection through popular organizations and population coordinators. These spaces of political coordination, points out C. Hardy, were born "during the years between 1978 and 1983, they were linked to population organizations through expressive demands on the problems of urban housing and habitat. Their consolidation in public life occurred in 1983 when, in the heat of national protests, they claimed for themselves the representativeness of the residents."[15]​.

The existing bibliography on the topic of common pots (and their relationship with spaces for political articulation) is relatively scarce and shallow.

In relation to subsistence organizations, Clarisa Hardy - Chilean psychologist and anthropologist - has various works on urban poverty and organizations in the popular sectors; This author suggests that among the intrinsic purposes of the common pots "is to be able to satisfy, through the association of human and material resources, the nutritional needs of their families."[16]​.

Along the same lines, Bernarda Gallardo, a Chilean sociologist, develops a very similar approach regarding common pots, since she places special emphasis on the subsistence nature that they have; defining them as "spaces that form popular families with the purpose of facing the inability to satisfy the need to eat on their own."[17]​.

As a summary, the definition of a popular training booklet of the PET (Work Economy Program, 1986), which generally contains the link relationship between need and organization, pointing out: "common pots constitute a subsistence organization."

However, the position of Carlos Piña, who when referring to the origin of the common pots in the economic crisis of 1982, states that "it is not - using current terms - a preferential or priority subsistence strategy in the population environment, [but would rather respond to] motivations tending to make it an instrument of denunciation of the situation of poverty, unemployment and repression that is experienced at the population level."[18]​ Therefore, It is essential to highlight the political nature of the common pots.

From the above, it can be stated that the common pots - in times of dictatorship - were territorial subsistence organizations, which were born from the prevailing social conditions of the moment, in order to denounce them. The common pots served as a seedbed for the coordination of future organizations that would confront the military regime.

The common pots served to raise awareness on the part of the popular sectors that, in the long run, will translate into opposition to the military regime, causing the residents to take a political stance towards their own reality; and as Clarisa Hardy points out, "urban subsistence organizations will be a scene of new social practices, prohibited in the daily life of sectors subjected, daily, to the demanding task of obtaining means for their reproduction and that of their families",[10]​ such that this permanent discomfort will lead to the identification of the problem with the same system that separated and particularized them.

In the political projection of the common pots, as a space for the residents, Gabriel Salazar, in a prologue to a book that describes and analyzes ten common pots in Santiago, characterizes the common pots as "cells with an anti-liberal and anti-dictatorial trajectory",[11]​ a question that opens the doors to these popular instances for their subsequent expression and, with it, to the very praxis of popular power.

Eugenio Tironi explains the reaction of the residents, pointing out that "frustration would lead the residents to protest, putting them on the front line of social mobilization that, as an inevitable result of the aggressiveness that the situation engendered in the population, would take increasingly violent forms,"[12] thus beginning to shape a more defined position of the residents towards the regime. In this way, Verónica Salas"), emphasizes that the moment the residents realized that "the specific solution to their initial problem is not enough, they began to consider other objectives, such as overthrowing the dictatorship."[13] Both quotes make it possible to establish the connection between subsistence organizations and the subsequent space for political coordination, since thanks to the need to obtain food and satisfy hunger, the residents realize that the problem covers more areas than just obtaining resources to From them, then, we see the emergence of political life in the common pots and their use as a pretext for organization.

Another important feature to analyze—after seeing the conversion of subsistence organizations into political spaces—is the impact of these organizations on the mobilizations that took place in the period 1983-1986; Gonzalo de la Maza and Mario Garcés,[14]​ raise the predominant role that the residents had in the days of national protests, explicitly referring to those who fought against hunger; from which we rescue the increasingly greater influence of the residents' organizations and their implications in national life. The way in which they were constituted and the way in which, gradually, they were inserted as a radical element in Chilean society, would end up triggering a larger process, such as the creation of the metropolitan coordinator of residents, the Coordinator of Population Groups and the Dignity Residents Movement.

In summary, the common pots would have acted as catalysts for popular organizations, thus allowing the articulation of spaces within the populations for their internal organization and subsequent political projection through popular organizations and population coordinators. These spaces of political coordination, points out C. Hardy, were born "during the years between 1978 and 1983, they were linked to population organizations through expressive demands on the problems of urban housing and habitat. Their consolidation in public life occurred in 1983 when, in the heat of national protests, they claimed for themselves the representativeness of the residents."[15]​.

The existing bibliography on the topic of common pots (and their relationship with spaces for political articulation) is relatively scarce and shallow.

In relation to subsistence organizations, Clarisa Hardy - Chilean psychologist and anthropologist - has various works on urban poverty and organizations in the popular sectors; This author suggests that among the intrinsic purposes of the common pots "is to be able to satisfy, through the association of human and material resources, the nutritional needs of their families."[16]​.

Along the same lines, Bernarda Gallardo, a Chilean sociologist, develops a very similar approach regarding common pots, since she places special emphasis on the subsistence nature that they have; defining them as "spaces that form popular families with the purpose of facing the inability to satisfy the need to eat on their own."[17]​.

As a summary, the definition of a popular training booklet of the PET (Work Economy Program, 1986), which generally contains the link relationship between need and organization, pointing out: "common pots constitute a subsistence organization."

However, the position of Carlos Piña, who when referring to the origin of the common pots in the economic crisis of 1982, states that "it is not - using current terms - a preferential or priority subsistence strategy in the population environment, [but would rather respond to] motivations tending to make it an instrument of denunciation of the situation of poverty, unemployment and repression that is experienced at the population level."[18]​ Therefore, It is essential to highlight the political nature of the common pots.

From the above, it can be stated that the common pots - in times of dictatorship - were territorial subsistence organizations, which were born from the prevailing social conditions of the moment, in order to denounce them. The common pots served as a seedbed for the coordination of future organizations that would confront the military regime.