Re: AUT: anarchism and marxism

["anton monti" <amonti@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jamal Hannah wrote:
?They (autonomists) are a small and insignificant movement?.
--
I think really that you need to read something about the history of
proletarians struggles in Europe (and not only) during the last 40 years.
Just some examples:
- The cycle of struggles of automotive workers organized in autonomist way
that stop the mass production and force the capitalist system to turn in
social production (or social factory). Ref. Piazza Statuto at begin of 60?,
Fiat occupation and the hot autumn ?69, 1971 and in 1973 the occupation of
several automotive industries all around Europe. The experiences of ?Potere
Operaio? and ?operaismo?.
- The cycle of struggles in metropolitan areas carried by marginal subjects
and young proletarians in cities like Milano, Berlin, Paris or London
(Brixton). Ref. Autonomia Operaia, Autonomen etc.
- Year 1968.
- The Italian revolution of 1977 (according to the anarchist Hakim Bey one
of the four TAZ in history).
- Feminist theory and practice as autonomist activity and vice-versa.
- The squat in Berlin and in Amsterdam in the ?80?s.
- The German autonomen experience.
- The struggle of nurse?s and bus drivers in Paris.
- The zapatista movement
- The revolt of unemployed people in Europe starting from occupation of
public spaces in French.
- The sans-papier movement in French and all around Europe
- How people in Italy, in Aviano, stops the bombs of Empire for hours and
hours. In the reality of facts and how Empire military forces planned to
escape in Turkey and Hungary from the ?Land of Autonomia?, from the beloved
Veneto.
?
and million of other things and spontaneous organization of struggle.
Do you know something about how this movement born and develop?. I know.
I know also something about the struggles in order to preserve the autonomy
of the movements against marxist-leninist, trotzkist and anarchist and all
this ?sad militants? who try to stop or to led the irrefrenaible dance of
freedom and hope.

Those struggles have nothing to do with anarchism for two reasons.

*First. Historical anarchist organization was quite external and in strong
minority inside this struggles. In Italy, in French and in Germany the role
of anarchist was practically zero.
*Secondly. The so call lifestyle anarchism and the theoretical production of
this school (Bob Black, Hakim Bey etc.) is really poor compared with some
other theorists. Personally I am not against collages, puzzles and so, but
many of the works of the lifestyle anarchists are collages of works of Toni,
of Gilles and Felix. Bad copies with no innovation.

I am really not interested in prove that autonomy is better than anarchism
for one central reason ?autonomy is the real movement that changes the
reality?. About anarchy and other old stories of continuity I do not know.

If we talk seriously the big differences are the following:

*Anarchist philosophical approach to real vs. schizoanalytical approach (or
anarchism as a transcendence vs. autonomy as immanence).

*Conception of revolution (event or process)

*Organization as contradiction in autonomy or better contradiction as
method.

*Analytical background in class and capital composition (I do not have read
never in my life a document of anarchist regarding class and capital
composition)

*Constituent Power vs. No-Power

And many others things.

What I can say is that for many persons anarchism is something like a dream,
like utopia, like the hope of a better world. Many young comrades approach
the class struggle through anarchism. But when we start to talk about
analysis of situation, about self-organization, about facing the reality and
so, about doing something? in this case we have just to say: we are in a
hegemon position. Only things that came from experiences like operaismo or
autonomia are useful.

I am sure that the comrades that fight in Seattle have only one way in order
to produce more and more moment of rupture against Empire. ?The fighting red
guards with tennis shoes of Seattle? have to think about autonomist
self-organization and networking with the global movement. I am quite
confident.

Regarding what Angela wrote about Leninism I perfectly agree. In our history
we have faced many times the Leninist problem. Terms as ?political direction
of (inside) struggles?, ?ceto politico? etc are not strange for us. Many
Toni?s theoretical works of the ast decades are good example of this. I
think that the problem is that we are too honest and we have a different
style from other people. When we talk about organization, rupture or party
we really means and we really do what we have theorized. This is the
question of the contradiction as method or about ?act like a Party?. Our
history is a strange case of elasticity. In some moments we enlarge the
material bases of the movement and in other we produce the rupture through a
mass vanguard (do you remember this strange term?). Without respect to
others. I know perfectly that this is a problem or a contradiction. But
problems and contradictions are our methods. You know also all the talks
about violent autonomists or about arrogance or about not democratic
behaviors. The reason is the following. If we believe in something, and in
particular, if we do something (in a perfect state of immanence) we cannot
accept, for example in the demo or in the ?assemblea?, the presence at the
microphone of some damned bureaucrats or of someone with the wrong symbols
or flag (we are definitely against flags) we just act and we give a kick in
the ass of those people.

Anton

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---