Autonomy, alibi of Ultra-Left Ideology

"The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice."

(K. Marx — Theses on Feuerbach)

‎
During the revolutionary upsurge that accompanied the First World War, the need for an organic break with social democracy (Spartacus League), then KAPD, became apparent. This break demonstrated once again the close link between thought and action, and therefore organization. The organizations formed during this period were not small groups of armchair theoretician intellectuals, but contained thousands of proletarians developing a radical practice.

Scattering, product of the counter-revolution

The fall of the revolutionary wave and the rise of the counter-revolution led to a scattering of the slim fringe of militants who remained on a class program. This corresponded to a necessity: withdrawal into oneself allowed a certain maintenance of the theory. Neither the numerical bases of a revolutionary organization, nor a minimum of "audience" existed any more. This could only lead to a certain mythification of disorganization and autonomy.

Rise of the Revolution and Autonomous Groups

Since 1956, we have witnessed a global revival of the class struggle. In France, since 1968, autonomous groups have multiplied, each speaking of the organization to be built and considering itself as the nucleus of that organization. What are the arguments put forward to motivate this isolation?

— Revolutionary organizations can only be a minority, which is true, but we must not confuse weakness with non-existence.

— Any mass movement is considered confusionist. This is to forget a little too quickly that consciousness progresses in stages. The role of revolutionaries is not to turn up their noses at movements that do not represent absolute purity, but on the contrary to work towards their radicalization and overcoming (this obviously does not apply to humanist-bourgeois movements, such as the PSI).

In fact, there are two much deeper causes of ultra-left ideology: the separation between theory and practice and its logical consequence, autonomism.

— The separation of theory and practice: for many comrades, theory seems to be an end in itself. Faced with this position, it is appropriate to affirm that there is no revolutionary theory without revolutionary practice.

— Autonomist ideology: as we have seen, the organization of revolutionaries in the form of sects is typically a product of the counter-revolution. The main argument put forward is that each group considers itself to be the representative of coherence, the others being only the products of confusionism and voluntarism.

In this regard, one cannot help but notice that these groups are mostly of local origin. Could coherence be a geographical phenomenon? Many autonomous groups live in isolation, cut off from the reality of the class struggle. Is this how coherence is achieved? On the contrary, one might wonder whether this withdrawal into oneself does not often have a role in securing it.

This tends to be confirmed by the stubbornness in maintaining the mirage of the existence of most groups or pseudo-groups. In fact, coherence often gives way to the "boutique spirit".

How many comrades are ready to abandon their acronym and their little magazine, fruits of a treasure of imagination?

In any case, many comrades are content with life in a closed circuit, probably for fear of being contaminated by some heterodox virus, outside their group. The repercussions on the theoretical level are obvious: ideology, intellectualism and sectarianism. Each group theorizes some aspects of reality while excommunicating the others who have not had the "revelation". Obviously, this path does not lead in any case to regrouping but to scattering into multiple sects of intellectuals regretting, or denying depending on the case, their separation from the historical struggle of the proletariat. It is very difficult for academics who have read Marx, Reich or Pannekoek, not to hold on to their small group well cut off from the struggles in order "not to sink into workerism"! Today, the path to theoretical-practical clarification passes through:

— THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN REVOLUTIONARY CURRENTS (a term excluding the various left-wing priests who admire Guevara, Trotsky, Mao, Proudhon and other trash). This confrontation can only move forward if it corresponds to the implementation of a common practice. This should be able to begin in limited sectors; for example, that of distribution where efforts are too dispersed to result in real effectiveness. It is aberrant to see today certain bookstores lacking ultra-left publications. As long as each movement does not want to distribute anything other than its own little magazines, talking about the regrouping of revolutionaries is only an empty expression for Sunday speeches. It is through partial areas of unification, such as this one, that we can hope to witness the establishment of a real coordination of the communist left. There is a sector where revolutionaries have an interest in intervening in a united manner:

— INTERVENTION IN STRUGGLES and assistance to their protagonists. It is still too often that radical elements "discover" each other when a movement is over. Revolutionaries must encourage the creation of committees breaking with union practice. The distribution of box sheets written by these committees seems to be one of the most effective forms of their expression at present.

This path allows us to consider, from now on, the possibility of a REVOLUTIONARY ORGANIZATION:

— where different tendencies can coexist. The free expression of these is the condition for the progress of each activist. This does not exclude the existence of a minimum political base defined collectively on issues such as: workers' councils, state capitalism, spontaneity and dirigisme, frontism. If a divergence compatible with the unity of the organization (= not leading to a split) appears on a specific point, the positions of the minority must be made public and discussed in all the groups.

— which gives itself the tactical and organizational means of its effectiveness, without falling into either pseudo-revolutionary "purism" or frontism. In all cases, the "strategy" of the organization must be under the control of all its members.