Autonom(ous)(ist) Marxism - Half baked anarcho-syndicalism?

I agree that there are a few similarities between autonomist Marxism and anarcho-syndicalism, but I think you (Omar) are overstating them. There may be a certain convergence in that they both combine elements traditionally associated with anarchism and Marxism. My understanding of the historical development of these tendencies is that anarcho-syndicalism arose out of the interaction between anarchism and the industrial labour movement—and thus was influenced by early Marxism—but has more recently been influenced by the dominant lifestylist/identity politics tendencies in the anarchist movement (both adapting to and critically reacting against them). Autonomist Marxism emerged from encounters between 'workerist' strains of Marxism (with various degrees of Leninism) and extra-parliamentary social movements dominated by identity politics and/or lifestylist anarchism.

However, while anarcho-syndicalism is oriented towards anarchist organising within the sphere of labour (i.e. the workplace), autonomist Marxism brings a Marxist analysis of labour to bear on areas of struggle outside of the workplace (i.e. areas usually considered to lie outside of the direct labour/capital relation). So in this sense they are actually mirror images of each other.

I really don't know enough about anarcho-syndicalist theory to comment on how the specific concepts you outline line up with their autonomist counterparts. My understanding of the autonomist concept of value is that it is generated not only within the narrow sphere of production but also within the sphere of the reproduction of labour (i.e. the 'social factory' concept you mention), and that it is 'excessive' or only incompletely captured by capital. This does seem to 'fit' well with some anarchist ideas and practices, but I'm not sure of their particular expression within anarcho-syndicalist theory. Could you elaborate on how some specific anarcho-syndicalist theorists have analysed labour as being 'immeasurable'? For comparison, I would say that (excluding Negri's more recent work), autonomist Marxists tend to conceive of labour-as-value as being ultimately 'immeasurable', yet still subjected to capitalist measurement.

Sorry Angelus Novus, but ideas don't work that way. Regardless of your opinion of their ideas, there are actual people—theorists and activists—who are developing, discussing, and applying these ideas in various struggles. Even if autonomist Marxism is merely 'a sort of bastardised Operaismo with some anarchoid garnish'—which I agree is actually a fair characterisation of some cruder forms of autonomist Marxism—how on earth does this mean that it does not actually exist? Surely 'the groups and individuals in the Anglo-American countries' you refer to constitute a fairly identifiable if heterogenous autonomist Marxist current. These theorists are obviously influenced by their own readings, reinterpretations, and recontextualisations of Operaismo, but for the most part they take it in a different (and IMO more useful) direction compared to the 'post-Operaismo' of Negri, Virno, et al. For example, Midnight Notes (or De Angelis and other contributors to The Commoner) have not rejected 'value' as a useful analytical concept, and their understanding of the commons and enclosure is more historically grounded compared to the 'information society' hype which Negri and some of the 'digital autonomists' have embraced. The idea that 'so-called primitive accumulation' is an ongoing process is very useful—though by no means unique to autonomist Marxism.

Autonomist Marxism as a tendency should not be conflated with the work of Negri—while perhaps the most prominent in intellectual circles, he is by no means representative of autonomist Marxism as a whole, particularly as it is understood within Anglo-American movements. Arguably, Negri is no longer a Marxist as such—he is an autonomist Spinozan with (post)structuralist influences. However, 'autonomism' or 'autonomist Marxism' can be a useful label to refer to Operaismo, post-Operaismo, some strands of 'open Marxism', and related currents which share various traits, concepts, and historical connections. Specifically, autonomist Marxism is identifiable by its (useful) analysis of class struggle and value within the sphere of social reproduction, and by its (problematic) emphasis on the role of labour over capital.

So, I'd argue that autonomist Marxism certainly does exist as a relatively distinct political and theoretical tendency, with some minor influence in various social movements and within academia. Broadly speaking, autonomist Marxism is a political tradition arising out of the interaction between a certain strand of Marxist theory and roughly 'anarchist' forms of political practice. Thus, it is not surprising that there are some commonalities with anarcho-syndicalism, as noted by Omar. But despite my reservations about the 'one-sidedness' of much autonomist theory, and my real dislike for Negri's political theory in particular, I think it is unfair and inaccurate to label it as 'half-baked anarcho-syndicalism'.

there's definitely similarities between workers tactics in the Italian hot autumn of '69-70 and the movement of '77 with anarcho-syndicalism - namely direct, confrontational action accross the social sphere, under the direct control of workers and tending to an insurrectionary volatility. however i think the subsequent theorists lumped together as 'autonomists' progressively move away from this (Holloway et al perhaps excepted), until in the recent Negri, Virno, Bifo, De Angelis etc it's completely lost.

i think 'self-valorisation' is actually a belated discovery of proudhonism by former leninists - we can valorise our own labour without those pesky bosses and the state! this is particularly true in stuff like Virno's notion 'exit'... now there were proudhonian syndicalists in and around the old french CGT, so arguably this is a similarity with the revolutionary syndicalism from which anarcho-syndicalism emerged. but while anarcho-syndicalism moved away from proudhonism towards libertarian communism, the trajectory of 'autonomous marxist' theory has arguably gone from communist to neo-proudhonist.

i think the social factory thesis says more than capital dominates all spheres of life and thus sites of struggle exist outside the workplace (a revelation to former workerist leninsts, but something anarcho-syndicalists had known since at least the CNT rent strikes of the 30s, the mujueres libres, anti-clerical activities etc). the notion of the social factory contends that value is produced everywhere human activity takes place, a positivist hangover from their workerist origins, which leads to all sorts of dodgy practice - the aforementioned neo-proudhonism, since the problem with capitalism is reduced to "distinctly feudal" (Negri & Hardt) bosses and states leeching off potentially 'autonomous' labour, and not the way value structures the entirity of social life (they explicitly argue against the law of value, usually based on giving Marx's 'fragment on machines' the status of divine prophecy).

like i say this was a similarity, but i don't see much Trontian influence on todays 'autonomist marxism.'

the various permutations of class composition (re-, de-) are useful concepts, but they seem to have been largely eclipsed by 'the multitude' in contemporary 'autonomist marxism.' one big unionism was never really an anarcho-syndicalist thing either, that really belonged to the revolutionary syndicalism of the IWW etc. anarcho-syndicalists often sought to establish workers councils to administer production, they did not expect the whole class to join the union. that said there are all sorts of tendencies making up anarcho-syndicalism, some much more anarchist ('the uncontrollables' of 1937 etc), some much more revolutionary syndicalist.

anyway, just my thoughts. been reading up on anarcho-syndicalist history lately, and used to read a lot of 'autonomist' stuff, so an interesting question.

hmmm...i see some similarities but some differences too. some of the similarities have been noted (though i have some reservations), and soem of the differences have been noted too (as noted above, operaismo & autonomia are largely leninist. a lot of the italians wanted to investigate the class struggle to bring new life to the party form, to make it more relevant to the conditions and struggles on the ground. (however, o & a have had some libertarian components and moments).

another important difference is that o & a view anarcho-syndicalism, iirc, as a product of the past. o & a view self-management (a key ingredient of anarcho-syndicalism IMHO) as a product of a certain class composition that was dominant before WWI that was decomposed by the factory assembly line by c. the 1920s IIRC. ie. they view self-management as an anachronistic ideology of skilled workers on workshops who love their work and want more control over it. while assembly line workers don't love their work, they refuse it and don't want control over it, they want to leave the factory. (however, Tronti's critique of the syndicalist IWW seemed a bit off the mark as the IWW was composed of travelling hobos and precarious workers and unskilled workers).

the modern anglo autonomist marxists i have met tended to see anarcho-syndicalism as hopelessly out of date, dogmatic and workerist -- there were some interesting exchanges in australia between rebel worker (anarcho-syndicalist) and love and rage (a student group that was autonomist marxist). while they see autonomist marxism as very up to date, fetishise precarious workers when they are only 20-30% of the workforce in australasia, and fetishise the affinity group network form of organisation (as developed by the anti-summit movement) as the form that is best suited to our current class composition (or is it decomposition?), and tend to reject formal structures like anarcho-syndicalist organisations as being a potential brake on the class struggle.

another difference: the criticism that 'autonomist marxists' lack strategy, they just run around chasing or tailing the latest workers' resistance that pops up, that means in practice they can operate like headless chooks running around doing strike support and running themselves ragged. they tend to see all struggles as important as each other, and don't see some as more important/strategic. i don't think anarcho-syndicalism does this, it's much more strategic and has a clearer strategy.

also, anglo autonomist marxists seem to romanticise all struggle as class struggle, including lifestylism, social centres, summit hopping and nationalist movements in the third world (eg, zapatistas). ie. they take a largely uncritical approach to struggle, and don't see 'reactionary' elements and moments in them. while anarcho-syndicalists are very critical of lifestylism and isolated social centres (tho i hear some punks are in the Spanish CNT), and are much more internationalist and critical of nationalism, and are a bit more sceptical of summit adventure activism tourism.
(sorry if i am mixing up and conflating many different trends here -- operaismo, autonomia and modern anglo autonomist marxism -- but as Cleaver et al lump all these trends together, i might as well do it too)

another difference might be: how does operaismo & autonomia stress on workers' autonomy from unions fit with anarcho-syndicalist stress on the centrality of revolutionary anarcho-syn unions for bringing about a revolution?

another similarity is that operaismo & autonomia and anarcho-syndicalism are both criticised for lacking theory, and stressing practice, class struggle on the ground (altho o & a are a bit more theory heavy than anarcho-syn, and i read in Steve Wright's book there was sometimes a split in some operaismo groups between the theory heavy leaders of the operaismo who stayed at home, and the rank and file who went out into factories)

harry Cleaver wrote an article on the similarities b/w Kropotkin's communism and 'autonomist marxism' -- i remember reading it ages ago and thinking hang on, this doesn't seem right, i wonder if cleaver has read kropotkin in depth. but i may be wrong
http://libcom.org/library/kropotkin-self-valorization-crisis-marxism
got nowt to do with anarcho-syndicalism tho

i normally associate Proudhon with self-managed small business capitalism par excellence, rejection of class struggle and strikes, co-ops and mutual banks, reformism etc. -- how is that compatible w/ self-valorisation?
(but yeah i know you mean the proudhonist proto-syndicalists in the first international and paris commune like Varlin but stilll...)

I agree that the autonomist focus on the positive aspect of class struggle is a political and theoretical weakness, and Holloway does have a more dialectical approach (though his 'In the beginning is the scream' is cringeworthy, this is due to his failed attempt at Zapatista-esque 'poetic' writing rather than his conceptual starting point in alienation and antagonism). However, in practice any attempt to realise autonomist-style positive struggle will tend to result in a negative, antagonistic encounter with the power of capital, which may have a correcting effect on their theoretical shortcomings. In contrast, one-sidedly 'negative' theory that focuses on the totalising power of capital tends to lead to abstract critique and pessimistic inaction, with little engagement with actual class struggle. This 'pessimism of the will', lacking a political praxis grounded in class struggle, is a more serious and self-reinforcing error than the autonomists misguided 'optimism of the intellect'.

Again, I think it is important to distinguish between post-operaismo theorists such as Negri and Virno—who may be 'autonomists' but are not really 'autonomist marxists' any longer—and the likes of Caffentzis, Cleaver, De Angelis, etc, who still see labour (however 'immaterial' or 'social') as being structured by capitalist processes of measurement, accumulation, and commodification, and thus as still producing value for capital. Perhaps they are too keen to obscure the differences between productive and reproductive forms of labour, but unlike Negri et al they do not see all labour as being 'non-productive' for capital.

There is an important strand of autonomist Marxism that sees the difference between 'productive' and 'non-productive' labour as a direct expression of class struggle—capital seeks to transform all activity into a source of direct economic value, while labour seeks to extract itself from this value system. This analysis links the commons/enclosure struggle directly to capitalist production and value (hence positing class struggle as value struggle). This does have the weakness of collapsing more complex circuits of value into an inside/outside dialectic, thus overlooking or underemphasising the ways in which 'outside' value systems are still indirectly drawn into capitalism through their role in the reproduction of labour or the realisation and circulation of value, even if they are not directly producing value for capital. But it is not the same as Negri's current analysis which sees capital as 'Empire', a form of political domination purely external and parasitic to immaterial production and the social organisation of 'the Multitude'. I think there are some useful ideas in the Midnight Notes strand of autonomism, though it is incomplete as an understanding of capitalism and class struggle.

Obviously anarcho-syndicalists can and do involve themselves in conflicts outside of the workplace. But if they move away from a focus on workers self-management of production as their primary revolutionary strategy, are they not moving away from 'anarcho-syndicalism' as such, just as the autonomists moved away from workerist Leninism?

I definitely see the link here, with some autonomists interpreting self-valorisation in rather Proudhonist terms, thus advocating autoproduzione (self-production) rather than autogestion (self-management). There is some influence here from Deleuze and Guattari's concept of the smith or artisan—the ideal (revolutionary?) subject as an autonomous and mobile yet socially-embedded producer-consumer. This strain of autonomism has some currency in the anarcho-punk scene and squatting/social centre movement, as a theorisation of DIY production. While this is an improvement on the consumer politics of pure lifestylism, it is still very limited as a form of effective class struggle (it is rather classically petty-bourgeois, when you come right down to it). To me, while the 'artisan' is a rather attractive concept for a post-capitalist subject—it certainly beats the bourgeois star artist or proletarianised designer as a way of organising creative activity—it is doomed as an attempt to overcome capitalism, as it can be so easily drawn back into capitalist processes of accumulation and dispossession. This is precisely the problem with a lot of autonomist (and anarchist) strategies for resistance or 'exodus'—including some forms of anarcho-syndicalism. (While of course Leninist and social-democratic strategies tend to be narrowly 'political', and thus readily integrated into State structures of power).

i would have tended to agree 6 months ago, at least to the extent that anarcho-syndicalism stressed self-management of production as a goal. we were criticised for conflating such a view with a more proudhonist perspective in our pamphlet, and so i've gone back to the history books and realised there's a lot more to anarcho-syndicalism. at its best, anarcho-syndicalism has been a means of class struggle for libertarian communism accross the social terrain - the CNT had a 'union of unemployed workers' which went and ate in restaurants for free, organised rent strikes, was involved in anti-clerical activities etc. so i think at its best anarcho-syndicalism already recognised society beyond the workplace as a site of revolutionary struggle, even if it (correctly) maintained that the communisation of the means of production was a prerequisite of any revolution.

in many ways the Spanish experience forshadows the Italian one, and for the same reasons, i.e. we see the development of extra-workplace struggles as a material necessity (over rents, food prices...), the emergence of groups like the Mujueres Libres and Lotta Feminisata in response to the domination of the struggle by men etc. Like i say i think there's a similarity, but a subsequent divergence. in that sense its right that they come to be mirror images of each other, in terms of practice at least - summit hopping & social centres vs industrial agitation.

isn't the problem that Negri sees all labour, no, all human activity as being 'productive' ("biopolitical production" of subjectivities etc)? But yes, fair point, i'm much more familiar with the post-operaists, having only read bits and pieces of Cleaver and De Angelis. Unlike Cleaver, De Angelis does seem to lose class struggle though in his analysis of 'value struggles' - which again shows how disparate this apparent school of thought is i guess.

Markets do not equal capitalism. Even Marx and Engels recognised that! What Proudhon advocated was self-managed market socialism, not capitalism. His arguments for workers self-management are lengthy, much more than Marx and Engels. He did reject strikes and was a reformist, but he was well aware there was a class struggle and sided with the working class repeatedly.

For Bakunin, his ideas were “Proudhonism widely developed and pushed to these, its final consequences.” The links with Proudhon and subsequent revolutionary anarchism are many. And many of Proudhon's ideas found expression in the Paris Commune:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/the-paris-commune-marxism-and-anarchism

Ironically enough, Marx praised all of them -- without mentioning the obvious theoretical influence....