Autonomism
Feb 27 2009 21:47
Firstly, Hi 
I'm new here.
Secondly, I have a question. I see myself fitting in with anarcho-syndicalist theory, but recently I've been very interested in autonomism. I have my own ideas about political organisation and the future of the working class struggle, and I'm happy with my position. I suppose it could be described as 'workerism'.
I wondered, could someone explain to me what Autonomism is, a simple clear definition? Wikipedia is not very adequate.
Feb 28 2009 00:14
#2
"Autonomism" is a North American academic bastardization of Italian operaismo.
The latter was in fact a heavily Leninist tendency during the height of its influence.
The re-writing of its history to suit the ideological fantasies of North American anarchists can probably attributed to the faulty assumption that 1) extra-parliamentary and 2) against the trade unions necessarily mean "anarchist".
And don't even get me started on the misapplication of the term to German Autonomen and similar Northern European movements whose affinity with operaismo is tenuous at best, despite the myth-making engaged in by authors like George Katsiaficas.
Don't get hung up on labels and identities anyway. Read stuff, consider arguments, make up your own mind.
Feb 28 2009 04:11
#3
I think of Autonomism as an anglophone tendency around groups like Midnight Notes, who were definitely influenced by Italian operaismo and post-operaismo but other things as well (Foucault, feminism, D&G, anti-nuclear activism, etc). The connecting line is seeing class struggle (which is usually defined very loosely) as the cause of/reason for everything.
Reading the Midnight Notes book 'Midnight Oil' and going through the catalogue of Autonomedia should give a pretty good idea what it's all about.
Feb 28 2009 08:25
#4
Last year I attended a study circle based on the book "Storming Heaven" which focused on the concept of "class composition" as a base of getting a new understanding on the workings of capitalist society, the creation and recreation of the working class as well as the various forms of resistance the working class came up with
This ultimately forcing capitalism to recompose the forms of exploitation, which in turn opened up new venues of resistance. And also all the problems associated with arriving at those conclusions - as well as all the problems of intellectuals, workers, trash-proleratiat, housewives etc. acting upon those conclusions...
It was a very good read I think
http://www.wildcat-www.de/en/wildcat/70/w70_steve_en.htm
But it is all history now even if there is lots to learn, let's go beyond it
Feb 28 2009 15:43
#5
yoshomon wrote:
The connecting line is seeing class struggle (which is usually defined very loosely) as the cause of/reason for everything.
Yeah, in Harry Cleaver's case, it means defining Vietnamese peasant armies lead by members of the middle-class intelligentsia attempting to construct an independent nation-state and the preconditions for capitalist commodity production as "working class".
Mar 1 2009 11:45
#6
Quote:
The connecting line is seeing class struggle (which is usually defined very loosely) as the cause of/reason for everything.
I think yoshomon is quite right to point out this. Autonomism has a tendency to reduce everything outside working class subjectivity into epiphenomenon.
For instance their denial of the existance of crisis and after 1973 crisis their arguements about... crisis being forced by working class struggle...
The reason why this was so seems to be the abandonment of the Marxist value analysis for more fashionable ones such as formal/real domination. For instance Negri... There are lots of referances to his formal/real domination of capital theory in Storming the Heavens
what do you think?
Mar 2 2009 15:01
#7
I think the autonomists are uninteresting as theorists but interesting as historians. I recommend the book Midnight Oil as a history even though I disagree with its conclusions.
Mar 2 2009 17:02
#8
yoshomon wrote:
The connecting line is seeing class struggle (which is usually defined very loosely) as the cause of/reason for everything.
Yeah, and not only that. Labour is posited as being potentially autonomous from capital. While capital need labour to exist, labour doesn't need capital as it can simply self-valorize.
How labour can get away from capital has always puzzled me as they also seem to argue that capital is adept at recuperating the self-valorization of labour. Virno argues that "the struggle against work" from 1977 basically ushered in post-Fordism and flexible labour.
Mar 3 2009 16:18
#9
Quote:
How labour can get away from capital has always puzzled me as they also seem to argue that capital is adept at recuperating the self-valorization of labour. Virno argues that "the struggle against work" from 1977 basically ushered in post-Fordism and flexible labour.
I think this has a strong connection with the formal/real domination theory of marx.
Mar 3 2009 21:37
#10
Quote:
I think this has a strong connection with the formal/real domination theory of marx.
I take it you mean subsumption? I agree that this has a lot to do with it. From what I've gathered self-valorization of labour needs to reach a certain velocity or quantity before it can "take off" from capital. Only then will capital not be able to subsume self-valorization.
Mar 4 2009 12:53
#11
Hi all
Khawaga, (from my reading of) authors like Negri and Virno et al argue that self-valorisation just happens all the time: what ever the composition of labour people attempt to break with capital's control and take control of their creativity ( sometimes more effective than other times.) They do not suggest that this automatically leads to communism. Rather since struggle is the 'motor force of capital' it requires struggles - otherwise it is recuperated (a term alien to Autonomism [ I am happy to use this term for ease]); the forms of struggle need to fit with/arise from the already existing class composition and practices of self-valorisation.
rebel love
Dave
Mar 4 2009 18:36
#12
grumpy cat wrote:
what ever the composition of labour people attempt to break with capital's control and take control of their creativity ( sometimes more effective than other times.)
This sort of personalization and attribution of motives is fairly typical of "autonomism" and co-thinkers. As if capitalism is about "controlling" somebody's "creativity", as opposed to making a profit. If profit can be made while allowing people to obtain full control of their creativity, then it will be. That's exactly why Richard Florida/Creative Class/New Economy/Sascha Lobo/Wir nennen es Arbeit/Toni Negri/Immaterial Labor stuff is such bullshit.
Quote:
Rather since struggle is the 'motor force of capital' it requires struggles - otherwise it is recuperated (a term alien to Autonomism [ I am happy to use this term for ease]); the forms of struggle need to fit with/arise from the already existing class composition and practices of self-valorisation.
Can someone parse this sentence for me?
Mar 4 2009 22:47
#13
For meself, the "autonomists" have been most useful in explaining the everyday class struggle, and describing different mechanisms of capital as well as modes of production. And while they sure got some flaws I have found them to be most useful in understand what goes on at the workplace. (I primarily speak about the older stuff and not recent Negri).
Mar 4 2009 22:53
#14
Angelus Novus wrote:
<blockquote>As if capitalism is about "controlling" somebody's "creativity", as opposed to making a profit. If profit can be made while allowing people to obtain full control of their creativity, then it will be.</blockquote>
Hmm. Well I don't see any chasm between the production of surplus-value and the attempts by capital to control or discipline labour. I think your second point is a fantasy of some capitalist ideologies but not an option for real existing capitalism. Except perhaps in a limited application in certain 'elite' industries. But then we could argue that this is not 'full control'....
And just for you I'll summarise my mangled sentence: organisation must fit with the practices of rebellion in everyday life.
rebel love
Dave
Mar 5 2009 00:10
#15
I'm new to autonomism and I intend to research it, but when you say they say capitalism seeks to control creativity, is this seen as some kind of primal force that is diverted into production and seeks to break out ( I don't quite see how monotonous labour is related to creativity unless it is a dissipation of energy) or was it just window dressing to fit in with other neo-marxist-post-anarchist theories of the time such as situationism? Also the idea that everything is to be seen in terms of the working class/ class struggle just sounds like what conventional marxists say, I remember when in the Militant being told that questioning was middle class etc, but thats getting a little off the point.
Autonomism is essentially a strand of Marxism which emphasizes the role of direct struggle outside existing political structures.
Might be an obvious thing to point out, but check out
http://libcom.org/tags/autonomism
http://libcom.org/tags/harry-cleaver
In my experience, the more widely used term, even in English, is operaismo (or just autonomism), seeing how workerism can, and often is, a term of abuse amongst libertarian marxists and anarchists, given the images of mindless working-class glorification that it summons.